Kissick Thesis 2015

Understanding Motivation and Commitment of Safe Voices’ Volunteers: A

Community-Based Thesis

Caroline Williams Kissick

Department of Psychology

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for a Bachelors Degree

Bates College

December 14, 2015

Advised by Professor Krista Aronson

RUNNING HEAD: Volunteer Motivation and Commitment

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank both Safe Voices and Krista Aronson, without whom this

thesis would not have been possible. Your support and guidance were invaluable, and I

thank you.

Carriage House Residents, everyday you all inspire me, make me laugh, and take

care of me. Thank you for the late nights, the sing-alongs, and the love. Let ‘em say

we’re crazy.

To my parents, I cannot properly articulate my thanks. This thesis and this

education would not have been possible without your devotion and love, and I am

eternally grateful.

And finally to my sister: Eliza, you’re up.

Kissick 2


Table of Contents

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………... 3

Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 3

Method ……………………………………………………………………… 12

Results ……………………………………………………………………….16

Discussion ………………………………………………………………….. 18

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………….. 19

References …………………………………………………………………... 20

Appendices ………………………………………………………………….. 22

Kissick 3


Abstract

This research examines the types of motivation and commitment present in a

population of volunteers working within a domestic violence prevention and services

organization using Clary et al. (1998) Voluntary Function Inventory to measure

motivations and J. P. Meyer and Allen (1991) Three Component Model to measure

commitment. The purpose of the research is to provide this organization with an in depth

understanding of their volunteer population, and how they as an organization can

facilitate said volunteers to succeed in and enjoy their work. Findings state that the

participants’ primary motivation for their volunteer work is related to the value they place

on altruistic beliefs and the opportunity that volunteer work has to enhance them

personally. Findings also showed that participants experienced affective commitment to

organization and beneficiaries more highly than normative and continuance commitment.

Introduction

In the world of non-profit organizations, volunteers play a critical role in the

functioning and implementation of services. Volunteers relieve pressure from a non-

profit worker’s responsibilities and act as ambassadors for their organization,

strengthening community ties and awareness. Many non-profit organizations and workers

grow to depend on the help volunteers provide. Because of their important role in these

organizations and the community, it is vital to understand not only what motivates

individuals to volunteer but also what keeps these volunteers committed to their cause

and organization. This research examines volunteer motivation, commitment, and the

relationship between these two factors within the population of volunteers working with

Safe Voices, a domestic violence awareness and prevention organization located in

Kissick 4


Lewiston, Maine. The goal of the research is to answer questions concerning: (1) what

factors motivate individuals to become volunteers, (2) what types of commitment do

volunteers feel towards their organization and the beneficiaries it serves, (3) do

motivation and commitment correlate with one another, and (4) what can be done to

improve a volunteers experience and strengthen their commitment to their work? By

increasing understanding of what attracts volunteers and what keeps volunteers engaged,

organizations will be able to structure their volunteer opportunities to facilitate a positive

volunteer experience that promotes a supportive productive environment. Specifically for

Safe Voices, the organization observed, this research serves to illustrate not only the

motivations and commitments of their volunteers, but also to highlight the challenges

volunteers face and facilitate a change within the organization to increase volunteer

support and the sense of community.

Review of Literature

The literature described in this report will provide an overview of motivation and

commitment in the context of volunteerism, specifically examining the interactions and

interplay between motivation, commitment, and retention in affecting a volunteer’s work

and assessing the validity of the various tools used to measure these factors.

