Volunteering for charity: Pride, respect, and the commitment of volunteers.

Volunteering for Charity: Pride, Respect, and the Commitment ofVolunteers

Edwin J. Boezeman and Naomi EllemersLeiden University

This study builds upon and extends the social-identity-based model of cooperation with the organization(T. R. Tyler, 1999; T. R. Tyler & S. L. Blader, 2000) to examine commitment and cooperative intentamong fundraising volunteers. In Study 1, structural equation modeling indicated that pride and respectrelated to the intent to remain a volunteer with an organization, and that this relation was mediatedprimarily by normative organizational commitment. In Study 2, structural equation modeling indicatedthat the perceived importance of volunteer work was related to pride, that perceived organizationalsupport related to the experience of respect, and that pride and respect mediated the relation betweenperceived importance and support on the one hand and organizational commitment on the other. Overall,the results suggest that volunteer organizations may do well to implement pride and respect in theirvolunteer policy, for instance to address the reliability problem (J. L. Pearce, 1993).

Keywords: volunteer work, volunteer organization, pride, respect, organizational commitment

Volunteer work is labor in an organizational context, unpaid andwithout any obligations, for the benefit of others and/or society(e.g., Meijs, 1997). In order for a volunteer organization to func-tion effectively, it is necessary that its individual volunteers per-form and attend as relied upon. Volunteer organizations are oftenconfronted with nonperformance and nonattendance of volunteersas a result of the characteristics of volunteer work (e.g., theabsence of obligation), referred to as the reliability problem(Pearce, 1993). The reliability problem (Pearce, 1993) is not easilysolved, for example because reward structures that operate tomotivate and retain paid workers (e.g., pay, promotion) are notavailable in volunteer organizations. Dailey’s (1986) observationthat researchers largely neglect the organizational behavior ofvolunteers is still valid. Researchers (e.g., Farmer & Fedor, 2001;Meijs, 1997; Pearce, 1993; Wilson, 2000) have noted that therestill is much to learn about the organizational behavior of volun-teers. In the present research, we adopted an organizational per-spective, extending the social-identity-based model of cooperationwith the organization (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000) toexamine commitment and cooperative intent among volunteerswith the aim of developing insights that have the potential toaddress volunteers’ contributions to organizations.

A Social-Identity-Based Model of Cooperation With theOrganization

Social identity theory, developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979),has been used to understand the behavior of individuals in social

groups and organizations and has been found useful as a concep-tual framework within which to examine volunteer organizations(Cadinu & Cerchioni, 2001; Tidwell, 2005). One of the assump-tions in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) is thatpeople think of themselves as psychologically linked to the groupsand organizations to which they belong (Ashforth & Mael, 1989;Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Hogg & Terry, 2000) and that peopleconsider the characteristics that apply to the group or organizationto be relevant to themselves (Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam,2004). This process is called social identification (Tajfel & Turner,1979). On the basis of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,1979), Tyler (1999) and Blader (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2001,2002) have argued that the social identification process links theindividual to the organization and that this connection leads tocooperation with the organization to the degree that the organiza-tion contributes favorably to the self-image of the individual. Morespecifically, Tyler (1999) and Blader (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2001,2002) have argued that members of an organization evaluate thestatus of that organization (pride) as well as their individual statuswithin the organization (respect) to determine the favorability oftheir relationship with the organization. Tyler (1999) and Blader(Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2001, 2002) posited that both pride andrespect can lead to a range of behaviors that benefit the organiza-tion. In the view of Tyler and Blader (2000, 2001, 2002), behaviorsaimed at benefiting the organization as well as behavioral inten-tions on behalf of the organization manifest cooperation with theorganization. We address the latter form of cooperation in thepresent research.

Tyler and Blader (2002) indicated that pride and respect can bedefined both comparatively and autonomously. In general, pridereflects the evaluation that one is part of an organization with highstatus; respect reflects the evaluation that one is accepted, appre-ciated, and valued as a member of the organization (e.g., Tyler,1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000). Although pride and respect are oftendescribed in comparative terms, Tyler and Blader (2002) argued

Edwin J. Boezeman and Naomi Ellemers, Department of Social andOrganizational Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Edwin J.Boezeman, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, LeidenUniversity, Wassenaarseweg 52, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, theNetherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association2007, Vol. 92, No. 3, 771–785 0021-9010/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.771

771

that when people make such evaluative judgments in practice,these comparisons often remain implicit or hypothetical. This iswhy they also conceptualized and measured pride and respect asautonomous beliefs that refer to the way people evaluate theorganization (pride) or perceive their own position within theorganization (respect) without making explicit comparisons withother organizations or with other individuals in the organization(Tyler & Blader, 2002). In the present research, we defined andmeasured pride and respect autonomously. Tyler (1999) andBlader (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2001, 2002) further argued thatpride and respect are crucial for the motivation and performance ofindividuals in organizations because people respond to favorableidentity-relevant information by developing a sense of psycholog-ical attachment to the organization, which is denoted as identifi-cation or commitment.

Pride, Respect, and Psychological Attachment to anOrganization

Organizational commitment is a form of psychological attach-ment to the organization (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; O’Reilly &Chatman, 1986). Tyler (1999) and Blader (Tyler & Blader, 2000)argued that it is commitment to the organization, based on prideand respect, that leads people to voluntarily cooperate with theorganization (see also Ellemers et al., 2004; Ellemers, De Gilder,& Van den Heuvel, 1998). Tyler (1999) and Blader (Tyler &Blader, 2000) examined the validity of this model for paid em-ployees and found empirical evidence that pride and respect areassociated with feelings of commitment and certain behaviors andbehavioral intentions that indicate cooperation with the organiza-tion (e.g., loyalty, intent to remain). Additionally, experimentalstudies (e.g., Branscombe, Spears, Ellemers, & Doosje, 2002;Doosje, Spears, & Ellemers, 2002; Ellemers, Wilke, & Van Knip-penberg, 1993; Simon & Sturmer, 2003; Sleebos, Ellemers, & DeGilder, 2006) have supported the reasoning offered by the social-identity-based model of cooperation. That is, empirical findingshave consistently shown that experimental manipulations of pride(Doosje et al., 2002; Ellemers et al., 1993) and respect in workgroups (Branscombe et al., 2002; Simon & Sturmer, 2003; Sleeboset al., 2006) induce psychological attachment to, and behavioraleffort on behalf of, the group. Thus, the validity of the theoreticalreasoning offered in the social-identity-based model of coopera-tion (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000) is supported by correla-tional data as well as experimental research.

Organizational commitment is relevant to volunteers (Dailey,1986), in particular because it can be shaped independently ofmaterial rewards (cf. Ellemers et al., 1998; Haslam & Ellemers,2005). Indeed, organizational commitment has been found to berelated to withdrawal cognitions (intentions to remain or leave)among both paid workers (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stan-ley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002) and volunteers (Jenner,1981; Miller, Powell, & Seltzer, 1990). For instance, in an inves-tigation of female volunteers, Jenner (1981) found that organiza-tional commitment was positively associated with plans to remaina volunteer at the volunteer organization. Likewise, Miller et al.(1990) found that organizational commitment was negatively as-sociated with the intention to leave among hospital volunteers. It isimportant to note that as volunteer work is unpaid and not oblig-atory (Meijs, 1997; Pearce, 1993), it is easy for volunteers to act

upon their desire to leave the organization (Pearce, 1993), andtherefore the willingness of volunteers to stay in the organizationremains important irrespective of, for instance, their tenure in thevolunteer organization or their level of job embeddedness (Mitch-ell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2002).

Types of Organizational Commitment

Allen and Meyer (1990) made a distinction between three dif-ferent types of organizational commitment. Affective organiza-tional commitment refers to a sense of emotional attachment to theorganization. One might feel such an emotional bond with anorganization, for instance, because one feels “part of the family” atthe organization and feels as if the problems of the organization areone’s own. Normative organizational commitment refers to a feel-ing of responsibility to stay with the organization. For instance,one may feel that it is immoral to leave the organization becauseof the mission of the organization. Continuance organizationalcommitment is a calculative form of attachment to the organizationthat binds the individual to the organization because importantcosts are associated with leaving the organization (e.g., loss ofpension benefits). Given their specific nature, these types of orga-nizational commitment operate differently in psychologically at-taching the individual to the organization and in describing thebehavior of individuals within the organization. This three-component model of commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990) has beenused extensively to examine employee involvement in for-profitorganizations (for an overview, see Meyer et al., 2002). Thefindings have generally converged to the conclusion that affectivecommitment is most strongly related to attendance and perfor-mance on the job. Continuance commitment may tie the individualto the organization, but it is often related negatively to work-relevant behaviors because of its calculative nature. Normativecommitment is usually less clearly associated with employee be-havior in for-profit organizations than affective commitment(Meyer et al., 2002).

