<%BANNER%>

Volunteer Motivations and Constraints Among Undergraduate College Students

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024680/00001

Material Information

Title: Volunteer Motivations and Constraints Among Undergraduate College Students
Physical Description: 1 online resource (107 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Gage, Richard
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: college, constraints, motivation, student, vfi, volunteerism
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Recreation, Parks, and Tourism thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Many college students spend a great deal of time volunteering, and participation in volunteer programs is growing in popularity among this demographic. However, little research has been conducted analyzing this phenomenon. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between volunteer motivations and constraints among college students. The data for this study were collected from three sections of an online class at the University of Florida. A total of 270 students completed an electronic version of a five-page questionnaire. This study found that the majority of college students were involved in volunteerism in some capacity. Human Services organizations were viewed as being the most important volunteer segment and over half of respondents reported that time was their most important contribution. The Volunteer Function Inventory was employed to analyze motivations. Five dimensions were found among respondents in this sample. Respondents indicated that items in the Values and Understanding dimension were most likely to motivate them to volunteer. Conversely, items in the Protective dimension were least likely to motivate respondents to volunteer. Volunteer constraints was analyzed using a three-dimension model. Structural constraints were most likely to limit volunteerism for this sample. Furthermore, several relationships were found between motivations and constraints. These relationships indicated that social interaction and public image were important motivators for this sample, though altruistic motives were reported as being the most important.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Richard Gage.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Thapa, Brijesh.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024680:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024680/00001

Material Information

Title: Volunteer Motivations and Constraints Among Undergraduate College Students
Physical Description: 1 online resource (107 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Gage, Richard
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: college, constraints, motivation, student, vfi, volunteerism
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Recreation, Parks, and Tourism thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Many college students spend a great deal of time volunteering, and participation in volunteer programs is growing in popularity among this demographic. However, little research has been conducted analyzing this phenomenon. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between volunteer motivations and constraints among college students. The data for this study were collected from three sections of an online class at the University of Florida. A total of 270 students completed an electronic version of a five-page questionnaire. This study found that the majority of college students were involved in volunteerism in some capacity. Human Services organizations were viewed as being the most important volunteer segment and over half of respondents reported that time was their most important contribution. The Volunteer Function Inventory was employed to analyze motivations. Five dimensions were found among respondents in this sample. Respondents indicated that items in the Values and Understanding dimension were most likely to motivate them to volunteer. Conversely, items in the Protective dimension were least likely to motivate respondents to volunteer. Volunteer constraints was analyzed using a three-dimension model. Structural constraints were most likely to limit volunteerism for this sample. Furthermore, several relationships were found between motivations and constraints. These relationships indicated that social interaction and public image were important motivators for this sample, though altruistic motives were reported as being the most important.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Richard Gage.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Thapa, Brijesh.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024680:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

VOLUNTEER MOTIVATIONS AND C ONSTRAINTS AMONG UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE STUDENTS By RICHARD L. GAGE III A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Richard L. Gage III

PAGE 3

3 To my Family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My fa mily and friends have always played a great supportive role in my life. For that, I would like to thank them. Particularly, I would like to acknowledge my parents and in-laws, Joe and Chris Klingenberg, Bruce and Lynn Nemits, and Jack and Alice Rowley, who have provided me with the emotional support necessary to conti nue my education. I could not ask for a better family. Additionally, I would like to thank my best friend and wife Dani, for her constant love, patience, and understanding. She makes my life wo rth living and I am a better person for having met her. I am also extremely grateful for the guida nce, support, and friendship of my committee members, without whom none of this would have been possible. My advisor, Dr. Brijesh Thapa, has been a constant motivation th roughout this entire process. His guidance has helped me to excel and has inspired me to continue my gradua te education. I would like to sincerely thank him for his constant support, hard work, and belief in my abilitie s. Dr. Stephen Holland and Dr. Taylor Stein have both been great mentors and generously made time to be on my committee, even though they both had many other commitments. I would also like to thank Dr. Charles Lane for helping me to create my survey tool an d allowing me to collect data in his classes. Finally, I would like to thank Ms. Nancy Gullic fo r always being able to answer my questions, find a room for presentations, and listen when I needed someone to talk to. She has been a great friend and a tremendous help to me. I consider myself lucky to have met so many wonderful people during my life and I am ve ry thankful to them all for making me who I am today.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 Conceptual Framework........................................................................................................... 16 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .18 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....19 Delimitations...........................................................................................................................20 Definitions..............................................................................................................................20 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................21 Volunteerism...........................................................................................................................21 Benefits of Volunteerism.................................................................................................21 Previous Research........................................................................................................... 24 Socio-demographic findings.................................................................................... 24 A timeline of volunteer research..............................................................................25 Operationalization.................................................................................................... 28 Volunteerism and College Students................................................................................30 Motivation...............................................................................................................................33 Background......................................................................................................................33 Previous Research........................................................................................................... 34 Motivation to Volunteer.................................................................................................. 35 Constraints..............................................................................................................................40 Summary.................................................................................................................................46 3 PROCEDURES......................................................................................................................49 The Study Area.......................................................................................................................49 Selection of Subjects.......................................................................................................... .....50 Instrumentation................................................................................................................ .......50 Treatment of the Data.......................................................................................................... ...51 Operationalization of Variables.......................................................................................51 Volunteerism............................................................................................................51 Motivation................................................................................................................52 Constraints................................................................................................................53

PAGE 6

6 Testing the Research Questions....................................................................................... 53 Question 1: What motivates co llege students to volunteer? .................................... 53 Question 2: What is the relations hip between m otivation and volunteer segments?.............................................................................................................. 53 Question 3: What is the relationship between volunteer m otives and select socio-demographic characteristics?...................................................................... 54 Question 4: What constrains volun teerism among college students?...................... 54 Question 5: What is the relationship be tween volunteer constraints and select socio-dem ographic characteristics?...................................................................... 54 Question 6: Is there a relationship between volunteer m otivations and constraints?........................................................................................................... 54 4 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................55 Profile of Respondents............................................................................................................55 Description and Analysis of Key Va riables............................................................................ 56 Volunteerism...................................................................................................................56 Motivation.......................................................................................................................57 Constraints.......................................................................................................................58 Results of the Research Questions.......................................................................................... 58 Question 1: What motivates co llege students to volunteer? .................................... 58 Question 2: What is the relations hip between m otivation and volunteer segment?............................................................................................................... 59 Question 3: What is the relationship be tween volunteer m otivations and select socio-demographic characteristics?...................................................................... 59 Question 4: What constrains volun teerism among college students?...................... 60 Question 5: What is the relationship be tween volunteer constraints and select socio-dem ographic characteristics?...................................................................... 60 Question 6: Is there a relationship between volunteer m otivations and constraints?........................................................................................................... 61 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.................................................................................... 81 Summary of Procedures.......................................................................................................... 81 Selection of subjects........................................................................................................81 Instrumentation................................................................................................................ 82 Operationalization of Variables.......................................................................................82 Volunteerism............................................................................................................82 Motivation................................................................................................................83 Constraints................................................................................................................84 Discussion of Relevant Findings............................................................................................ 84 Research Question 1: What motivates college students to volunteer?..................... 84 Research Question 2: What is the relationship between m otivation and volunteer segment?............................................................................................... 85 Research Question 3: What is the rela tionship between volunteer m otivations and select socio-demogr aphic characteristics?.....................................................86 Research Question 4: What constrains volunteerism among college students?....... 88

PAGE 7

7 Research Question 5: What is the rela tionship between volunteer constraints and select socio-dem ogr aphic characteristics?.....................................................88 Research Question 6: Is there a relati onship between volunteer m otivations and constraints?........................................................................................................... 89 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........89 Conclusions and Implications.................................................................................................90 Recommendations for Future Research..................................................................................93 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT......................................................................................................96 B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL.......................................................... 101 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................102 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................107

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Socio-demographic Profile of Respondents....................................................................... 63 4-2 Volunteer Profile of Respondents...................................................................................... 64 4-3 Volunteer Scope, Segment, and Contribution.................................................................... 65 4-4 Frequency Distribution of Volunt eer Function Inventory (VF I) items............................. 67 4-5 Factor Loadings for Vol unteer Motivation Dim ensions.................................................... 68 4-6 Reliability Analysis for Vo lunteer Motivation Di mensions.............................................. 70 4-7 Frequency Distribution of Constraints Item s.....................................................................72 4-8 Reliability Analysis fo r Constraints Di mensions............................................................... 73 4-9 One-way Analysis of Variance for Rela tionships Between Motivation Di mensions and Volunteer Segment......................................................................................................74 4-10 Independent Sample t -test for Relationships Between Motivation and Environm ental Volunteers..................................................................................................................... .....75 4-11 Independent Sample t -test for Relationships Between Motivation and Gender ................75 4-12 One-way Analysis of Variance for Relation ships Between Motivation and Race/Ethnicity....................................................................................................................76 4-13 One-way Analysis of Variance for Re lation ships Between Motivation and Class Standing.............................................................................................................................76 4-14 One-way Analysis of Variance for Rela tionships Between Motivation and Type of Hom etown..........................................................................................................................77 4-15 Independent Sample t -test for Relationships Between Constraints and Gender ................ 77 4-16 One-way Analysis of Variance for Relationships Between Constraints and Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................................................78 4-17 One-way Analysis of Variance for Rela tionships Between Constraints and Class Standing .............................................................................................................................78 4-18 One-way Analysis of Variance for Relatio nships Between Constraints and Type of Hom etown..........................................................................................................................79 4-19 Correlations between Volunteer Motiv ations and Volunteer C onstraints......................... 80

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Model of Motivation........................................................................................................ ..20 2-1 Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints........................................................................ 48 2-2 Leisure Participation as the Balan ce Between Constraints and Motivations. .................... 48

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science VOLUNTEER MOTIVATIONS AND C ONSTRAINTS AMONG UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE STUDENTS By Richard L. Gage III August 2009 Chair: Brijesh Thapa Major: Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Many college students spend a great deal of time volunteering, and participation in volunteer programs is growing in popularity among this demographic. However, little research has been conducted analyzing this phenomenon. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between vol unteer motivations and constraints among college students. The data for this study were collected from three sections of an online class at the University of Florida. A total of 270 students completed an electronic version of a five-page questionnaire. This study found that the majority of college students were involved in volunteerism in some capacity. Human Services organizations were viewed as being the most important volunteer segment and over half of respondents reported that time was their most important contribution. The Volunteer Function Inventory was employed to analyze motivations. Five dimensions were found among respondents in this sample. Re spondents indicated that items in the Values and Understanding dimension were most likely to motivate them to volunteer. Conversely, items in the Protective dimension were least likely to motivate respondents to volunteer. Volunteer

PAGE 11

11 constraints was analyzed using a three-dimension model. Structur al constraints were most likely to limit volunteerism for this sample. Furthermore, several relationships were found between motivations and constraints. These relationships indicated that soci al interaction and public image were important motivators for this sample, though altruistic motives were re ported as being the most important.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Throughout history, public and private agencies of all types and sizes have relied on the use of volunteers to ensure continued succe ss of their program s (Liao-Troth & Dunn, 1999, Silverberg, Backman, Backman, & Ellis, 1999). Furthermore, many people seek out opportunities to provide service to others as a wa y to satisfy their own needs. As budgets get tighter, and the demand for healthcare, human services, recreation, a nd education programs continue to grow, organizations have become increasingly dependent on the services provided by volunteers (Jensen, 1995). However, human se rvice agencies and nonprofit organizations are experiencing shortages of volunteers which has ofte n severely hampered their abilities to fulfill their missions (Burns et al., 2005) Operating expenses comprise 80% of the total budgets of most government agencies, and employee salaries and benefits usually constitute the primary expenditures (Kaczynski & Crom pton, 2006). Similarly, nongovernmental organizations have comparable employee expenses. As a result, government agencies as well as nongovernmental organizations seek sources of free labor to offset expenses. It is becoming increasingly important to understand the factor s that drive people to contribute financial support and a source of free labor to these organizati ons (Wilson, 2005, Campbell & Smith, 2006). Volunteerism and related terms have been defined several ways by different authors. Henderson (1985) stated that a volunteer is someone who contribute s services without financial gain to a functional subcommunity cause (pg. 31), while Wilson and Musick (1999) defined it as someone who contributes time to helping others with no expectation of pay or other material benefit (pg. 141). Volunteerism was defined by Bringle and Hatc her (1996) simply as unpaid helping activities while Carl o et al. (2005) referred to volunteering as performing a service without compensation for an organization or ag ency (pg. 1296). The common themes in the

PAGE 13

13 definitions are contribution to society in one fo rm or another without monetary compensation. Although there is no financial re turn for volunteering, research has shown that volunteers do expect other considerations for the wo rk that they do (Farmer & Fedor, 1999). Examples of volunteer activities are evident in all sectors of society across nearly every socio-demographic category (Clary & Snyder, 1999, Liao-Troth & Dunn, 1999, Silverberg et al., 1999), and volunteerism represents a major source of labor in the United States (Dutta-Bergman, 2004). In 1995, 93 million American adults (49% of the population) engage d in some form of volunteer activity that totaled over 20.3 billion working hours (Clary & Snyder, 1999). In 1999, volunteer contributions equated to over 150 billion dollars worth of service (Silverberg et al., 1999). According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007), approximately 26% of American adults volunteered at least on ce between September 2006 and September 2007. Almost 29% of women and 22% of men over th e age of 16 years volunteered. Individuals between 35 and 54 years of age were most likely to volunteer (30.3%) while those in their early twenties tended to be the least likely group to volunteer (17.7%). Also, a substantial portion of the volunteers in this age category were currently enrolled in college. More than 40% of college graduates volunteered compared to less than 20% of individuals without a college degree, and fewer than 10% of those without a high school diploma (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). The undergraduate college student population is an important demographic with respect to volunteerism. In 1984, 29% of college students volunteered for charity organization, and 40% became involved in fund-raising activities during their undergraduate years (Sargent & Sedlacek, 1990). Twenty years later, it was reported that 90% of students reported having volunteered in the past, 19% were active volunt eers, and 45% planned to volunt eer in the next two months (Carlo et al., 2005). In addition, several benef its have been reported for students who volunteer

PAGE 14

14 such as enhanced Grade Point Averages (GPA ), general knowledge, knowledge of a field or discipline, and aspira tions for advanced degrees. Volunteeris m is also associated with increased time spent on homework and preparation for exams and increased contact with faculty (Astin & Sax, 1998). Finally, institutions of higher e ducation provide an atmosphere conducive to learning, communication of new ideas and curren t issues, and can be a foundation for activism behavior (Thapa, 1999). Since co llege students tend to be inclin ed to volunteer and have the potential to provide tremendous support to agencies and organiza tions, this group should not be overlooked for volunteer recruitm ent (Burns et al., 2005). Programs must be efficiently planned and mon itored to be successful, but measures must be adopted to ensure that the program is not perceived to be controlling (Wilson & Musick, 1999). Mandating volunteerism may be counterpr oductive, as applying external pressure to perform some action will not necessarily lead to the behavior once the pressure is removed (Clary & Snyder, 1999). Since managers cannot offer financial compensation, an understanding of volunteer motivation is central to the success and effectiveness of the organization (LiaoTroth & Dunn, 1999). According to Silverberg et al. (1999), altruistic motives are characteristics of volunteers who have little interest in pe rsonal benefits to be gained from non-compensated service provision. Basically altruism is contribution in time, energy, a nd resources to an organization with the sole intention of helping others. Though altruism is often reported as a primary motivation to volunteer, it is widely believed that serving others is mutually beneficial for the donor and recipient (Wilson & Musick, 1999). Contemporary volunteer research tends to discount purely idealistic motives in favor of exploring personal advantages to the volunteer (Serow, 1991). Though community service is rare ly undertaken out of necessity and rarely

PAGE 15

15 produces extrinsic rewards (Serow 1991), there are usually unde rlying motives to volunteer. Although altruism may lead a person to volunteer initially, self-interested motivations are more important for continued partic ipation (Ryan et al., 2001). Finally, in his research on stewardship in i ndigenous and primitive cultures, Fennell (2008) stated that humans are more altruistic towards their personal families because they share the same genes, and there is a desire to ensure that those genes are passed on. It is very difficult to convince a person to suppress their desire to adva ntage themselves and their own family in favor of advantaging the group (Fennell, 2008). This would indicate that volunteering outside of ones own family structure with purely altruistic motives goes against basic human nature. This is not to say that altruism does not exis t; it merely suggests that the instan ces of true altruism should be rare. Several studies have been conducted to id entify effective management techniques for volunteers, but the majority has focused on the con cepts of expectancy th eory and satisfaction. Expectancy theory suggests that people engage in activities in specific settings to realize a group of psychological outcomes that are known and va lued (Manning, 2005). Satis faction is generally referred to as a measure of the extent to which those expectations have been met. Farmer and Fedor (1999) states that unpaid workers have different reasons for joining an organization; show different patterns of attitudinal, calcula tive, and affective involvement; often experience confusion in exactly what their role in the organi zation is; and are not usua lly subject to the same performance standards to which paid work ers are held (Farmer & Fedor, 1999, pg. 353). Embarking on volunteer activities an d then maintaining those activit ies over extended periods of time depend on matching the motivational concerns of the individuals with situations that can satisfy those needs (Clary & Snyder, 1999). A thorough knowledge of the factors that motivate

PAGE 16

16 an individual to service is crucial to recruitmen t and retention of quality volunteers (Bruyere & Rappe, 2007). Conceptual Framework The Motivation Model has four components. These are Needs or Motivations, Behaviors or Activities, Goals or S atisfacti ons, and Feedback (Mannell & Kl eiber, 1997). Motivations are the factors that impel a person to action. This oc curs in two ways. First, a disequilibrium is created, causing a desire to corr ect the imbalance. This imbalance could be physiological (e.g. hunger, thirst, fatigue, etc.) or psychological (e.g. loneliness, boredom, etc.). The second part of motivation is when the individual recognizes or believes that a certain action will correct the disequilibrium (e.g. eating to re lieve hunger, kayaking to relie ve boredom, etc.) (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997). Only after this belief is established will the individual take action towards satisfying the need. After the i ndividual performs the intended action, the level of satisfaction will be addressed. If the behavior fulfilled the need, the individual will feel satisfied and will show positive feedback (e.g. performing the ac tivity again in the future, recommending the action to others, etc.). If the behavior did not satisfy the motive, the individual will show negative feedback and will modify or abandon the activity (see Figure 1-1) (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997). Generally, once a motive is satisfied, it is no l onger active (e.g. after eating, an individual no longer feels hungry), but in leisur e research, it has been found th at satisfaction of ones needs can often heighten the motive (Mannell & Kleibe r, 1997). For example, if a mountain climber has a need for self-esteem development and that need is satisfied by r eaching the summit of the mountain, he may have a stronger desire to climb ot her peaks, rather than a decreased interest in doing so. Because of this inherent difference, much research has been conducted on motivation in the context of leisure and recreation.