Motivation Theory

In determining what factors motivate individuals to volunteer, focus must be paid

to theories of motivation. Theories of motivation often center around and build off of two

main themes of motivation: egoism and altruism. Egoistic motivation holds the ultimate

goal of increasing one’s own personal welfare, whereas altruistic motivation is the desire

to increase the welfare of others (Batson, 1991). How these two motivation constructs are

Kissick 5


examined differ throughout research, and major theories of motivation differ in regards to

approach: the functionalist approach to motivation and the symbolic approach to

motivation. The functionalist approach states that motivations represent the functions,

which are served by actions, meaning that one action can serve different functions for

different individuals (E. G. Clary, 1991). The symbolic approach consider motives to

represent ‘accounts’ created to justify or excuse actions, and states that motivations serve

as tools to interpret and explain individual’s actions (Smith & Lyman, 1968). Within

psychology the functionalist approach to motivation has gained more popularity than the

symbolic approach, in part because assessment tools were created and validated more

easily, such as the Volunteer Functions Inventory.

The Volunteer Functions Inventory (Clary et al., 1998) is a Likert rating scale that

was developed and tested by Clary and associates, and remains today the most

comprehensive set of rating scales for assessing volunteer motivations; based in existing

empirical research, six motivations were identified and incorporated into the VFI

measurements. The six constructs of motivations for volunteering include: (1) expressing

values related to altruistic beliefs (values); (2) learning new skills and gaining experience

(understanding); (3) opportunity to engage with friends/ to engage in activities viewed

favorably by others (social); (4) developing and enhancing career opportunities (career);

(5) escaping negative feelings about self (protective); (6) opportunity to enhance personal

development (enhancement) (Clary et al., 1998). Each of these motives is measured with

five statements and responses are recorded on 7-point response scale. To test the

reliability of the VFI, the researchers conducted a factor analysis of participant responses,

and found that items from each function scale reported successfully on their intended

Kissick 6


items. The VFI was found to be a valid tool of measurement and each scale successfully

measured the construct intended, without any overlapping.

Since the VFI was created it has been used in the majority of functional

motivational research, but preceding its formation simple open-probe questions yielded

similar results. Nathanson and Eggleton (1993) implemented a questionnaire with close-

ended questions of age, sex, education level, length of service, and type of contract and

an open-ended question regarding the motivations for volunteering. Analysis and coding

of responses resulted in the creation of different categories of motivation: (1) advocacy;

(2) give back to the community; (3) empathy for the elderly; (4) family in nursing home;

(5) related to job experience or educational requirement (Nathanson & Eggleton, 1993).

Research comparing open-ended probe questions and the Likert scale of the VFI

attempts to examine how reported motives of volunteerism may vary between these two

measurement tools. In a study by Allison, Okun, and Dutridge (2002), research addressed

three questions: (1) to what extent is the rank order of motives for volunteering similar

across the VFI and open-ended probe questions; (2) for each of the six volunteer motives

to what extent are VFI scale scores correlated with scores derived from open-ended

probe, and; (3) which method of assessment of motives for volunteering is associated

with better predictions of frequency of volunteering? To answer these questions, Allison

et al. (2002) performed a study of volunteers working with the non-profit Make A

Difference in Arizona, and found that many of their responses to open-probe questions

could be easily translated into motivation types established by the VFI. It is significant

that the majority of open-ended responses could be coded into the pre-existing VFI

Kissick 7


functions, and provides additional support for the validity and success of the VFI as a

measurement.

Overall, when attempting to answer the research question ‘what factors motivate

individuals to become volunteers’, the research indicates that the functionalist approach

and the VFI are the strongest tools of assessment. Researchers should remain aware of

the drawbacks of the VFI, and consider implementing an open-ended probe component in

research because it may help identify motives not considered by the VFI (Allison et al.,

2002). This strong base and understanding of motivation is essential when moving into

research on commitment, and motivation may play a significant role in determining

commitment levels among volunteer populations.