On the basis of the definition of volunteer work (e.g., Meijs,1997), we suggest that the three types of organizational commit-ment operate differently in nonprofit volunteer organizations ascompared to for-profit organizations. Given the calculative natureof continuance organizational commitment, one may expect thatthis type of organizational commitment is less relevant to volun-teers because volunteer work is not bound by legal obligations andoccurs without material benefits. Indeed, Liao-Troth (2001) exam-ined attitude differences between paid workers and volunteers andconcluded that continuance organizational commitment was notrelevant to hospital volunteers. Converging evidence for this po-sition can be found in the research of Stephens, Dawley, andStephens (2004) and Dawley, Stephens, and Stephens (2005), whoconsistently demonstrated that continuance commitment (relatedto personal sacrifice) was irrelevant among board member volun-teers. Accordingly, in the present research we did not focus oncontinuance organizational commitment. As for affective and nor-mative organizational commitment, these are as likely to be rele-vant in volunteer organizations as in for-profit organizations. In-deed, both affective and normative organizational commitmentemerged as relevant correlates of perceived volunteer participationin research carried out by Preston and Brown (2004), Stephens etal. (2004), and Dawley et al. (2005) among board member volun-

772 BOEZEMAN AND ELLEMERS

teers. Accordingly, in our research we assessed affective as well asnormative organizational commitment.

We propose that the model of Tyler and Blader (Tyler, 1999;Tyler & Blader, 2000) can offer a unique perspective for examin-ing commitment and cooperative intent among volunteers and canhelp address the reliability problem (Pearce, 1993). This researchis the first that we know of to connect this theoretical approach tothe field of volunteer work. Using social identity theory (Tajfel &Turner, 1979) as a conceptual framework and in line with previousresearch (e.g., Branscombe et al., 2002; Doosje et al., 2002;Ellemers et al., 1993; Jenner, 1981; Miller et al., 1990; Simon &Sturmer, 2003; Sleebos et al., 2006; Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader,2000, 2001, 2002), we hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 1: Among volunteers, the experience of pride inbeing a member of the volunteer organization and the expe-rience of respect from the volunteer organization will bedirectly and positively associated with affective and norma-tive commitment to the volunteer organization.

Hypothesis 2: Among volunteers, pride and respect will beindirectly and positively associated with cooperative intent onbehalf of the volunteer organization (intention to remain)through organizational commitment.

As for the relative importance of affective and normative orga-nizational commitment, when Preston and Brown (2004) usedhierarchical regression analyses to compare the relative strength ofthe relations between affective and normative commitment on theone hand and perceived participation of board members on theother, they concluded that affective organizational commitmentwas most strongly associated with perceived volunteer perfor-mance. Similar observations have been made in other researchamong board member volunteers (Dawley et al., 2005; Stephens etal., 2004). However, we argue that such findings may be specificto board member volunteers and likely do not generalize to alltypes of volunteers. Indeed, both at the theoretical and at theempirical level, different groups of volunteers can be distinguishedbased on their self-chosen level of interest and effort invested inthe volunteer organization (Pearce, 1993). Compared to boardmember volunteers, volunteers who choose to contribute to thevolunteer organization on an occasional basis will tend to (a) beless informed of broader issues concerning the organization, (b)interact less frequently with the organization and its members, and(c) be less emotionally involved with the organization and itsactivities (Pearce, 1993). Therefore, although occasional volun-

teers do contribute to volunteer organizations, it is less likely thatthey do so on the basis of affective ties to these organizations thanwould be the case for board member volunteers. Indeed, we arguethat it is more likely that occasional volunteers act upon theirnormative commitment to the organization, which focuses onperceived responsibility and more abstract morality concerns, thanrely on interpersonal interactions and affective ties with the orga-nization. Indeed, personal normative beliefs are considered a gen-eral driving force in the field of volunteer work (see, for instance,Clary et al., 1998). Thus, we predicted the following:

Hypothesis 3: Among volunteers working on an occasionalbasis (i.e., volunteers working for an occasional fundraisingcampaign), normative organizational commitment would bemore strongly associated with behavioral intent on behalf ofthe volunteer organization (intention to remain) than wouldaffective organizational commitment.

In sum, Study 1 applies the social-identity-based model ofcooperation with the organization (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader,2000) to the field of volunteer work and addresses the relativeimportance of affective and normative organizational commitmentamong occasional volunteers. The hypotheses we derived aregraphically represented in Figure 1. In Study 1 we used structuralequation modeling (SEM) to examine empirical support for thishypothesized model in a volunteer fundraising organization.

Study 1

Method

Participants. Participants in this study were 251 volunteersworking on an occasional basis for a Dutch volunteer organizationwhose primary mission is to find a cure for diabetes by fundingrelevant research. Once a year this organization, which is inbusiness all year through, has permission to spend 1 week gath-ering funds from among the general public; this task is carried outby fundraising volunteers. Specifically, the fundraising volunteersin this study all had their own districts across the Netherlands inwhich they helped the organization in setting up and managing thefundraising campaign on a local level. Although most of their workwas concentrated into 1 week of the year, the volunteers wererequired to invest additional preparation time in advance of thefundraising week. Furthermore, although the contribution of thefundraising volunteers was occasional, there was an ongoing rela-tionship between the organization and these volunteers all year

Figure 1. Pride and respect as directly and positively associated with organizational commitment (Hypothesis1), and as indirectly and positively associated with behavioral intent on behalf of the volunteer organizationthrough organizational commitment (Hypothesis 2).

773VOLUNTEERING FOR CHARITY

through. For instance, on the basis of their fundraising activities,these volunteers sometimes were contacted for additional occa-sional volunteer work within the organization.

Of the 251 questionnaires distributed, 202 were filled out byactual fundraising volunteers,1 but only 170 were complete andcould be used for analysis. Of the 170 people who returned usablequestionnaires, 76.5% were women. This is representative of vol-unteer organizations in general, which are often characterized by amajority of female volunteers (e.g., Greenslade & White, 2005;Miller et al., 1990; Penner & Finkelstein, 1998; Tidwell, 2005).The respondents’ mean age was 52.8 years (SD � 11.3), which isin line with the observations of Knulst and Van Eijck (2002), whoreported that in the Netherlands most volunteers are between 46and 75 years of age. The mean number of years that the volunteershad been working for this organization was 10.41 (SD � 7), whichreflects the ongoing relationship between the organization and itsvolunteers. In all, 45.8% of the respondents held paid jobs besidesworking as a volunteer. Finally, 85.4% of the respondents reportedhaving infrequent contact with the other volunteers, which wasconsistent with our characterization of these volunteers and theiractivities.

Procedure. Randomly selected fundraising volunteers weremailed a survey and a form in which they were notified aboutadditional needs for volunteer work within the organization. In anaccompanying letter the volunteers were (a) asked for their par-ticipation by the organization and the researchers, (b) told that theorganization needed their opinions to improve its volunteer policy,and (c) guaranteed anonymity. The volunteers participating in thestudy then sent their surveys in a self-addressed return envelope tothe organization, which handed them unopened to the researchers.

Measures. All measures were adapted from validated Dutchscales or consisted of existing scales that were translated intoDutch (see Table 3 [presented later]). Where necessary, items wereadjusted to be more appropriate to volunteer work, as is commonpractice in research among volunteers (e.g., Tidwell, 2005). Allresponses were recorded on 5-point scales (1 � totally disagree,5 � totally agree).

We measured pride with three items adapted from the Autono-mous Pride Scale (Tyler & Blader, 2002). A sample item is “I amproud of being a member of [organization],” � � .87.

We measured volunteer organization respect with three itemsadapted from the Autonomous Respect Scale (Tyler & Blader,2002). A sample item is “I feel respected as a volunteer by[organization],” � � .84.

Commitment to the volunteer organization was measured withthree items adapted from the Dutch version of the AffectiveOrganizational Commitment Scale (e.g., “[Organization] has per-sonal meaning to me”; � � .84) and three items adapted from theDutch version of the Normative Organizational Commitment Scale(e.g., “One of the major reasons I continue to work for [organiza-tion] is that I find [mission] important”; � � .78) by De Gilder,Van den Heuvel, and Ellemers (1997), which are based on thework of Allen and Meyer (1990).

We measured behavioral intent on behalf of the organization(cooperation) by asking volunteers to indicate their intention toremain with the organization (see Miller et al., 1990) as a volunteer(� � .79), for instance by asking, “How likely is it that you willcontinue your work as a volunteer at [organization] for the next 2years?” The form included with the questionnaire through which

volunteers were notified about the need for additional volunteerwork within the organization implicitly conveyed that this was notjust a hypothetical question.