PAGE 17

17 Many authors have shown that the same activity may be undertaken by different individuals for different reasons, or to satisfy different motivat ions (Clary et al., 1998, Clary & Snyder, 1999, Graefe et al., 2000, Wilson, 2005). For this reason, contemporary volunteer motivation research takes a func tional approach, developed by Ka tz in 1960. This approach arranges motivational items into groups or functions based on the needs that they fulfill. Each function is scored independently to assess which motivation types are most important (Clary et al., 1998, Clary & Snyder, 1999). The st rength of this theory is th at it directs inquiry into the personal and social processes th at initiate, direct, and sustai n action (Katz, 1960). In other words, there are several underlying motivational factors that lead a person to begin an activity and to remain active over time. By breaking moti vations into categories or functions, researchers can reach higher levels of specificity with regard s to the motivational factors of different groups or individuals. Clary and Snyder (1 999) states that the core of f unctionalist inquiry is that people can and do perform the same actions in service of different psychological f unctions. That is to say, people engage in the same activity, but do so to fulfill different motives (Clary & Snyder, 1999). The leisure motivation construct goes beyond the activities that an i ndividual participates in to what the leisure activities m ean to them (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997). In addition to motivation, it is important to understand the factors that may prevent or limit participation in volunteerism. There has been a pauc ity of research with re spect to constraints to volunteerism, but a body of literature does exist on constraints to leisure in general. Since volunteering is undertaken during an individuals leisure time, le isure constraints models are useful to examine constraints to volunteerism. Crawford and Godbey (1987) identified three categories of constraints to leisure: Intrapersona l, Interpersonal, and Structural. Intrapersonal constraints involve individual psyc hological states and attributes which interact with leisure

PAGE 18

18 preferences, rather than intervening between preferences and particip ation (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Interpersonal constraints are those that occur when known co-participants themselves are perceived to be prevented from participation because of structural constraints (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Structural constr aints are intervening factors between leisure preference and participation (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Raymore et al. (1993) determined that there is a hierarchical relationship between these categories of constraints. Jackson et al. (1993) posited a balance between motivations and constraints must be established if leisure participation is to take place. As each level of constraint is encountered along the hi erarchy (IntrapersonalInterpersonal-Structural), the rewards from par ticipation (motivations) mu st be checked against the costs (constraints). If motivations exceed co nstraints, the individual will proceed along the continuum (Jackson et al., 1993). This three-dimension model of leisure constr aints has been empirically tested in the context of tourism in general (Thapa et al ., 2002, Pennington-Gray et al., 2002), nature-based tourism (Pennington-Gray & Kers tetter, 2002), and specific recrea tional activities (Nyaupane et al., 2004), and with minor differences, has been found to be valid and reliable in every case. However, to date it does not seem to have been tested with respect to volunteerism. Statement of the Problem Num erous studies have focused on the motiva tional factors that in fluence a person to participate in specific leisuretime activities, largely focusing on volunteer motivations. Though this body of work is large and span s several decades, ther e are still areas that have not been fully explored. More specifically, an examination of the motivations and constraints of undergraduate college students is needed. Although it has been reported that voluntee rs in their early twenties account for the smallest percentage of volunteers, it has been sh own that those with a college degree are as much

PAGE 19

19 as four times more likely to volunteer than t hose who have less education (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Furthermore, 90% of college students report to have volunteered at some point in their lives (Carlo et al., 2005). The high percentage of volunteers attending college, the majority of which are in the age category least likely to volu nteer, makes this population worthy of further investigation. Simila rly, little research ha s been conducted to examine constraints to volunteerism. Since volunteering is a leisure-time activity, constr aints models from leisure and recreation research are a pplicable to analyze constraints to volunteering. The objective of this research was to fu rther examine motives and constraints to volunteerism among college students. Undergraduate students were selected as participants for this study because of their tendenc y to volunteer and for their viab ility as a valuable source of volunteer service. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the motivational factors of undergraduate students to volunteer in various capacities. More specif ically, it examined who was volunteering, frequency of participation in volunteer programs, types of volunteer organizations, and why time was used to pursue th ese activities. In addi tion, this study explored factors that may act as constrai nts to participation in volunteerism. By understanding these underlying issues, volunteer managers can more effectively recruit and retain high-quality volunteers. Research Questions The following research questions wi ll be examined in this study: 1. What motivates college students to volunteer? 2. What is the relationship between motivation and vol unteer segments? 3. What is the relationship between volunteer motives and select socio-demographic characteristics? 4. What constrains volunteerism among college students?

PAGE 20

20 5. What is the relationship between volunteer constraints and select socio-demographic characteristics? 6. Is there a relationship between volun teer motivations and constraints? Delimitations This study was delim ited to undergraduate students enrolled in three on line Introduction to Recreation courses at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. Definitions The following term s were used as defined within the contex t of this study: Volunteerism: Any contribution of service, ti me, money, or resources without expectation of monetary reward. This c ontribution can be through an organization or independent of one. Volunteer: An individual that participates in any form of volunteerism. Motivation: Something that impels people to ac tion and gives direction to that action once it is aroused or activated (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997, pg. 188). Constraint: Something that prevents or limits an indi vidual from participa tion in an activity. Figure 1-1. Model of motivation (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997, pg. 189) N eeds or Motives Behavior or Activit y Goals or Satisfactions Feedbac k

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature related to the exam ination of the relationships between volunteerism and associated correlates is presented in this chap ter. The chapter is or ganized in four major sections: 1. Volunteerism 2. Motivation 3. Constraints 4. Summary Volunteerism Volunteering is a contribution to society in one for m or another without monetary compensation. Although there is no financial retu rn for volunteering, research has shown that volunteers do expect other considerations fo r the work that they do (Farmer & Fedor, 1999). Benefits of Volunteerism Num erous studies have been conducted to anal yze the benefits of volunteerism to both the organization and the volunteer. Researchers have examined how social activities such as volunteering contribute to a higher quality of life for older adults (Kelly et al., 1987); the effects of service learning on college students (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996); effects of volunteerism during a persons lifespan (Wilson & Musick, 1999); and the development of ecological sensitivity through volunteering in environmen tal stewardship programs (Ryan et al., 2001). Other research has shown that volunteers can ease the labor burden for nonprofit organizations (Martinez & McMullin, 2004) as well as gove rnment agencies (Kaczynski & Crompton, 2006), and other contributions that vol unteers can make to their organizations (Ryan et al., 2001, Bruyere & Rappe, 2007). There are countless benefits for volunteers that can be derived from serving others, their communities, or the environment. Kelly et al. (1 987) studied the effects of various leisure-time

PAGE 22

22 activities on the subjective wellbei ng of older adults (aged 40 years and above). They surveyed 400 older adults via telephone a bout their leisure-time activitie s and life satisfaction. It was found that not only does leisure contribute to life sa tisfaction, but that soci al activities such as volunteering are associated with much higher levels of satisfacti on in adults aged 65-74 years (Kelly et al., 1987). Service learning, a form of volunteering that incorporates volunteer service into an educational curriculum, has been shown to rais e students grade point averages (GPA) and to increase the desire for students to pursue advanc ed degrees (Sax & Astin, 1997). It has also been reported that service learning br ings new life into the classroom, enhances performance on traditional measures of learning, increases intere st in the subject, teaches new problem solving skills, and makes teaching more en joyable (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Wilson and Musick (1999) examined four va riables in the contex t of volunteering: citizenship, anti-social behavior physical and mental health, and occupational achievement. First, it was found that being ac tive in a voluntary organization is positively related to civic responsibility. Volunteers were more likely to vo te, participate in local politics, and encourage the democratic process (Wilson & Musick, 1999). Knoke (1990) also found that being active in volunteer organizations is positivel y related to being act ive in local politics. Second, the authors noted that volunteering significan tly decreased the incidents of anti-social behaviors among teens such as getting pregnant, failing courses, or getting suspended from school. They caution that this may be partly due to the fact that students self-selected themselves into the volunteer program, and may have been less likely to partic ipate in anti-social behaviors to begin with (Wilson & Musick, 1999). Through longitudinal analysis using mortality as an outcome variable, the authors have shown th at volunteerism is related to bett er physical and mental health.

PAGE 23

23 This could be due to the fact that volunteer s may have easier access to fitness facilities, information, and other resources that promote healthy living. It was stated however that volunteering improves health, but it is also lik ely that healthier people are more likely to volunteer (Wilson & Musick, 1999, pg. 161). Lastly, the variable of occupational achievemen t was analyzed. It was shown that students who participate in service lear ning programs are likely to see their GPA increase and that volunteering helps to develop skills such as leadership and teamwor k. It was also reported that females seem to benefit more from volunteer experiences than men and that the more time a woman spends volunteering, the more prestigious her job is likely to be later in life (Wilson & Musick, 1999). Ryan et al. (2001) examined the concept of commitment in environmental stewardship programs. The study found that many people initially took part in the vol unteer programs to help the environment or for other altruistic reasons, but were more likely to stay active if they perceived other benefits as well. Social relationships, learnin g, and project organization were found to be significant predictors of continued participation, sugge sting that organizations need to have a dynamic program that meets the cha nging motivations of volunteers as time progresses (Ryan et al., 2001). This study also found that those who volunteered more frequently found greater satisfaction with the benefits, and that active volun teers had more friends in the group, participated in other groups, and used the vol unteer sites for recreat ion (Ryan et al., 2001). Martinez and McMullin (2004) assessed the mo tivations of active and non-active members of a large nongovernmental organization to determ ine the effects of social networks, competing commitments, lifestyle changes, personal growth, and belief of the efficacy of ones actions on decision to become and remain active in the or ganization. They found that efficacy, the feeling

PAGE 24

24 that ones actions are making a difference, had the greatest effect on active members decision to be active in the group and that competing commitm ents had the most influence on decision not to participate (Martinez & McMulli n, 2004). The members who felt a sense of pride in the work they were engaged in were more likely to contin ue to serve the organization. This highlighted the need for clear objectives and a well-developed management plan for volunteer programs to be successful. Previous Research Socio-demographic findings In 1995, 93 m illion American adults (49% of the population) engaged in some form of volunteer activity which accounted for 20.3 billion working hours total (Clary & Snyder, 1999). In 1999, approximately 50% of American adults volunteered in nonprofit organizations that contributed $150 billion worth of service annually (Silverberg et al., 1999). Additionally, from September, 2001 to September, 2002, 1 in 4 people over 16 volunteered in some form or another (Boraas, 2003). Compared with earlier estimates, this figure shows that a very small percentage of Americans between the ages of 16 and 18 ar e volunteering. Also, Wh ite individuals have been reported to volunteer more frequently th an African-Americans (United State Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007) however, when socio economic status was c ontrolled for, AfricanAmericans tended to participate in volunteer activities more than other races, and were also more likely to indicate altruistic motives for particip ation (Burns et al., 2005). This claim is in accordance with earlier findings, which stated that the socioeconomic status and race of a child can have a direct effect on whether or not he or she will be later engaged in civic activities such as volunteerism or participation in politics (Wilson & Musick, 1999). Gender has been shown to have little to no effect on decisions to volunteer (Liao-Troth & Dunn, 1999), but economic status is likely to have an effect. According to Martinez and

PAGE 25

25 McMullin (2004), members of volunteer organiza tions with higher incomes have more freedom to contribute financially to the organization whil e those with lower incomes tend to contribute more sweat equity (Martinez & McMullin, 2004). A timeline of volunteer research Volunteerism is not a new phenom enon. It has been a subject of interest in the leisure field for over five decades (see Kelly & Volk art 1952, Gordon & Babchuk 1959). Findings from these early works showed that members of the same group may place different values on their membership in terms of the need gratificati ons it makes possible (K elley & Volkart, 1952); organizations vary in type and play to different personality types in membership (Gordon & Babchuk 1959); and that membership tenure is often greater and turnover is lower in groups with multiple objectives, large memberships, and long histories (Babchuk & Booth, 1969). Following these studies, resear ch on volunteerism evolved to examine trends and traditions of service in America (Ellis, 1978, Henderson, 1985) ; volunteer needs and motivations (Francies, 1983, McClelland, 1985); and how to effectivel y manage volunteers based on these needs (Henderson, 1980). A common objective was to understand the practical implications of assessing volunteer motivations, so that bett er program planning and volunteer management strategies could be identified. Though relatively little was written on th e topic in the 1970s and 1980s, the 1990s experienced a resurgence of interest in the topic of volunt eerism (see Serow, 1991, Fischer et al., 1991, Verba et al., 1995, Wickham & Graefe, 1998). Wilson and Musi ck (1999) attribute this to concern that people were not vo ting, running for office, or supporti ng politics with their time and money as often compared to previous decades (Wilson & Musick, 1999). This hypothesis is somewhat supported by other studies that deno te that active partic ipation in volunteer

PAGE 26

26 organizations can increase a sense of civic res ponsibility and citizensh ip (Knoke, 1990, Verba et al., 1995, Astin & Sax, 1998). Examining volunteering through th e lens of Person-Environmen tal Fit theory, Sargent and Sedlacek (1990) found that not only are there differences in personality types between members of different types of organizations, but that there are also differences in motivational needs between members of different t ypes of organizations (Sargent & Sedlacek, 1990). The authors examined students volunteering in four campus orga nizations with different goals and objectives. Using a Holland-type personality scale and Murray s needs scale, they compared the motivations of members in the variou s organizations to the personality type of the members. Research showed that volunteers cannot be considered a homogenous group, but rather, vary from one organizational environment to th e next in personality type an d motivation (Sargent & Sedlacek, 1990). Wickham and Graefe (1998) analyzed motivatio ns to volunteer in an environmental education setting. This study asked 30 volunteers to indicate the extent to which several motivational factors affected their decision to vol unteer at an environmental education center in central Pennsylvania. Important motives were split between altruistic (desire to teach others, feel like they are making a difference, etc.) and egoist ic (gain career experience, personal education experience, etc.) (Wickham & Graefe, 1998). The main goal of the research was to show how motives and demographic variables associated wi th those motives could be used to increase recruitment and retention efforts in voluntee r programs (Wickham & Graefe, 1998). This study found that in addition to altruistic and egoistic motives, some volunteers desire a social setting in which to interact with other people. The authors state that managers of environmental education

PAGE 27

27 centers could benefit from understanding volunteer motivations and based on this knowledge, they should design programs to meet the altrui stic, egoistic, and social needs of volunteers. Utilizing the Psychological Contract concept, Farmer and Fedor (1999) compared the management of volunteers to the management of pa id employees within an organization. It is recognized that volunteers may differ from paid employees in the fact that they are not performing the service for monetary compensatio n. For this reason, employees and volunteers have been viewed differently in the literature. Furthermore, much research has focused on what leads people to volunteer, but there is a paucity of research with respect to what they do after they begin volunteering (Farmer & Fedor, 1999) This study found that elements of the Psychological Contract (common in human resources literature) can be an important tool to increase participation in various events and to reduce withdrawal from the organization (Farmer & Fedor, 1999). It establishes a set of reciprocal expectati ons for the organization and the volunteer and posits that if both en tities are meeting their expecta tions, a satisfactory experience will result and lead to continued participation (Farmer & Fedor, 1999). More recently, Burns et al. (2005) recogni zed that college-aged young adults spend significant amounts of time volunteering and represent an important pool of fu ture volunteers. It was stated that members of Generation Y are vo lunteering in their comm unities more than any other generation in American history (Burns et al., 2005). This study examined different motivations for volunteering of students attending different types of universities. The results indicate that students at different types of institutions do in fact have varying motivations for volunteerism, which was a good predictor of fr equency of volunteering activities. An individuals motivation to volunt eer is a better predictor of future behaviors than current

PAGE 28

28 volunteer activities since the extent of ones curre nt behaviors is often influenced by the amount of time an individual has for vol unteering (Burns et al., 2005). Operationalization There are several definitions and interpreta tions for volunteering and related term s (See Henderson, 1985, Bringle & Hatcher, 1996, Wils on & Musick, 1999, Carlo et al., 2005). Through the decades, authors have operationalized volunteer in many ways. Heidrich (1990) viewed volunteerism in terms of service provided (Direct Service, Leadership, General Support, Members-At-Large) while Serow (1991) noted organization function (c ivic clubs, religious groups, fraternities or sororities, etc.). Fischer et al. (1991) examined Formal Volunteering, or actions carried out through an organization, and Informal Volunteer ing, defined as work that is engaged in outside of a formal organizati on. Wickham and Graefe (1998) studied whether volunteers were Habitual (serving regularly) or Occasional (serving once in a while), and Martinez and McMullin (2004) used the terms Active (paid dues and contributed service) and Non-Active (only paid dues). Still others have focused on Volunteer Vacations where participants pay thousands of dollars to travel somewhere and work (Campbell & Smith, 2006, Bruyere & Rappe, 2007). In 1959, Gordon and Babchuk identified two di stinct group types: Instrumental and Expressive. Instrumental groups serve as social influence organizations designed to maintain or to create some normative condition or change (Gordon & Babchuk, 1959). These organizations tend to be involved in a variety of issues, and due to the broad scope of objectives the authority is usually delegated to a committee that represents the organization publicly (Faich & Gale, 1971). Examples of instrumental groups might be organizations that lobby congress for lower greenhouse gas emissions from automobile manufact urers. The goals of the group are on a grand scale and members generally play more of a s upporting role than an ac tive one. Expressive