Commitment Theory

In presenting the research question of ‘what types of commitment volunteers

demonstrate to organizations and beneficiaries’, the answers will most likely be based in

the Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment (J. P. Meyer & Allen,

1991). This model was proposed to provide a tool with which to aid in the interpretation

of existing research on organizational commitment and serve as a framework for future

research. J. P. Meyer and Allen (1991) argue that the psychological state of commitment

goes beyond the distinctions of attitudinal and behavioral, and has at least three separate

components that reflect a desire, a need, and an obligation to maintain commitment to an

organization. These constructs build off of attitudinal and behavioral perspective of

commitment, in which attitudinal commitment focuses on the process by which people

come to think about the relationship they hold with an organization and behavioral

commitment focuses on the process in which individuals become ‘”locked in” to an

Kissick 8


organization and how they react to this connection (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982).

Research since has built upon this model (John P. Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; John P.

Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Valéau, Mignonac, Vandenberghe,

& Gatignon Turnau, 2013) and it remains central to the debate of organizational

commitment and serves as essential background research in the examination of volunteer

commitment.

J. P. Meyer and Allen (1991) categorized the three components reflected in

organizational commitment into three distinct themes: affective commitment,

continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Affective commitment is the

emotional attachment that an employee has to an organization, continuance commitment

is an employee’s awareness of the costs associated with terminating their relationship

with an organization, and normative commitment is based in a feeling of obligation to

continue employment. The goal of the three-component model was to relate these three

constructs of commitment to turnover intentions, on-the-job behavior, and employee

health and wellbeing. It was hypothesized that affective, normative, and continuance

commitment would all correlate negatively with turnover intention, affective and

normative commitment would both correlate positively with on-the-job behavior and

employee health, and that continuance commitment would have no relationship or

correlate negatively with both employee health and on-the-job behavior (John P. Meyer

et al., 1993).

John P. Meyer et al. (1993) tested the generalizability of their three-component

model by developing measures of affective, continuance, and normative commitment,

and tested these measures in samples of student and registered nurses. To determine

Kissick 9


whether these scales measured distinct constructs, John P. Meyer et al. (1993) examined

covariance of the data obtained from student and registered nurses, and found only the

analysis of the registered nurse sample confirmed distinct constructs. Significant positive

correlations were found between all three forms of commitment, both organization and

occupation, with age and years of nursing experience (John P. Meyer et al., 1993), and as

hypothesized all three forms of commitment to occupation correlated negatively with

intention to leave the profession.

Understanding the relationship between organizational commitment and

commitment to beneficiaries is especially important in the context of volunteerism. The

three-component model has established the relevance of different components that

contribute to retention (J. P. Meyer & Allen, 1991), and understanding commitment in a

volunteer organization could aid in understanding volunteer turnover. Valéau et al.

(2013) utilized the three-component model to study commitment of volunteers to their

organizations and beneficiaries and to examine turnover intention in relation to

organizational commitment theory. It was hypothesized that (1) volunteers’

organizational commitment and commitment to beneficiaries both consist of affective,

continuance, and normative components that are distinguishable from one another; (2)

components of volunteers’ organizational and beneficiary commitment are negatively

associated to turnover intentions, and; (3) volunteers organizational affective

commitment will play a moderating role in the relationship between affective, normative,

and continuance commitment to beneficiaries and turnover intentions and that these

relationships will be stronger as organizational affective commitment is lower (Valéau et

al., 2013).

Kissick 10


In Valéau et al. (2013) study volunteers’ commitment to their volunteer

organization was measured using a revised version of the John P. Meyer et al. (1993)

scales, where the word ‘organization’ was replaced with ‘volunteer organization’.

Volunteer commitment to beneficiaries was measured using scales modified from

Stinglhamber, Bentein, and Vandenberghe (2002), where the word ‘customer’ was

replaced with ‘beneficiaries’. Affective commitment was measured by six items (I feel

emotionally attached to the beneficiaries of this organization), as was normative

commitment (I feel I have a moral obligation to respond to the needs of the beneficiaries

of this organization) and continuance commitment measured by five items (I have

expended so much effort to get to know the needs of the beneficiaries that it would not be

advantageous for me to quit my activity) (Valéau et al., 2013). Evidence was found that

both commitment to organization and commitment to beneficiaries can be examined

through the three-component model (J. P. Meyer & Allen, 1991) and that both types of

commitment contribute to the understanding of volunteer turnover intentions.