Results

Preliminary analyses. We calculated average scores for eachof the intended scales to conduct preliminary analyses of thecorrelations among the different constructs. The variables wereassociated in the way we expected (see Table 1). Because thenumber of years of active volunteering for the organization wasassociated with organizational respect, affective organizationalcommitment, and normative organizational commitment, we ex-amined whether this affected the hypothesized relation betweenvolunteer organization respect on the one hand and the two typesof organizational commitment on the other. When we corrected forthe number of years of active volunteering, the partial correlationbetween respect and affective organizational commitment re-mained intact (r � .46, p � .001). Likewise, after controlling forthe number of years of active volunteering, a correlation betweenrespect and normative organizational commitment was also re-tained (r � .37, p � .001). As a result, we decided not to includethe number of years of active volunteering as a control variable inthe hypothesized model (Figure 1).

Measurement analysis. In order to examine whether the itemsshould be clustered as predicted, before examining the relationsbetween the hypothesized constructs we conducted confirmatoryfactor analyses in EQS 6.1 (Bentler & Wu, 2004). We report thechi-square, nonnormed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index(CFI), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) asomnibus fit indexes in both the measurement analysis and thestructural analysis. The omnibus fit indexes typically indicatemodel fit when the values of NNFI and CFI are between 0.90 and1.00 and when RMSEA is less than .10 (Diamantopoulos &Siguaw, 2000; Hu & Bentler, 1995; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004).We report chi-square differences tests to compare the fit of differ-ent alternative models to the hypothesized measurement model.The results of the confirmatory factor analyses are summarized inTable 2 (see also Table 3).

We first tested the hypothesized five-factor measurement model,which showed acceptable fit to the data, �2(67, N � 170) � 115,p � .001, NNFI � .94, CFI � .96, RMSEA � .07. In order tofurther examine the validity of the hypothesized five-factor mea-surement model, we subsequently tested the model against alter-native measurement models. In the alternative 4A-factor measure-ment model, affective and normative organizational commitmentwere merged into one aggregate factor, because the different typesof organizational commitment could have been understood asmerely reflecting a global sense of organizational commitment bythe respondents, as suggested by the correlation between these twoconstructs (r � .48, p � .01). Furthermore, before we examinedthe hypothesis that pride and respect predicted organizationalcommitment (in view of the correlations between pride and respecton the one hand and organizational commitment on the other), wefirst needed to establish whether these could actually be consideredseparate constructs. Thus, we examined additional four-factor

1 This is a reflection of the fact that volunteer organizations often do notkeep records of their volunteers up to date (cf. Meijs, 1997).


measurement models in which pride and respect were merged witheach type of organizational commitment. As can be seen in Table2, the alternative measurement models fit the data significantly lesswell than did the hypothesized measurement model in terms ofomnibus fit indexes as well as chi-square differences tests. In sum,the confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the items were bestclustered as intended, supporting the validity of the hypothesizedconstructs.

The fact that the single-factor measurement model did not haveacceptable model fit (see Table 2) indicated that a single factor didnot adequately account for the covariation among the items andprovided initial evidence against bias from common method vari-ance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Further-more, when we introduced to the measurement model a factor thatrepresented common method variance (on which all of the items ofthe constructs were allowed to load; see Podsakoff et al., 2003), allbut one of the factor loadings of the constructs under examinationremained significant, which indicated that common method vari-ance did not distort the construct validity of the scales (cf. Kello-way, Loughlin, Barling, & Nault, 2002).2

Structural analysis. We used SEM executed in EQS 6.1(Bentler & Wu, 2004) to test whether the hypothesized structuralmodel (Figure 1) was supported by the data. As our data did notdepart substantially from normality and our sample was small(N � 200), we interpreted normal theory maximum likelihoodestimates as recommended by West, Finch, and Curran (1995).

The statistics we obtained when testing the fit of the overallmodel were �2(70, N � 170) � 121, p � .001, NNFI � .94, CFI �.96, RMSEA � .07. These statistics indicated that overall thehypothesized structural model fit the empirical data well (Diaman-topoulos & Siguaw, 2000; Hu & Bentler, 1995; Schumacker &Lomax, 2004). We consider (see also Diamantopoulos & Siguaw,2000) chi-square to show significant deviation from the modelmainly as a result of oversensitivity of the chi-square test, due tothe number of degrees of freedom and the sample size (accordingto the power tables given by MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara,1996, the power of our chi-square test approximated .88, which ishigh).

At this stage we tested the hypothesized structural model againsttwo alternative structural models. We constructed an alternativepartially mediated model (examining whether pride associateddirectly with the intent to remain in addition to the paths shown inFigure 1), because in a sample of paid employees pride was foundto relate both directly and indirectly (through psychological attach-ment) to turnover intention (see Tyler & Blader, 2001), making it

relevant to examine whether this also might be the case forvolunteers. The hypothesized model (Figure 1) was nested withinthe partially mediated model, and thus the models could be com-pared on the basis of the chi-square differences test. The statisticswe obtained when testing the overall fit of the partially mediatedmodel were �2(69, N � 170) � 120, p � .001, NNFI � .94, CFI �.96, RMSEA � .07. A chi-square differences test showed that thefit of the partially mediated model was not significantly different(��1

2 � 1, ns) from the more parsimonious and well-fitting hy-pothesized model. Furthermore, in the partially mediated model,the path from pride to the intent to remain was not significant (� �.15, ns), and the Wald test generated by EQS 6.1 (Bentler & Wu,2004) indicated that the direct path from pride to the intent toremain could be omitted from the partially mediated alternativemodel without substantial loss in model fit (for a discussion, seeByrne, 1994). Thus, the hypothesized fully mediated modelshowed better fit to the data than did the partially mediatedalternative model, as hypothesized. Additionally, because our datawere all collected at a single point in time, we examined analternative nonnested structural model to address the possibilitythat the causal order of the variables in our model might bereversed (intention to remain was directly associated with organi-zational commitment, and the intention to remain was indirectlyassociated with pride and respect through organizational commit-ment). The omnibus fit indexes of the alternative reversed model,�2(71, N � 170) � 144, p � .001, NNFI � .92, CFI � .94,RMSEA � .08, indicated that it fit the data less well than did thehypothesized structural model. More importantly, according toBentler (2004), in the case of nonnested model comparison oneshould specifically favor the model with the lowest value ofAkaike’s information criterion (AIC). The AIC statistic indicatedthat our hypothesized structural model provided a more appropri-ate representation of the data (AIC � �19) than did the reversedmodel (AIC � 2.1). Thus, we accepted the hypothesized structuralmodel (Figure 1) as the final model and proceeded with theexamination of the relationships among the latent variables in thismodel to examine each of our hypotheses.

We hypothesized (Hypothesis 1) that among volunteers, bothpride and volunteer organization respect would be directly andpositively associated with organizational commitment. Hypothesis1 was supported by the SEM analysis. First, pride (� � .41, p �

2 We are grateful to Ab Mooijaart, Ed Sleebos, and Daan Stam for theiradvice concerning this analysis.

Table 1Correlations Between Averaged Constructs, Study 1 (N � 170)

Construct M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Pride 3.44 0.85 —2. Volunteer organization respect 3.55 0.68 .38** —3. Affective commitment 2.96 0.83 .52** .49** —4. Normative commitment 3.95 0.75 .48** .39** .48** —5. Intention to remain 4.24 0.82 .26** .24** .18* .33** —6. Number of years of active volunteering for the organizationa 10.41 7.03 .13 .19* .22** .21** .02 —

a N � 148 due to missing values.* p � .05. ** p � .01.


.001) and volunteer organization respect (� � .37, p � .001) wereboth directly and positively associated with affective commitmentto the organization, and they jointly accounted for 42.9% of thevariance in affective organizational commitment. Second, pride(� � .50, p � .001) and volunteer organization respect (� � .22,p � .05) were both directly and positively associated with norma-tive commitment to the organization, and they jointly accountedfor 38.1% of the variance in normative organizational commit-ment.

Additionally, we hypothesized (Hypothesis 2) that among vol-unteers, both pride and volunteer organization respect would beindirectly and positively associated with the intent to remainthrough organizational commitment. Hypothesis 2 was supportedby the SEM analysis. The results confirmed that pride (� � .20,p � .001) and volunteer organization respect (� � .10, p � .05)were both indirectly and positively associated with the intent toremain through organizational commitment.

