sustainability

Article
Motivations for Volunteerism, Satisfaction,
and Emotional Exhaustion: The Moderating Effect of
Volunteers’ Age
Mercedes Aranda 1 , Salvatore Zappalà 2,3 and Gabriela Topa 1,4, *
1 Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, National University for Distance Teaching,
28040 Madrid, Spain
2 Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
3 Department of Human Resource Management and Psychology, Financial University under the Government
of the Russian Federation, 125993 Moscow, Russia
4 Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Politécnica y Artística del Paraguay, 1628 Asunción, Paraguay
* Correspondence: gtopa@psi.uned.es; Tel.: +34-91-398-8911




Received: 23 May 2019; Accepted: 13 August 2019; Published: 19 August 2019


Abstract: This investigation aims to explore the moderating role of volunteers’ age in the relation
between motivations for volunteering and, respectively, satisfaction with volunteerism and emotional
exhaustion. A longitudinal study was conducted with a sample of 241 Spanish healthcare
volunteers. Results show that volunteers’ age moderates the relations between social motivations
and satisfaction, and social motivations and volunteers’ emotional exhaustion, and also between
growth motivations and satisfaction, and volunteers’ emotional exhaustion. The relationships
between security motivations and satisfaction and emotional exhaustion are not moderated by age.
Our findings underline that, for younger volunteers, satisfaction decreases when social motives are
high, rather than low, and, in the opposite, emotional exhaustion increases when growth motives are
high, rather than low. For older volunteers, instead, the only significant effect concern satisfaction,
which is higher when social motives are high, rather than low.

Keywords: volunteerism; motivation for volunteerism; satisfaction with volunteerism; emotional

exhaustion; age

Volunteerism in general, and specifically healthcare volunteerism, is nowadays extremely

important in western societies, among other reasons, because it involves millions of people who
perform it and an even greater number of people who benefit from their services [1]. Two European
studies on participation in volunteering activities across European countries, observed that the highest
rates of participation are observed in Nordic countries (as Denmark, Finland, Netherlands and Sweden),
where about 40% of people aged 18 years and above participate in volunteering, while lowest rates are
observed in southern countries (as Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain), with about 10% of people
volunteering [1,2]. Other, personal, factors that have a relevant influence on the decision to volunteer are:
gender (with men that tend to participate more than women), education (higher educated individuals
participate more than lower educated ones), religious participation (those attending religious services
volunteer more), sector (with large part of volunteers, in many European countries, involved in the
sport sector) and age (middle aged persons tend to participate more than others) [1,2]. It has been
also observed that level of volunteering is higher among adults aged between 30 and 50 years old [2],
with a peak age between 45 and 50 years [1], although in many countries the number of older people
that volunteer is increasing [2]. This situation raises the interest of scholars that try to better understand
what motivates, across European countries, younger people [3] and older ones [4] to volunteer. In
this line of reasoning, we believe it is important to explore more closely motivations to volunteer of

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477; doi:10.3390/su11164477 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 2 of 16

younger and older people because motives and needs to volunteer maybe different for different ages [5]
and, consequently, policies and incentives to promote their participation will also differ.
Volunteerism is associated with consequences for the recipients of the services, for the organizations
that provide volunteer services and also for the volunteers themselves. Relevant effects of volunteering
on volunteers that have been particularly studied are, on the positive side, the satisfaction with volunteer
work [6–10] and, on the negative side, the emotional exhaustion experienced when performing volunteer
tasks [11,12]. In this study we will refer to the person-environment fit perspective to reflect about
the match between the person (and his/her motives to participate) and the environment (that may
satisfy or not those motives), because studies suggest that the fit person-environment has individual
consequences, for instances, on job satisfaction, job performance or psychological and physical
well-being [13]. Consequently, we investigate if motivations to engage in volunteerism has different
effects, depending on the age of volunteers, on satisfaction and emotional exhaustion, with the latter
considered as an indicator of reduced well-being. The present study was conducted in the healthcare
sector and used a longitudinal study design. The longitudinal design, with data collected at two
time points, was used to measure at Time 1 the independent variable (volunteers’ motivations) and at
Time 2 the dependent variables (satisfaction with volunteerism and volunteers’ emotional exhaustion),
controlling for the level of satisfaction and exhaustion at Time 1. Finally, although volunteering in some
cases may be involuntary, because mandated by educational programs or resulting from spontaneous
helping, here we refer to what has been called ‘planned helping’, or planning volunteering, because it is
actively sought, a considerable amount of time is devoted and a long term commitment to its activities
is made [14].