Understanding commitment is essential to understanding volunteers, and this previous

research will serve as a foundation for future commitment research.

All of this research will serve as a sounding board for the present study, and being

aware of the strengths and weaknesses will foster a better understanding of the problems

that may arise in the present study. The present study will work with Safe Voices

volunteers, taking the research in a new direction by directly examining a connection

between Clary et al. (1998) VFI and the modified three-component model from Valéau et

al. (2013).

Kissick 11


Method

Organization Background

Safe Voices is a domestic violence prevention and advocacy organization located

in Lewiston, ME. Founded in 1977, Safe Voices began as a response to the critical need

for services for victims of domestic and intimate partner violence in Androscoggin

County, which had very few support facilities implemented for this population. Currently

there are 28 individuals employed by the organization, and roughly 20 volunteers

involved. The organization offers a range of services for those affected by domestic

violence, including: shelter services, a network of local community-based offices,

individual support, support groups, children’s services, advocacy, referrals, court

advocacy, transportation, and information. Safe Voices mission is “to support and

empower those affected by domestic violence and engage the community in creating

social change in Androscoggin, Franklin, and Oxford Counties”

(www.safevoices.org/index.php).

Volunteer opportunities include shelter work, court support, event support, and

the 24-hour helpline. Shelter work can include a range of activities from childcare to

organizing through donations. Court support involves accompanying individuals to court

(usually for Protection From Abuse orders) and being a supportive presence, providing

transportation to and from, as well as watching children during court proceedings. Event

support is a seasonal volunteer opportunity, mainly implemented during Safe Voices

Walk to End Domestic Violence 5K and other larger scale events throughout the year.

The 24-hour helpline is one of the more time and training intensive programs.

Kissick 12

http://www.safevoices.org/index.php


The training to become a helpline caller takes 28 hours, and consists of a studying

a multitude of issues that helpline workers may encounter. The sessions cover: safety

planning, batterers intervention programs, LGBTQ concerns, sexual assault, Protection

from Abuse orders, court advocacy, domestic violence and kids, shelter services, elder

abuse, trafficking, mental health, and suicide concerns. These sessions are lead by Safe

Voices workers, who guide the volunteers through role-plays and community check-ins

to fully prepare volunteers for any situation they may encounter on the helpline.

Participants

Participants include current volunteers and interns with Safe Voices who self-

selected to respond to a survey distributed via email. The survey was distributed to the 17

Safe Voices volunteers and interns, and 11 of these individuals participated. All of the

participants were female volunteers who ranged in age and length of volunteer work with

Safe Voices. The mean age of participants was 37.5 years ( SD = 2.81 ); five participants

indicated that they have been volunteering with Safe Voices for 1 to 2 years, five

indicated volunteering for 2 to 3 years, and one participant indicated 3 to 4 years. All of

the participants currently volunteer on helpline, and 2 of them had volunteer experience

at Safe Voices shelter.

Materials

An online survey designed using the Qualtrics software was implemented and

sent out to current volunteers and interns. The survey consisted of sections assessing

volunteer demographic information, motivations, commitment, and volunteer needs that

arise during their Safe Voices work. The first section consisted of basic demographic

information such as gender, age, and volunteer experience with Safe Voices.

Kissick 13


The second portion measured volunteer motivation using The Voluntary

Functions Inventory (Clary et al., 1998); the VFI implements functionalist theory to

examine the various motives that may influence volunteerism, and was created to better

understand helping behavior and prosocial activity. The VFI consists of 30 questions to

be answered using a 7-point scale (1 = not at all important/accurate, 7 = extremely

important/accurate). The questions address 6 areas of volunteer motivations: protective

(ex. by doing volunteer work I feel less lonely), values (ex. I feel it is important to help

others), career (ex. volunteering experience will help me succeed in my chosen

profession), social (ex. my friends volunteer), understanding (ex. volunteering allows me

to gain a new perspective on things), and enhancement (ex. volunteering makes me feel

better about myself). The VFI facilitates a better understanding of volunteers’

motivations, and provides a base to move forward into assessing how these differing

motivation types relate to commitment.

