The Influence of Family and Household Members on Individual Volunteer Choices

Abstract

This paper investigates the how the volunteering behaviors of family and household members influence an individual’s decision to volunteer. Using data from the 2005 Current Population Survey’s Volunteering Supplement, I test how living with volunteers and living with people who have never volunteered affect volunteering. I find that living with volunteers dramatically increases the likelihood of volunteering, especially for religious volunteering. The more volunteers the person lives with, the higher the person’s probability of volunteering. People who live with others who say that they have never volunteered in their lives are much less likely to volunteer and volunteer fewer hours. Living with volunteers also changes the methods by which people become involved in volunteering.

Keywords

volunteering religious volunteering family socialization volunteer household

A person’s earliest and most powerful socialization experiences take place in the household with family and other household members. Family experiences affect people’s self-perceptions and identity formation (Adams & Jones, 1983; LaVoie, 1976). Their identities, in turn, affect how they view the world and their behavior in different social settings. Within households, individuals learn how to interact with others and with the larger community, partly by receiving instruction about methods of civic and political involvement (Andolina, Jenkins, Zukin, & Keeter, 2003). Religious families are particularly successful in socializing members to greater involvement (Bekkers, 2007). In addition, household structure is tightly linked with volunteering behavior. Married people and people with children are more likely to volunteer than singles and childless couples (Musick & Wilson, 2008). Because household members have a lasting effect on each other’s behaviors and attitudes, it is vital to investigate the ways that household structure conditions volunteering.

This article explores the link between the household members’ volunteering structure and the volunteering behavior of other household members. Specifically, this article will address the questions, How does the volunteering of other household members influence an individual’s choice to volunteer? Does this influence vary across volunteering domains (religious and secular)? This article explores the effect of household members’ volunteering on an individual’s volunteer participation in the religious and secular domains.

How Households Shape Volunteering

There are three primary reasons why people do not volunteer—they cannot, they do not want to, or they have not been asked (Brady, Verba, & Schlozman, 1995). Families and other household members can help to overcome all three of these barriers to volunteering by providing the skills and resources necessary to support volunteering, to motivate family members, and to provide family members with volunteer opportunities.

Providing Skills and Resources

One of the principal ways that households provide the skills and resources necessary for volunteering is through status transmission. According to status transmission theory, parents transfer to their children their social class, religious preferences, race, and other social status conditions that shape their children’s experiences, attitudes, and behaviors (Acock, 1984). The extension of status transmission theory to volunteering is that children will inherit status-related qualities from their parents, such as a propensity to have a higher education and income. These qualities are positively associated with volunteering; higher status individuals are more likely to volunteer than lower status individuals, the higher the education level, the higher the income, and the higher occupational status, the more likely the person is to volunteer (Musick & Wilson, 2008). Thus, youth who inherit these characteristics from their parents will be more likely to volunteer.

We would expect that the relationship between status and volunteering will arise from other relationships within the household and not just the relationship between parents and children. Newly wed couples exhibit a substantial amount of homogamy; they match each other on a range of characteristics, such as race, education, and religion (Blackwell & Lichter, 2004). Educational homogamy is particularly common (Kalmijn, 1991, 1994), and education is a strong predictor of socioeconomic status and volunteering. Although there is evidence that the extent to which an individual searches for a matching partner can vary by race, age and gender (South, 1991), it is evident that there is often a substantial match between the socioeconomic conditions of two individuals getting married. Homogamous couples often share similar socialization experiences because they have experienced similar institutions, such as educational institutions (Stevens, 1991). Once couples are married, we would expect that they will become more homogamous in socioeconomic status because of shared income and standard of living. Increasing similarity in socioeconomic status of family members over time can support volunteering among household members by increasing the education, income and occupational status of all household members.

Another important household resource that supports or deters volunteering is available free time. We can view households as productive units and the work of the household (chores, caregiving, voluntary service, and paid work) will be allocated among the different members of the household (Freeman, 1997). Researchers have proposed two theories about how married couples allocate time to voluntary work. The first is substitution theory that posits that if one spouse increases the amount of time spent doing unpaid volunteer work, the other spouse will need to compensate by decreasing his or her voluntary work in order to spend more time doing other household work, such as cooking, cleaning, or child care. The second theory is complementarity theory. According to this theory, volunteering by married couples will tend to be reflective of each other’s behaviors—either both will volunteer or neither will volunteer. Empirically, the evidence supports complementarity volunteering theory over substitution theory. A person is more likely to volunteer if his or her spouse volunteers, and women have a stronger effect on the volunteering of their husbands than men do on their wives (Freeman, 1997; Hook, 2004; Rotolo & Wilson, 2006). Additionally, the spousal effect is stronger when both spouses volunteered in the same domain, meaning for the same type of organization (Rotolo & Wilson, 2006). Clearly, the volunteering of spouses is interrelated.

These theories have application beyond the spousal context. In households where there are other adult members present, such as a grandparent, aunt, or uncle, the substitution and complementarity theories can similarly apply in allocating household work. For instance, complementarity theory would predict that other household members may share household work, such as child care, cooking and cleaning, which frees up time for all household members to spend on volunteering.

Participation in religious organizations also provides the resources necessary for volunteering. Musick, Wilson, and Bynum (2000) indicate that most studies of volunteering find that blacks are less likely to volunteer than whites, probably due to differences in their human capital, such as skills, resources, and education. Musick et al., however, find that blacks’ religious attendance often compensates for a lack of human capital by developing greater social and cultural capital. Through participation in religious organizations and their varied activities, individuals can increase the skills and resources that they need to volunteer.