PAGE 29

29 groups tend to focus on local issues related to specific goals of the group (Gordon & Babchuk, 1959). Examples of expressive groups may include hiking clubs that maintain trails for their own recreational use. The group members volunt eer time and energy to protect and maintain recreation areas that they ar e particularly attached to. Gordon and Babchuk (1959) state that this di chotomy may be overly-simplified. Some organizations are established as expressive and evolve to be mo re instrumental. In addition, some groups are both expressive and instrument al at the same time (Gordon & Babchuk, 1959). For example, the Sierra Club functions on multiple levels. On a local level, members protect recreation resources close to home. They may participate in serv ice projects or go on outings in areas that they are attached to, but at the same time, the Sierra Club has much broader goals at the national level. This group has contributed to the protectio n of many natural resources and has been a key player in the environm ental movement (Faich & Gale, 1971). Liao-Troth and Dunn (1999) iden tified three major sectors in which organizations can be classified. These are Public (e .g. education, public he althcare, human services, etc.), Private (e.g. private healthcare, higher ed ucation, resort services, etc. ), and Nonprofit (e.g. religious, animal rights, etc.). Carlo et al. (2005) expanded this to include six major types of organizations based on function. These are church or religiou s groups, social service agencies, schools, notfor-profit organization, for-p rofit corporations, and cau se-oriented organizations. Other studies attempt to classify the voluntee r rather than the organization. Heidrich (1990) categorized four levels of participation in an organization as Direct Service, Leadership, General Support, and Members-At-Large. Other authors have suggested similar measures of involvement including serving on a committee, se rving as an officer, or attending conferences and workshops (Wilson & Musick, 1999), or attending chapter functions and events,

PAGE 30

30 participating in strategic pla nning process, promoting the orga nization, and participating in fundraising events (Farmer & Fedor, 1999). Finally, level of activity was addressed in regards to participation in a volunteer organization. A study on membership in th e Appalachian Trail Conference compared motivations to volunteer (or not to voluntee r) among active members (those that paid dues and volunteered) and non-active members (those that only paid dues) (Marti nez & McMullin 2004). The following five factors were used to determin e the willingness of individuals to volunteer. Efficacy refers to the ability of the individual to help protect the Appalachian Trail and to contribute to the management of natural res ources. Competing Commit ments include demands on an individuals time, finances, family, or job Social Networks deals with knowing or meeting other people involved in volunteer activiti es. Lifestyle Change refers to changes in marital status or residence. Th e final factor, Personal Growth, deals with gaining experience for future employment and opportunities to grow as an individual (Marti nez & McMullin 2004). This study was found to be a better predicto r of non-active membership than of active membership. Each of these approaches to de fining volunteerism is valid, bu t a synthesis of all of these conceptualizations is needed. By examining the types of organizations people are volunteering for, the types of contributions they make to those organizations, and level of involvement in volunteering researchers can bett er identify the vol unteer market. An understanding of the volunteers would aid in effective re cruitment and retention efforts. Volunteerism and College Students Volunteerin g became popular on college campuses in 1960s and 1970s primarily through campus-based programs that encouraged community service (Ellis, 197 8). In 1984, 29% of college students volunteered for a charity organization and 40% became involved in fund-raising

PAGE 31

31 activities during their un dergraduate years (Sargent & Sedl acek, 1990). In 1991, it was reported that nearly two out of three in coming freshman had volunteered dur ing the previous year (Serow, 1991). Bringle and Hatcher (1996) stated a significant number of college students actively participate in extracurricular community service through student organizati ons, the activities of student service offices, and campus -based religious organizations (pg. 1), and that many faculty, staff, and students, particularly those at urban campuses, were involved in their communities, independent of the university (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Bringle and Hatcher (1996) found that ther e was a sharp decline in student volunteer activities between high school and college. As tin and Sax (1998) reported that the most important factor influencing volunt eerism in college is whether or not the student volunteered in high school. Other influencing factors include leadership ability, invol vement in religious activities, commitment to participating in co mmunity action programs, tutoring other students during high school, being a guest in a teachers home, and being a woman (Astin & Sax, 1998). This last finding is interesting because it has been shown that in the general population, gender has no significant impact on volunteerism (LiaoTroth & Dunn, 1999). If there is a significant difference among college students, this may have important implications for volunteer managers. In 1998, 40% of freshmen said they spent one or more hours volunt eering (Cress & Sax, 1998) and in 2005, 90% of college students reported to have volunteered in some capacity, 19% were currently volunteering, and 45% indicated that they intend to volunteer in the next two months (Carlo et al., 2005). School enrollment seems to have a significant effect on volunteering activities among young adults as well. People en rolled in schools have been observed to volunteer at twice the rate of those not enrolled. Furthermore, recent college graduates volunteer

PAGE 32

32 twice as much as high school graduates and four times as much as high school dropouts (Boraas, 2003). It was noted that 48% of students volunteered independent ly through a non-collegiate organization, and that entering freshmen who were most likely to volunteer tended to be less materialistic than their non-volunteering counter parts (Astin & Sax, 1998). The latter statement is supported by Thapa (1999) who stat es that materialistic lifestyle s can be associated with less willingness to sacrifice material comforts for the benefit of another entity (Thapa, 1999). Furthermore, Astin and Sax (1998) reported that volunteer service during a students undergraduate years enhances academic developm ent, civic responsibility, and life skills. Students were more strongly committed to helping others, serving in their communities, promoting racial understanding, doi ng volunteer work, and working for nonprofit organizations. They were also less inclined to feel that indivi duals have little power to change society (Astin & Sax, 1998). Volunteering has been shown to enhance GPA, general knowledge, knowledge of a field or discipline, and aspira tions for advanced degrees. It can al so be associated with increased time spent on homework and studying, and increased contact with faculty (Astin & Sax, 1998). Service participation has been linked to increas es in social self-conf idence and leadership abilities, and working at a park or other outdoor area increased commitment to clean up the environment, but had negative impacts on students GPA. This may possibly be due to the fact that considerably more time is needed for this ty pe of service, and these facilities are usually a greater distance from campus. Generally, the more time a student is devoted to service, the greater are the positive effects (Astin & Sax, 1998). Cress and Sax (1998) suggests that students rising interest in volunteering ma y be manifestations of core va lues and attitudes. In 1998, one

PAGE 33

33 in three freshmen considered to become a commun ity leader to be a very important or essential life goal. In addition, four out of ten freshmen re ported a desire to influe nce social values (Cress & Sax, 1998). Motivation Background Motivation, the force that drives an individual to act in a cer tain way is one of the m ost basic concepts in psychology, yet researchers ar e still unable to fully grasp the concept (IsoAhola, 1989). Most scientists agree that people do not simply perform actions just for the sake of doing them. There is a force at work that moves that person to perform the action. Weber (1947) referred to this as a complex of subjectiv e meaning which seems to the participant or to the observer as an adequate ground for the condu ct in question. In other words, it is a justification for the individuals be havior. The literature reports that motives reflect the tendency to strive for a general class of incentives that are highly fused with affect (McClelland, 1985), and more recently, that people are compelled to act in such a way as to satisfy their needs (Sargent & Sedlacek, 1990). It is clear that there are underlying f actors that affect individuals decisions to perform any action, but determining those factors is complex. Motives cannot be observed, but must be inferr ed from self-reports or actual behaviors, and there is no single motivationa l mechanism or theory that can explain all human motivation. Motives vary with situation and context (Iso-A hola, 1989). It is accep ted that self-reported behavior might not be an accurate assessment of actual behavior (Thapa, 1999), possibly due to social desirability bias. Social desirability bias can manifest wh en respondents report what they think the researcher wants to hear or what is so cially desirable, rather than the actual facts (Serow, 1991). This is common when questioni ng people about issues that are widely

PAGE 34

34 recognized as socially acceptable or unaccep table such as recycling, concern for the environment, vandalism, or the use of illegal drugs. Previous Research Motivation has been stu died in various fields for decades, but only recently began to appear in leisure research. In the 1970s, researchers examined why people act the way they do during their leisure time. Various models have been developed to measure motivational factors and these tools have been used to extend further in to more specific areas of leisure research, such as volunteerism. A common finding in the study of leisure motivation is that each person has unique motivations and expectations with respect to the activity (Hende rson, 1980), and several satisfaction goals are typically sought from participation in th at activity (McFarlane, 1994). Different participants pursue di fferent goals, and the same partic ipant may be pursuing more than one goal (Clary & Snyder, 1999). Furthermore, i ndividuals in diverse or ganizations would have different personal characteristics and motives, making generalizations from one activity to another misleading (Sargent & Sedlacek, 1990). Graefe et al. (2000) stated that empirical research has consistently shown that motivation dimensions differ for participants engaged in various activities, and can also vary for partic ipants in the same or similar activities. Motivation has been commonly used in conjunction with expectancy theory and satisfaction. Various terms including preferences psychological outcomes and benefits, and experience expectations have been used to describe the social ps ychological processes represented by motivations and satisfactions (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997). Expectancy theory, developed in social psychology, sugg ests that people engage in activ ities in specific settings to realize a group of psychological outcomes that are known and valued. That is, people select and participate in recreation activities to meet certain goals or to satisfy certain needs (Manning,

PAGE 35

35 2005). Satisfaction is generally referred to as a measure of the extent to which those expectations have been met. Motivation research is beneficial to this lin e of thinking because it helps to uncover what it is that leads a person to participat e. By understanding motivations, researchers can more fully understand what is expected by the particip ant. By using that information, managers can plan programs and activities to maximize satisfaction with the experience. Motivation to Volunteer Volunteering is an activity c onducted during an individuals le isure tim e. For this reason, it is not surprising that much of the research on volunteer mo tivations comes directly from the leisure literature. Studies on volunteer motivation began to app ear in the 1970s, around the time that volunteering began to gain popularity on college campuses (Ellis, 1978). Early studies recognized that people did not volunteer purely for altruistic reasons. Instead, researchers used a continuum from altruism to egoism to identif y motives for volunteeri ng (Anderson & Moore, 1978). It was realized that this two-dimensiona l approach did not cl early explain volunteer motivation for most individuals. Francies (1983 ) identified an Altrui stic Deception Construct whereby people tend to socially por tray their volunteer work as be ing altruistic, regardless of any other actual reason for engaging in the activity. Respondents reporte d high levels of altruistic motivation on the scales, but upon further invest igation were found to have more egoistic motives (Francies, 1983). Volunteer motivation ca nnot be easily described as altruistic or egoistic because some motives combine self-interest and others-interest, and because many people indicate that they have both types of reasons for volunt eering (Clary & Snyder, 1999). For these reasons, the continuum model was rejected in favor of a multi-faceted approach.

PAGE 36

36 Drawing from psychology and leisure literatu re, scientists studying volunteer motivation began to apply the functional approach to thei r research. Several models have been used including the 2x2 Model of Seeking and Escap ing (Iso-Ahola, 1989), Person-Environment Fit Theory (Sargent & Sedlacek, 1990), the Psychologi cal Contract (Farmer & Fedor, 1999), and the Octagon Model of Volunteer Mo tivation (Yeung, 2004). Since its development however, the most widely used model for measuring voluntee r motivation has been the Volunteer Function Inventory (VFI). The Voluntary Function Inventor y (VFI) was developed by Clar y et al. (1996) to measure six functions of volunteering. The functions are Understanding, Social Values, Protective, Career, and Enhancement. Each function consis ts of five individual items. Understanding involves a sense of learning and the development of new skills or perspectives. The Social function deals with participation with friends, or doing work that is viewed as important by the people who matter to the volunteer. Values relate s to an individual putting their own beliefs into action to accomplish something that they perceive is important. The Protective function involves using the volunteer opportunity to cope with inner conflicts or stress. The Career function applies to situations where the individual is us ing the volunteer experience to build career experience or make networking connections. Fi nally, Enhancement deals with psychological development and personal growth (Clary et al. 1996). The VFI has been found to be superior to other models that u tilize either a single motivational dimension or a two-factor solu tion (Okun et al., 1998), and the scale has been shown to possess a high degree of internal consis tency (Clary & Snyder, 1999). Burns et al. (2005) stated that the VFI is the preferred m easure for understanding an d measuring motivations to volunteer. It was shown that the scales appear to be reliable, having coefficient alphas

PAGE 37

37 typically above .80 and test-rete st correlations of .64-.78. The VFI also appears to possess construct and criterion validity. Responses to VFI scales are str ongly correlated to volunteering activity (Burns et al., 2005). Clary et al. (1998) further tested the validity and reliability of the VFI model by using the tool in six small studies. The first three studies used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis on diverse samples to test for validity across population and over time. They found that in all cases, the items loaded on a single factor and that the scale possesses substantial internal consistency and temporal stability. In additi on, they found that functions are the same for volunteers and non-volunteers, i ndicating that the same volunteer concerns are present at different phases of the volunteer process (i.e. initiating volunteering and sustaining volunteering) (Clary et al., 1998). The fourth study tested fo r evidence of predictive validity by using the VFI model to design a series of promotional brochure s for a volunteer program, each written to target one of the six volunteer dimensions. They found that the VFI correctly predicted the persuasive appeal of the messages when the message and motivation matched. The fifth study used the VFI to predict satisfaction in volunt eer experiences. Ag ain, it was found that when the experience and motivation are matched, higher levels of sa tisfaction are reported. Finally, the sixth study examined the future intentions of volunteers. Those volunteers that had their primary motivational functions satisfied in their volunte er experience were found to be more likely to intend to volunteer at a new locat ion and to continue volunteering at the same location in the future (Clary et al., 1998). People can be recruited into volunteer work by appealing to th eir own psychological functions (motives), they will be satisfied voluntee rs to the extent that they engage in volunteer work that serves these functions, and they will al so continue to volunteer to the extent that these

PAGE 38

38 functions are being served by volunteering. The authors suggest that although they found high support for the six-function VFI, their study exam ined volunteerism very generally. Thus, VFI items never speak to a particular type of volunt eering. In addition, their samples consisted of both volunteers and non-volunteers, emphasized de mographic diversity in the samples, and included volunteers with a wide rang e of tasks. It is expected th at in other contexts, fewer or more functions may be present, especially when examining a specific form of volunteerism (Clary et al., 1998). Clary and Snyder (1999) used the VFI to expl ore the volunteer pro cess, paying special attention to factors that lead an individual to begin volunteering and decision to continue once they have started. Among other things, they found that typically respondents report that Values, Understanding, and Enhancement are the most impor tant functions and that Career, Social, and Protective are less important but th at the order varies across groups (Clary & Snyder, 1999). In addition, those who perceived greater benefits related to a particul ar function were more satisfied than those who perceived fewer benefits. Thos e who perceived higher benefits from functions that they considered to be important were more satisfied than those for whom the function was unimportant, regardless of perceived benefit (C lary & Snyder, 1999). Finally, college students that received functionally releva nt benefits from volunteering we re more likely to continue as volunteers than those who did not receive functiona lly relevant benefits, or those who received functionally irrelevant benef its (Clary & Snyder, 1999). Okun and Schultz (2003) used the VFI to test volunteer motives across age groups. They found that as age increases, Career and Unde rstanding motivations decreased while Social motivations increased. Furthermore, they found th at age had little to no effect on Enhancement,

PAGE 39

39 Protective, and Values motivations. The author s included another catego ry, Making Friends, but found that the relationship betw een this category and age wa s nonlinear (Okun & Schultz, 2003). Another use of the VFI compared the motivatio ns of college students attending different types of universities (Burns et al., 2005). The authors sampled students in marketing classes at five institutions representing different philosoph ical and religious appr oaches to education. Across the five universities, differences were found in five of the six VFI functions. For all of the functions except Esteem, the African-American liberal arts university had the highest mean scores. In addition, the public commuter unive rsity had the lowest mean scores in four categories: Social, Protective, Understanding, and Values (Burns et al., 2005). This finding seems to be consistent with past research sugge sting that race is a fact or that affects ones likelihood to volunteer (Lucas, 1985, Wilson & Musick, 1999). Wilson (2005) used the VFI model in conjunc tion with an assessment of level of involvement in volunteer programs to determine if volunteerism has th e characteristics of Serious Leisure. This study used a sample of volunteers from the Florida Park Service and found that 95% were White, 78% had at least some college education, and 69% were married. The average length of volunteerism was 8 years a nd 69% of respondents re ported volunteering 1-300 hours annually (Wilson, 2005). Additionally, those with college degrees were found to spend more hours volunteering than thos e with less educati on. The study found that motivation scores increased as participation and involvement in creased. This shows th at respondents placed greater importance on the motivational functions as participation continued (Wilson, 2005). This finding is in accordance with Clary et al. ( 1998), who found that a match of motivational function and volunteer experience le ads to continued participation and greater satisfaction (Clary et al., 1998).