Finally, we hypothesized (Hypothesis 3) that among occasionalvolunteers, normative organizational commitment would be morestrongly related to the intent to remain than would affective orga-nizational commitment. We addressed this hypothesis with a se-quential three-step procedure.3 In Step 1 we tested a model inwhich only affective organizational commitment was related to theintent to remain against a model in which only normative organi-zational commitment was related to the intent to remain. Themodel in which only affective organizational commitment wasrelated to the intent to remain fit the data less well, �2(71, N �170) � 133, p � .001, NNFI � .93, CFI � .95, RMSEA � .07,AIC � �9.1, than the model in which only normative organiza-tional commitment was related to the intent to remain, �2(71, N �170) � 121, p � .001, NNFI � .94, CFI � .96, RMSEA � .06,AIC � –21. In Step 2 we specified a model in which the pathsfrom both affective and normative organizational commitment tothe intent to remain were constrained to be equal. The estimationprocedure for this alternative model yielded a model fit of �2(71,N � 170) � 125, p � .001, NNFI � .94, CFI � .95, RMSEA �.07. A chi-square differences test subsequently showed that thisalternative model fit the data significantly less well than did thehypothesized model (Figure 1), in which the two paths wereallowed to be different (i.e., not constrained; ��1

2 � 4, p � .05).

This indicated that the two regression slopes were different fromeach other and thus that the association between normative orga-nizational commitment and intention to remain differed signifi-cantly from the relation between affective organizational commit-ment and the intention to remain. Finally, in Step 3 we comparedthe relations between organizational commitment and the intent toremain in the hypothesized model (which allowed the two forms ofcommitment to have different relations with the intent to remain).In the hypothesized model, only normative organizational com-mitment showed a significant relation with the intent to remain(� � .38, p � .001), whereas the relation between affectivecommitment and the intent to remain was not significant (� � .04,p � ns). In sum, these results supported Hypothesis 3 that amongoccasional volunteers, normative organizational commitmentwould be more strongly related to the intention to remain thanwould affective organizational commitment. Furthermore, theyindicated that pride and respect were both indirectly and positivelyassociated with the intent to remain, primarily through normativeorganizational commitment.

Discussion

In our analysis based on the model of cooperation (Tyler, 1999;Tyler & Blader, 2000), we found support for our predictions that,among volunteers, (a) both pride and volunteer organization re-spect would be directly and positively associated with organiza-tional commitment (Hypothesis 1), and (b) pride and respect wouldbe indirectly and positively associated with cooperative intent onbehalf of the volunteer organization through organizational com-mitment (Hypothesis 2). Furthermore, we found support for ourreasoning that among occasional volunteers, it would be primarilynormative organizational commitment that would be associatedwith behavioral intent on behalf of the volunteer organization(Hypothesis 3). In sum, these findings extend existing knowledgeabout the likely causes and consequences of organizational com-mitment among volunteers, and they complement the results ob-tained in previous research among board member volunteers (e.g.,Dawley et al., 2005; Preston & Brown, 2004; Stephens et al.,

3 We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

Table 2Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results of Variables, Study 1 (N � 170)

Model df �2 ��2 NNFI CFI RMSEA

5-factor measurement model 67 115*** .94 .96 .074A-factor measurement modela 71 235*** 120*** .82 .86 .124B-factor measurement modelb 71 252*** 137*** .80 .84 .124C-factor measurement modelc 71 221*** 106*** .83 .87 .114D-factor measurement modeld 71 256*** 141*** .80 .84 .124E-factor measurement modele 71 259*** 144*** .79 .84 .131-factor measurement model 77 542*** 427*** .52 .60 .19

Note. ��2 indicates the deviation of each alternative model compared to the hypothesized five-factor mea-surement model. NNFI � nonnormed fit index; CFI � comparative fit index; RMSEA � root-mean-square errorof approximation.a Combining affective and normative commitment. b Combining pride and affective commitment. c Combiningpride and normative commitment. d Combining respect and affective commitment. e Combining respect andnormative commitment.*** p � .001.


2004). On the basis of the results of Study 1, we conclude thatpride and respect are relevant to the commitment and behavioralintent of volunteers. This knowledge may help address the reli-ability problem (Pearce, 1993). That is, the results suggest thatwhen volunteers experience pride and volunteer organization re-spect, it is more likely that they will feel committed to, and intendto cooperate with, the organization. If so, volunteer organizationsmay do well to implement pride and volunteer organization respectin their policies to address the reliability problem (Pearce, 1993).But what can volunteer organizations then possibly do to inducefeelings of pride and volunteer organization respect to enhance thecommitment of their volunteers? We address this issue in Study 2.

Study 2

Now that we have established that the model of Tyler andBlader (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000) is relevant to the fieldof volunteer work, it is important to examine which organizationalexperiences are associated with feelings of pride and respectamong volunteers. Therefore, in Study 2 we focused on the pos-sible antecedents of pride and respect and their association withvolunteers’ organizational commitment through pride and respect.Additionally, we cross-validated the central process specified by

the model of cooperation (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000)among two further samples of volunteers working in differentvolunteer organizations.

The Perceived Importance of Volunteer Work as anAntecedent of Pride

Which organizational experiences are likely to be associatedwith the experience of pride among volunteers? We argue that theperceived importance of volunteer work is a direct antecedent ofpride and an indirect antecedent of organizational commitmentthrough pride.

That their primary aim is to help society and its members insteadof making a profit or pursuing other more instrumental concernscan be considered a favorable characteristic of volunteer organi-zations (e.g., Fisher & Ackerman, 1998; Harris, 2001; Meijs, 1997;Pearce, 1993). Therefore, we argue that individual volunteers maytake pride in the volunteer organization to the degree that they feelthat society and its members are helped through their work as amember of the organization. This reasoning is consistent with theresearch of Galindo-Kuhn and Guzley (2001), who reported thatwhen volunteers do not perceive their efforts to be of importanceto people other than themselves they often become dissatisfied and

Table 3Standardized Parameter Estimates of Factor Loadings, R2s, and Item Means, Study 1 (N � 170)

Questionnaire item

Five-factor measurementmodel

Factorloading R2

Itemmean

Pride

I am proud to be a member of an organization with a charitable cause. .87 .75 3.27I am proud of being a member of [organization]. .84 .70 3.55I feel good when people describe me as a typical volunteer. .79 .62 3.50

Volunteer organization respect

I feel respected as a volunteer by [organization]. .72 .51 3.82[Organization] listens to what I have to say about volunteer work. .84 .70 3.40[Organization] cares about my opinion as a volunteer. .86 .73 3.42

Affective organizational commitment

I feel like part of the family at [organization]. .93 .86 2.76[Organization] has personal meaning to me. .67 .44 3.36I feel as if the problems of [organization] are my own. .83 .68 2.81

Normative organizational commitment

I feel morally responsible to work as a volunteer for [mission]. .92 .84 3.81I feel morally responsible to work as a volunteer for charity. .62 .38 3.82One of the major reasons I continue to work for [organization] is that I find

[mission] important. .71 .50 4.21

Intent to remain

How likely is it that you will quit your work as a volunteer at [organization]within the next 6 months?‘a .77 .59 4.29

How likely is it that you will continue your work as a volunteer at[organization] for the next 2 years? .84 .70 4.19

a Reverse scored.


quit volunteering. Furthermore, we argue that the perceived im-portance of volunteer work is indirectly and positively associatedwith organizational commitment through pride, because the theo-retical framework developed by Tyler (1999) and Blader (Tyler &Blader, 2000) assumes that pride is the psychological mechanismunderlying the relation between the perceived status cues of theorganization on the one hand and commitment to the organizationon the other. Thus, we hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 4: Among volunteers, the perceived importance ofvolunteer work would be directly and positively associatedwith pride in being a member of the volunteer organization(Hypothesis 4a), and the perceived importance of volunteerwork would be indirectly and positively associated with or-ganizational commitment through pride (Hypothesis 4b).

Perceived Organizational Support as an Antecedent ofRespect

Which organizational experiences are likely to be associatedwith the experience of volunteer organization respect among vol-unteers? We argue that the experience of organizational support isa direct antecedent of respect and an indirect antecedent of orga-nizational commitment through respect.