Motivating People to Volunteer

Household members motivate each other to volunteer by transferring attitudes and values through socialization processes. Of all the many socialization venues, such as schools, churches and other institutions, the family remains the most important and influential socializer (Gecas, 1981). This is because the family has a combination of strong and durable relationships, which promotes greater discipline within family units (Elshtain, 1999). In the socialization process, people strive to act in ways that please their socializers—in this case, other household or family members. The stronger a person’s attachment to the socializers, the more that person will try to please them by acting in appropriately sanctioned ways (Arnett, 1995). Because the bonds within families are particularly strong and salient, family and other household members become powerful agents of socialization.

Socialization occurs through direct transference of attitudes or values. Research has shown that while status transmission is an important predictor of children’s attitudes, the direct transfer of attitudes and ideologies from parents to children also takes place in the home, especially religious and political ideologies (Glass, Bengtson, & Dunham, 1986; Jennings & Niemi, 1982; Smith, 1983). Transfer of values and attitudes is not limited to the relationships between parents and children. When two people wed, a substantial value shift may align their values with each other. Further, values of married partners tend to converge over time as spouses change to accommodate each other (Levinger, 1986). In general, the greatest value consensus tends to be among couples of higher socieoeconomic status (Kerckhoff, 1972)—those couples who are most likely to volunteer. We expect the values of married couples to become increasingly similar, including values that support volunteering.

Generally, if only one spouse in a couple volunteers, it is more likely to be the wife than the husband (Wuthnow, 1995). Women draw men into volunteer work. One interesting study asked respondents whether they would engage in charitable work without first clearing the decision with their spouse. Of the husbands, 33% indicated that they would not compared to only 14% of the wives (Burns, Schlozman, & Verba, 1997). This indicates that men are seeking approval and sanction of charitable service from their wives. Wives’ support allows and encourages men to volunteer (Hook, 2004). Volunteering values are most often passed from the wife to the husband.

Correspondingly, other volunteers in the household—either related or not—can influence volunteering. Similarity in the values of parents and children is stable across successive generations (Glass et al., 1986), so grandparents in the home who volunteer serve to reinforce a household norm of volunteering. Other nonrelated adults can also reinforce norms when the relationships are close, affective and salient. Satisfaction in family life relates to the extent to which families can jointly enact and realize their values (Bowen, 1988). We expect that those who live in households where others volunteer will be more likely to volunteer themselves, even when they aren’t related to them.

Religious households often socialize individuals to volunteer. Religious ideologies (beliefs, values, and practices) pass directly from one generation to the next (Glass et al., 1986). Similiarly, the religious volunteering of one household member will influence the religious volunteering of other household members. Indeed, studies show an intergenerational transfer of religious volunteering, primarily through the transfer of religion and status to children (Bekkers, 2007). Religious volunteering is particularly salient within a household, especially among related household members.

Providing Opportunities to Be Asked to Volunteer

Many people with the ability and motivation to volunteer often need a catalyst to do so—being asked to volunteer. Those who are asked to volunteer are more likely to volunteer (Sundeen & Raskoff, 2000; Wymer, 1997). Households provide a venue for members to be “asked” to volunteer—through household members volunteering together, through volunteering that benefits another household member, and through increased social networks.

One volunteering trend is families wanting to volunteer together (Jalandoni & Hume, 2001; Pidgeon, 1998). Volunteering together helps families to meet shared goals, such as spending time together and modeling good citizenship. It also allows family members opportunities to share values, to talk with each other, and to spend quality time together (Littlepage, Obergfell, & Zanin, 2003). Volunteering together serves to build stronger family relationships (Porritt, 1995) and teaches children how to interact with others (Bowen & McKechnie, 2002). Many direct and indirect benefits accrue to families that volunteer together.

This holds true for married couples. According to one study, a high proportion of married volunteers, 41%, indicated that they did some volunteer work as a couple (Musick & Wilson, 2008). Volunteering together helps couples to bond and spend time together. Research demonstrates the importance of shared leisure activities for couples. Happy couples share similar recreational activities and value time spent together (Locke, 1951; Reissman, Aron, & Bergen, 1993). In fact, couples possessing a shared identity around a salient recreation role report higher marital satisfaction (Baldwin, Ellis, & Baldwin, 1999). In a similar way, volunteering can serve as an important leisure activity for married couples.

The second way that household members can be “asked” to volunteer is through volunteering done to benefit another household member. People are much more likely to volunteer for an organization when a friend or family member is connected to that organization (Wymer, 1997). Family members volunteer for organizations that provide benefits or services to other family members (Nichols & King, 1998; Smith, 1994). One study found that approximately three quarters of volunteers indicated that they volunteered because of their connections to other people—either someone who was part of the organization or someone who benefited from the organization (Becker & Dhingra, 2001).

Household relationships form the core of a person’s social ties and can be a powerful motivating force. Larger households have greater combined social networks, which increases the probability that household members will be asked to volunteer. Social networks motivate people to volunteer. Network theory proposes that individual behavior results from relationships with other people and institutions (Peterson et al., 2008). People in these networks often ask others to volunteer (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995; Wiepking & Maas, 2009). In a summary of relevant literature, Cho and Rudolph (2008) conclude that social interaction causes people to adopt the norms of others in the network. Kinship networks are tighter and more loving than other networks (Hoyt & Babchuk, 1993), which increases the salience of volunteering norms in a family. Nonkin networks tend to be diverse (Straits, 1992) and bring a wider range of individuals into contact with each other. Household members’ social networks pull other household members into volunteering.