PAGE 40

40 Finally, Bruyere and Rappe (2007) applied th e VFI to volunteers in an environmental setting. The authors modified the original version by adding a qualitati ve question addressing the participants self-reported most important motiv ation to volunteer. To make the tool useful for examining environmental volunteers, a prin cipal components analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation was conducted on the components of th e VFI model, and seven new variables were identified: Help the Environment, Career, User, Learning, Social, Pr oject Organization, and Values and Esteem (Bruyere & Rappe, 2007). Th is seven-function VFI s upports the Clary et al. (1998) prediction that fewer or mo re functions may be present when analyzing specific forms of volunteerism. Findings from this study show that Helping the Environment was the most important motivational factor, followed by Us er, Values and Esteem, Learning, Social, and Project Organization. Lastly, Career had significantly lower m ean scores than every other category (Bruyere & Rappe, 2007). Constraints Though m any studies have focused on motivatio n to volunteer, little has been reported about constraints to volunteerism. However, there have been numerous studies that have analyzed constraints to other leisure and recreation activities. Prior to the early 1990s, constraints research had only looked at constraints as insurmountable obstacles to participation. Little attention was paid to th e intensity of constraints (Jack son et al., 1993). Contemporary constraints research posits that constraints are conceived of as phenomena that more likely result in modified participation than nonpa rticipation. If a factor limits or inhibits participation in a given leisure pursuit, it may then be termed a constraint (Raymore et al., 1993, pg. 99). It is generally accepted that three types of constrai nts exist. Intrapersonal constraints involve individual psychological states and attributes which interact with leisure preferences rather than intervening between preferences and particip ation (Crawford & Godbe y, 1987). Interpersonal

PAGE 41

41 constraints are those that occur when known co-p articipants themselves are perceived to be prevented from participation because of structural constraints (Raymore et al., 1993). Structural constraints are intervening fact ors between leisure preference and participation (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). This third category of constraints was the subject of most research prior to 1990. Shaw et al. (1991) analyzed constraints to part icipation in various leisure time activities. The study identified 11 reported cons traints: lack of time becaus e of work, no facilities nearby, lack of time because of other le isure activities, low energy, requi res too much self discipline, costs too much, injury or handicap, ill health, lack of necessary skills, available facilities are inadequate, and no leaders availabl e (Shaw et al., 1991). Of these 11 constraints, only two were found to decrease participation in recreational activities and some were found to increase participation over time. It was reported that the structures themselves do not act directly as barriers to participation. Rather, it is the individuals perception of the structures and how those perceptions affect the expe rience that may constrain leisure (Shaw et al., 1991). Jackson et al. (1993) proposed that individuals negotiate through various constraints, leading to modified participation in an activity rather than non-partici pation. Using existing constraints literature, the author s examined the negotiation concept. They found that preferences as well as participation are influenced by cons traints and that constraints are interrelated (Jackson et al., 1993). Using th e Hierarchical Model of Le isure Constraints proposed by Crawford et al. (1991) (see Figur e 2-1), the authors confirmed th at there is a hierarchical relationship between the three levels of constraint s. Individuals will first be confronted with Intrapersonal constraints. Su ccessful negotiation through these c onstraints allows the individual to proceed. Next, they will encounter Interper sonal constraints. If these constraints are negotiated successfully and interpersonal compa tibility and coordinati on are established, the

PAGE 42

42 individual will face structural constraints. If all three levels of constraints are successfully negotiated, the end result is participation in th e activity. If the constr aints are not negotiated effectively, the result is non-pa rticipation (Jackson et al., 1993). To explain why some individuals are able to successfully nego tiate constraints while others are not, Jackson et al. (1993) proposed the Bala nce model (see Figure 2-2). This model shows that based on how effectively they negotiate diffe rent levels of constrai nts, individuals can be placed into one of three groups: those who do not participate, those w ho alter participation because of constraints, and those who successfully negotiate cons traints and participate with no changes (Jackson et al., 1993). The authors show that the level of participation, as opposed to a participation/non-participation dichotomy, can be viewed as a function of the balance between constraints and motivations. B oth the initiative and outcome of the negotiation process are dependent on the relative strength of, and intera ctions between, constraint s on participating in an activity and motivations for such participation (Jackson et al., 1993, pg. 9). As each constraint is approached, the individual checks their motivation for perf orming the activity with the potential constraint. If the rewards (motivatio ns) exceed the costs (constraints), the individual will progress along the continuum. This balanc e proposition was found to be highly consistent with a social exchange depiction of the negot iation process as a decision-making confrontation between rewards (motivations) and costs (constraints) a nd confirms that even if constraints are present, participation in an activity can st ill be an outcome, though it may be altered from unconstrained participati on (Jackson et al., 1993). Raymore et al. (1993) devel oped an instrument to measure perceived levels of Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, a nd Structural constrai nts on leisure when in dividuals are beginning a new activity. Factor analysis confirmed that these three cate gories of constraints exist and

PAGE 43

43 empirical evidence supporting a hi erarchical relationship between them was found (Raymore et al., 1993). Individuals with high Intrapersona l constraints would not progress to face Interpersonal constraints and thos e with high Interpersonal constraints would not progress to face Structural constraints. The au thors caution that the instrument was developed and tested for the process of starting any new leisure activity. Different appr oaches should be used in different contexts, but should use a similar framework so that comparisons can be made across activities (Raymore et al., 1993). Finally, they suggest th at a qualitative approach may be useful in developing a broader understand ing of constraints on leisure and the subsequent outcomes associated with each class of c onstraints (Raymore et al., 1993). Verba et al. (1995) analyzed common reasons why individuals do not participate in political volunteerism. Three common dimensions of barriers to volunteerism were reported as Lacked Capacity, Lacked Motivation, and Had Not Been Asked. These dimensions were only applied to political activism and cannot be generalized to all fo rms of volunteerism. It was reported that the most common objection that college students have to volunteering is that it consumes time and energy that might otherwise be devoted to academic pursuits (Astin & Sax, 1998). The authors note that this argument has been refuted by their longitudinal analysis and that volunteerism tends to have positive impacts on academic development. However, if students perceive this to be a barrier, it is worthy of further investigation. Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter (2002) examined whether the three types of constraints (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Structural) existed in the context of nature-based tourism. Using telephone interviews and a five-point Likert-type scale, respondents were asked to indicate how influential each of 11 constraints was to their decision not to partic ipate in nature-based recreation activities (PenningtonGray & Kerstetter, 2002). The study confirmed through factor

PAGE 44

44 analysis that the three types of constraints do exis t in nature-based recreation, but that Intrapersonal constraints did not appear to be a major influenc e in non-participation in their sample. Thapa et al. (2002) sought to em pirically test the same model within the context of tourism in Florida. Specifically, the study focused on no n-Florida residents who had previously visited Florida. Again, this study conf irmed three types of constraints, but it did not find evidence of Interpersonal constraints. Inst ead, the authors identified Intraper sonal constraints and two types of Structural constraints: Pers onal and Environmental (Thapa et al., 2002). Personal Structural constraints are associated more with the indivi dual, while Environmental Structural constraints relate to the recreational setting. The authors posit that the lack of Interpersonal constraints may be due to the fact that tourism to Florida is often undertaken with in a group of friends or family members. As a result, Interpersonal constraints may not be relevant (Thapa et al., 2002). This study highlights the need for further examination of leisure constraints in different settings and contexts. Pennington-Gray et al. (2 002) further tested the model w ithin the context of tourism in Florida, this time with a focus on Florida resi dents. The study found em pirical support for the constraints model for Florida reside nts with respect to visitation to parks and other public lands. However, it did not test for a hier archical relationship between the three levels of constraints or a constraint negotiation process. The authors sugg est that future research should address these issues (Pennington-Gray et al., 2002). Nyaupane et al. (2004) tested fo r differences in the constraint s model across three specific recreational activities: canoeing, whitewater rafting, a nd horseback riding. The results partially supported the model proposed by Crawford and G odbey (1987), but also found that items within the same dimensions can play different roles in different contexts. The importance of each

PAGE 45

45 constraint differed across activities for the same group of individuals, su pporting the hypothesis that the same items may play different roles in constraining different leis ure activities (Nyaupane et al., 2004). Similar to Thapa et al. (2002), the authors found th at the Structural constraints dimension was more complex than expected and should be reexamined in future studies of constraints to nature-based tourism, to explore the possibility of multiple subcategories of this dimension (Nyaupane et al., 2004). Mowen et al. (2005) examined the stability of leisure constraints over time. They compared constraints research from the Cleveland area from 1991 and 2001 and analyzed changes in perceived constraints over time. De spite finding minor differences in demographics between the two samples, constraint perceptions remained remarkably similar over time. In both samples, the most commonly cited constraints to park use were too busy with other activities, lack of time, and too busy with family respons ibilities (Mowen et al., 2005). The authors also found that income was the single be st predictor of perceived constraints while age, gender, and education were also useful pr edictors (Mowen et al., 2005). Finally, in a study of constrai nts to volunteering at the Canada Summer Games in 2001, Cleave and Doherty (2005) used a mixed-methods approach to compare the constraints of nonvolunteers to volunteers. Using items in th ree dimensions (Intrapersonal Constraints, Interpersonal Constraints, Stru ctural Constraints) and focusgroup interviews, the authors found strong evidence for Structural Constraints with both groups, moderate ev idence for Intrapersonal Constraints, but only limited evidence of Inte rpersonal Constraints (C leave & Doherty, 2005). Though similar constraints were found in both gr oups, non-volunteers were unable to negotiate through the barriers to part icipation. The authors pos it that this may be due to unique constraints for non-volunteers. For example, non-volunteers were less attracted to volunteerism, to sports in

PAGE 46

46 general, and to the Canada Games (Cleave & Dohe rty, 2005). The authors suggest that volunteer managers should address these constraints by ma king the volunteer program seem relevant by highlighting other motives such as economic potential or career enhancement (Cleave & Doherty, 2005). Summary Volunteerism has been shown to be beneficial to both the volunteer a nd to the organization that they are volunteering for ( Wilson & Musick 1999, Ryan et al., 2001, Burns et al., 2005). In particular, college students, who have been show n to be very active in volunteerism in recent years (Serow, 1991, Astin & Sax, 1998, Liao-Troth & Dunn, 1999) can be a valuable resource to agencies and organizations lack ing manpower or funding to support a full staff as well as the mission of the organization. Financial constrai nts on nonprofits have in creased the importance of volunteers in recent years (Wickham & Graefe, 1998) due to the fact that many organizations dont have the funding for a large staff and rely on volunteers for the majority of their workforce (Ryan et al., 2001). Conversely, volunteers rely on these organiza tions to provide opportunities for service. It has been show n that non-governmental organizations (NGO) provide the majority of volunteer experiences (Campbell & Smith, 2006). Research has consistently indicated that volun teers engage in these behaviors for different reasons and that each volunteer may have multiple motivations for doing what they do. Volunteer motivation research can be a valuable tool to managers, aiding in recruitment and retention of volunteers (Wickham & Graefe, 1998, Wilson & Musick, 1999) as well as in planning effective programs that will provide a satisfactory experience to the volunteer while accomplishing an organizations goals and objectives (Sargent & Sedlacek, 1990). Furthermore, little research has been done on the specific volunteer motivations of undergraduate college students. This unique demographic holds treme ndous potential for volunteer recruitment efforts

PAGE 47

47 as it has been noted that college students are t he future custodians, educators, policy makers, planners, and administra tors (Thapa, 2001, pg. 42). Finally, there is a lack of research on constraints to volunteerism, though many studies exist that examine constraints to leisure in genera l. Because of its potenti al to drastically limit volunteer participation, particularly in colle ge students who have many other competing commitments, this concept warrants further expl oration. Using tools de veloped for measuring the three categories of leisure constraints (Int rapersonal, Interpersonal, and Structural), comparisons can be made between constraints to volunteerism and other leisure activities.

PAGE 48

48 Figure 2-1. Hierarchical Model of Leisure Cons traints. (Source: Crawford et al., 1991, pg. 13) Figure 2-2. Leisure Participation as the Balance Between Constraints an d Motivations. (Source: Jackson et al., 1993) Intrapersonal Constraints Interpersonal Constraints Structural Constraints Leisure Preferences Interpersonal Compatibility and Coordination Participation (or Nonparticipation) Intrapersonal Constraints Interpersonal Constraints Structural Constraints Leisure Preferences Interpersonal Compatibility and Coordination Participation (or Nonparticipation) Motivations (Attractions)

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 3 PROCEDURES The procedu res used in this examination of the relationships between volunteerism, motivation, and constraints among u ndergraduate students are describe d in four sections of this chapter: 1. The Study Area 2. Selection of Subjects 3. Instrumentation 4. Treatment of the Data The Study Area Large cam puses tend to support a wide array of volunteer activities both on and off campus (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). The Univ ersity of Florida in Gainesville, Florida is exemplar of this type of institution. Gainesvill e is not a large metropolis, but is much larger and more heavily populated than the surrounding areas in the pred ominantly rural Alachua County. Furthermore, the University of Florida has the second larg est student body in America, with 55,000 graduate and undergraduate students. In addition to the la rge student body, there is a wealth of volunteer opportunities within close proximity to the campus. There are several city, county, and state parks, human services organizations, and other volunteer opportunities with in a few miles of the University, and the campus boasts one of the most active student bodies in America in terms of student-run organizations on campus. The majority of these organizations also tend to have a focus on volunteer service and community outreach. This study was conducted in thr ee undergraduate Intr oduction to Recreati on classes at the University of Florida. These classes were chos en as a convenience sample to ensure that enough responses were received to investigate the research questions. This limits the generalizability of the results, but can be effective as an exploratory study to determin e the future direction of this line of research.

PAGE 50

50 Selection of Subjects The Introduction to Recreation classes that we re utilized in this study, were online-based courses. Participants should ha ve included all students enrolled in this course in the S pring 2009 Semester. There were 305 students enrolled in the three classes ranging from freshmen to seniors. Participation in the class required students to complete a certain number of surveys or questionnaires throughout the course of the seme ster. A response rate of 88.5% was achieved due to the fact that this was a captive audien ce and participation was directly related to enrollment in the class. Instrumentation An electronic version of a five page survey was developed with the assistance of a technology professional at the univer sity. The tool cons isted of four major sections. The first section addressed volunteer pa rticipation and included the sc ope of volunteerism, types of volunteer activities, and contri bution to the organizations. The second section addressed volunteer motivations using 32 motiv ational items rated on a Likert -type scale from Not at all Important (1) to Extremely Important (7). Th ese items and functions have been empirically tested in many studies and have proven to be valid and reliable (Clary & Snyder, 1999, Burns et al., 2005). In addition, an open-ended question was used to record other motivational factors not listed. The third section addre ssed constraints to participa tion in volunteer activities. Participants indicated the level of influence of each of 15 constrai nt items on their decision not to volunteer. This section also included an open-ended question to r ecord any other constraints to volunteerism. Finally, the fourth section included select socio-de mographic characteristics such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, year of schooling, academic major, and residence.

PAGE 51

51 Treatment of the Data This section addresses tw o areas: the operationalization of variables (volunteerism, motivation, and constraints) and th e testing of research questions. Operationalization of Variables Volunteerism In the literature, there has been a lack of c onsensus with resp ect to operationalization of volunteerism. Volunteerism has been operationalized in terms of the organizational structure of the volunteer activity (Gordon & Babchuk, 1959, Li ao-Troth & Dunn, 1999), level of activity and involvement of the volunteers (Heidric h, 1990, Fischer et al., 1991, Wilson & Musick, 1999), and characteristics of the volunteers (Sargent & Sedlacek, 1990, Clary & Snyder, 1999, Carlo et al., 2005). In this study, elements of each of these concep tualizations were used. This study measured volunteerism by the Scope of Volunteerism, the Volunteer Segment, and Type of Contributions. The Scope of Volunteerism addressed the extent to which the individu al had volunteered in the past based on three measures of voluntee rism (Wilson & Musick, 1999). Volunteer Range was based on the number of organizations that the individual had voluntee red for in the past. Volunteering Amount was the total number of hours that the volunt eer contributed each year. Volunteering Length was the number of years that the individual had offe red volunteer service (Wilson & Musick, 1999). The Volunteer Segment section identified si x categories of volunteer service; Political, Environmental, Recreational, Cultural, Human Services, and Educational. Examples of organizations in each of these six categories we re provided. In additi on, a category was added for informal volunteering, or se rvice provided independent of an organization (Fischer et al., 1991).

PAGE 52

52 Type of Contributions addresse d the level of support based on five items: Time (e.g. attend meetings, sit on a committee, fundraising drives, etc.), Money (e.g. donations, annual dues, etc.), Leadership (e.g. hold office, chair a committee, act as a team leader on a project, etc.), Resources (e.g. allow the use of tools, vehicles, property, etc.), and Skills (e.g. physical labor, expertise/specialized knowledge, etc.). These three volunteerism measures provided a comprehensive assessment. Motivation The Volunteer Function Inventor y (VFI) developed by Clary et al. (1996) has been the standard tool to m easure volunteer motivation (O kun et al., 1998, Burns et al., 2005). Since its development, it has been widely used to examin e volunteer motivation, and was also used in this study. The VFI was developed to measure six f unctions of volunteeri ng. The functions are Understanding, Social, Values, Prot ective, Career, and Enhancemen t. Understanding involves a sense of learning and development of new skills. The Social function relates to participation with friends, or doing work that is viewed as important by the people who matter to the volunteer. Values relates to an individual putting their own beliefs and values into action. The Protective function involves using the volunteer experience to cope w ith inner conflicts or stress. The Career function applies to situations where the individual is using the volunteer experience to build career experience. Enhancement deal s with psychological development and personal growth (Clary et al. 1996). Five items from each dimension were used with two additional items. The items were rated on a seven-point Like rt-type scale from Not at all Important (1) to Extremely Important (7) to assess the level of importance of each item on the participants decision to volunteer. An open-ended questi on was used as an Other motive category. Specifically, the item read, Please list a ny other factors that may contribute to your volunteerism.

PAGE 53

53 Constraints Constraints were m easured by three dimensions with five items in each. The dimensions were Intrapersonal Constraints (involving personal psycholo gical states that in teract with leisure preference), Interpersonal Constraints (those co nstraints involving othe r participants), and Structural Constraints (barriers between pref erence and participati on) (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). The items were rated using a 5-point Like rt-type scale from No Influence (1) to Very Strong Influence (5), indicating how influential each item is to their deci sion not to volunteer. An open-ended question was also used as an Other constraint category. It read, Please list any other factors that may prevent you from volunteering. Testing the Research Questions Data were entered and analyzed using the St atis tical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). All research questions were tested using this software. Question 1: What motivates college students to volunteer? Factor an alysis was utilized on the VFI items to establish motivation dimensions for this sample. Reliability analysis was used to confirm the validity of each dimension. Index scores were computed by taking the mean of the items in each dimension to identify which dimensions had the greatest influence on volunt eerism among college students. Question 2: What is the relationship betw een motivation and volunteer segments? VFI scores were computed and means were compared for each of the six Volunteer Segments. One-way analysis of variance (ANO VA) was used with Volunteer Segment as the independent variable and dimension scores as the dependent variables. Additionally, motivations were compared between those who volunteered for Environmental organizations and those who did not.

PAGE 54

54 Question 3: What is the relationship betw een volunteer motives and select sociodemographic characteristics? Comparisons were made between select demographic variables and VFI dimensions using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and two-group t-tests. Question 4: What constrains vol unteerism among college students? Reliability analysis was conducted to verify th e internal consistency of each of the three dim ensions (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Structural). Scores were determined for each dimension by computing means. Question 5: What is the relationship be tw een volunteer constraints and select sociodemographic characteristics? Comparisons were made between select demographic variables and constraints dimensions using one-way analysis of varian ce (ANOVA) and two-group t-tests. Question 6: Is there a relationship between volunteer motivations and constraints? Correlation analysis was used with VFI fact ors and Constraint factors to determ ine whether or not relationships existed.