The next section of the survey assesses a volunteer’s type of commitment to the

organization and beneficiaries with which their volunteer work serves using a modified

Three-Component Model (J. P. Meyer & Allen, 1991). Valéau et al. (2013) modified the

Three-Component Model for their work with volunteers to create the Volunteers’

Multiple Commitments survey; in the VMC ‘organization’ is replaced with ‘volunteer

organization’ and ‘customers’ with ‘beneficiaries’, and it has been further modified for

this research so that ‘organization’ is replaced with ‘Safe Voices’ and ‘beneficiaries’ with

‘clients’, which is the terminology used within Safe Voices to refer to the individuals

who seek assistance. The VMC consists of 34 items, half addressing commitment to the

volunteer organization and half addressing commitment to the beneficiaries of the

Kissick 14


organization. Participants respond to each using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5

= strongly agree). AC is measured with items such as “I feel emotionally attached to the

beneficiaries of this volunteer organization” and “I do not feel a sense of belonging to my

organization”, and two of the six items in the AC section are reverse scored. NC is

assessed with items focusing on obligation and loyalty, “I think I am morally responsible

for meeting the needs of the beneficiaries of this volunteer organization” and “The

organization deserves my loyalty”. CC employs items such as “mastering the necessary

skills for working with other beneficiaries would require me a great deal of time and

energy” and “Too much of my life would be disrupted if I left my organization”.

The final section of the survey consists of open-probe questions addressing the

specific needs of Safe Voices volunteers. The questions will assess volunteer experiences

and how Safe Voices can improve these experiences, specifically in what ways Safe

Voices volunteers are or are not having their needs met. Participants will have the option

to insert any comments on what sort of challenges they face in volunteer work and how

Safe Voices could improve its support of volunteers.

Procedure

An email with a link to the survey was sent out to all Safe Voices volunteers and

interns. IRB approval was obtained before the survey was distributed, and participants

were informed of the purpose of the research. Researcher contact information was

included in the email and at the end of the survey so that participants were able to

communicate with the researcher with questions or concerns regarding the survey.

Kissick 15


Results

Descriptive statistics of the types of motivation reported by participants ( N = 11 )

illustrate that values motivation ( M = 6.53, SD = 0.34 ) and enhancement motivation ( M

= 5.26, SD = 1.42 ) are the most common types of motivation present within the Safe

Voices volunteer sample, while social motivation ( M = 3.25, SD = 1.46 ) and career

motivation ( M = 3.18, SD = 1.73 ) are the least common. Understanding motivation ( M

= 4.96, SD = 1.42 ) was more highly reported than protective motivation ( M = 3.93, SD =

1.46 ). Paired sample t-tests were run to determine whether the differences between

motivation types were significant. Significant differences were found between values

motivation and protective ( t(10) = 5.58, p = .000 ), career ( t(10) = 6.53, p = .000 ),

social ( t(10) = 7.93, p = .000 ), understanding ( t(10) = 3.67, p = .004 ), and enhancement

( t(10) = 3.03, p = .013 ). Enhancement motivation was significantly different from

protective ( t(10) = 3.58, p = .005 ), career ( t(10) = 3.78, p = .004 ), and social ( t(10) =

4.69, p = .001 ). Understanding motivation was also significantly different than protective

( t(10) = 2.39, p = .038 ), career ( t(10) = 3.88, p = .003 ), and social ( t(10) = 3.57, p

= .005 ). No other significant differences were found.