Religious organizations serve as community centers and mobilize people to community-related efforts. Religious organizations receive the largest portion of volunteer time (Salamon, 1997). Religious congregants perform group volunteering to benefit other nonprofit and charitable organizations (Clain & Zech, 1999; Cnaan, 2002). Given the importance of family volunteering (Jalandoni & Hume, 2001), it is likely that religious families volunteer through their religious organization. Religious organizations provide additional opportunities for people to be asked to volunteer.

Hypotheses

We expect people with strong family or household ties to be volunteers, especially when someone in the household volunteers. This article outlines several reasons for this, including (a) volunteering for organizations that a family member is involved in or benefits from; (b) volunteering together to strengthen family ties and to teach children; (c) volunteering because of family socialization; and (d) volunteering in response to an invitation from household members’ social networks. Thus, we expect volunteering of household members to be interrelated. The hypotheses for this paper are

Hypothesis 1: People who live with others who volunteer are more likely to volunteer than people who live with nonvolunteers (those who did not volunteer during the previous year). In other words, living with other volunteers will have a significant, positive effect on an individual’s volunteering.

Hypothesis 2: People who live with others who have never volunteered are less likely to volunteer than people who live with volunteers. In other words, living with people who have never volunteered will have a significant, negative effect on an individual’s volunteering.

Hypothesis 3: Volunteering done by an individual’s spouse will have a stronger effect on that individual’s volunteering than the effect of volunteering done by anyone else in the household (children, other relatives, other members). In other words, spousal volunteering will have a positive, significant effect on an individual’s volunteering, and the size of the coefficient will be larger than the coefficients for the other household members.

Hypothesis 4: The positive effect of a spouse’s volunteering on an individual will increase in magnitude with age.

Data and Method

These hypotheses are tested using data from the 2005 Current Population Survey’s (CPS) September volunteering supplement. The CPS is a national probability sample of households in the United States designed to collect information about labor force participation. It is a multistage, stratified sample composed of 792 sample areas. In the first stage, geographical primary sampling units are selected. In the second stage, households are randomly selected within the chosen geographical sampling units. In general, around 57, 000 households are interviewed per month, and data are collected on all noninstitutionalized household members above the age of 15—either by self- or proxy report—for a final sample size around 150,000 individuals. The CPS data are collected monthly, and each month’s survey contains supplementary questions on different topics. Since 2002, the September CPS supplement has included questions about the incidence and intensity of volunteering for all household members over the age of 15. Approximately 93,000 CPS participants respond to the volunteering questions. CPS respondents name the organizations that they volunteer for, identify the organization type, and report the number of hours volunteered.

This article focuses on three dependent variables. The first dependent variable is a binary variable that indicates whether the person volunteered for any organization (either religious or secular) during the previous year. A second dependent variable indicates whether the person volunteered for a religious organization during the previous year. A third variable captures whether the person volunteered for any secular (nonreligious) organization during the previous year. Logistic regression is used on these three binary dependent variables. Because the volunteering of one household member is not expected to be independent from the volunteering of other household members, one individual was randomly sampled from each household to be included in the final analysis. This avoids complications in the analysis due to the nested structure of the data. Households with only one person were also eliminated from the analysis because this paper is an investigation of the effect of other household members on volunteering. The final sample size for most analyses after making these changes is 36,538 individuals.

The first set of independent variables pertains to household members’ volunteering. One variable is the percentage of other household members who volunteered during the previous year. This variable was created by isolating specific households (using the household identification number) and creating a count of the number of household members (excluding the respondent) who volunteered during the previous year. This number was divided by the total number of household members minus one and multiplied by 100. This variable was replicated to create two variables for the percentage of household members who volunteer for religious organizations and for secular organizations. Another household volunteering variable is the percentage of other household members (excluding the respondent) who indicated that they have never volunteered at any time. In the CPS questionnaire, when respondents indicate that they did not volunteer during the previous year, they are asked, “Have you ever volunteered through or for an organization?” This question was used to create a count of the number of household members (excluding the respondent) who have never volunteered (those who answered no to this question). This count was divided by the number of household members minus one and multiplied by 100. Percents were used for these variables rather than the raw number in order to account for different household sizes. It is important to note that in the CPS data, the volunteering questions are asked of all members of the household that are age 15 or older (although sometimes responses are given by proxy), so this measure does not reflect volunteering done by children under the age of 15 in the household. These measures comprise the household volunteering status variables.

Another set of household volunteering variables includes information about the volunteering behaviors of specific household members, or the household volunteer composition variables. The first is a dummy variable indicating whether the household reference person (household head) volunteered during the previous year. The second variable is also a dummy variable; this variable indicates whether the spouse of the reference person volunteered during the previous year. These variables are included in the models as dummy variables because there is only one head and spouse per household. The third variable is the percentage of the children (above the age of 15) who volunteered during the previous year. The model also includes the percentage of other household members who are relatives of the reference person (other than spouse or child) who volunteered during the previous year. Another variable is the percentage of nonrelated household members (to the reference person) who volunteered during the previous year. A value of zero on the percent volunteering variables can have two different meanings. For instance, a zero value in the percentage of children who volunteer variable can mean that none of the children (above age 15) volunteer or that there are no children over the age of 15 in the household. To compensate for this, the models also include three dummy variables to flag cases when household members of specific type are not present in the household—no children (above age 15) in the household, no other relatives in the household, and no nonrelated adult members in household. Finally, an interaction term is included in the analysis; it is an interaction between the respondent’s age and the dummy variable for that person’s spouse’s volunteering. This variable will be used to test hypothesis 4.