1. Motivations for Volunteerism and Outcomes: The Influence of Volunteers’ Age

Studies on motivation in general and its applications to work are abundant, whereas specific
works on motivation for volunteerism are less numerous, and their results indicate a need to expand the
empirical research [15]. Different theories have been proposed to explain why people spend time and
effort on volunteer tasks, such as the models of Omoto and Snyder [9] and of Clary and colleagues [14].
Omoto and Snyder [9] investigated the volunteer process by taking into account psychological,
behavioural as well as social and organizational features of the antecedents, the actual experiences and
the consequences of volunteerism. Clary et al. [14], instead, adopted a functionalist approach, according
to which people can, and do, perform the same actions in the service of different psychological functions,
or to fulfil different motivations. According to the functionalist approach, diverse classifications of
motivational work orientations have been proposed and one of them, useful also for volunteerism,
distinguishes between motivations for personal growth and motivations for affiliation [16]. Motivations
for personal growth assess the importance, or preference, for task characteristics related to achievement
and mastery. Social or affiliative motives value the preference for membership and collaboration
with others, either co-workers or supervisors. Lastly, various authors added motivations for security,
including measures to assess the importance or preference for satisfaction of material and physiological
needs related to general well-being, such as material rewards [17]. The functionalist approach has
proposed that persuasive messages that match important motivations succeed in motivating individuals
to initiate their volunteers’ service, and that volunteers whose motivational interests are better served
by their participation will continue their activity and will be more satisfied than volunteers whose
motivations are not, or only partially, met [18].
In the last decade, some studies have proposed that people’s motivations are flexible and vary
as a function of age, such that some motivations increase and others decrease along the time [19].
Specifically, even though there is little empirical research in the work setting [17,20] and even less in
relation to volunteerism [21], there seems to be a general tendency for social motivations to increase
with age whereas growth and security motivations decrease as volunteers grow older. Despite evidence
suggesting that older and younger volunteers might prioritize different motivations, the possible
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 3 of 16

differential effect of age on the relation between motivations and volunteerism outcomes is not yet
sufficiently justified.
However, recent advances in aging theories suggest that healthy aging is characterized by
an optimization of person-job fit. Following Beier and Kanfer “ . . . an age-related shift from
achievement-related to emotionally-relevant goals and a shift in priorities to opportunities that will
optimize worker fit . . . ” can be observed [22] (p. 106). Based on socio-emotional selectivity theory [23]
and selective optimization and compensation [24], during aging, people tend to maximize social and
emotional gains along with reducing their losses. As empirical evidence indicates, these developmental
changes imply improvements in emotion regulation [25], selective attention to positive instead of
negative information [26], and increased resilience to stressors [27]. At the same time, adult people try
to engage in activities that are adapted to their values and needs. While they move towards activities
that better fit their skills and personal traits during the lifespan process, they also increase their positive
attitudes about the activities that they usually perform.
In other words, to increase their well-being along the life-span, individuals learn and develop
better strategies in order to match their personal characteristics to those of the environment,
considered as their organizations’ and groups’ requirements and practices. The person-environment
fit perspective [13] states that individuals’ congruence with their work environments leads them to
better job performance and to rate that environment as more satisfying. When person-environment
fit deteriorates, individuals begin seriously considering alternatives, such as quitting their actual job
and searching for another one. Fit has been conceptualized as a function of environmental levels
such as occupation, organization, job, and group [28,29] but, despite existing inter-cultural differences,
the extended meta-analysis by Oh and colleagues clearly showed “that fit happens and has significant
employee and organizational consequences” [30] (p. 135), especially in terms of job performance,
job satisfaction or intention to quit.
In this regard, Westerman and Yamamura [31] showed that differences in perceived fit between
younger and older workers significantly predicted different work outcomes. Moreover, fit related to
growth motives (as autonomy task orientation or expectations for success) influenced job satisfaction
and intention to remain with the organization for younger but not for older employees, whereas fit
related to social motives (cohesion and good relationships with co-workers and managers) was
predictive of job satisfaction for older but not for younger workers. Hence, evidence suggests that
age-related differences in the person-environment fit would differentially affect work outcomes,
such as job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion, but there is a lack of research on this topic with
volunteers. This knowledge is important because age could take a different function, or role, according
to the functionalist approach (that would predict that younger and older volunteers may have
different motivations for volunteering and, consequently, may experience the same level of satisfaction,
or emotional exhaustion, but for different reasons) or a life-span approach (that would predict a better
adaptation and an higher performance and satisfaction in older volunteers in comparison to younger
ones). In the present study, therefore, it is predicted that volunteers’ age will moderate the relations
between motivations and the outcomes—satisfaction and emotional exhaustion.