Measures of commitment show a difference between organization and beneficiary

commitment levels. Within organizational commitment measures, affective commitment

( M = 3.12, SD = 0.20 ) had the highest values, followed by normative commitment ( M =

2.95, SD = 0.56 ) and continuance commitment ( M = 1.70, SD = 0.41 ). Commitment to

beneficiaries showed normative commitment ( M = 3.64, SD = 1.00 ) and affective

commitment ( M = 3.55, SD = 0.47 ) to be closer in value, followed by continuance

commitment ( M = 2.56, SD = 0.77 ). Overall, commitment to beneficiaries was

Kissick 16


significantly greater than commitment to organization in affective commitment ( t(10) =

2.69, p = .023 ), normative commitment ( t(10) = 3.38, p = .007 ), and continuance

commitment ( t(10) = 4.47, p = .001 ).

Correlations were run to examine the relationships within motivation types and

the relationships within commitment types, as well as between motivation types and

commitment types. Within commitment types, a positive correlation was found between

organizational commitment and beneficiary commitment for normative commitment ( p =

.005 ) but not for continuance or affective commitment. Within motivation types,

significant positive correlations were found between enhancement and understanding ( p

= .000 ), enhancement and protective ( p = .035 ), and career and social ( p = .038 ).

Values motivation, career motivation, and social motivation did not correlate

significantly with any of the commitment to organization and commitment to beneficiary

components. Protective motivation had a slightly significant positive correlation with

normative commitment to beneficiaries ( p = .046 ) and continuance commitment to

organization ( p = .03 ). Understanding motivation had significant positive correlations

with all of the measures of commitment to beneficiaries: affective commitment to

beneficiaries ( p = .007 ), normative commitment to beneficiaries ( p = .000 ), and

continuance commitment to beneficiaries ( p = .02 ). Enhancement motivation correlated

positively with normative commitment to organization ( p = .014 ) and had a strong

significant correlation with affective commitment to beneficiaries ( p = .004) and with

normative commitment to beneficiaries ( p = .000 ). No other correlations were found.

Open-probe responses established that participants face personal individual

challenges while volunteering. In their response to the question addressing challenges

Kissick 17


faced while volunteering, participants mentioned feeling overwhelmed and anxious while

on helpline, experiencing scheduling conflicts, dealing with difficult callers, and

processing some frightening and upsetting personal stories from callers. When asked

what Safe Voices could do to improve the volunteer experience, participants mentioned

implementing further support options, inserting more role-play scenarios during helpline

training, and a more open form of communication for volunteers to contact one another.

Discussion

It is clear from the results that the Safe Voices volunteers who participated in this

research volunteer because of a desire to serve the community, enhance their personal

development, and gain a more complete understanding of domestic violence within their

community. Values motivation’s significant positive difference with all other motivation

types indicates that participants have the motivation to volunteer, first and foremost,

inspired by the importance of serving others. Understanding and enhancement

motivations also play a prominent role in participants’ motivational structure. Participants

feel especially committed to the beneficiaries of Safe Voices, in part because of a sense

of an emotional connection with beneficiaries and a feeling of moral obligation to

provide help. With values motivation, understanding motivation, and enhancement

motivation as the primary forms of motivation, it is evident that Safe Voices’ volunteers

are drawn to the work because of more altruistic motives and less so because of desire to

further their career, be recognized socially, or to relieve negative feelings of self-worth.

The participants are committed to Safe Voices because of a desire to serve the

population in need and a sense of obligation to this population. It is significant that levels

of commitment to beneficiaries are higher than commitment to organization, because this

Kissick 18


reflects that the participants’ priority is the people. It also may reflect a feeling of

disconnect between participants and the organization, which is also reflected in

participants open-probe responses emphasizing increased organizational support for

volunteers. It is important that Safe Voices keeps this commitment discrepancy in mind,

and works towards further strengthening their organizational bond with volunteers.