The last set of independent variables is characteristics of the individual and the household. The first is a dummy variable for whether the person is male. The second variable is the respondent’s age. Three racial dummy variables are also included in the model—black, Hispanic, and other race. The excluded race category is white respondents. An additional dummy variable was created to represent those who were foreign born—born outside of the United States and are not citizens of the United States. The model also includes a dummy variable for whether the person is employed and a variable for the number of years of education that the person has completed. Additional dummy variables indicate whether or not the respondent is married and whether there are preschool children in the home. The total number of children in the household is also included. [Note: Household income was not included in the models because 5,000 cases were missing household income information. The analyses were run including and excluding household income and the results pertaining to the hypotheses were unchanged. Therefore, household income was excluded from the final models.]

None of the independent variables were highly correlated with each other. An examination of the correlation matrix (not shown) revealed that the highest correlation between any two variables was a .59 correlation between the number of children and presence of preschool children variables. The household volunteering variables were not strongly correlated with each other. The analysis is run with two separate models. Model one includes the household volunteering status variables and the demographic variables. Model two replaces those household volunteering status variables with the household volunteering composition variables and includes the same demographic variables. The analyses for model two are repeated separately for male reference persons and female reference persons. The unweighted results are shown for the multivariate analysis, but the results are robust when sampling weights are used.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics on the household volunteering variables and demographic variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	N	Min	Max	Mean	Standard Deviation
Household volunteering context
Volunteered previous year	36,538	0	1	.30	.46
Percent of other household members that volunteered previous year	36,538	0	100	18.84	34.07
Percent of other household members who have never volunteered	36,538	0	100	35.67	42.04
Reference person volunteers	36,538	0	1	.29	.45
Spouse volunteers	36,538	0	1	.22	.42
Percent child volunteers	36,538	0	100	6.62	24.08
Percent other relative volunteers	36,538	0	100	.90	9.17
Percent nonrelative volunteers	36,538	0	100	2.12	13.40
Individual characteristics
Male	36,538	0	1	.48	.50
Age	36,538	15	85	43.00	17.30
Black	36,538	0	1	.11	.32
Hispanic	36,538	0	1	.13	.34
Other race	36,538	0	1	.01	.09
Foreign born	36,538	0	1	.08	.28
Employed	36,538	0	1	.64	.48
Number of years of education	36,538	0	22	13.11	3.10
Percent married	36,538	0	1	.62	.48
Household characteristics
Number of children	36,538	0	9	.67	1.05
Percent with Preschoolers	36,538	0	1	.17	.38

Approximately 30% of respondents volunteered during the previous year. The typical respondent lives in a household where 19% of other household members volunteered the previous year and 36% of the household has never volunteered. Twenty-nine percent of respondents live in a household where the reference person volunteers and 22% in a household where the reference person’s spouse volunteers. On average, 7% of the children in the household volunteer, less than 1% of other relatives volunteer and 2% of nonrelatives volunteer.

Table 2 presents the logistic regression results (odds ratios) for model one using three measures of volunteering—volunteering for all organizations, religious volunteering and secular volunteering.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Results for Model One, Odds Ratios.

Household volunteering characteristics	All organizations	Religious only	Secular only
Percent of other household members that volunteered previous year†	1.02** (1.02, 1.02)	1.03** (1.03, 1.03)	1.02** (1.02, 1.02)
Percent of other household members that have never volunteered	.99** (.99, .99)	.99** (.99, .99)	.99** (.99, .99)
Individual Characteristics
Male	.57** (.54, .60)	.52** (.48, .56)	.71** (.67, .75)
Age	.99** (.99, .99)	1.00 (1.00, 1.00)	.99** (.98, .99)
Black	.77** (.70, .84)	1.11 (.98, .1.26)	.64** (.57, .71)
Hispanic	.69** (.62, .77)	.80* (.69, .93)	.70** (.62, .79)
Other race	.72** (.65, .80)	.68** (.58, .80)	.85** (.76, .96)
Foreign-born	.47** (.41, .54)	.60** (.49, .74)	.49** (.41, .57)
Employed	1.02 (.96, 1.08)	1.05 (.96, 1.14)	1.03 (.97, 1.10)
Years of education	1.13** (1.12, 1.15)	1.09** (1.07, 1.10)	1.11** (1.10, 1.12)
Married	1.40** (1.32, 1.50)	1.60** (1.45, 1.76)	1.09* (1.02, 1.17)
Household characteristics
Number of children	1.37** (1.33, 1.41)	1.30** (1.26, 1.35)	1.30** (1.26, 1.34)
Presence of preschoolers	.59** (.54, .64)	.80** (.72, .90)	.64** (.58, .70)
N	36,538	36,538	36,538
R²	.20	.25	.13
LR Chi²	9,081.56**	7,155.80**	4,503.22**

Note.

†

For the regression involving volunteering for a religious organization, this variable is the percentage of other household members who volunteered for a religious organization. For the regression involving volunteering for a secular organization, this variable is the percentage of other household members who volunteered for a secular organization.

p < .05. **p < .01.