Whereas some researchers (e.g., Farmer & Fedor, 1999) haveexamined perceived organizational support (Eisenberger, Hunting-ton, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986; see also Rhoades & Eisenberger,2002) as reflecting the general belief of volunteers that the volun-teer organization values their contribution and cares about theirwell-being, others (e.g., Clary, 1987; Galindo-Kuhn & Guzley,2001; Gidron, 1983) have addressed the role of specific types ofsupport from the volunteer organization and how these are expe-rienced (i.e., perceived) by volunteers. Emotion-oriented support(Clary, 1987) is a form of support that addresses a recipient’sfeelings, for example an expression of appreciation by the volun-teer organization for the volunteer’s time and effort. In expressingemotion-oriented organizational support, the volunteer organiza-tion aims to enhance the feeling of the individual volunteer ofbeing valued, for instance by communicating that his or her con-tributions are worth the effort. Task-oriented support (Clary, 1987)refers to more concrete forms of assistance, for instance when therecipient is confronted with a problem. In the field of volunteerwork, task-oriented organizational support is important because itcan help volunteers to overcome problems during volunteer work.The distinction between emotion-oriented support and task-oriented support offers further insight into the different types ofperceived organizational support and their effects among volun-teers. Therefore, for the present research we adopted the distinc-tion between perceived emotion-oriented organizational supportand perceived task-oriented organizational support that has beensuggested by researchers in the field of volunteer work (e.g., Clary,1987; see also Galindo-Kuhn & Guzley, 2001; Gidron, 1983).

We argue that support received from the organization can beconsidered a cue for one’s status within the organization. Specif-ically, volunteers may derive feelings of respect from organiza-tional support (instead of simply seeing the supporting efforts ofthe organization as a way to optimize the effectiveness of theirwork), because the main aim of the volunteer organization is toachieve its mission of helping people, not to support its volunteers.

Indeed, according to Pearce (1993), lack of money and humanresources is common among volunteer organizations. Thus, theresources that are available are there primarily to help the peoplethe organization is trying to serve and are not spent on volunteers.In other words, as the clientele of a volunteer organization iscentral to its mission, the volunteers are considered less importantby implication. Under these conditions, we expected that thedegree to which volunteers experienced support from the volunteerorganization would be directly and positively associated with thedegree to which volunteers felt respected by the organization.Furthermore, we argue that the types of perceived organizationalsupport are indirectly and positively associated with organizationalcommitment through respect, because the theoretical frameworkdeveloped by Tyler (1999) and Blader (Tyler & Blader, 2000)assumes that respect is the psychological mechanism underlyingthe relation between one’s perceived status cues within an orga-nization and commitment to the organization. We thus hypothe-sized the following:

Hypothesis 5: Among volunteers, perceived emotion-orientedand task-oriented organizational support would be directlyand positively associated with volunteer organization respect(Hypothesis 5a), and the types of perceived organizationalsupport would be indirectly and positively associated withorganizational commitment through respect (Hypothesis 5b).

In sum, Study 2 extends the social-identity-based model ofcooperation with the organization (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader,2000) because it focuses on possible antecedents of feelings ofpride and respect and their relation with organizational commit-ment through pride and respect. Initial support for the validity ofthis reasoning was found in a small-scale preliminary study(Boezeman & Ellemers, in press). To address the robustness of ouranalysis, we examined the empirical support for our hypotheses(which are modeled in Figure 2) in two volunteer organizationsthat differed in the extent to which the volunteers were likely toindirectly benefit from the activities of the organization.

Method

Participants. Sample 1 participants were 203 fundraising vol-unteers from a Dutch volunteer organization whose mission is tohelp handicapped people integrate into society. According to theorganization, some volunteers were related to a handicapped per-son and thus indirectly benefited from the activities of the orga-nization.4 According to the organization, roughly half of the vol-unteers had an association with the clientele and most of thevolunteers had infrequent interpersonal and organizational contactas volunteers. Of the 203 questionnaires distributed, only 173 werecomplete and could be used for analysis. Of the 173 people whoreturned usable questionnaires, 82.1% were women. The respon-dents’ mean age was 53.8 years (SD � 10.46), the respondents’mean number of years volunteering for the organization was 8.52(SD � 6.5), and 32.4% held paid jobs besides working as avolunteer.

4 In remarks on the questionnaire, one of the volunteers made a requestto the organization to transport her daughter, who was in a wheelchair, toa leisure activity. This illustrates that volunteers of this organization weresometimes related to the organization’s beneficiaries.


Sample 2 participants were 193 fundraising volunteers from aDutch volunteer organization that supports health care initiativesin developing countries through direct financial aid, the delivery ofmaterials and equipment, and other means. Because of the missionand the geographical location of the organization, it was highlyunlikely that the volunteers were in some way related to the peoplethe organization was trying to serve.5 This implies that they wereunlikely to have an instrumental interest in supporting the organi-zation. Of the 193 questionnaires distributed, only 164 were com-plete and could be used for analysis. Of the 164 people whoreturned usable questionnaires, 84.8% were women. The respon-dents’ mean age was 54.7 years (SD � 10.8), the respondents’mean number of years volunteering for the organization was 12.37(SD � 9.76), 51.8% held paid jobs besides working as a volunteer,and 87.2% reported having infrequent interpersonal contact withthe other volunteers.

Procedure. Randomly selected fundraising volunteers weremailed a survey with an accompanying letter in which they were(a) asked for their participation by the organization and the re-searchers, (b) told that the organization needed their opinion toimprove its volunteer policy, and (c) guaranteed anonymity. Thevolunteers participating in the study then sent their surveys in aself-addressed return envelope to the organization, which handedthe envelopes unopened to the researchers.

Measures. Pride (Sample 1: � � .80, Sample 2: � � .84),volunteer organization respect (Sample 1: � � .83, Sample 2: � �.86), affective organizational commitment (Sample 1: � � .86,Sample 2: � � .85), and normative organizational commitment(Sample 1: � � .68, Sample 2: � � .81) were measured with the sameitems as in Study 1. As in Study 1, all responses were recorded on a5-point scale (1 � totally disagree, 5 � totally agree).

We measured the perceived importance of the volunteer workwith three items based on the Volunteer Satisfaction Index(Galindo-Kuhn & Guzley, 2001; Sample 1: � � .77, Sample 2:� � .80). A sample item is “I perceive that my volunteer workbenefits the [clientele].”

We measured perceived emotion-oriented organizational sup-port (2 items; Sample 1: � � .92, Sample 2: � � .80) andperceived task-oriented organizational support (2 items; Sample 1:� � .89, Sample 2: � � .85) with items based on the VolunteerSatisfaction Index (Galindo-Kuhn & Guzley, 2001), such as “[Or-

ganization] lets its volunteers frequently know that it appreciatestheir effort” (for emotion-oriented support) and “[Organization]assists me sufficiently in my volunteer work” (for task-orientedsupport). All of these measures were pretested in a small-scalepreliminary study (Boezeman & Ellemers, in press).

Results

Preliminary analyses. We calculated average scores for eachof the intended scales to conduct preliminary analyses of thecorrelations among the different constructs. The variables wereassociated in the way we expected (see Table 4). Because inSample 2 the number of years of active volunteering for theorganization was associated with pride as well as with affectiveorganizational commitment, we examined whether this might ac-count for the hypothesized relation between pride and affectivecommitment. However, when controlling for the number of yearsof active volunteering, the partial correlation between pride andaffective organizational commitment remained (r � .63, p � .001).Therefore, we decided not to include the number of years of activevolunteering as a control variable in the hypothesized model.

Measurement analysis. In order to examine whether the itemsshould be clustered as predicted, we conducted confirmatory factoranalyses in EQS 6.1 (Bentler & Wu, 2004). The results of theconfirmatory factor analyses are summarized in Table 5 for bothSample 1 and Sample 2 (see also Table 6). We first tested thehypothesized seven-factor measurement model, and this modelshowed an acceptable fit to the data in both samples. Omnibus fitindexes were �2(131, N � 173) � 245, p � .001, NNFI � .92,CFI � .94, RMSEA � .07 for Sample 1; and �2(131, N � 164) �219, p � .001, NNFI � .93, CFI � .95, RMSEA � .06 for Sample2. In order to further examine the validity of the hypothesizedseven-factor measurement model, we tested the model againstalternative measurement models using the chi-square differencestest. In the alternative 6A-factor measurement model, perceived

5 In remarks on the questionnaire, one volunteer indicated having livedfor a couple of years as an expatriate in one of the developing countries inwhich the organization was active. However, none of the volunteersindicated having relatives, friends, and so on in the developing countrieswho might benefit from the activities of this organization.