Conclusion

This research serves to educate Safe Voices about the motivations and

commitments of its volunteers, as well as draw attention to where volunteers may be

struggling and in need of additional support. Moving forward, it is the suggestion of this

research that Safe Voices facilitates a volunteer support network in which volunteers

have the ability to contact one another in times of difficulty. By expanding the base of

volunteer support, Safe Voices may see an increase in volunteer commitment levels and

extended times of service with the organization.

In conclusion, it is the hope that this research can serve as a general platform for

both understanding and improving the experiences of Safe Voices volunteers. These

volunteers’ commitment and service to Safe Voices are essential to its successful

functioning, and as these volunteers put so much of themselves into their service it is

important for Safe Voices to do the same for the volunteers.

Kissick 19


Works Cited

Allison, L. D., Okun, M. A., & Dutridge, K. S. (2002). Assessing volunteer motives: A

comparison of an open-ended probe and Likert rating scales. Journal of

Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12(4), 243-255. doi:10.1002/casp.677

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer.

Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Clary, 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), 1516-1530.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516

Clary, E. G. (1991). A functional analysis of altruism and prosocial behavior: The case of

volunteerism. A functional analysis of altruism and prosocial behavior: The case

of volunteerism.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of

organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and

occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,

Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis

of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

61(1), 20-52. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842

Kissick 20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842


Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization Linkages:

The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York, NY:

Academic Press.

Nathanson, I. L., & Eggleton, E. (1993). Motivation versus program effect on length of

service: A study of four cohorts of ombudservice volunteers. Journal of

Gerontological Social Work, 19(3-4), 95-114. doi:10.1300/J083v19n03_08

Smith, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-

62.

Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Extension of the Three-

Component Model of Commitment to Five Foci: Development of measures and

substantive test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 123-138.

doi:10.1027//1015-5759.18.2.123

Valéau, P., Mignonac, K., Vandenberghe, C., & Gatignon Turnau, A.-L. (2013). A study

of the relationships between volunteers' commitments to organizations and

beneficiaries and turnover intentions. Canadian Journal of Behavioural

Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 45(2), 85-95.

doi:10.1037/a0027620

Kissick 21


Appendix A

Reflective Piece

This community based thesis has not only provided an opportunity for me to learn

more about the inner workings of Safe Voices and its volunteer population, but also an

opportunity to learn more fully about myself. I was able to deepen my connection with

Safe Voices, its volunteers, and the greater Lewiston community. The process of writing

this thesis has revealed to me where my strengths and weaknesses lie in research, and

allowed me to face these weaknesses head on. I am grateful for this process and the

challenges and successes that have come along with it.

Appendix B

Volunteer Demographic Information

1. Select your gender (M/F/Other)

2. How old are you?

3. How long have you been volunteering with Safe Voices?

4. Are you involved in Helpline? (Y/N)

5. Have you volunteered at shelter? (Y/N)

6. In what other ways have you involved yourself at the organization?

Volunteer Functions Inventory (Clary et. al, 1998)

Protective

7. No matter how bad I’ve been feeling, volunteering helps me to forget about it.

9. By volunteering I feel less lonely.

11. Doing volunteer work relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than

others.