The odds ratios in Table 2 represent the change in the odds of the dependent variable happening while holding the other variables constant. If an odds ratio is greater than one, this means that a 1-unit increase in the independent variable (holding all other variables constant) increases the odds of volunteering. An odds ratio between 0 and 1 means that a 1-unit increase in the independent variable (holding all other variables constant) decreases the odds of volunteering. For instance, in the first column, the odds ratio for being married is 1.40 (p < .01) which means that the odds of volunteering for married people increases by a multiplicative factor of 1.40 over the odds of single people volunteering, which represents a 40% increase in the odds of volunteering. The odds ratio for the male dummy variable is .57 (p < .001), which means that the odds of a male volunteering is less than the odds of a female volunteer by a multiplicative factor of .57, which represents a 43% decrease in the odds of volunteering.

The regressions in Table 2 test the first two hypotheses. The regression results provide strong support for the first hypothesis—that those who live with others who volunteer are more likely to volunteer. In all three regressions—volunteering overall, religious volunteering, and secular volunteering—the odds ratio on this variable is positive and statistically significant (p < .01). As the percentage of household members who volunteer increases by 1%, the odds of volunteering increases by 1.02 (p < .01), or a 2% increase in the odds. This may appear to be a small effect. However, one additional household member who volunteers can increase the percentage of household members who volunteer by a sizeable amount (an increase of 25% in a four-person household), which can have a large effect on the odds of volunteering (as will be shown in Table 3). This effect is slightly larger for religious volunteering. The odds of volunteering for a religious organization increases by a factor of 1.03 (p < .01) for each additional percentage of household members who volunteer for a religious organization. The odds of volunteering for a secular organization increases by a factor of 1.02 (p < .01). Living with others who volunteered the previous year increases the likelihood that an individual also volunteered during the previous year, and the effect is slightly stronger for volunteering done for religious organizations.

Table 3.

Predicted Probability of Volunteering, Model One.

	Femaeles (n = 16,920)			Males (n = 14,624)
	All organizations	Religious only	Secular only	All organizations	Religious only	Secular Only
Overall	.33	.11	.18	.22	.06	.13
Percent of household who volunteered previous year
0%	.26	.09	.15	.17	.05	.11
25%	.35	.18	.21	.23	.10	.16
50%	.45	.33	.29	.31	.20	.22
75%	.55	.52	.38	.41	.36	.30
Percent of household who have never volunteered
0%	.43	.16	.22	.30	.09	.17
25%	.36	.12	.19	.24	.07	.14
50%	.29	.09	.16	.19	.05	.12
75%	.23	.07	.13	.14	.04	.10

Note. All other variables are held constant at their means when calculating the predicted probabilities.

The data also support the second hypothesis. Living with others who have never volunteered decreases the likelihood that an individual will volunteer. In the first column, the odds ratio for the percentage of household members who have never volunteered is .99 (p < .01), or a 1% decrease in the odds of volunteering. The odds ratio is .99 in the regressions for religious organizations (p < .01) and secular organizations (p < .01). In all three regressions, living with others who have never volunteered decreases the odds of volunteering, and the effect is constant across volunteering domains.

The other relationships in the regressions fit the patterns established by prior research. Females are more likely to volunteer than males. Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to volunteer for secular organizations than whites. Those who are foreign born (and not citizens) are less likely to volunteer. People with more education are more likely to volunteer. Having children is also positively related to volunteering, but having preschoolers in the home decreases the likelihood of volunteering.

To more fully explore these relationships and to put them in more interpretable terms, Table 3 shows the predicted probabilities of volunteering by several variables of interest: the overall volunteering rate; the percentage of household members who volunteered the previous year (varying from 0%, to 25%, to 50% to 75%); and the percentage of household members who have never volunteered (varying along the same dimensions). The predicted probabilities are calculated separately for males and females for volunteering done for religious, secular and all organizations. (These probabilities were calculated using the prvalue Stata command discussed in Long and Freese (2003) with all other variables held constant at their means.)

The overall predicted probability of volunteering (for all organizations) is .33 for females and .22 for males (holding all other variables constant at their means). As the percentage of other household members who volunteered increases, the predicted probability of volunteering also increases. For women, the predicted probability of volunteering when no other household members volunteer is .26 and this probability increases to .55 when 75% of other household members volunteer. The corresponding predicted probability for males increases from .17 to .41. The increases in the predicted probabilities of volunteering for religious organizations are larger, increasing from .09 to .52 for females and from .05 to .36 for males, than those for volunteering for secular organizations, increasing from .15 to .38 for females and from .11 to .30 for males. When a female doesn’t live with other household members who have never volunteered, her predicted probability of volunteering is .43, and this probability decreases to .23 when 75% of other household members have never volunteered. For males, the corresponding predicted probabilities change from .30 to .14. These predicted probabilities of volunteering illustrate that the first and second hypotheses are strongly supported by the data.

Table 4 presents the odds ratios for model two, which is run separately for male reference persons and female reference persons. These results are used to test the third and fourth hypotheses.

Table 4.

Logistic Regression Results for Model Two, Odds Ratios.