2. Satisfaction with Volunteerism

One of the most studied variables in volunteerism is volunteers’ satisfaction. In general, it has
been considered that volunteers’ motivations are good predictors of their satisfaction, and that
satisfaction, in turn, explains the intention to remain and the dedication to the task. Finkelstein [7]
evaluated the influence that volunteers’ motivations and the fulfilment of such motivations have on
satisfaction. In her investigation, she found that values, knowledge, improvement of self-esteem,
and social aspects, and especially the fulfilment of such functions, are the best predictors of satisfaction.
Other studies examined in depth the relation between participation in volunteerism and volunteers’
satisfaction according to, for example, the number of hours devoted to the task and future intentions to
remain [6,7,9,32–34].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 4 of 16

The study of Okun and Schultz [21] found that younger volunteers have lower levels of social
motivations, probably because they already invest heavily in their own social, family, and occupational
networks, whereas older volunteers, who fear losing these networks when they retire, try to offset
that decrease through volunteerism. In addition, as mentioned above, Westerman and Yamamura [31]
observed that growth motives influence job satisfaction and intention to remain with the organization
for younger but not for older employees, whereas social motives predict job satisfaction for older but
not for younger workers. Thus, although prior investigation is scarce, age seems to play a moderating
role in the relations between motivation and satisfaction, even if we cannot predict the direction of the
difference. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1a. Volunteers’ age (T1) moderates the relation among social motivations (T1) and satisfaction
with volunteerism (T2).

Hypothesis 1b. Volunteers’ age (T1) moderates the relation among growth motivations (T1) and satisfaction
with volunteerism (T2).

Hypothesis 1c. Volunteers’ age (T1) moderates the relation among security motivations (T1) and satisfaction
with volunteerism (T2).

3. Healthcare Volunteers’ Emotional Exhaustion

Although much research has been carried out on volunteer satisfaction, emotional exhaustion of
volunteers has attracted much less interest and has been analysed by few studies [35–37], although its
influence on distress and poor health has been well documented [12,38–40].
A study investigating the relation between motivations for volunteerism and emotional exhaustion
examined four main motivations (the desire to offer altruistic help to others, the desire to conform
to social norms regarding volunteer activity, the desire for personal development through volunteer
activity and the desire to fill free time) and found that only women with altruistic motivations showed
low levels of emotional exhaustion [11]. In contrast, in the same study, all the four motivations for
volunteerism were positively related to emotional exhaustion in men. However, only few works have
examined the differences in volunteers’ emotional exhaustion as a function of age, as for instance the
one by Okray and Abatay [41] that observed that the emotional exhaustion of volunteer nurses was
negatively related to age.
In summary, in the present study, we explore the moderating role of volunteers’ age in the relations
among motivations for volunteerism and emotional exhaustion, by positing that:

Hypothesis 2a. Volunteers’ age (T1) moderates the relation among social motivations (T1) and volunteers’
emotional exhaustion (T2).

Hypothesis 2b. Volunteers’ age (T1) moderates the relation among growth motivations (T1) and volunteers’
emotional exhaustion (T2).

Hypothesis 2c. Volunteers’ age (T1) moderates the relation among security motivations (T1) and volunteers’
emotional exhaustion (T2).

4. Method

4.1. Participants
The present study used a longitudinal design, with two moments of data collection by a paper
and pencil survey, with an interval of approximately six months. At Time 1 (T1), data collection took
place in September–November of 2013, and at Time 2 (T2), data were collected during the months of
March–May of 2014. The participants in this study were 241 healthcare volunteers with a mean age of
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 5 of 16

42.9 years (SD = 12), at Time 1, of whom 34.9% were men. Age ranges from 26 to 64 years. They had
been participating as volunteers for an average of 4.5 years (SD = 1.9), dedicating an average of 8 hours
per week to volunteerism.