Figure 2. The perceived importance of volunteer work and perceived organizational support as directly andpositively associated with pride (Hypothesis 4a) and respect (Hypothesis 5a), and as indirectly and positivelyassociated with organizational commitment through pride (Hypothesis 4b) and respect (Hypothesis 5b).


emotion-oriented and task-oriented organizational support weremerged into one aggregate factor, because some researchers do notdistinguish between these two forms of support (e.g., Farmer & Fedor,1999). Indeed, the correlation between the two constructs (Sample 1:r � .60, p � .01; Sample 2: r � .55, p � .01) indicated thatrespondents might have seen both as indicators of more global orga-

nizational support. Furthermore, before examining our hypothesis thatorganizational support predicts respect, in view of the correlationsbetween the different types of perceived organizational support on theone hand and respect on the other, we needed to establish that thesecould be seen as distinct constructs. Thus, we constructed additionalsix-factor measurement models in which we merged each type of

Table 4Correlations Between Averaged Constructs, Study 2

Construct M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sample 1 (N � 173)

1. Perceived importance of volunteer work 4.08 0.58 —2. Perceived emotion-oriented

organizational support 4.01 0.68 .31** —3. Perceived task-oriented organizational

support 3.44 0.82 .26** .60** —4. Pride 3.46 0.74 .53** .31** .23** —5. Organizational respect 3.43 0.64 .36** .74** .68** .38** —6. Affective commitment 2.98 0.76 .49** .32** .29** .68** .41** —7. Normative commitment 3.86 0.69 .35** .36** .36** .48** .37** .53** —8. Years of volunteering for the

organizationa 8.52 6.50 .08 .00 .08 .07 �.01 .05 .18* —

Sample 2 (N � 164)1. Perceived importance of volunteer work 3.86 0.60 —2. Perceived emotion-oriented

organizational support 3.88 0.61 .27** —3. Perceived task-oriented organizational

support 3.67 0.73 .31** .55** —4. Pride 3.11 0.79 .35** .39** .30** —5. Organizational respect 3.62 0.66 .32** .63** .73** .36** —6. Affective commitment 2.82 0.75 .32** .27** .33** .63** .35** —7. Normative commitment 3.98 0.65 .26** .28** .27** .38** .32** .35** —8. Years of volunteering for the

organizationb 12.37 9.76 .08 .01 .08 .21* .11 .25** .14 —

a N � 161 due to missing values. b N � 144 due to missing values.* p � .05. ** p � .01.

Table 5Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results of Variables, Study 2

Model df �2 ��2 NNFI CFI RMSEA

Sample 1 (N � 173)

7-factor measurement model 131 245*** .92 .94 .076A-factor measurement modela 137 371*** 126*** .85 .88 .106B-factor measurement modelb 137 301*** 56*** .89 .91 .086C-factor measurement modelc 137 318*** 73*** .88 .91 .091-factor measurement model 152 1,020*** 775*** .49 .55 .18

Sample 2 (N � 164)

7-factor measurement model 131 219*** .93 .95 .066A-factor measurement modela 137 274*** 55*** .90 .92 .086B-factor measurement modelb 137 264*** 45*** .91 .92 .086C-factor measurement modelc 137 250*** 31*** .92 .93 .071-factor measurement model 152 927*** 708*** .48 .54 .18

Note. ��2 indicates the deviation of each alternative model compared to the hypothesized seven-factor measurement model. NNFI � nonnormed fit index;CFI � comparative fit index; RMSEA � root-mean-square error of approximation.a Combining perceived emotion-oriented and task-oriented organizational support. b Combining the perceived emotion-oriented organizational supportand respect. c Combining the perceived task-oriented organizational support and respect.*** p � .001.


perceived organizational support with organizational respect. As canbe seen in Table 5, these alternative measurement models all fit thedata significantly less well than did the hypothesized measurementmodel in terms of omnibus fit indexes as well as in terms of chi-square differences tests. Thus, the confirmatory factor analyses showthat the items are best clustered as intended, supporting the validity ofthe hypothesized constructs.

As we did in Study 1, we also examined whether the relationsbetween the hypothesized constructs might have been caused bycommon method variance. Again, initial evidence against biasfrom common method variance was provided by the fact that thesingle-factor measurement model did not have acceptable modelfit in either sample (see Table 5). Additionally, we used the sameprocedure as in Study 1 to further examine whether the factorloadings of the hypothesized constructs remained significant when

controlling for the effects of a factor that represented common methodvariance. After correcting for common method variance in this way,all of the factor loadings of the constructs under examination inSample 1 and all but one in Sample 2 remained significant, providingadditional evidence that common method variance did not distort theconstruct validity of the scales (cf. Kelloway et al., 2002).6

Structural analysis. We used SEM executed in EQS 6.1(Bentler & Wu, 2004) to test whether the hypothesized structuralmodel (Figure 2) was supported by the data. When testing theoverall model, the fit indices for Sample 1 were �2(142, N �173) � 268, p � .001, NNFI � .92, CFI � .93, RMSEA � .07;

6 Initially we encountered a Heywood case (see Chen, Bollen, Paxton,Curran, & Kirby, 2001) in these analyses, but in both samples we resolvedthe Heywood case in model reestimation.

Table 6Standardized Parameter Estimates of Factor Loadings, R2s, and Item Means, Study 2

Questionnaire item

Sample 1 (N � 173) Sample 2 (N � 164)

Factorloading R2 Item mean

Factorloading R2 Item mean

Perceived importance of volunteer work

I perceive that my volunteer work benefits [clientele]. .56 .31 3.71 .74 .54 3.51My voluntary effort really benefits [organization]. .87 .75 4.29 .75 .56 4.09My volunteer work is of importance for [mission volunteer

organization]. .87 .75 4.25 .82 .67 3.97

Perceived emotion-oriented organizational support

[Organization] appreciates the effort of its volunteers. .91 .82 4.07 .86 .73 4.06[Organization] lets its volunteers frequently know that it appreciates

their effort. .95 .90 3.95 .78 .60 3.70

Perceived task-oriented organizational support

[Organization] assists me sufficiently in my volunteer work. .89 .79 3.51 .83 .68 3.79[Organization] advises and assists me in my volunteer work. .91 .82 3.36 .89 .79 3.54

Pride

I am proud to be a member of an organization with a charitable cause. .80 .64 3.31 .85 .72 3.01I am proud of being a member of [organization]. .79 .62 3.61 .85 .72 3.10I feel good when people describe me as a typical volunteer. .69 .47 3.46 .69 .47 3.21

Volunteer organization respect

I feel respected as a volunteer by [organization]. .81 .65 3.68 .73 .53 3.84[Organization] listens to what I have to say about volunteer work. .75 .56 3.26 .86 .73 3.47[Organization] cares about my opinion as a volunteer. .80 .64 3.35 .88 .77 3.54

Affective organizational commitment

I feel like part of the family at [organization]. .85 .72 2.79 .91 .82 2.60[Organization] has personal meaning to me. .84 .70 3.14 .77 .59 3.20I feel as if the problems of [organization] are my own. .78 .60 3.00 .74 .54 2.65

Normative organizational commitment

I feel morally responsible to work as a volunteer for [mission volunteerorganization]. .71 .50 3.80 .84 .70 4.02

I feel morally responsible to work as a volunteer for charity. .62 .38 3.72 .76 .57 3.98One of the major reasons I continue to work for [organization] is that I

find [mission] important. .61 .37 4.05 .71 .50 3.95


and for Sample 2 were �2(142, N � 164) � 240, p � .001,NNFI � .93, CFI � .94, RMSEA � .07. These results suggestedthat in both samples the hypothesized model showed acceptable fitto the empirical data (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000; Hu &Bentler, 1995; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004).

We subsequently tested our hypothesized model against a par-tially mediated structural model (with direct paths from the per-ceived importance of volunteer work and perceived organizationalsupport to organizational commitment, in addition to the pathsdepicted in Figure 2), because it was possible that status cues hada direct effect on psychological engagement in addition to anindirect effect through pride and respect as underlying psycholog-ical mechanisms. That is, although it can be assumed that thecharacteristics of an organization relate to psychological engage-ment with this organization because of the pride and respect theyinstill in individual workers, previous research among paid em-ployees (e.g., Carmeli, 2005; Smidts, Pruyn, & Van Riel, 2001)has established direct relations between the perceived status of theorganization and organizational commitment, as well as betweenperceived support provided by the organization and organizationalcommitment (see Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). The alternativepartially mediated structural model yielded a model fit for Sample1 of �2(136, N � 173) � 261, p � .001, NNFI � .92, CFI � .93,RMSEA � .07; and for Sample 2 of �2(136, N � 164) � 236, p �.001, NNFI � .92, CFI � .94, RMSEA � .07. A chi-squaredifferences test showed that the alternative model did not representa significant improvement over the more parsimonious hypothe-sized model for Sample 1 (��6

2 � 7, ns) or Sample 2 (��62 � 4, ns).

Furthermore, in both samples all additional direct paths werenonsignificant, and the Wald test generated by EQS 6.1 (Bentler &Wu, 2004) showed that in both Sample 1 and Sample 2 theadditional direct paths were redundant. Thus, these results indi-cated that pride and respect fully mediated the relationship be-tween the perceived importance of volunteer work and perceivedorganizational support on the one hand and organizational com-mitment on the other. We accepted the hypothesized model andproceeded with the close examination of the hypothesized rela-tionships among the latent variables.