PAGE 55

55 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The results of the data analysis are illustrate d in three major sections of this chapter: 1. Profile of Respondents 2. Description and Analysis of Key Variables 3. Results of the Research Questions Profile of Respondents Of the 270 respondents, 37.9% were m ales and 62.1% were females. Nearly 75% were Caucasian and 60.6% were in their Senior year. The majority of the sample was comprised of students from the United States with 3.0% orig inating from outside the country. Among the domestic students, 19 states were represented, with 81.9% of stude nts originating in Florida. Over half of the students grew up in a large city (26.9%) or a small city (24.6%), and less than 10.0% grew up in a small town (8.3%) or a farm ranch, or rural area (1.1%) (see Table 4-1). In the 12 months prior to th e study, 80.0% of respondents had volunteered, and over half of those volunteered for two or more organiza tions in that time pe riod. Additionally, 39.0% reported to have volunteered independently, ou tside of an organization. About 41.6% of respondents spent between one and five hours per month volunteering, while 14.8% spent less than one hour per month. Over half of th e respondents began vol unteering between 2001 and 2005, and 36.3% began between 1996 and 2000. For th e majority of respondents, these years represent the time spen t in high school. More than 97% of respondents volunteered in High School, and 88.7% were required to participate in a compulsory volunteer program such as Service Learning or Community Service Hours. Of those, 82.6% served beyond the mandatory requirement. Family was responsible for introducing 40.2% of respondent s to volunteerism, while teachers (23.4%), friends (15.9%), and religious le aders (11.2%) accounted for over ha lf. Nearly three fourths of

PAGE 56

56 respondents volunteered in natural areas (e.g. parks, beaches, etc.) though only 54 respondents volunteered with environmental or ganizations (see Table 4-2). Description and Analysis of Key Variables Volunteerism Volunteerism was operationalized using three m e asures: Scope of Volunteerism, Volunteer Segment, and Type of Contributions. Scope of Volunteerism addressed the extent to which the individual had volunteered in th e past based on three items: Vo lunteer Range (the number of organizations volunteered for), Volunteer Amount (the total number of hours volunteered), and Volunteer Length (the number of years that th e individual had been pr oviding volunteer service). The Volunteer Segment variable was comprised of six categories: Political, Environmental, Recreational, Cultural, Human Services, and Educational. Respondents were asked to select all of the segments that they ha d volunteered for and then to select the one that was most important to them. Type of Contributions addresse d the level of support that th e volunteer provided to the organization and was based on five items: Time, Money, Leadership, Resources, and Skills. Respondents were asked to select all types of contributions that they provided for their organizations and also to select the most significant contribution. The majority (80%) of respondents had volunteere d in the 12 months prior to the study. Over 10% had been volunteering for more than 10 years, and 18.6% contributed more than 100 hours of volunteer service per year The most important volunt eer organizations were Human Services organizations (41.3%), while Educational programs were also important (29.1%). Over 50% of respondents volunteered for one of thes e types of organizations, and many volunteered for both. Over 70% of respondents stated that one of these types of organizations was the most

PAGE 57

57 important to them. In addition to the six Vo lunteer Segments presented, respondents listed the Humane Society, Greek organizatio ns, and religious organizations in the open response question. Over half of respondents reported that Time was their most important contribution to volunteer organizations (54.5%). Contributions of Skills (22.5%) and Leadership (16.0%) were also noted. Money was not considered to be an important contributi on (4.7%), though 43.5% of respondents had contributed financially to an organization (see Table 4-3). Motivation The Volunteer Function Inventor y (VFI) was employed to inve stig ate volunteer motivation (Clary et al., 1996). The original 30 items were used with the addition of two new items: I feel volunteering is a religious dut y and Volunteering is a way for me to help the natural environment. Respondents rated each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Means were calculated for each item. Items with the highest means were, I feel it is important to help others (5.91), I am concerned with those less fortunate than my self (5.73), I can do something for a cause that is important to m e (5.73), I am genuinely concerned about the particular group I am serving (5.66), and Volunteering allows me to ga in a new perspective on things (5.64). Items with the lo west means were, I feel volunt eering is a religious duty (3.51), By volunteering, I feel less lo nely (3.60), Volunteering is a good escape from my own troubles (3.79), Doing volunteer work relieves me of some of th e guilt over being more fortunate than others (3.79), and Voluntee ring helps me work through my own personal problems (4.00) (see Table 4-4). Following frequency analysis, an exploratory principal compon ent factor analysis using Varimax rotation was employed for the VFI. Five volunteer dimensions were identified: Enhancement (3 items), Social (6 items), Career (6 items), Protective (6 items), and Values and Understanding (11 items). A reliability analys is was conducted for each dimension. Cronbachs

PAGE 58

58 alphas were above 0.8 for each dimension and no items were removed. Collectively, the five dimensions explained nearly 66% of the total va riance. Based upon the re liability analysis, the mean values of the items within each dimensi on were computed into single composite index scores for each dimension, respectively (see Tables 4-5 and 4-6). Constraints Constraints were m easured using 15 items re presenting three dimens ions: Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and Structural (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Respondents rated each item on a 5point Likert-type scale. Means were calculate d for each item and are illustrated in Table 6. Items with the highest means were, I have too many other commitments (3.25), I have no time to volunteer (3.00), and I am unaware of opportunities to volunteer (2.50). Items with the lowest means were, I have an injury, handica p, or ill health (1.63), I do not feel safe at volunteer sites (1.64), My family does not volunteer (1.69), and I do not have the necessary skills (1.69). A frequency distribution of these items is illustrated in Table 4-7. Based on the conceptual dimensions of Constraints, reliability anal ysis was conducted to verify the internal consistency of each of the three dimensions (In trapersonal, Interpersonal, and Structural). Cronbachs alphas were above 0.6 for each dimension and no items were removed. The three constraints dimensions explained ov er 58% of the total variance. Based on the reliability analysis, the mean values of the ite ms within each dimension were computed into single composite index scores for each dimension (see Table 4-8). Results of the Research Questions Question 1: What motivates college students to volunteer? Factor analysis yielded five Volunteer m otiva tion dimensions for this sample. Dimension index scores were computed by taking the mean of the items in each dimension. The Values and

PAGE 59

59 Understanding dimension scored the highest among respondents with a mean of 5.45. The Protective dimension scored the lowest among re spondents with a mean of 4.01 (see Table 4-6). Question 2: What is the relationship betw een motivation and volunteer segment? One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if there was a relationship between motivation dimensions and volunteer segments. The fi ve volunteer dimensions were used as dependent variables and the respondents most important type of organization was used as the independent variable. Base d on the results, a lack of signi ficant relationship existed for all the analyses (see Table 4-9). Further analysis was conducted on environmen tal volunteers. An independent sample ttest was conducted to investigate the motivatio ns of those who voluntee red for Environmental organizations and those who did not. No significant relationshi ps were found (see Table 4-10) Question 3: What is the relationship be tw een volunteer motivations and select sociodemographic characteristics? One-way analysis of variance a nd independent sample t-tests we re used to investigate the relationships between motivations and select soci o-demographic variables. The variables chosen were gender, race/ethnicity, cla ss standing, and type of hometown. Independent sample t-tests were employed to analyze the relationships between gender and motivations (VFI dimensions). One signi ficant difference was f ound between gender and volunteer motivations. Females were more likely than males to indicate Values and Understanding as a motive to volunteer (see Table 4-11). One-way analysis of variance was employe d to analyze the relationships between race/ethnicity and motivations. Tests were cond ucted using the five motivation dimensions as dependent variables and race/ethnicity as an i ndependent variable. No significant differences were found between race/ethnicity groups and motivation (see Table 4-12).

PAGE 60

60 One-way analysis of variance was employed to analyze the relationships between class standing and motivations. Tests were conducted be tween each of the five motivation dimensions and class standing. No significant differences were found between class standing and motivation (see Table 4-13). One-way analysis of variance was employed to analyze the relationships between type of hometown and motivations. Tests were conducte d on each of the five motivation dimensions and type of hometown. No si gnificant differences were f ound between hometown types and motivation (see Table 4-14). Question 4: What constrains vol unteerism among college students? Factor analysis yielded three Constraint Dim ensions for this sample. A Constraint Score was computed by taking the mean for all 15 items. Additionally, dimension scores were computed by taking the mean of the items in eac h dimension. Constraints Scores ranged from 1.00 to 3.67 with a mean of 2.13 for the entire sample Structural constrai nts were the strongest for this sample with a mean of 2.54 and Intrapersonal constraints were the weakest with a mean of 1.87. Question 5: What is the relationship be tw een volunteer constraints and select sociodemographic characteristics? One-way analysis of variance a nd independent sample t-tests we re used to investigate the relationships between constraints and select socio-demographic vari ables. The variables chosen were gender, race/ethnicity, cla ss standing, and type of hometown. Independent sample t-tests were employed to analyze the relationships between gender and constraints. Significant differe nces between males and females were found for the Interpersonal Constraints dimension and in the total Constraints Score. Males reported stronger constraints to volunteerism in both cases (see Table 4-15).

PAGE 61

61 One-way analysis of variance was employe d to analyze the relationships between race/ethnicity and constraints. Tests were conducted on each of the Constraints dimensions and on the total Constraints index scor es of respondents. Significant differences were found between race/ethnicity and Interpers onal constraints. Respondents who reported that they were White/Caucasian or Hispanic/Latino were more lik ely to report Interper sonal constraints than were African American/Black or Asian respondents (see Table 4-16). One-way analysis of variance was employed to analyze the relationships between class standing and constraints. Test s were conducted between each of the Constraints dimensions and class standing. No significant differences were found between class standing and constraints (see Table 4-17). One-way analysis of variance was employed to analyze the relationships between type of hometown and constraints. Tests were conducted on each of the Constraints dimensions and type of hometown. No significant differences were found between hometown type and volunteer constraints (see Table 4-18). Question 6: Is there a relationship between volunteer motivations and constraints? A bivariate linear correlation analysis was used to determ ine whether or not there was a relationship between volunteer motivations and constraints. Analyses were conducted on Motivation and Constraints dimensions. The Intr apersonal constraints dimension was positively correlated with the Social (r= 0.18), Protective (r=0.16), and Enha ncement (r=0.14) dimensions. The Values and Understanding function was negativ ely correlated with both the Interpersonal (r=-0.22) and Structural (r=-0.15) constraints dimensions. No correlations were found between the Career function and any constraints dimension. The Values and Understanding function of motiva tion revealed two out of three significant relationships with constraints dimensions. Howe ver, a lack of a significant relationship was

PAGE 62

62 identified with Intrapersonal constraints. Of the significant relati onships, Interpersonal constraints displayed the stronge st relationship (r=-0.22), followed by Structural constraints (r=0.15). These results indicated that as a respondents level of Values and Understanding motivations increased, the level of perceived Stru ctural and Interpersonal constraints decreased. Further, as the level of perceived Intrap ersonal constraints increased, a respondents Enhancement (r=0.14), Social (r=0. 18), and Protective (r=0.16) motiv ations also increased (see Table 4-19).

PAGE 63

63 Table 4-1. Socio-demographi c profile of respondents Socio-demographic Characteristi cs Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Male 100 37.9% Female 164 62.1% Age Under 20 years 25 9.5% 20 years 61 23.2% 21 years 120 45.6% 22 years or older 57 21.7% Race/Ethnicity Caucasian/White 196 74.8% Hispanic/Latino 30 11.5% African American/Black 18 6.9% Asian 10 3.8% Native American/American Indian 1 0.4% Multi-racial/Mixed race 7 2.7% Class Standing Freshman 11 4.2% Sophomore 24 9.1% Junior 69 26.1% Senior 160 60.6% Home Country Australia 1 0.4% Bolivia 2 0.8% Columbia 1 0.4% Guyana 1 0.4% UK 3 1.1% USA 256 97.0% Hometown Size Farm/Ranch/Rural 3 1.1% Small Town 22 8.3% Large Town 53 20.1% Small City 65 24.6% Large City 71 26.9% Metropolitan Area 50 18.9% Note: The percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding

PAGE 64

64 Table 4-2. Volunteer profile of respondents Volunteer Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%) Volunteered in the past 12 months Yes 216 80.0% No 54 20.0% Number of Volunteer Organizations 0 4 1.9% 1 91 42.7% 2 70 32.9% 3 31 14.6% 4 or more 17 8.0% Volunteered Independen tly Outside of an Organization Yes 83 39.0% No 130 61.0% Volunteer Hours/Month Less than 1 27 14.8% 1 to 5 76 41.6% 6 to 10 36 19.6% More than 10 43 23.6% Year Started Volunteering 1991 to 1995 13 6.4% 1996 to 2000 74 36.3% 2001 to 2005 107 52.5% After 2005 10 5.0% Volunteered in High School Yes 206 96.7% No 7 3.3% Compulsory Volunteering in High School Yes 189 88.7% No 24 11.3% Volunteered Beyond High School Requirement Yes 176 82.6% No 37 17.4% Introduced to Volunteering By: Family 86 40.2% Friend 34 15.9% Teacher 50 23.4% Religious Leader 24 11.2% Scouting/Organization Leader 14 6.5% Other 6 2.8% Volunteered in Natural Areas Yes 159 74.6% No 54 25.4% Note: The percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding

PAGE 65

65 Table 4-3. Volunteer scope, segment, and contribution Volunteer Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%) Volunteered in the past 12 months Yes 216 80.0% No 54 20.0% Volunteer Hours/Week Less than 1 52 32.1% 1 to 5 98 60.6% More than 5 12 7.4% Volunteer Hours/Year Less than 1 6 3.1% 1 to 25 80 41.7% 26 to 50 45 23.3% 51 to 75 9 4.6% 76 to 100 16 8.3% More than 100 36 18.8% Years Spent Volunteering 2 or fewer 17 8.2% 3 to 4 36 17.3% 5 to 6 51 24.5% 7 to 8 46 22.2% More than 8 58 27.9% Type of Volunteer Organization* Political 35 13.0% Environmental 54 20.0% Recreational 98 36.3% Cultural 99 36.7% Human Services 158 58.5% Educational 154 57.0% Other 14 5.2% Most Important Type of Volunteer Organization Political 4 1.9% Environmental 9 4.2% Recreational 13 6.1% Cultural 34 16.0% Human Services 88 41.3% Educational 62 29.1% Other 3 1.4% Contribution to Volunteer Organization* Time 197 73.0% Money 94 34.8% Leadership 89 33.0% Resources 66 24.4% Skills 155 57.4% Other 1 0.4%

PAGE 66

66 Table 4-3. Continued 9 4.6% Volunteer Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%) Most Important Contribution Time 116 54.5% Money 10 4.7% Leadership 34 16.0% Resources 3 1.4% Skills 48 22.5% Other 2 0.9% Teacher 50 23.4% Religious Leader 24 11.2% Scouting/Organization Leader 14 6.5% Other 6 2.8% Note: The percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding *Multiple responses

PAGE 67

67Table 4-4. Frequency dist ribution of Volunteer Func tion Inventory (VFI) items Questionnaire Statement* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Mean I feel it is important to help others 1 1 6 11 39 80 70 208 5.91 I am concerned with those less fortunate than myself 0 1 6 16 53 83 51 210 5.73 I can do something for a cause that is important to me 2 1 3 16 59 71 57 209 5.73 I am genuinely concerned about the particular group I am serving 1 2 5 25 48 74 54 209 5.66 Volunteering allows me to gain a new perspective on things 2 1 7 13 55 88 41 207 5.64 I feel compassion towards people in need 1 4 5 17 68 59 54 208 5.60 I can learn more about the cause for which I am working 4 1 9 17 82 63 33 209 5.36 Volunteering lets me learn things through direct, hands on experience 2 4 8 22 89 56 29 210 5.27 I can learn how to deal with a variety of people 3 1 12 30 75 57 30 208 5.23 I can explore my own strengths 5 4 5 36 75 58 27 210 5.16 Volunteering experiences will look good on my resume 9 12 7 36 69 46 30 209 4.92 Volunteering makes me feel important 5 10 18 33 66 55 22 209 4.90 Volunteering allows me to explore different career options 11 8 16 45 58 49 23 210 4.76 Volunteering can help me get a foot in the door at a place where I would like to work 12 13 21 24 68 44 28 210 4.75 Volunteering is a way for me to help the natural environment 11 8 17 42 68 42 20 208 4.70 I can make new contacts that might help my business or career 14 13 20 34 57 49 23 210 4.65 Volunteering makes me feel better about myself 12 12 16 44 61 45 20 210 4.64 Volunteering is a way to make new friends 9 9 16 50 74 33 18 209 4.64 Volunteering will help me to succeed in my chosen profession 12 8 17 57 55 36 25 210 4.63 Volunteering increases my self-esteem 13 8 18 44 77 36 14 210 4.56 People I know share an interest in community service 6 12 25 52 65 38 12 210 4.52 Volunteering makes me feel needed 15 9 24 52 53 32 21 206 4.45 No matter how bad I've been feeling, volunteering helps me to forget about it 11 11 23 62 52 33 18 210 4.45 Others with whom I am close place a high valu e on community service 14 12 34 48 56 35 10 209 4.27 People I'm close to want me to volunteer 17 15 36 54 52 26 9 209 4.07 Volunteering is an important activity to the people I know best 17 19 30 59 50 22 11 208 4.04 My friends volunteer 17 14 32 62 62 18 5 210 4.01 Volunteering helps me to work through my own personal problems 23 14 34 58 41 23 15 208 4.00 Doing volunteer work relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than others 28 22 29 55 47 22 7 210 3.79 Volunteering is a good escape from my own troubles 22 19 41 58 45 15 9 209 3.79 By volunteering, I feel less lonely 25 31 31 63 41 10 8 209 3.60 I feel volunteering is a religious duty 50 20 29 42 34 22 13 210 3.51 *1=Not at all Important, 2=Very Unimportant 3=Somewhat Unimportant, 4=Neutral, 5= Somewhat Important, 6=Very Important, 7=Extremely Important