	Male reference person	Female reference person
Household spouse volunteered	3.53** (2.39, 5.20)	3.79** (2.28, 6.31)
Percent of children (over age 15) in household who volunteered	1.01** (1.00, 1.01)	1.01** (1.01, 1.02)
Percent of other relatives in household who volunteered	1.02** (1.01, 1.03)	1.02** (1.01, 1.02)
Percent of nonfamily members in household who volunteered	1.02** (1.01. 1.02)	1.02** (1.01, 1.02)
Spouse volunteers*age interaction	1.01** (1.00, 1.02)	1.01* (1.00, 1.02)
No other relatives in household	.49** (.35, .69)	.52** (.39, .68)
No nonfamily members in household	.71 (.45, 1.12)	.52** (.38, .71)
No children (over age 15) in household	1.68** (1.39, 2.03)	1.85** (1.57, 2.17)
Individual characteristics
Age	1.00 (.99, 1.01)	1.00 (.99, 1.01)
Black	1.03 (.82, 1.28)	.70** (.59, .81)
Hispanic	.77* (.60, .98)	.69**(.56, .83)
Other Race	.84 (.66, 1.06)	.77* (.62, .95)
Foreign-born	.41** (.30, .57)	.56** (.43, .73)
Employed	1.38** (1.18, 1.60)	1.33** (1.19, 1.50)
Years of education	1.16** (1.14, 1.18)	1.18** (1.16, 1.21)
Married	.72** (.59, .87)	.87* (.77, .98)
Household characteristics	1.27** (1.20, 1.36)	1.38** (1.30, 1.46)
Presence of preschoolers	.64** (.53, .76)	.62** (.53, .72)
N	8,296	8,050
R²	.20	.17
LR Chi²	2,115.78**	1,783.90**

p < .05. **p < .01.

The results in Table 4 show support for the third hypothesis. Volunteering done by the reference person’s spouse—whether male or female—is more strongly associated with the reference person’s volunteering (3.53 for males and 3.79 for females, p < .01) than the volunteering of children (1.01, p < .01), nonfamily members (1.02, p < .01), and other household members (1.01, p < .01). For male reference persons, having a spouse who volunteers increases the odds of volunteering by 253%. For females, the odds of volunteering increase by 279%. The fourth hypothesis is also supported in Table 4. According to this hypothesis, the spousal effect on volunteering will increase over time, as modeled by an interaction term between the person’s age and the spouse’s volunteering. In both regressions the effect was positive (1.01) and statistically significant (p < .01 for males, p < .05 for females). This means that for each additional year, the odds of the reference person volunteering when his or her spouse volunteers increases by 1%.

Table 5 shows a breakdown of how people got involved in volunteering by living status—if they live with at least one other person who volunteers or if they live with all nonvolunteers. The CPS asks people how they first got involved in volunteer work, and respondents could indicate that they either approached the organization, were asked by someone to volunteer, or that they got involved in some other way. If the respondent indicated that he or she was asked to volunteer, then another survey question requests more information about the person that asked the individual to volunteer. If the respondent indicated that he or she got involved in some other way then another survey question queries about various other portals that led the person to volunteer. All possible responses are shown in Table 5.

Table 5.

Portals of Entry into Volunteering.

	Lives with one or more volunteers (n = 6,592)	Doesn’t live with anyone who volunteers (n = 5,010)	Chi-square
Percent approached the organization	41.1	38.7	6.93**
Percent asked to volunteer	44.2	46.3	4.72*
--Friend	16.1	16.2	0.00
--Relative	13.5	8.5	32.62**
--Coworker	3.0	5.2	17.22**
--Someone in the organization	62.6	62.4	0.02
--Employer	2.3	4.9	26.25**
--Someone else	2.5	2.9	0.65
Percent some other way	14.6	15.0	0.34
--Court order	<1	<1	0.22
--Family member’s involvement in organization	26.0	26.0	0.00
--Friend’s involvement in organization	7.0	6.9	0.00
--Own involvement in organization	36.2	35.8	0.03
--Public housing requirement	<1	<1	1.92
--Public appeal	3.7	3.3	0.21
--School requirement	2.9	2.5	0.23
--Other	22.1	22.9	0.15

p < .05. **p < .01.

Of those living with people who volunteer, 41.1% approached the organization about volunteer opportunities compared to 38.7% of those who do not live with a volunteer (p < .01). Thus, individuals who live with volunteers are slightly more likely to volunteer by approaching the organization. Forty-four percent of those living with another volunteer indicated that they were asked to volunteer compared to 46.3% who do not live with a volunteer (p < .05). Living with a volunteer influences who asked the respondent to volunteer. Those who live with other volunteers are more likely to be asked to volunteer by a relative. Those individuals who do not live with a volunteer are more likely to be asked to volunteer by a coworker or employer. There is no statistically significant difference across living situation in the percentage of those who got involved in volunteering through some other means.

Discussion

This article shows that the household volunteering composition greatly influences a person’s volunteer choices. People who live with other volunteers are more likely to volunteer than people who don’t live with other volunteers, and this effect increases with the percentage of household members that volunteer. This provides strong evidence that, as an institution, the household provides strong support for volunteering. Volunteering is an activity that is valued by more than one household member. For many people, volunteering requires a catalyst, such as being asked, and this can easily occur in a household.

Households motivate volunteering because they strengthen social networks—people are much more likely to volunteer if they know an employee, volunteer, or client of an organization (Becker & Dhingra, 2001; Nichols & King, 1998; Wymer, 1997), particularly when that person is a relative. Those living with volunteers get involved through being asked by a relative to volunteer or because of a family member’s involvement in the organization. Household socialization strongly predisposes household members to volunteer. Parents transfer prosocial and altruistic behaviors to their children (Clary & Miller, 1986), including volunteering behaviors (Bekkers, 2007; Jones, 2001; Reed & Selbee, 2001). Adult household members also socialize each other. Living with other volunteers strongly influences the decision to volunteer, either because of socialization processes or by opening up avenues for volunteering.