We predicted that among volunteers, the perceived importanceof volunteer work would be directly and positively associated withpride (Hypothesis 4a), and that the types of perceived organiza-tional support would be directly and positively associated withvolunteer organization respect (Hypothesis 5a). These hypotheseswere supported by the SEM analysis of both Sample 1 and Sample2. The perceived importance of volunteer work was directly andpositively associated with feelings of pride (Sample 1: � � .60,p � .001, R2 � .36; Sample 2: � � .47, p � .001, R2 � .22).Perceived emotion-oriented organizational support (Sample 1: � �.59, p � .001; Sample 2: � � .25, p � .01) and perceivedtask-oriented organizational support (Sample 1: � � .41, p � .001;Sample 2: � � .67, p � .001) were both directly and positivelyassociated with feelings of volunteer organization respect. In Sam-ple 1, the types of organizational support jointly accounted for82.5% of the variance in respect. In Sample 2, the types oforganizational support jointly accounted for 73% of the variance inrespect.

In addition, we reexamined the relations between pride, respect,and organizational commitment specified in the core of our modelto cross-validate the results obtained in Study 1. In Hypothesis 1,

we had predicted that among volunteers, both pride and respectwould be directly and positively associated with organizationalcommitment. This hypothesis was further supported by the SEManalysis of both Sample 1 and Sample 2. As hypothesized, theresults indicated that pride was directly and positively associatedwith both affective organizational commitment (Sample 1: � �.77, p � .001; Sample 2: � � .71, p � .001) and normativeorganizational commitment (Sample 1: � � .60, p � .001; Sample2: � � .37, p � .001). The results also indicated that volunteerorganization respect was directly and positively associated withboth affective organizational commitment (Sample 1: � � .19, p �.01; Sample 2: � � .16, p � .05) and normative organizationalcommitment (Sample 1: � � .30, p � .01; Sample 2: � � .23, p �.01). In Sample 1, pride and volunteer organization respect jointlyaccounted for 69% of the variance in affective organizationalcommitment, and in Sample 2 they jointly accounted for 56.4% ofthe variance. In Sample 1, pride and volunteer organization respectjointly accounted for 51.8% of the variance in normative organi-zational commitment, and in Sample 2 they jointly accounted for21.8% of the variance.

Finally, we addressed Hypotheses 4b and 5b, which stated thatthe hypothesized antecedents of pride and respect (i.e., the per-ceived importance of volunteer work and perceived organizationalsupport) would be indirectly and positively associated with orga-nizational commitment. Hypotheses 4b and 5b were supported bythe SEM analysis. The results showed an indirect and positiverelation of the perceived importance of volunteer work with affec-tive organizational commitment (Sample 1: � � .46, p � .001;Sample 2: � � .33, p � .001) and normative organizationalcommitment (Sample 1: � � .36, p � .001; Sample 2: � � .17,p � .01) through pride. The results also showed an indirect andpositive relation of perceived emotion-oriented organizational sup-port with affective organizational commitment (Sample 1: � �.11, p � .01; Sample 2: � � .04, p � .10) and normativeorganizational commitment (Sample 1: � � .17, p � .01; Sample2: � � .06, p � .10) through respect. Likewise, we observed asignificant indirect and positive relation between perceived task-oriented organizational support and affective organizational com-mitment (Sample 1: � � .08, p � .01; Sample 2: � � .11, p � .05)as well as normative organizational commitment (Sample 1: � �.12, p � .01; Sample 2: � � .15, p � .05) through respect.

In sum, in both samples we found consistent empirical supportfor the structural model (Figure 2) we hypothesized.

Discussion

We found support for our main predictions that among volun-teers, the perceived importance of volunteer work would be asso-ciated with pride (Hypothesis 4a), that perceived organizationalsupport would be associated with volunteer organization respect(Hypothesis 5a), and that the antecedents would be indirectly andpositively associated with organizational commitment through,respectively, pride (Hypothesis 4b) and respect (Hypothesis 5b).Of importance is the fact that we also cross-validated the main partof the model of cooperation (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000) intwo additional volunteer organizations, as we again found empir-ical evidence in support of our prediction (Hypothesis 1) that bothpride and respect would be associated with volunteers’ organiza-tional commitment, in two different types of volunteer organiza-


tions. On the basis of the results of Study 1, we posited that prideand volunteer organization respect can help predict volunteers’commitment to the organization, and that pride and respect canhence contribute to volunteers’ willingness to cooperate with thevolunteer organization. Extending Study 1, the results from Study2 suggest that volunteer organizations aiming to enhance thecommitment of their volunteers might use organizational experi-ences that enhance the perceived importance of volunteer workand foster the perception that support is provided by the organi-zation to induce feelings of pride and respect.

General Discussion

In this research, we found that the extended social-identity-based model of cooperation with the organization is valid in, andrelevant to, volunteer organizations. However, this research hasvalue beyond showing a possible way to address the commitmentand cooperative intent of volunteers. First, there is a lack of theoryand models that explain why people continue to volunteer (Penner& Finkelstein, 1998). Furthermore, there is a lack of knowledgeregarding what volunteer organizations can do to promote volun-teerism (Fisher & Ackerman, 1998). Therefore, our finding that themodel of cooperation (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000) isrelevant to the motivation of volunteers adds a new and promisingperspective to research on the organizational behavior of volun-teers. Second, because we examined the model of cooperation(Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000) in a setting in which materialrewards were absent, we were able to show that pride and respectcould be reason to cooperate with the organization in their ownright. That is, we demonstrated that pride and respect are ofimportance as motivators beyond, and independently of, instru-mental considerations (such as monetary rewards or career oppor-tunities). Although this knowledge is of particular importance tononprofit volunteer organizations because these organizations canuse only nonmaterial means (such as pride and respect) to rewardand motivate their workers, it also is relevant to a broader range oforganizations, as organizational experiences that induce pride andrespect can be expected to enhance motivation among paid em-ployees in ways that cannot be understood from more instrumentalapproaches to work motivation. Finally, when we addressed thecooperative intentions of occasional volunteers in Study 1, wefound that these were mainly associated with their normativeorganizational commitment. Indeed, this is relevant because itextends the notion that in for-profit organizations and in volunteerboards the performance and behavioral intentions of workers areprimarily associated with their affective commitment to the orga-nization (Dawley et al., 2005; Meyer et al., 2002; Preston &Brown, 2004; Stephens et al., 2004). As far as we know, thepresent research is the first to indicate that there are specificcircumstances under which normative commitment is more rele-vant as a predictor of behavioral intentions than is affective orga-nizational commitment. This is not to say that affective commit-ment is less important or less relevant for volunteer organizationsin general. In fact, there may be specific behaviors (such as mutualsupport and helping behaviors among volunteers) for which affec-tive commitment is the primary determinant. This is another resultof the present investigation that opens up interesting possibilitiesfor further development of theory and for additional research.

Implications for Volunteer Organizations

On the basis of the results obtained we consider the model ofcooperation (Tyler, 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2000) to be valuable inaddressing the reliability problem (Pearce, 1993). In line withtheoretical reasoning and relevant research, we interpret ourpresent findings as indicating that when volunteers experiencepride and respect, it is likely that they will cooperate with thevolunteer organization. Therefore, we think that volunteer organi-zations may do well to implement strategies that induce pride andrespect.

Our results suggest that volunteer coordinators can induce feel-ings of pride among volunteers by making it clear to them thattheir activities are important for the people the organization istrying to serve. For instance, volunteer organizations can providevolunteers with concrete feedback about the successes of theirjoint efforts in a magazine or electronic newsletter (e.g., reportingthe amount of money collected, describing the projects supported).Alternatively, volunteer organizations can arrange informal meet-ings between volunteers and the people the organization is tryingto serve so that volunteers have the opportunity to hear from theorganization’s beneficiaries what the efforts of the volunteersmean to them. Our findings further suggest that volunteer organi-zations might enhance feelings of respect among volunteers byproviding them with emotion-oriented and task-oriented organiza-tional support during volunteer work. For instance, volunteer co-ordinators often form the link between the volunteer organizationand individual volunteers. Therefore, volunteer coordinators canbe trained to create a supportive environment in which they reg-ularly communicate to the appointed volunteers that the organiza-tion appreciates their donations of time and effort (emotion-oriented support) and inquire whether all is going well or offertheir help during volunteer work (task-oriented support). Otherstrategies volunteer organizations can use to provide volunteerswith task-oriented support may include appointing a special con-tact person and/or telephone line for task-related questions, pro-viding volunteers with the opportunity to receive additional train-ing to optimize the effectiveness of their volunteer work,compiling a manual that provides guidelines for the differentactivities that have to be carried out, or letting volunteers choosea task that best suits their capabilities.