PAGE 68

68Table 4-5. Factor loadings fo r volunteer motivation dimensions Questionnaire Items* Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Values and Understanding I feel it is important to help others 0.808 I am genuinely concerned about the pa rticular group I am serving 0.781 I am concerned with those less fortunate than myself 0.775 Volunteering allows me to gain a new perspective on things 0.773 I can do something for a cause that is important to me 0.750 I feel compassion towards people in need 0.722 I can explore my own strengths 0.702 I can learn how to deal with a variety of people 0.589 I can learn more about the cause for which I am working 0.581 Volunteering lets me learn things thr ough direct, hands on experience 0.570 Volunteering is a way for me to help the natural environment 0.566 Protective Volunteering is a good escape from my own troubles 0.829 Volunteering helps me to work thro ugh my own personal problems 0.763 By volunteering, I feel less lonely 0.755 Volunteering makes me feel needed 0.714 No matter how bad I've been feeling, voluntee ring helps me to forget about it 0.636 Doing volunteer work relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than others 0.635 Social People I'm close to want me to volunteer 0.844 Others with whom I am close place a high value on community service 0.840 My friends volunteer 0.742 Volunteering is an important activity to the people I know best 0.703 People I know share an interest in community service 0.652 I feel volunteering is a religious duty 0.472 Career Volunteering can help me ge t a foot in the door at a place where I would like to work 0.828 I can make new contacts that might he lp my business or career 0.798

PAGE 69

69Table 4-5. Continued Questionnaire Items* Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Volunteering experiences will look good on my resume 0.714 Volunteering allows me to explore different career options 0.704 Volunteering will help me to succeed in my chosen profession 0.647 Volunteering is a way to make new friends 0.556 Enhancement Volunteering makes me feel important 0.686 Volunteering increases my self-esteem 0.502 Volunteering makes me feel be tter about myself 0.465 Number of items 11 6 6 6 3 Eigenvalue 6.40 5.07 4.09 3.96 1.57 Percentage of variance explained 20.00 15.85 12.77 12.37 4.89 Cumulative variance explained 20.00 35.86 48.63 61.00 65.89 Items coded on a 7-point scale from Not at all Important (1) to Extremely Important (7)

PAGE 70

70Table 4-6. Reliability analysis fo r volunteer motivation dimensions Questionnaire Items* Mean SD Corrected Item Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Values and Understanding I feel it is important to help others 5.90 1.09 0.761 0.905 I am genuinely concerned about the pa rticular group I am serving 5.68 1.14 0.704 0.907 I am concerned with those less fortunate than myself 5.74 1.02 0.663 0.910 Volunteering allows me to gain a new perspective on things 5.65 1.11 0.728 0.906 I can do something for a cause that is important to me 5.75 1.10 0.739 0.906 I feel compassion towards people in need 5.58 1.19 0.700 0.908 I can explore my own strengths 5.22 1.24 0.734 0.906 I can learn how to deal with a variety of people 5.26 1.20 0.614 0.912 I can learn more about the cause for which I am working 5.38 1.20 0.669 0.909 Volunteering lets me learn things thr ough direct, hands on experience 5.31 1.14 0.636 0.911 Volunteering is a way for me to he lp the natural environment 4.70 1.52 0.552 0.918 Overall index 5.45 0.86 NA 0.920 Career Volunteering can help me ge t a foot in the door at a place where I would like to work 4.75 1.64 0.772 0.832 I can make new contacts that might help my business or career 4.65 1.66 0.768 0.833 Volunteering experiences will look good on my resume 4.94 1.51 0.604 0.862 Volunteering allows me to explore different career options 4.76 1.53 0.658 0.853 Volunteering will help me to succeed in my chosen profession 4.63 1.55 0.656 0.853 Volunteering is a way to make new friends 4.64 1.42 0.580 0.865 Overall index 4.72 1.21 NA 0.871 Enhancement Volunteering makes me feel important 4.90 1.41 0.586 0.844 Volunteering increases my self-esteem 4.56 1.47 0.734 0.700 Volunteering makes me feel be tter about myself 4.63 1.55 0.724 0.709 Overall index 4.70 1.27 NA 0.823 Social People I'm close to want me to volunteer 4.07 1.54 0.733 0.842

PAGE 71

71Table 4-6. Continued Questionnaire Items* Mean SD Corrected Item Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Others with whom I am close place a high value on community service 4.26 1.52 0.825 0.826 My friends volunteer 4.02 1.41 0.611 0.862 Volunteering is an important activity to the people I know best 4.06 1.54 0.741 0.841 People I know share an interest in community service 4.51 1.38 0.676 0.853 I feel volunteering is a religious duty 3.53 1.89 0.529 0.885 Overall index 4.07 1.21 NA 0.880 Protective Volunteering is a good escape from my own troubles 3.80 1.54 0.793 0.858 Volunteering helps me to work thro ugh my own personal problems 4.00 1.66 0.759 0.862 By volunteering, I feel less lonely 3.61 1.57 0.701 0.872 Volunteering makes me feel needed 4.45 1.59 0.712 0.870 No matter how bad I've been feeling, voluntee ring helps me to forget about it 4.43 1.50 0.644 0.881 Doing volunteer work relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than others 3.81 1.62 0.641 0.882 Overall index 4.01 1.25 NA 0.890 Items coded on a 7-point scale from Not at all Important (1) to Extremely Important (7) SD = Standard Deviation, NA = Not Applicable

PAGE 72

72 Table 4-7. Frequency distri bution of constraints items Questionnaire Statement* 1 2 3 4 5 N Mean I do not know anyone that volunteers 99 75 66 20 4 264 2.07 I have a limited budget 85 70 64 34 10 263 2.29 I am unaware of opportunities to volunteer 58 70 91 33 11 263 2.50 I do not have enough energy to volunteer 72 74 78 32 5 261 2.33 I have an injury, handicap, or ill health 17534 36 16 3 264 1.63 I have too many other commitments 25 34 93 72 39 263 3.25 I think it will negatively aff ect my grades 98 87 51 24 4 264 2.05 No one has asked me to volunteer 97 76 67 19 5 264 2.09 I have no time to volunteer 34 53 84 64 28 263 3.00 My friends do not volunteer 10680 48 25 3 262 2.00 I do not feel safe at volun teer sites 15469 27 9 5 264 1.64 My family does not volunteer 14765 39 12 1 264 1.69 I do not have the necessary skills 14474 32 13 1 264 1.69 I do not have transportation to volunteer sites 17237 31 15 8 263 1.67 I have no one to volunteer with 11957 55 27 6 264 2.03 *1=No Influence, 2=Weak Influence, 3=Moderate Influence, 4=Strong Infl uence, 5=Very Strong Influence

PAGE 73

73Table 4-8. Reliability analysis for constraints dimensions Questionnaire Items* Mean SD Corrected Item Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Structural I have no time to volunteer 2.98 1.18 0.545 0.559 I have too many other commitments 3.25 1.15 0.476 0.594 I have a limited budget 2.29 1.16 0.378 0.639 I am unaware of opportunities to volunteer 2.51 1.10 0.428 0.617 I do not have transportation to volunteer sites 1.66 1.08 0.294 0.672 Overall index 2.54 0.75 NA 0.670 Interpersonal My friends do not volunteer 2.00 1.04 0.746 0.777 I do not know anyone that volunteers 2.07 1.03 0.608 0.816 I have no one to volunteer with 2.03 1.13 0.667 0.800 No one has asked me to volunteer 2.09 1.04 0.584 0.822 My family does not volunteer 1.69 0.91 0.616 0.815 Overall index 1.98 0.81 NA 0.839 Intrapersonal I have an injury, handicap, or ill health 1.62 1.00 0.528 0.675 I do not have the necessary skills 1.69 0.90 0.590 0.655 I do not feel safe at volunteer sites 1.65 0.94 0.540 0.672 I think it will negatively affect my grades 2.05 1.04 0.490 0.690 I do not have enough energy to volunteer 2.33 1.07 0.355 0.744 Overall index 1.87 0.69 NA 0.734 Items coded on a 5-point scale from No In fluence (1) to Very Strong Influence (5) SD = Standard Deviation, NA = Not Applicable

PAGE 74

74Table 4-9. One-way analysis of vari ance for relationships between motivati on dimensions and volunteer segment Volunteer Segment Political Environmental Recreational Cultural Human Services Educational Motivation Dimensions Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD F Sig. Enhancement 4.42 (4) 1.55 4.59 (9)1.01 4.26 (13) 1.82 4.63 (34) 1.15 4.78 (86) 1.30 4.74 (61) 1.220.4760.826 Social 3.71 (4) 1.09 4.28 (9)1.13 3.72 (13) 1.84 4.47 (34) 0.97 4.01 (86) 1.24 3.99 (61) 1.161.0310.406 Protective 3.67 (4) 1.94 4.13 (9)1.41 3.44 (13) 1.96 3.82 (34) 1.07 4.16 (86) 1.22 4.01 (61) 1.160.9070.491 Values and Understanding 4.75 (4) 1.45 5.29 (9)0.73 5.57 (13) 0.70 5.22 (34) 0.80 5.54 (86) 0.83 5.49 (61) 0.951.1370.342 Career 5.21 (4) 1.43 4.87 (9)0.75 4.73 (13) 1.45 4.27 (34) 1.22 4.67 (86) 1.21 4.96 (61) 1.151.6120.145 SD=Standard Deviation, Sig.=Significance

PAGE 75

75 Table 4-10. Independent sample t -test for relationships betwee n motivation and environmental volunteers Volunteered for Environmental Organization Yes No Motivation Dimensions Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD t Significance Enhancement 4.63 (54) 1.42 4.73 (156) 1.22 -0.503 0.615 Social 4.25 (54) 1.23 4.01 (156) 1.21 1.295 0.197 Protective 4.19 (54) 1.29 3.95 (156) 1.24 1.193 0.234 Values and Understanding 5.60 (54) 0.86 5.40 (156) 0.86 1.449 0.149 Career 4.65 (54) 1.30 4.75 (156) 1.18 -0.518 0.605 *Significant at the 0.05 level SD=Standard Deviation Table 4-11. Independent sample t -test for relationships between motivation and gender Gender Male Female Motivation Dimensions Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD t Significance Enhancement 4.58 (77) 1.37 4.78 (133) 1.21 -1.082 0.281 Social 4.20 (77) 1.17 4.00 (133) 1.24 1.163 0.246 Protective 3.87 (77) 1.35 4.10 (133) 1.19 -1.288 0.199 Values and Understanding 5.28 (77) 0.94 5.55 (133)* 0.81 -2.242 0.026 Career 4.52 (77) 1.39 4.84 (133) 1.08 -1.854 0.065 *Significant at the 0.05 level SD=Standard Deviation

PAGE 76

76Table 4-12. One-way analysis of variance for re lationships between motivation and race/ethnicity Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African American/Black Asian Multiracial/Mixed Race Motivation Dimensions Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD F Sig. Enhancement 4.64 (157) 1.21 5.11 (25) 0.83 4.53 (12) 1.96 5.26 (9) 1.31 4.00 (5) 2.45 1.6140.172 Social 4.01 (157) 1.20 4.25 (25) 0.98 3.89 (12) 1.43 5.02 (9) 1.40 3.77 (5) 1.74 1.7550.139 Protective 3.91 (157) 1.20 4.36 (25) 0.87 3.97 (12) 1.81 4.91 (9) 1.16 3.67 (5) 2.42 1.9950.097 Values and Understanding 5.40 (157) 0.81 5.70 (25) 0.70 5.48 (12) 1.37 5.65 (9) 1.09 5.42 (5) 1.50 0.7710.545 Career 4.63 (157) 1.18 5.07 (25) 1.00 4.79 (12) 1.53 5.44 (9) 0.96 4.67 (5) 2.27 1.5840.180 SD=Standard Deviation, Sig.=Significance Table 4-13. One-way analysis of variance for relationships between motivation and class standing Class Standing Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Motivation Dimensions Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD F Significance Enhancement 4.83 (10) 1.34 4.15 (20) 1.03 4.56 (55) 1.42 4.85 (125) 1.21 2.071 0.105 Social 4.53 (10) 1.49 4.03 (20) 0.86 3.98 (55) 1.34 4.08 (125) 1.19 0.603 0.614 Protective 4.37 (10) 1.44 3.78 (20) 0.91 3.79 (55) 1.46 4.12 (125) 1.17 1.439 0.232 Values and Understanding 5.29 (10) 0.93 5.27 (20) 0.88 5.32 (55) 0.99 5.55 (125) 0.79 1.460 0.226 Career 5.18 (10) 0.91 4.76 (20) 1.10 4.65 (55) 1.32 4.72 (125) 1.21 0.563 0.640 SD=Standard Deviation

PAGE 77

77Table 4-14. One-way analysis of variance for relati onships between motivation and type of hometown Type of Hometown Farm/Ranch/Rural Small Town La rge Town Small City Large City Metropolitan Area Motivation Dimensions Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD F Sig. Enhancement 5.33 (1) 4.81 (18) 1.14 4.40 (42) 1.35 4.62 (51) 1.33 4.81 (57) 1.16 4.92 (41) 1.31 0.9170.471 Social 4.67 (1) 4.50 (18) 0.90 3.76 (42) 1.19 4.09 (51) 1.26 3.91 (57) 1.15 4.37 (41) 1.32 1.7920.116 Protective 4.50 (1) 4.31 (18) 1.17 3.59 (42) 1.15 3.93 (51) 1.35 4.08 (57) 1.27 4.32 (41) 1.16 1.7980.115 Values and Understanding 4.55 (1) 5.68 (18) 0.49 5.47 (42) 0.62 5.38 (51) 1.19 5.35 (57) 0.71 5.59 (41) 0.91 0.9210.468 Career 3.67 (1) 5.00 (18) 0.74 4.71 (42) 1.08 4.63 (51) 1.23 4.67 (57) 1.26 4.84 (41) 1.41 0.4840.788 SD=Standard Deviation, Sig.=Significance Table 4-15. Independent sample t -test for relationships between constraints and gender Gender Male Female Constraints Dimensions Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD t Significance Intrapersonal 1.94 (100) 0.67 1.82 (164) 0.69 2.034 0.155 Interpersonal 2.18 (100) 0.78 1.85 (164) 0.80 10.774 0.001* Structural 2.59 (100) 0.69 2.52 (164) 0.78 0.654 0.419 SD=Standard Deviation, *Significant at the 0.001 level

PAGE 78

78Table 4-16. One-way analysis of variance for rela tionships between constraints and race/ethnicity Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African American/Black Asian Multiracial/Mixed Race Constraints Dimensions Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD F Sig. Intrapersonal 1.88 (196) 0.66 1.91 (30) 0.82 1.78 (18) 0.84 1.64 (10) 0.51 1.77 (7) 0.70 0.6640.651 Interpersonal 2.03 (196) 0.80 2.02 (30) 0.86 1.60 (18) 0.77 1.44 (10) 0.50 1.74 (7) 0.79 2.2580.049* Structural 2.58 (196) 0.71 2.54 (30) 0.81 2.42 (18) 1.11 2.10 (10) 0.62 2.43 (7) 0.80 0.9500.449 SD=Standard Deviation, Sig.=Significance Significant at the 0.05 level Table 4-17. One-way analysis of variance for relationships between constraints and class standing Class Standing Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Constraints Dimensions Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD F Significance Intrapersonal 2.02 (11) 0.75 1.98 (24) 0.64 1.89 (69) 0.70 1.83 (160) 0.68 0.605 0.612 Interpersonal 2.36 (11) 0.92 2.23 (24) 0.79 1.99 (69) 0.82 1.91 (160) 0.79 2.029 0.110 Structural 2.35 (11) 0.62 2.77 (24) 0.70 2.54 (69) 0.83 2.53 (160) 0.72 0.994 0.396 SD=Standard Deviation

PAGE 79

79Table 4-18. One-way analysis of variance for relati onships between constraint s and type of hometown Type of Hometown Farm/Ranch/Rural Small Town La rge Town Small City Large City Metropolitan Area Constraints Dimensions Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD Mean (n) SD F Sig. Intrapersonal 2.53 (3) 0.90 1.76 (22) 0.61 1.90 (53) 0.61 1.85 (65) 0.75 1.83 (71) 0.59 1.90 (50) 0.810.7600.579 Interpersonal 1.73 (3) 0.95 1.68 (22) 0.64 2.08 (53) 0.78 1.92 (65) 0.81 2.04 (71) 0.82 2.00 (50) 0.860.9640.440 Structural 3.13 (3) 0.42 2.57 (22) 0.83 2.61 (53) 0.61 2.50 (65) 0.77 2.61 (71) 0.70 2.39 (50) 0.881.0580.384 SD=Standard Deviation, Sig.=Significance

PAGE 80

80 Table 4-19. Correlations between volunteer motivations and volunteer constraints Motivation Dimensions Enhancement Social Protective Values and Understanding Career Constraints Dimensions r N r N r N r N r N Intrapersonal 0.14* 210 0.18**2100.16* 210-0.12 210 0.05 210 Interpersonal 0.05 210 0.08 2100.05 210-0.22** 210 -0.06 210 Structural -0.06 210 0.00 210-0.07 210-0.15* 210 -0.04 210 ** Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 81

81 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The objectiv e of this research was to fu rther examine motives and constraints to volunteerism among college students. Undergraduate students were selected as subjects for this study because of their tendency to volunteer and for their viability as a valuable source of volunteer service. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the motivational factors of undergraduate students to volunteer in various capacities. More specif ically, it examined who was volunteering, their frequency of participation in volunteer programs, types of volunteer organizations, and why time was used to pursue th ese activities. In addi tion, this study explored factors that may act as constrai nts to participation in volunteerism. The results and conclusions of the study are presented in five sections of this chapter: 1. Summary of Procedures 2. Discussion of Relevant Findings 3. Limitations 4. Conclusions and Implications 5. Recommendations for Future Research Summary of Procedures Selection of subjects Subjects in this study were selected from th ree Introduction to Recrea tion classes at the University of Florida. The classes that were u tilized in this study were online-based courses in which students were required to complete a certain number of surveys or questionnaires throughout the course of the semester. Responses were received from 270 of the 305 students enrolled in the class, yiel ding a response rate of 88.5%. The majority of the respondents were female, Ca ucasian, and were enrolled in their Senior year. Most of the respondents reported that th ey were either currently involved in volunteer activities or had been involved in the past twelve months. Th ese findings are similar to those found in other studies (Astin & Sax, 1998, Carl o et al., 2005, Cress & Sax, 1998, Serow, 1991).