This effect is particularly pronounced in the religious domain. Individuals are more likely to volunteer for a religious organization when they live with others who are religious volunteers. Religious attitudes and ideologies are transmitted from one generation to the next (Glass et al., 1986). Shared religious ties are linked with feelings of familial closeness (Regnerus, 2003; Rossi & Rossi, 1990). Shared religiosity draws household members together, provides opportunities for shared activities, and fosters a shared identify. Shared religiosity between parents and children affects the children’s behaviors, such as by diminishing delinquent behaviors in teenagers (Pearce & Haynie, 2004). Religion also fosters strong social bonds outside of the familial context (Smith, 2003) be developing a sense of trust and reciprocity. Religiosity leads to volunteering (Campbell & Yonish, 2003; Wilson & Janoski, 1995), and shared religiosity accentuates this relationship. Family members who share religious ideologies and attitudes are more likely to share patterns of religious volunteering behaviors because all family members value religious volunteering.

Living with people who have never volunteered negatively affects volunteering. Individuals living with others who have never volunteered are less likely to volunteer themselves—for both religious and secular organizations. The mechanisms driving this result are opposite the mechanisms driving shared volunteering. People will not volunteer when other household members are not involved in volunteering. They are not socialized to value volunteering and they do not volunteer with other family or household members. Households negatively influence the decision to volunteer when volunteering is not practiced and appreciated by other household members. It also reduces opportunities to be asked to volunteer. In these instances, other social networks, especially more diverse networks, will be necessary to induce volunteering (Paik & Navarre-Jackson, 2011).

This study confirms prior research about the complementarity of spousal volunteering. Previous research has shown that when one spouse volunteers, the other tends to volunteer (Hook, 2004), with women having a stronger effect on the volunteering done by their husbands than the reverse (Freeman, 1997; Rotolo & Wilson, 2006). In this study, the likelihood of the reference person volunteering increases substantially when the spouse volunteers—for both males and females. The paper extends previous findings by showing that this effect grows stronger over time, which lends credence to socialization theories. Volunteering done by other adult household members was influential on the volunteering done by the reference person and spouse, but to a much smaller extent. Volunteering done by children was associated with volunteering done by the reference person, but theoretically there is no reason to expect that there is a causal relationship with children’s volunteering influencing the volunteering done by the reference person. Overall, these results indicate that closer relationships, such as a marriage, have a stronger effect on volunteering behaviors.

The findings in this paper have several implications for volunteer coordinators in public and nonprofit organizations that use volunteers. These results show that having volunteers in the household can be a strong gateway to volunteering. Volunteer coordinators should provide more opportunities for parents, siblings, children, and other relatives to volunteer for the organization, particularly when someone in the household already volunteers for that organization. Inviting family members to recognition events where a household member is being honored for volunteer work could be a motivating experience. Asking volunteers to bring household members to visit the organization or to learn more about the organization might also help to interest them in volunteering. This also puts the onus on volunteer coordinators to provide a range of volunteer opportunities that will appeal to different people. Household members value the opportunity to volunteer together in order to socialize, bond, learn, and serve together. This presents a challenge for volunteer coordinators to provide volunteer experiences that small, often family-centered, groups can do together, especially with a range of ages of children. Although it is difficult to accommodate volunteers’ social needs and expectations with productivity and effectively doing the work of the organization, this paper demonstrates that these efforts will strengthen commitment to volunteering.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Rebecca Nesbit is an assistant professor of nonprofit management at the School of Public Affairs and Administration at the University of Kansas. She received her PhD in public affairs from Indiana University in 2008 and a master of public administration from Brigham Young University in 2001. Her research interests include volunteering and civic engagement, volunteer management, and nonprofit organizations.

References

Acock

(1984). Parents and their children: The study of inter-generational influence. Sociology and Social Research, 68, 151-171.

Adams

G. R.

Jones

R. M.

(1983). Female adolescents’ identity development. Developmental Psychology, 19, 249-256.

Andolina

M. W.

Jenkins

Zukin

Keeter

(2003). Habits from home, lessons from School: Influences on youth civic engagement. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36, 275-280.

Arnett

J. J.

(1995). Broad and narrow socialization: The family in the context of a cultural theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 617-628.

Baldwin

J. H.

Ellis

G. D.

Baldwin

B. M.

(1999). Marital satisfaction: An examination of its relationship to spouse support and congruence of commitment among runners. Leisure Sciences, 21, 117-131.

Becker

P. E.

Dhingra

P. H.

(2001). Religious involvement and volunteering: Implications for civil society. Sociology of Religion, 62, 315-335.

Bekkers

(2007). Intergenerational transmission of volunteering. Acta Sociologica, 50, 99-114.

Blackwell

D. L.

Lichter

D. T.

(2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabiting, and married couples. Sociological Quarterly, 45, 719-737.

Bowen

G. L.

(1988). Family life satisfaction: A value-based approach. Family Relations, 37, 458-462.

10.

Bowen

McKechnie

(2002). Family volunteering: A discussion paper: Human Resources Development, Canada.

11.

Brady

H. E.

Verba

Schlozman

K.L.

(1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89, 271-292.

12.

Burns

Schlozman

K. L.

Verba

(1997). The public consequences of private inequality: Family life and citizen participation. American Political Science Review, 91, 373-389.

13.

Campbell

Yonish

S. J.

(2003). Religion and volunteering in America. In Smidt

C. E.

(Ed.), Religion as social capital: Producing the common good (pp. 87-106). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

14.

Cho

W. K.

Rudolph

T. J.

(2008). Emanating political participation: Untangling the spatial structure behind participation. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 273-289.

15.

Clary

E. G.

Miller

(1986). Socialization and situational influences on sustained altruism Child Development, 57, 1359-1369.

16.