4.2. Instruments
Motivations for volunteerism. This was assessed with the Volunteer Functions Inventory of Clary
and colleagues [14], adapted to Spanish language by Dávila and Chacón [42]. The inventory consists of
30 items that assess the reasons why people are dedicated to volunteerism with a Likert-type response
scale, ranging between 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). The factor structure of the scale did
not seem stable, as previous studies provided diverse solutions, with six [42] or fewer factors and
with diverse factor distributions of the items [32]. Therefore, we carried out an exploratory factor
analysis, which yielded a three-factor solution that explained 57.9% of the variance. The first factor
(growth motives) included the items that loaded on the subscales of knowledge and improving one’s
curriculum in the original factor structure, and it explained 22.9% of the variance. The second factor
(social motives) grouped the items of the social relations subscale, explaining 18.8% of the variance; and
the third factor (security motives) included items from the scale of ego-defence and mood enhancement,
explaining 16.2% of the variance.
Satisfaction with volunteerism. This variable was assessed with the scale of general satisfaction
with the organization where the volunteer worked, designed by Vecina, Chacón, and Sueiro [34] from
prior studies [8]. The scale consists of seven items, one alluding to general satisfaction and the rest to
various aspects of the volunteer’s relationship with the institution. The reliability of the original scale
was good (α = 0.88) and, in our study, it reached a value of α = 0.87.
Emotional exhaustion. This variable was assessed with the subscale of psychological exhaustion
of the Spanish Burnout Inventory [43]. The complete subscale consists of four items in which the
term “work” was replaced with “volunteer work”, following the methodology of prior studies [44].
Adequate psychometric properties for the subscale have been firmly established [45]. The reliability of
the measure employed in the present study was adequate, reaching α = 0.83.
Sociodemographic variables. Volunteers’ chronological age was assessed by asking them the date of
their birthday.

5. Procedure
To recruit the participants, the Department of Social Psychology of the National University for
Distance Teaching (UNED) proposed a research project to the centres in charge of organizing the
Municipal Social Volunteerism of the town halls in the southern outskirts of Madrid. Letters were
addressed to the centres explaining the reasons for the study and the characteristics of the data collection
procedure. Ten organizations that answered the first written communications were personally contacted;
only five of them agreed to collaborate and facilitated access to their members. This recruiting procedure
resulted in a convenience sample, based on how easy it was for our research group to get in touch with
the potential participants. This non-probability sampling method is used when there are time and cost
constraints in collecting feedback.
The participants were assembled at the headquarters of the organizations, and the research team
presented the conditions of the study: goals, contents, anonymity, voluntariness, and the possibility of
leaving the study at any time. Questionnaires at Time 1 were handed out to attendees who agreed to
participate, to be completed in their homes and returned to the research team in a closed urn placed for
this purpose in the headquarter of the organization.
Four hundred questionnaires were distributed, trying to collect data from all the potential participants,
with a sampling error of +/− 2.06 (95% CI). At Time 1, 316 responses were collected (79% response rate). The
participants created an individual code that would have allowed researchers to match the questionnaires
of participants responding at T1 and T2. At T2, the questionnaires were sent to the headquarters of the
organizations, in closed envelopes with prepaid postage material to return the responses to the University.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 6 of 16

The collaborating organizations informed their members that the second part of the investigation was
available, and they sent them a new massive reminder two weeks later.
The response rate at T1 was high, probably due to the active involvement of the organizations, but at
T2, there was no possibility to individually contact the participants, that instead were informed through
massive posts in the headquarters of the organizations. This may have contributed to the decrease of the
response rate in the second stage of the longitudinal study. We finally received 252 completed questionnaires
at T2 (63% response rate), of which 11 were eliminated because more than 30% of the data was incomplete.
The final sample of the longitudinal research was made up of 241 participants.

6. Data Analysis
In the present work, we carried out descriptive and correlational analyses of the variables under
study. Next, in order to test the hypotheses, we carried out multiple linear regression analysis with
the PROCESS macro for SPSS [46], which allows appraising the moderating effect of age in the
relationship among the volunteers’ motivations and their outcomes of satisfaction with volunteerism
and emotional exhaustion with the task. To determine whether age moderated the relation between
predictors and criteria, we used the indicators of the regression model, non-standardized coefficients
(b), standard errors, levels of probability associated with the contrast statistics, and, especially the
confidence intervals (CI) of the bootstrapping of 5000 samples (with a 95% CI), for the standardized
effect of the predictor on the criterion at the different levels of the moderator.