PAGE 82

82 Furthermore, family was responsible for in troducing over 40% of respondents to volunteerism and nearly three fourths of respondent s had volunteered in natural areas. Instrumentation An electronic version of a five page survey was developed with the assistance of a technology professional at the univer sity. The tool cons isted of four major sections. The first section addressed volunteer pa rticipation and included the sc ope of volunteerism, types of volunteer activities the students are involved in, and ways the student contributes to the organizations with which they are associat ed. The second section addressed volunteer motivations using 32 motivational factor items rated on a Likert-type scale from Not at all Important (1) to Extremely Important (7). In addition, an open-ended question was used to uncover any other motivational factors not listed. The third section addr essed constraints to participation in volunteer activitie s. It asked participants to rate 15 potential constraints to volunteerism on a Likert-type scale from No Influe nce (1) to Very Strong Influence (5). An open-ended question was used to uncover any othe r constraints not listed Finally, the fourth section inquired about select socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, year of schooling, academ ic major, and city of residence. Operationalization of Variables Volunteerism In this study, volunteerism was operationalized using thr ee m easures: the Scope of Volunteerism, Volunteer Segment, and Type of Contributions. The Scope of Volunteerism addressed the extent to which the individu al had volunteered in the past based on three measures of voluntee rism (Wilson & Musick, 1999). Volunteer Range was based on the number of organizations that the individual had voluntee red for in the past. Volunteering Amount was the total number of hours that the volunt eer contributed each year.

PAGE 83

83 Finally, Volunteering Length was the number of years that the indivi dual had been providing volunteer service (Wilson & Musick, 1999). Volunteer Segment identified six categories of volunteer service; Political, Environmental, Recreational, Cultural, Human Services, and E ducational. Examples of each of these six categories were provided on the survey. Type of Contributions addresse d the level of support by measuring five items. These items were Time (e.g. attend meetings, sit on a comm ittee, fundraising drives, etc.), Money (e.g. donations, annual dues, etc.), Leader ship (e.g. hold office, chair a co mmittee, act as a team leader on a project, etc.), Resources (e.g. allow the use of tools, vehicles, proper ty, etc.), and Skills (e.g. physical labor, expertise/specialized knowledge, etc.). Motivation Motivation was operationalized using 30 item s from the Volunteer Function Inventory (VFI) developed by Clary et al. (1996), with th e addition of two new items: I feel volunteering is a religious duty and Volunteer ing is a way for me to help th e natural environment. Using factor analysis, these items were reduced to five Volunteer Motivation dime nsions. This differs from the original study where the authors found si x Volunteer Functions, but is acceptable as it was pointed out that more or fe wer dimensions are likely to be found when the VFI is used on unique populations (Clary et al., 199 8). Prior to this study, the tool had not been used to measure volunteer motivation on a sample of undergradu ate college students who were active in volunteerism. Each function was checked for in ternal consistency based on Cronbachs alpha. The Values and Understanding function (al pha=0.92) was comprised of 11 items that related to helping others and expanding ones own perspective on an issue. The Protective function (alpha=0.89) was comprised of six items th at dealt with using vol unteerism as a way to escape from ones own troubles. The Social f unction (alpha=0.87) was co mprised of six items

PAGE 84

84 involving social interactions and doing something that is seen as important to the people the volunteer is closest to. The Career function (alpha=0.87) was compri sed of six items that related to developing skills or networking for the pur pose of furthering ones career. Finally, the Enhancement function (alpha=0.82) was comprised of three items that deal with personal growth and development. Dimension scores were esta blished by computing the mean of the items in each dimension. Constraints The Constraints variable was operationalized using 15 item s from three dimensions: Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and Structural. Each dimens ion was checked for internal consistency using Cronbachs alpha. Intrapersonal Constraints (alpha=0.73) was comprised of five items that represent potential barriers involving only the indivi dual in question. Interpersonal Constraints (alpha=0.84) was comprised of five items dealing with the perception of constraint s to other individuals. Finally, Structural Constraints (alpha=0.67) was comprised of five items that reflected external barriers to participation. Dimension Scores were establis hed by computing the mean of the items in each dimension. Discussion of Relevant Findings The results of the research are summarized a nd the relationships between the independent and dependent variables are discussed in this section. Research Question 1: What moti v ates college students to volunteer? The Values and Understanding dimension sc ored the highest among respondents with a mean of 5.45 and the Career dimension had th e second highest score with a mean of 4.72, followed by the Enhancement dimension with a mean of 4.70. Since the Values and Understanding dimension involved helping others and giving back to soci ety, this supports the

PAGE 85

85 findings of Astin and Sax (1998) that student s were strongly committed to helping others, serving in their communities, promoting raci al understanding, doing volunteer work, and working for nonprofit organizations. (Astin & Sax, 1998). Clary and Snyder (1999) also found that the Values and Understanding and Enha ncement dimensions were the highest among respondents, though in their study, Values and Understanding repres ented two separate dimensions. Conversely, the study found that the Career dimension did not rank highly among volunteers as it did in this study. According to Clary et al. (1998), people can be recruited into volunt eer work by appealing to their own psychological functions or motives. Since Values and Understanding rated the highest among respondents, this statement is supported by the fact that Human Services organizations were the most popular. The motives represented by the items in the Values and Understanding dimension can all be satisfied by volunteering for Human Services organizations, whos main goals are helping other peopl e and giving back to the community. The strength of the items in the Career dimens ion is unique to this sample. This finding suggests that college students are more interest ed in furthering their career paths through volunteerism than the general population. This could be due in part to the fact that most college students are not currently employed full time, while the majority of non-stude nt volunteers are. Non-students may have less of a need to volunteer in order to enhance their rsums, build social networks, or explore new careers. Research Question 2: What is the relations hip betw een motivation and volunteer segment? No significant relationships were found between motivation dimensions and volunteer segments. In general, volunteers in every segmen t were able to satisfy their motives to the same extent. When analyzed separately, no significant was relationship was found between motivations in those who volunteered in Enviro nmental organizations and those who did not.

PAGE 86

86 These findings could be due to the fact that al l of the respondents had a similar demographic background and motivations. Differences may have been found in a more diverse sample or in a sample with a more equal distri bution of volunteer segments. In this study, most of the respondents vol unteered for Human Serv ices and Education organizations and relatively few volunteered for Po litical or Environmenta l organizations. This finding was unexpected due to the fact that th e study was conducted during an election year in which students were said to be particularly active. Respondents reported stronger motivations in the Values and Understanding function, which are satisfied by volunteering for Human Se rvices organizations. The motivations of volunteers in each of these segments may differ significantly in other samples. Finally, it is likely that Values and Understanding motives co uld be satisfied by volunt eering in any segment. Research Question 3: What is the relations hip betw een volunteer motivations and select socio-demographic characteristics? The variables chosen for analysis were gende r, race/ethnicity, class standing, and type of hometown. One significant difference was found between males and females with respect to motivation. Females were more likely than males to indicate Values and Understanding as a motive to volunteer. Liao-Troth & Dunn (1999) found that there was no si gnificant difference in volunteerism between genders, but the sample fo r that study was not co mprised entirely of college students. The results of this analysis su pport Astin and Sax (1998) who found that among college students, there was a significant relationship between gender and volunteerism. Specifically, Astin and Sax (1998) also found that female college students were more highly motivated to volunteer than males. Additionall y, Wilson and Musick (1999) found that females seem to benefit more from volunteer experiences than men. The findings that women are more likely to volunteer and receive more benefits from volunteering than men are supported by the

PAGE 87

87 results of this analysis that show that women have stronger motiv ations to volunteer, especially within the Values and Understanding dimension. No significant differences were found betw een race/ethnicity groups with respect to motivation for this sample. This finding differs from the literature which stated that white individuals are likely to volunt eer more frequently than African-Americans (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007), though when soci o-economic status is controlled for, AfricanAmericans tended to participate in volunteer activities more than ot her races (Burns et al., 2005). This may be due to the fact that all res pondents in this study had a similar demographic background. Over 86% of respondents in this sa mple were white/Caucasi an or Hispanic/Latino and all of them had some college education. Respondents from the other studies represented the general public, not college students specifically. No significant differences were found between class standings with respect to motivation for this sample, though the Freshmen category had a slightly higher mean value for each motivation dimension than the other categories. This may be due to the fact that 70.0% of respondents in this sample were re quired to volunteer in high school in order to graduate. This finding may be unique to this sample as it has be en stated that a very small percentage of Americans between the ages of 16 and 18 are volunteering (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Most high school students in the state of Florida are required to participate in Service Learning or other compulsory voluntee r programs and nearly 82% of this sample reported Florida as their state of residence. Re spondents were asked to report volunteer activity during the previous 12 months, wh ich would include volunteer serv ice as a high school student for the Freshmen category. These results also sup port the statement that volunteer activities tend to decline between high school and college (Bringle & Hatche r, 1996). Many college students

PAGE 88

88 indicate a strong desire to vol unteer, but report a lack of tim e for volunteer activities. High school students may have fewer time constraints th an college students who often have to balance a full class schedule with work, socialization, ne tworking, and a host of ot her activities. In addition, many college students live away from home for the first time and must learn to cope with the added responsibilities of meeting daily needs (e.g. food, sleep, exercise, etc.). Research Question 4: What constrains volun teerism among college students? Total Constraint scores and di mension scores were computed for respondents to determine which constraints were strongest for this sample Constraints Scores ranged from 1.00 to 3.67 with a mean of 2.13 for the entire sample. Stru ctural constraints were the strongest for this sample with a mean of 2.58 and Intrapersonal co nstraints were the weakest with a mean of 1.66. This finding supports the Hierarch ical Model of Constraints propos ed by Crawford et al. (1991) which states that Intrapersonal Constraints are the first to be encountered and the easiest to overcome while Structural Constraints are the most difficult to negotiate. It was reported that the most common objection that college students have to volunteering is that it consumes time and energy that might otherwise be devoted to acad emic pursuits (Astin & Sax, 1998). Since these items represent Structural Constr aints, the results of this an alysis support this statement. Research Question 5: What is the relations hip betw een volunteer constraints and select socio-demographic characteristics? The variables chosen for analysis were gende r, race/ethnicity, class standing, and type of hometown. Significant differences between males and females were found for the Interpersonal Constraints dimension and in the total Constraints score. Males reported stronger constraints in both cases. This supports the finding that female s in this sample volunteered more frequently than males. It was found that as Interpersona l constraints increased, Values and Understanding

PAGE 89

89 motivations decreased. With weaker motivatio ns, the constraints were more difficult to negotiate, thereby leading to lo wer levels of participation. Significant differences were f ound between race/ethnicity and Interpersonal constraints. Respondents who reported that they were White/C aucasian or Hispanic/Latino were more likely to report Interpersonal constrai nts than were African American /Black or Asian respondents. Research Question 6: Is there a relationship between volunteer motivations and constraints? The Intrapersonal constraints dim ension was pos itively correlated w ith the Social (r=0.18), Protective (r=0.16), and Enhancem ent (r=0.14) motivation dimensions. Furthermore, the Values and Understanding motivation dimension was nega tively correlated with both the Interpersonal (r=-0.22) and Structural (r=-0.15) constraints dimensions. No correlations were found between the Career motivation dimension and any constraints dimension. These correlations indicate significant linear relationships between the variables. The findings show that as Interpersonal and St ructural constraints increased Values and Understanding motivations decreased. Additiona lly, as Intrapersonal constraints increased, Social, Protective, and Enhancement motivations also increased. Limitations The findings are not generalizable to the gene ral population of college students because the sam ple was drawn from three sections of the sa me course and from stude nts at one university. Additionally, the study relied on se lf-reported measures of motiva tion and volunteer behavior. Self-reported measures are subject to degrees of bias, and it can be difficult to identify the magnitude of the error. Furthermore, the majority of this sample originated in the state of Florida, where compulsory volunteerism is a standard in most high schools. This could have a

PAGE 90

90 significant impact on volunteerism in college and further limits the generalizability of these results. Conclusions and Implications This study found five motivational functions and three constraint dim ensions with respect to volunteerism among college students. Furtherm ore, several significan t relationships were found between motivation, constraints, and various demographic characteristics. Correlations were found between the Values and Understanding function and Structural and Interpersonal constraints, a nd between Intrapersonal constrai nts and the Social, Protective, and Enhancement functions. These relationships indicated that social interaction is important for this sample. In the first relationship, as the respondent perceives higher levels of constraints for friends and family (Interpersonal constr aints), they are less motivated to help other people and serve the community (Values and Understandi ng function). This is interesting because the Values and Understanding function was the stro ngest motivation function for this sample. This finding may be an indication that the items represented by the Values and Understanding function (altruistic in nature) are not as important to the individual as re ported. Rather, they ar e perceived as being important to those around the individual and by vo lunteering, the individual is able to improve the way others perceive them. This supports the Altruistic Deception Construct presented by Francies (1983), whereby people tend to socially portray their volunteer work as being altruistic, regardless of any other actual reason for engaging in the activity. Additionally, as the respondent pe rceives more Structural cons traints (lack of time, money, transportation, etc.), they are less motivated by Values and Unde rstanding items. This supports Martinez and McMullin (2004), which found that efficacy (Values and Understanding items) had the greatest effect on the deci sion to be active in a volunteer organization and that competing

PAGE 91

91 commitments (Structural constraint) had the most influence on the decision not to participate. This could be attributed to a desire to fulfill ones own needs before serving others. If an individual perceives that spending time, money, or resources volunteering will have a negative impact on the individual or the i ndividuals friends and family, they will be less motivated to use those resources in serving others. It is difficult to convince a pe rson to suppress their desire to advantage themselves and their own families in favor of advantaging the group (Fennell, 2008). The literature has stated that although altruism may lead a pers on to volunteer initially, selfinterested motivations are more important for continued participations (Ryan et al., 2001). Values and Understanding motives may not be strong enough on their own to overcome certain Structural constraints. Furthermore, as Intrapersonal constraints (personal barriers between preference and participation) increase, Social motivations (motiv ation to do work that is viewed as important by the people who matter to the volun teer) also increase. The find ing shows that students who perceive a high level of Intrapersonal constr aints may rely on the s upport of the people around them in order to volunteer. As shown in the prev ious relationship, if that support is not available (Interpersonal constraints), the individual may not be able to successfully negotiate the constraints hierarchy and part icipate in volunteerism. Wic kham and Graefe (1998) also found that in addition to altrui stic and egoistic motives, some voluntee rs desire a social setting in which to interact with other people. It seems likely that this social interacti on may be more important to some student volunteers than other motives. It has been stated that people may initially take part in volunteer programs for altr uistic reasons, but they are more likely to stay active if they perceive other benefits (such as social benefits) as well (Ryan et al., 2001).

PAGE 92

92 Volunteer managers should be aware of these relationships and market volunteer activities to address them. Programs should highlight the importance of the program and offer awards or recognition to volunteers. Public recogniti on serves the need for peer support, acknowledgement, and other social benefits while appealing to the volunteers desire to satisfy Values and Understanding motives as well. This can create more incentive to overcome Interpersonal and Structural ba rriers. Social relationships, learning, and project organization have all been shown to be significant predictors of continued participation (Ryan et al., 2001), suggesting that organizations need to have a dynamic program that meets the changing motivations of volunteers as time progresses. It has been shown that an indi viduals motivation to volunteer is a better predictor of future behaviors than current volunteer activities since the extent of ones current behaviors is often influenced by the amount of time an individua l has for volunteering (Burns et al., 2005). Volunteer managers should provide programs that make the most use of a volunteers time. Programs should focus not only on benefiting th e organization, but on reducing Structural constraints for the volunteers. Respondents in this study indicated that lack of time was a major constraint to volunteerism. They would rather spend thei r time studying, socializing, or advancing their career goals. Volunteer managers could de sign programs that incorporate relevant learning, socialization, or networking into the program, thereby reducing a major Structural constraint and satisfying additi onal motivation goals. Additionally, females reported stronger motivations, weaker constraint s, and higher levels of involvement in volunteer ac tivities than males for this sample. Males reported higher Interpersonal constraints and total constraints than females. To appeal to more males, volunteer managers must understand the soci al nature of these constraints and should develop programs

PAGE 93

93 that help to enhance the voluntee rs perception of how other peopl e view them. It is unclear whether egoistic motives are more prevalent in males or if males are just more comfortable reporting them, but in either case, a volunteer progr am must provide more benefits than simply helping out a cause. Recommendations for Future Research Due to the exploratory nature of this st udy, further research on the m otivations and constraints to volunteerism among undergraduate co llege students is needed among other student populations to verify these results. Past resear ch has focused on motivations and constraints to various leisure activities, but li ttle has been written about th ese constructs in regards to volunteerism. Volunteerism is a un ique leisure-time activity in that it is often not undertaken solely for pleasure or relaxation. Volunteers participate in various programs to give back to their communities, help a cause, or build social networks. The term volunteerism as defined in th is study may not accur ately depict true volunteerism. Specifically, compulsory volunteeri sm programs fit into the current definition (provision of service with no monetary compensa tion) though they are un dertaken by obligation, not free will. Also, contributi ng financial support to an organi zation is considered to be volunteerism, even if no other contribution is given (e.g. time, labor, expertise, etc.) Furthermore, programs which offer participants small amounts of monetary compensation (e.g. stipends, living expenses, etc.) ar e not included in the present defi nition, but are often undertaken voluntarily, though the money is rarely a strong motivating factor. Rather, other motivations (e.g. meet new people, further career goals, deve lop understanding, etc.) are the primary goals of participants. Research should be conducted to appropriately define volunteerism and should consider in-kind vs. in-cash rewards, obligation vs. free will, and provision of financial support vs. other contributions.

PAGE 94

94 Additional research should compare the motiv ations and constraint s of current student volunteers to those who have volunteered in th e past, but are no longer active. In addition, comparisons should be made between the motivati ons and constraints of student volunteers and non-students in the same age range Comparisons could also be made between the motivations and constraints of participants in Service Learning or other compulsory volunteer programs and volunteers who were introduced to service by other means. Females consistently report stronger motivations to volunteer and more frequent participation in volunteer programs than males. Future research should explore this phenomenon to determine why women are more li kely to volunteer than men. It has been stated that the Structural constraint dimension may be more complex than originally thought and that this dimension should be reexamined and possibly expanded to two or more separate dimensions (Thapa et al., 2002, Nyaupane et al., 2004). Thapa et al. (2002) suggested Personal Structural constraints a nd Environmental Struct ural constraints. Volunteerism research may benef it from this line of analysis. Research should also be conducte d to identify the functions served by different volunteer organization types. If different volunteer segments satisfy differe nt motivations in participants, volunteers could be matched up with organizations that would fulfill their personal needs, while still accomplishing the goal s of the organization. Furthermore, it is clear that both motivations and constraints play a role in determining whether or not an individual will volunteer High levels of motivations do not ensure participation, and high levels of constraints do not necessarily prevent it. Further research is needed to understand that interplay of motivations and constraints in the decision to volunteer. The constraints construct should be introduced into the balance m odel of motivation and

PAGE 95

95 satisfaction (Clary & Snyder, 1999). Satisfact ion should be compared between volunteers and participants in other re creational activities. The social nature of the relationships between motivations and constraints is a new finding and shows that college students are unique demo graphic with respect to volunteerism. These relationships should be further explored to gain a better understanding of the factors that motivate and constrain volunteeri sm among college students. Va lues and Understanding are consistently reported as being the most importa nt volunteer motivations, but analysis has shown that the altruistic nature of these motivations may be masking other underlying motives. Further research should focus on how peer perception and other social influe nces affect volunteer motivation. It should consider the Altruistic Deception Constr uct and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Overall, the Volunteer Functi on Inventory and Three-Dimensional Constraints model have proven to be useful tools in the examination of the motivations and constraints to volunteerism among undergraduate college students. Additiona l research in further understanding these constructs is recommended.