Kissick 22


20. Volunteering helps me work through my own personal problems.

24. Volunteering is a good escape from my own troubles.

Values

3. I am concerned about those less fortunate than myself.

8. I am genuinely concerned about the particular group I am serving.

16. I feel compassion toward people in need.

19. I feel it is important to help others.

22. I can do something for a cause that is important to me.

Career

1. Volunteering can help me to get my foot in the door at a place where I would work.

10. I can make new contacts that might help my business career.

15. Volunteering allows me to explore different career options.

21. Volunteering will help me to succeed in my chosen profession.

28. Volunteering experience will look goo don my resume.

Social

2. My friends volunteer.

4. People I’m close to want me to volunteer.

6. People I know share an interest in community service.

17. Others with whom I am close place a high value on community service.

23. Volunteering is an important activity to the people I know best.

Understanding

12. I can learn more about the cause for which I am working.

14. Volunteering allows me to gain a new perspective on things.

Kissick 23


18. Volunteering lets me learn things through direct, hands on experience.

25. I can learn how to deal with a variety of people.

30. I can explore my own strengths.

Enhancement

5. Volunteering makes my feel important.

13. Volunteering increases my self-esteem.

26. Volunteering makes me feel needed.

27. Volunteering makes me feel better about myself.

29. Volunteering is a way to make new friends.

Survey Items for Volunteers’ Commitment to Beneficiaries (Valeau et. al, 2012)

Affective

1. I feel emotionally attached to the beneficiaries of Safe Voices.

2. In general, I have a liking for the beneficiaries of Safe Voices.

3. The beneficiaries of Safe Voices mean a lot to me.

4. I identify little with the expectations of the beneficiaries of Safe Voices. (R)

5. I do not feel especially attached to the beneficiaries of Safe Voices. (R)

6. I feel close to the beneficiaries of Safe Voices.

Normative

1. I feel I have a moral obligation to respond to the needs of the beneficiaries of Safe

Voices.

2. It would be wrong on my part to neglect the needs of the beneficiaries of Safe

Voices.

3. I feel obligated to meet the expectations of the beneficiaries of Safe Voices.

Kissick 24


4. I would be reneging on my obligations if I ignored the beneficiaries of Safe

Voices.

5. I think I would be violating an implicit contract if I failed to respond to the needs

of the beneficiaries of Safe Voices.

6. I think I am morally responsible for meeting the needs of the beneficiaries of Safe

Voices.

Continuance

1. I have expended so much effort to get to know the needs of the beneficiaries of

Safe Voices that it would not be advantageous for me to quit my activity as a

volunteer.

2. I have acquired so much knowledge concerning the expectations of the

beneficiaries of Safe Voices that it would not be possible for me to change

activity.

3. I am so specialized in the services I provide to the beneficiaries of Safe Voices

that I could not imagine doing anything else.

4. It would be difficult for me, given the skills that I acquired, to reinvest in working

with other beneficiaries.

5. Mastering the necessary skills for working with other beneficiaries would require

me a great deal of time and energy.

Survey Items for Volunteers Commitment to Organization (Valéau et al., 2013)

Affective

1. I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to Safe Voices. (R)

2. I do not feel emotionally attached to Safe Voices. (R)

Kissick 25


3. Safe Voices has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

4. I would be very happy to continue volunteering with Safe Voices.

5. I really feel as if Safe Voices’ problems are my own.

6. I do not feel like “part of the family” at Safe Voices.

Normative

1. Right now, staying with Safe Voices is an obligation and not a desire.

2. I would not leave Safe Voices right now because I have a sense of obligation to

the people in it.

3. Safe Voices deserves my loyalty.

4. I do not feel any obligation to remain with Safe Voices. (R)

5. I would feel guilty if I left Safe Voices now.

6. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave Safe

Voices now.

Continuance

1. One of the few negative consequences of leaving Safe Voices would be the

scarcity of available volunteering alternatives.

2. If I had not already put so much of myself into Safe Voices, I might consider

volunteering elsewhere.

3. I feel that I have too few volunteer options to consider leaving Safe Voices.

4. It would be very hard for me to leave Safe Voices right now, even if I wanted to.

Safe Voices Open-Probe Questions (comment boxes used for responses)

1. Do you think that Safe Voices should implement a mandatory service

commitment for volunteers who participate in helpline training?

Kissick 26


2. Would a required service time discourage you from volunteering with Safe

Voices helpline?

3. What challenges have you faced in volunteering?

4. If you work on helpline, is there anything you would add to the training

experience?

5. In what ways can Safe Voices support volunteers?

Kissick 27

Kissick Thesis 2015

Documents

Transcript of Kissick Thesis 2015