Clain

Charles

(1999). A household production analysis of religious and charitable activity. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58, 923-946.

17.

Cnaan

(2002). The invisible caring hand: American congregations and the provision of welfare. New York: New York University Press.

18.

Elshtain

J. B.

(1999). A call to civil society. Society, 36(5), 11-19.

19.

Freeman

R. B.

(1997). Working for nothing: The supply of volunteer labor. Journal of Labor Economics, 15, S140-S166.

20.

Gecas

(1981). Contexts of socialization. In Rosenburg

Turner

(Eds.), Social psychology (pp. 165-199). New York, NY: Basic Books.

21.

Glass

Bengtson

V. L.

Dunham

C. C.

(1986). Attitude similarity in three-generation families: Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influence? American Sociological Review, 51, 685-698.

22.

Hook

J. L.

(2004). Reconsidering the division of household labor: Incorporating volunteer work and informal support. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 101-117.

23.

Hoyt

D. R.

Babchuk

(1983). Adult kinship networks: The selective formation of intimate ties with kin. Social Forces, 62, 84-101.

24.

Jalandoni

Hume

(2001). Civic participation is a family matter. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

25.

Jennings

M. K.

Niemi

(1982). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

26.

Jones

(2001). Volunteering parents: Who volunteers and how are their lives affected? ISUMA: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(2), 69-74.

27.

Kalmijn

(1991). Status homogamy in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 496-523.

28.

Kalmijn

(1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 422-452.

29.

Kerckhoff

A. C.

(1972). Status-related value patterns among married couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 34(1), 105-110.

30.

LaVoie

J. C.

(1976). Ego identity formation in middle adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 5, 145-160.

31.

Levinger

(1986). Compatibility in relationships. Social Science, 71, 173-177.

32.

Littlepage

Obergfell

Zanin

(2003). Family volunteering: An exploratory study of the impact on families. Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

33.

Locke

H. J.

(1951). Predicting adjustment in marriage: A comparison of divorced and a happily married group. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

34.

Long

J. S.

Freese

(2003). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

35.

Musick

M. A.

Wilson

(2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

36.

Musick

M. A.

Wilson

Bynum

W. B.

(2000). Race and Formal Volunteering: The Differential Effects of Class and Religion. Social Forces, 78, 1539-1570.

37.

Nichols

King

(1998). Volunteers in the guide association: Problems and solutions. Voluntary Action, 1(1), 21-32.

38.

Paik

Navarre-Jackson

(2011). Social networks, recruitment, and volunteering: Are social capital effects conditional on recruitment? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 476-496.

39.

Pearce

L. D.

Haynie

D. L.

(2004). Intergenerational religious dynamics and adolescent delinquency. Social Forces, 82, 1553-1572.

40.

Peterson

Speer

P. W.

Hughey

Armstead

T. L.

Schneider

J. E.

Sheffer

(2008). Community organizations and sense of community: Further development in theory and measurement. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 798-813. .

41.

Pidgeon

W. P.

(1998). The universal benefits of volunteering. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

42.

Porritt

(1995). Family volunteering: The ties that bind: An introduction to preparing your agency for family volunteers. Ottawa, Ontario: Volunteer Action Centre of Kitchener-Waterloo and Area Voluntary Action Program Department of Canadian Heritage.

43.

Reed

P. B.

Selbee

L. K.

(2001). The civic core in Canada: Disproportionality in charitable giving, volunteering, and civic participation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 761-780.

44.

Reissman

Aron

Bergen

M. R.

(1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 243-254.

45.

Regnerus

M. D.

(2003). Religion and positive adolescent outcomes: A review of research and theory. Review of Religious Research, 44, 394-413.

46.

Rossi

A. S.

Rossi

P. H.

(1990). Of human bonding: Parent-child relations across the life course. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

47.

Rotolo

Wilson

(2006). Substitute or complement? Spousal influence on volunteering. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 305-319.

48.

Salamon

(1997). Holding the center: America’s nonprofit sector at a crossroads. New York, NY: Nathan Cummings Foundation.

49.

Smith

(2003). Theorizing religious effects among American adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 17-30.

50.

Smith

M. W.

(1994). Community service learning: Striking the chord of citizenship. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1(1), 37-43.

51.

Smith

T. E.

(1983). Parental influence: A review of the evidence of influence and theoretical model of the parent influence process. In Kerkhoff

(Ed.), Research in Sociology of Educational Socialization (pp. 13-45). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

52.

South

S. J.

(1991). Sociodemographic differentials in mate selection preferences Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 928-940.

53.

Stevens

(1991). Propinquity and educational homogamy. Sociological Forum, 6, 715-726.

54.

Straits

B. C.

(1992, February). Coworker friendships: Same- and cross-sex choices. Paper presented at the International Sunbelt Social Network Conference, San Diego.

55.

Sundeen

R. A.

Raskoff

S. A.

(2000). Ports of entry and obstacles: Teenagers’ access to volunteer activities. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11, 179-197.

56.

Verba

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

H. E.

(1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

57.

Wiepking

Maas

(2009). Resources that make you generous: Effects of social and human resources on charitable giving. Social Forces, 87, 1973-1995.

58.

Wilson

Janoski

(1995). The contribution of religion to volunteer work. Sociology of Religion, 56, 137-152.

59.

Wuthnow

(1995). Learning to care: Elementary kindness in an age of indifference. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

60.

Wymer

W. W.

(1997). Segmenting volunteering using values, self-esteem, empathy and facilitation as determinant variables. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 5(2), 3-28.