PAGE 96

96 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT VOLUNTEER MOTIVATION AND CONSTRAINTS SURVEY (2009) Survey #: ______ Date: _______ A contribution of service, time, money, or resour ces without the expectation of monetary reward. The contributions can be made through an organization or independent of one. SECTIONI: VOLUNTEER BACKGROUNDPlease answer the following questions: 1. Have you volunteered in the past 12 months? Yes No ( If No ) Please skip ahead to Section III. 2. How many volunteer organizations or programs have you been involved with in the past 12 months? _____________ 3. On how many separate occasions did you volunt eer in the past 12 m onths? _______ ______________ 4. Have you spent time volunteering independently, outside of an organized group or program (e.g. assist a blind woman with her shopping, visit a retirement home, etc.)? Yes No 5. How many hours do you spend volunteering per week? _______ Per month? _______ Per year? ______ 6. Since you started volunteering, during how many years did you volunteer at least once? _____ ______________ 7. What year did you first start volunteering? _______ 8a. Which of the following organizations a nd programs have you volunteered for? ( Select all that apply ) Political (Political campaigns, etc.) Environmental (Sierra Club, Friends of Florida State Parks, etc.) Recreational (Scouting groups, hiking clubs, boating clubs, book clubs, etc.) Other: _________________________________ Cultural (Church groups, womens groups, etc.) Human Services (Habitat for Humanity, Red Cross, volunteer fire department, hospitals, etc.) Educational (Literacy programs, tutoring, teachers aid programs, etc.) 8b. Of all of these, which is the most important to you?

PAGE 97

97 9a. In what ways do you contribute to these organizations? ( Select all that apply ) Time (Attend meetings, sit on a committee, fundraising drives, etc.) Money (Donations, annual dues, etc.) Leadership (Hold office, Chair a committee, act as a team leader on a project, etc.) Resources (Allow the use of your tools, vehicles, property, etc.) Skills (Physical labor, expertise, etc.) Other: _________________________________________ ____ 9b. Of all of these, what would you consider your most significant contribution? 10. Did you volunteer in High School? Yes No 11a. Did you participate in service hours, service learning, or any other compulsory volunteer program as a requirement for a class or graduation during high school? Yes No ( If No ) Skip 11b. 11b. Did you volunteer beyond what was expected and required for the class or to graduate? Yes No 12. Who introduced you to your first volunteering experience? ( Check one only ) Family member Friend Other: ______________________ Teacher Religious Leader Scouting or other Organization Leader 13. Have you ever participated in volunteer progr ams in natural areas (litter pick-up on a beach, clear trails in a park, etc.)? Yes No SECTIONII: VOLUNTEER MOTIVATION 1 There are many reasons why people volunteer. Please indicate the importance of each of these factors in explaining why you choose to volunteer. (Circle one number for each item) Motivational Factors Not at all Important Very Unimportant Somewhat Unimportant Neutral Somewhat Important Very Important Extremely Important Volunteering can help me get my foot in the door at a place where I would like to work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My friends volunteer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 98

98 I am concerned with those less fortunate than myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 People Im close to want me to volunteer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering makes me feel important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 People I know share an interest in community service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No matter how bad Ive been feeling, volunteering helps me to forget about it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am genuinely concerned about the particular group I am serving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 By volunteering I feel less lonely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can make new contacts that might help my business or career 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doing volunteer work relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can learn more about the cause for which I am working 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering increases my selfesteem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering allows me to gain a new perspective on things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering allows me to explore different career options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel compassion towards people in need 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Others with whom I am close place a high value on community service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering lets me learn things through direct, hands on experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel it is important to help others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering helps me work through my own personal problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 99

99 Volunteering will help me to succeed in my chosen profession 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can do something for a cause that is important to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering is an important activity to the people I know best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering is a good escape from my own troubles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can learn how to deal with a variety of people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering makes me feel needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering makes me feel better about myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering experiences will look good on my rsum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering is a way to make new friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel volunteering is a religious duty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volunteering is a way for me to help the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can explore my own strengths 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 Please list any other factors that may contribute to your volunteerism. SECTION III: VOLUNTEER CONSTRAINTS 1. There are many reasons why people do not volunteer at all, or more often than they do. Please indicate how much influence each constraint below has on your decision to not volunteer. (Circle one number for each item) Constraints No Influe nce Weak Influe nce Moderat e Influenc e Strong Influenc e Very Strong Influen ce I do not know anyone that volunteers 1 2 3 4 5 I have a limited budget 1 2 3 4 5 I am unaware of opportunities to volunteer 1 2 3 4 5 I do not have enough energy to volunteer 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 100

100 I have an injury, handicap, or ill health 1 2 3 4 5 I have too many other commitments 1 2 3 4 5 I think it will negatively affect my grades 1 2 3 4 5 No one has asked me to volunteer 1 2 3 4 5 I have no time to volunteer 1 2 3 4 5 My friends do not volunteer 1 2 3 4 5 I do not feel safe at volunteer sites 1 2 3 4 5 My family does not volunteer 1 2 3 4 5 I do not have the necessary skills 1 2 3 4 5 I do not have transportation to volunteer sites 1 2 3 4 5 I have no one to volunteer with 1 2 3 4 5 2 Please list any other factors that may prevent you from volunteering or from volunteering more often. SECTION IV: DEMOGRAPHICS 1 Are you? Male Female 2 What is your age? 3 Do you consider yourself to be? Caucasian or White Hispanic/Latino Pacific Islander Other (please specify) ________________________________ African American or Black Asian Native American or American Indian Multi-racial or Mixed race 4 What is your current class standing? ( Check one only ) Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 5 What is your academic major? In which Department?_________ 6. What is your city of residence? _______________________ State? _______ Country? ______________ ________ 7 How big is the town you grew up in? ( Check one only ) Farm, ranch, or rural Large town (10,000-49,999 people) Large city (100,000-249,999 people) Small town (fewer than 10,000 people) Small city (50,000-99,999 people) Metropolitan area (250,000+ people) That completes our survey. Thank you very much for your assistance. For More Information, Please Contact: Richard L. Gage III, University of Florida De partment of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management Phone: (607)591-5996 or rlgiii@ufl.edu

PAGE 101

101 APPENDIX B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

PAGE 102

102 LIST OF REFERENCES Anderson, J.C. & Moore, L.F. ( 1978) The m otivation to volunteer, Journal of Voluntary Action Research 7(3-4), pp. 120-125. Astin, A.W. & Sax, L.J. (1998) How undergraduat es are affected by se rvice participation, Journal of College Student Development 39(3), pp. 251-263. Babchuk, N. & Booth, A. (1969) Voluntary associ ation membership: A longitudinal analysis, American Sociological Review 34, pp. 31-45. Boraas, S. (2003) Volunteer ing in the United States, Monthly Labor Review 126(8), pp. 3-11. Bringle, R.G. & Hatcher, J.A. (1996) Impl ementing service learni ng in higher education, Journal of Higher Education 67(2). Bruyere, B. & Rappe, S. (2007) Identifying the motivations of environmental volunteers, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), pp. 503-516. Burns, D.J., Toncar, M., Reid, J., Anderson, C ., Wells, C., Fawcett, J., & Gruben, K. (2005) Volunteering: A comparison of the motivations of collegiate student s attending different types of institutions, The International Journal of Volunteer Administration 23(4), pp. 3140. Campbell, L.M. & Smith, C. (2006) What makes th em pay? Values of volunteer tourists working for sea turtle conservation, Environmental Management 38(1), pp. 84-98. Carlo, G., Okun, M.A., Knight, G.P., & de Guzman, M.T. (2005) The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: Agreeableness, extr aversion and prosocial value motivation, Personality and Individual Differences 38, pp. 1293-1305. Clary, E.G. & Snyder, M. (1999) The motivatio ns to volunteer: Theo retical and practical considerations, Current Directions in Psychological Science 8(5), pp. 156-159. Clary, E.G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R.D., Copeland, J ., Stukas, A.A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998) Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6), pp. 1516-1530. Clary, E.G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A.A. ( 1996) Volunteers Motivations: Findings from a national survey, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 25(4), pp. 485-505. Cleave, S. & Doherty, A. (2005) Understandi ng volunteer and non-volunt eer constraints: A mixed-method approach, presented at the 11th Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Nanaimo, BC, May 17-20, 2005. Crawford, D., & Godbey, G. (1987) Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure, Leisure Sciences 9, pp. 119-127.

PAGE 103

103 Crawford, D.W., Jackson, E.L., & Godbey, G. (1991) A hierarchical model of leisure constraints, Leisure Sciences 13, pp. 309-320. Cress, C.M. & Sax, L.J. (1998) Campus climate issues to consider for the next decade, New Directions for Institutional Research, 98, pp. 65-80. Dutta-Bergman, M.J. (2004) Describing volunteeri sm: The theory of unified responsibility, Journal of Public Relations Research 16(4). Pp. 353-369. Ellis, S.J. (1978) American traditions of vol unteerism and service-learning: The twentieth century, Synergist pp. 37-39. Faich, R.G. & Gale, R.P. (1971) The Environmen tal Movement: From recreation to politics, Pacific Sociological Review 14(3), pp. 271-287. Farmer, S.M. & Fedor, D.B. (1999) Volunteer participation and wit hdrawal: A psychological contract perspective on the role of ex pectations and organizational support, Nonprofit Management & Leadership 9(4), pp. 349-367. Fennell, D.A. (2008) Ecotourism and th e myth of indigenous stewardship, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(2), pp. 1-21. Fischer, L.R., Mueller, D.P., & Cooper, P.W. (1991) Older volunteers : A discussion of the Minnesota senior study, The Gerontologist 31(2), pp. 183-193. Francies, G.R. (1983) The volunteer needs profile: A tool for reducing turnover, The Journal of Volunteer Administration 1(4), pp. 17-33. Gordon, C.W. & Babchuk, N. (1959) A typology of voluntary associations, American Sociological Review 24(1) pp. 22-29. Graefe, A.R., Thapa, B., Confer, J.J., & Absh er, J.D. (2000) Relati onships between trip motivations and selected variables among Allegheny Natio nal Forest visitors, in: USDA Forest Service Proceedings 15(4), pp. 107-112. Heidrich, K.W. (1990) Volunteer li fe-styles: Market segments based on volunteers role choices, Nonprofit and Voluntary Section Quarterly 19(1), pp. 21-31. Henderson, K.A. (1980) Programming vol unteerism for happi er volunteers, Parks and Recreation pp. 61-64. Henderson, K.A. (1985) Issues a nd trends in volunteerism, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 56, pp. 30-32. Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1989) Motivation for Leisur e, in: E.L. Jackson & T.L. Burton (Eds) Understanding Leisure and Recreation: M apping the Past Charting the Future (State College, PA, R.A. Venture Publishing).

PAGE 104

104 Jackson, E.L., Crawford, D.W., & Godbey, G. (1993) Negotiation of leisure constraints, Leisure Sciences 15, pp. 1-11. Jensen, C.R. (1995) Outdoor Recreation in America, Fifth Edition (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics). Kaczynski, A.T. & Crompton, J.L. (2006) Financi ng priorities in local governments: Where do park and recreation services rank?, Journal of Park and R ecreation Administration 24(1), pp. 84-103. Katz, D. (1960) The functional appr oach to the study of attitudes, Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, pp. 163-204. Kelley, H.H. & Volkart, E.H. (1952) The resist ance to change of groupanchored attitudes, American Sociological Review 17(4), pp. 453-465. Kelly, J.R., Steinkamp, M.W., & Kelly, J.R. (1 987) Later-life satisfaction: Does leisure contribute?, Leisure Sciences 19, pp. 189-199. Knoke, D. (1990) Networks of political action: Toward theory construction, Social Forces 68, pp. 1041-1057. Liao-Troth, M.A. & Dunn, C.P. (1999) Social constructs and human service: Managerial sensemaking of volunteer motivation, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 10(4), pp. 345-361. Lucas, J.S. (1985) The social participation of blacks: A proposed synthesis of two competing theories, Sociological Inquiry, 55(1), pp. 97-108. Mannell, R.C. & Kleiber, D.A. (1997) A Social Psychology of Leisure (State College, PA, Venture). Manning, R.E. (2005) Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Se arch and research for satisfaction, Second Edition (Corvallis, OR, Oregon State University Press). Martinez, T.A. & McMullin, S.L. (2004) Factors affecting decisions to volunteer in nongovernmental organizations, Environment and Behavior 36(1), pp. 112-126. McClelland, D.L. (1985) How motives, skil ls, and values determine what people do, American Psychologist 40, pp. 812-825. McFarlane, B.L. (1994) Specializati on and motivations of birdwatchers, Wildlife Society Bulletin 22, pp. 361-370. Mowen, A.J., Payne, L.L., & Scott, D. (2005) Change and stability in park visitation constraints revisited, Leisure Sciences 27, pp. 191-204.

PAGE 105

105 Nyaupane, G.P., Morais, D.B., & Graefe, A.R. (2004) Nature tourism constraints: A crossactivity comparison, Annals of Tourism Research 30(3), pp. 540-555. Okun, M.A., Barr, A., & Herzog, A.R. (1998) Motiva tion to volunteer by olde r adults: A test of competing measurement models, Psychology and Aging 13, pp. 608-621. Okun, M.A. & Schultz, A. (2003) Age and motives for volunteering: Tes ting hypotheses derived from Socioemotional Selectivity Theory, Psychology and Aging 18(2), pp. 231-239. Pennington-Gray, L.A. & Kerstetter, D.L. (2002) Te sting a constraints model within the context of nature-based tourism, Journal of Travel Research 40, pp. 416-423. Pennington-Gray, L., Thapa, B., & Holland, S. (2002) Florida residents cons traints to parks and public lands visitation: An assessm ent of the validity of an In trapersonal, Interpersonal and Structural model, World Leisure 4, pp. 51-60. Raymore, L., Godbey, G., Crawford, D., & von Eye, A. (1993) Nature and process of leisure constraints: An empirical test, Leisure Sciences 15, pp. 99-113. Ryan, R.L., Kaplan, R., & Grese, R.E. (2001) Pr edicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programmes, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(5), pp. 629-648. Sax, L.J. & Astin, A. (1997) The benefits of service: Evidence from undergraduates, Educational Record 78, pp. 25-32. Sergent, M.T. & Sedlacek, W.E. (1990) Volunteer motivations across student organizations: A test of Person-Environment Fit theory, Journal of College Student Development, 31, pp. 255-261. Serow, R.C. (1991) Students and voluntarism: Looking into the motives of community service participants, American Educational Research Journal 28(3), pp. 543-556. Shaw, S.M., Bonen, A., & McCabe, J.F. (1991) Do more constraints mean less leisure? Examining the relationship between constraints and participation, Leisure Research 23(4), pp. 286-300. Silverberg, K.E., Backman, S.J ., Backman, K.F., & Ellis, G.D. (1999) An identification and explication of a typology of pub lic parks and recreation volunt eers, presented at the Ninth Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Acad ia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Thapa, B. (1999) Environmentalism: The relation of environmental attitudes and environmentally responsible behavi ors among undergraduate students, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 19(5), pp. 432-444. Thapa, B. (2001) Environmental Concern: A comp arative analysis between students in recreation and park management and other departments, Environmental Education Research 7(1), pp. 39-53.

PAGE 106

106 Thapa, B., Pennington-Gray, L., & Holland, S. (2 002) Assessing the validity of an outdoor recreation constraints model for touris ts to Florida, pr esented at the 33rd Annual Travel and Tourism Research Associati on Arlington, VA, June 22-25. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) Volunteering in the Unites States, 2007 retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://www.bls.gov/news.r elease/pdf/volun.pdf. Verba, S., Schlozm an, K.L., & Brady, H.E. (1995) Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in American politics (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press). Weber, M. (1947) Theory of social and economic organization (Glencoe, IL, Free Press). Wickham, T.D. & Graefe, A. (1998) Motivation to volunteer at Shavers Creek Environmental Center, in Proceedings of the 1998 Northeast Recreation Research Symposium pp. 23-27. Wilson, J. & Musick, M. (1999) The eff ects of volunteering on the volunteer, Law and Contemporary Problems 62(4), pp. 141-168. Wilson, R.S. (2005) Motivational factors and decisions to volunteer in the Florida Park Service, Unpublished Masters Thesis (Gainesvill e, FL, University of Florida). Yeung, A.B. (2004) The octagon model of volunteer motivation: Results of a phenomenological analysis, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 15(1), pp. 21-46.

PAGE 107

107 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Richard L. Gage III was born in 19 84, in Bingh amton, NY. Being from a military family, he grew up and attended schools in Germany and all over the United States. In 2002, he enrolled in the Recreation, Adventure Travel, and Ecotou rism program at Paul Smiths College and graduated with a bachelors degr ee in 2006. While at Paul Smiths College, he studied in Costa Rica and Mexico, and wrote his Capstone project on the impacts of tourism and development on local traditional cultures. While working on his masters degree, Rick was involved in severa l projects including a recreational visitor study on the Ocala National Forest and the de velopment of an interpretive program for the City of Gainesvilles Ring Park These projects helped him to refine his research skills, network with industry professionals, and contribute to science and his community. Rick completed his masters de gree in August 2009 and plans to begin a PhD program at the Pennsylvania State University in the fall.