Limitations of the Present Research

A limitation of the present research is that the data are cross-sectional self-reports that can only be analyzed with statisticaltechniques based on correlational analysis. The main concernregarding results obtained from self-report data is the possiblethreat of common method variance that might attenuate the theo-retical significance of the observed relations between the variablesthat were measured (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, when weaddressed this possibility in different ways, we found no evidencein any of the three samples examined that the relations we ob-served among the variables in our models were merely the result ofcommon method variance, supporting the notion that the results weobtained reflect meaningful relations between the hypothesizedconstructs. A further consequence of the correlational nature of ourdata is that they can at best only suggest causality among thevariables. Thus, additional longitudinal or experimental studies are


required to further validate the causal relations among the con-structs in the models we hypothesized. In this context, it is impor-tant to note that our interpretation does reflect the causal relationsproposed in the theoretical framework that was used (Tajfel &Turner, 1979; Tyler, 1999) and is consistent with observations inrelevant research among paid workers (Tyler, 1999; Tyler &Blader, 2000, 2001, 2002) as well as results from experimentalresearch in this area (e.g., Branscombe et al., 2002; Doosje et al.,2002; Ellemers et al., 1993; Simon & Sturmer, 2003; Sleebos et al.,2006). Furthermore, when analyzing the present data we tested thehypothesized models against alternative models and found that themodels we proposed showed the best fit to these data. Neverthe-less, we think there is value in conducting experimental fieldstudies that aim to manipulate different presumed antecedents ofpride and respect in order to see whether these induce the hypoth-esized states and contribute to commitment and cooperative be-havior.

Suggestions for Further Research

There is still much to learn about the organizational behavior ofvolunteers. We have argued that the different types of organiza-tional commitment distinguished by Allen and Meyer (1990) canoperate differently among volunteers as opposed to paid workers,and even among specific groups of volunteers. Future researchshould further explore how, when, and why these different types oforganizational commitment distinguished by Allen and Meyer(1990) are relevant among specific groups of volunteers.

In this research we addressed one specific aspect of the coop-eration construct, namely behavioral intent on behalf of the orga-nization (see Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2001, 2002). Now that wehave established the validity of the social-identity-based model ofcooperation as a tool for understanding organizational commit-ment among volunteers, future studies might further explore howactual behaviors aimed at cooperation with the volunteer organi-zation are related to pride, respect, and organizational commit-ment. For instance, researchers can address the behavioral effortsexerted by volunteers, examine the extent to which they actuallycooperate with paid staff within the volunteer organization, orassess the degree of behavioral compliance to requests or guide-lines provided by the organization.7

For now, we have shown that pride and respect are relevant andvaluable in the field of volunteer work and that they hold a clearpromise with regard to further theory development and research onthe organizational behavior of volunteers. Regardless of the orga-nizational benefits discussed in this article, volunteers deserve tofeel proud and to be respected, because they positively contributeto society.

7 We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

References

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents ofaffective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organi-zation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS 6 structural equations program manual.Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. W. (2004). EQS 6.1 for Windows. Encino, CA:Multivariate Software.

Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (in press). Pride and respect in volunteers’organizational commitment. European Journal of Social Psychology.

Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002). Intra-group and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744–753.

Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Cadinu, M. R., & Cerchioni, M. (2001). Compensatory biases after ingroupthreat: “Yeah, but we have a good personality.” European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 31, 353–367.

Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, andcitizenship behaviors. Organization Studies, 26, 443–464.

Chen, F., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., & Kirby, J. B. (2001).Improper solutions in structural equation models: Causes, consequences,and strategies. Sociological Methods & Research, 29, 468–508.

Clary, E. G. (1987). Social support as a unifying concept in voluntaryaction. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16, 58–68.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A.,Haugen, J. H., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing themotivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 74, 1516–1530.

Dailey, R. C. (1986). Understanding organizational commitment for vol-unteers: Empirical and managerial implications. Journal of VoluntaryAction Research, 15, 19–31.

Dawley, D. D., Stephens, R. D., & Stephens, D. B. (2005). Dimensionalityof organizational commitment in volunteer workers: Chamber of com-merce board members and role fulfillment. Journal of Vocational Be-havior, 67, 511–525.

De Gilder, D., Van den Heuvel, H., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Het3-componentenmodel van Commitment [The 3-component model ofcommitment]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 10, 95–106.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. Lon-don: Sage.

Doosje, B., Spears, R., & Ellemers, N. (2002). Social identity as both causeand effect: The development of group identification in response toanticipated and actual changes in the intergroup status hierarchy. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 41, 57–76.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986).Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,500–507.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individ-uals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership andgroup performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-orientedversus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83, 717–730.

Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of thelegitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collectivestatus-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 64, 766–778.

Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1999). Volunteer participation and with-drawal: A psychological contract perspective on the role of expectationsand organizational support. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 9,349–367.

Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2001). Changing the focus on volunteering:An investigation of volunteers’ multiple contributions to a charitableorganization. Journal of Management, 27, 191–211.

Fisher, R. J., & Ackerman, D. (1998). The effects of recognition and group


need on volunteerism: A social norm perspective. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 25, 262–275.

Galindo-Kuhn, R., & Guzley, R. M. (2001). The Volunteer SatisfactionIndex: Construct definition, measurement, development, and validation.Journal of Social Service Research, 28, 45–68.

Gidron, B. (1983). Sources of job satisfaction among service volunteers.Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 12, 20–35.

Greenslade, J. H., & White, K. M. (2005). The prediction of above-averageparticipation in volunteerism: A test of the theory of planned behaviorand the Volunteers Functions Inventory in older Australian adults.Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 155–172.

Harris, M. (2001). This charity business: Who cares? Nonprofit Manage-ment & Leadership, 12, 95–109.

Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial andorganizational psychology. International Review of Industrial and Or-ganizational Psychology, 20, 39–118.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorizationprocesses in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review,25, 121–140.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.),Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp.76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jenner, J. R. (1981). Volunteerism as an aspect of women’s work lives.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 19, 302–314.

Kelloway, E. K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J., & Nault, A. (2002). Self-reported counterproductive behaviors and organizational citizenship be-haviors: Separate but related constructs. International Journal of Selec-tion and Assessment, 10, 143–151.

Knulst, W., & Van Eijck, K. (2002). Vrijwilligers in soorten en maten II.Ontwikkelingen in de periode 1985–2000 [Different kinds of volunteersII: Developments 1985–2000]. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg Uni-versity, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences.

Liao-Troth, M. A. (2001). Attitude differences between paid workers andvolunteers. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11, 423–442.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Poweranalysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure mod-eling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of theantecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commit-ment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.

Meijs, L. C. P. M. (1997). Management van vrijwilligersorganisaties[Management of volunteer organizations]. Utrecht, the Netherlands:NOV Publikaties.

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 ofVocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

Miller, L. E., Powell, G. N., & Seltzer, J. (1990). Determinants of turnoveramong volunteers. Human Relations, 43, 901–917.

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M.(2002). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntaryturnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment andpsychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, andinternalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,71, 492–499.

Pearce, J. L. (1993). Volunteers: The organizational behavior of unpaidworkers. London: Routledge.

Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispositional and structuraldeterminants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 74, 525–537.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of theliterature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 879–903.

Preston, J. B., & Brown, W. A. (2004). Commitment and performance ofnonprofit board members. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15,221–238.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support:A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to struc-tural equation modeling (2nd ed.). London: Erlbaum.

Simon, B., & Sturmer, S. (2003). Respect for group members: Intragroupdeterminants of collective identification and group-serving behavior.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 183–193.

Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., & De Gilder, D. (2006). The carrot and the stick:Affective commitment and acceptance anxiety as motives for discretion-ary group efforts by respected and disrespected group members. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 244–255.

Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact ofemployee communication and perceived external prestige on organiza-tional identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1051–1062.

Stephens, R. D., Dawley, D. D., & Stephens, D. B. (2004). Commitment onthe board: A model of volunteer directors’ levels of organizationalcommitment and self-reported performance. Journal of Managerial Is-sues, 16, 483–504.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroupconflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology ofintergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tidwell, M. V. (2005). A social identity model of prosocial behaviorswithin nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership,15, 449–467.

Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research inorganizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays andcritical reviews (pp. 210–246). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Proceduraljustice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psy-chology Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior ingroups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 207–226.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2002). Autonomous vs. comparative status:Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves? Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 813–838.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation modelswith nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.),Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp.56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.

Received August 12, 2005Revision received August 24, 2006

Accepted October 18, 2006 �


Date post:	10-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	naomi
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

Volunteering for charity: Pride, respect, and the commitment of volunteers.

Documents