7. Results
The descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix of the variables of the study are shown in
Table 1. The correlation matrix reveals that age was significantly, and negatively, related only to social
motivations. With regard to the outcomes, age was negatively related to emotional exhaustion and
had no significant relation with satisfaction. However, social motivations was positively related with
emotional exhaustion, whereas growth motivations showed a positive relation with satisfaction.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Age (T1) 42.9 12.4
2. Social Motivations (T1) 1.51 0.84 −0.11 1
3 Growth Motivations (T1) 3.51 1.01 −0.16 * 0.13 1
4. Security Motivations (T1) 2.52 1.35 0.10 0.32 ** 0.21 ** 1
5. Satisfaction with Volunteerism (T2) 4.17 0.56 0.04 −0.10 0.23 ** 0.04 1
6. Volunteers’ Emotional Exhaustion (T2) 1.61 0.69 −0.23 ** 0.31 ** 0.05 0.09 −0.37 **
Note: N = 241, M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, T1= Time 1, T2= Time 2. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Table 2 reports results concerning Hypotheses 1. Results show that Hypothesis 1a is supported by
the data: satisfaction with volunteerism is significantly predicted by age, social motivations and by their
interaction term. In addition, the moderation of age shows that the effect of social motives on satisfaction is
negative and statistically significant for the younger volunteers (mean age of 30 years), but it is nonsignificant
for the older volunteers (mean age of 55 years). As shown in Table 3, in the younger volunteers, the CI
did not contain zero and in the older volunteers, it did. The results of the moderation of age in the relation
between social motives and satisfaction with volunteerism are depicted in Figure 1.
Results concerning Hypothesis 1b confirm the moderation of age in the relation between
growth motives and satisfaction, given that probability associated both with the predictors and
with the interaction term were significant, and the increase of variance explained by the interaction,
although small in absolute value, was also statistically significant, as shown in the second column of
Table 2. The values of the effect of growth motives on satisfaction vary as a function of volunteers’ age,
being nonsignificant for the young volunteers but positive and statistically significant for the older
ones, as can be seen in Table 3, in the lower rows. This effect is depicted in Figure 2.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 7 of 16

Table 2. Multiple Linear regression for the moderation of age in the relationships between motivations for volunteerism and satisfaction with volunteerism.

Outcome: Satisfaction with Volunteerism (T2)

Predictor Variables
Social Motivations (T1) Growth Motivations (T1) Security Motivations (T1)
B a SE t LLCI ULCI B a SE t LLCI ULCI B a SE t LLCI ULCI
Age (T1) −0.02 0.00 −2.75 ** −0.03 −0.005 −0.01 0.00 −2.17 * −0.03 −0.00 0.02 0.01 1.4 ** −0.007 0.04
Motivation (T1) −0.54 0.14 −3.73 ** −0.83 −0.26 −0.25 0.10 −2.45 * −0.45 −0.05 0.28 0.14 1.9 * 0.00 0.56
Interaction Age x
0.01 0.00 3.43 ** 0.005 0.02 0.006 0.00 2.69 ** 0.00 0.01 −0.003 0.00 −1.10 −0.00 0.031
Motivation
R2 0.06 ** 0.03 * 0.06 *
∆R associated to the
2
0.05 ** 0.03 * 0.005
interaction term
F 4.84 * 2.65 * 5.12
N = 235. a Unstandardized regression coefficients B; SE: Standard error; LLCI: Lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Table 3. Conditional effects of age in the relationships between social and growth motivations, from one side, and satisfaction with volunteerism from the other.

Conditional Boot p 95% CI

Levels of Moderator t
Effect a SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Low (Mean − 1 SD) −0.21 0.05 −3.47 0.00 −0.32 −0.08
Social Motivations
High (Mean + 1 SD) 0.07 0.05 10.18 0.23 −0.05 0.18
Growth Low (Mean − 1 SD) −0.07 0.04 −1.71 0.09 −0.16 0.01
Motivations High (Mean + 1 SD) 0.07 0.03 2.13 0.03 0.005 0.14
N = 235. a Unstandardized regression coefficients B; SE: Standard error; LLCI: Lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval. Bootstrap = 5.000 samples.
 ULCI
Low (Mean − 1 SD) −0.21 0.05 −3.47 0.00 −0.32 −0.08
Social Motivations
High (Mean + 1 SD) 0.07 0.05 10.18 0.23 −0.05 0.18
Growth Low (Mean − 1 SD) −0.07 0.04 −1.71 0.09 −0.16 0.01
Motivations High (Mean + 1 SD) 0.07 0.03 2.13 0.03 0.005 0.14
N = 235.
Sustainability
a Unstandardized regression coefficients B; SE: Standard error; LLCI: Lower limit confidence interval;
2019, 11, 4477 8 of 16
ULCI: Upper limit confidence interval. Bootstrap = 5.000 samples.

Figure 1. Moderating
Figure 1. Moderating effect
effect of
of age
age in
in the
the relationships
relationships between
between social
social motivations
motivations and
and satisfaction
satisfaction
with
with volunteerism.
volunteerism.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

Results concerning Hypothesis 1b confirm the moderation of age in the relation between growth
motives and satisfaction, given that probability associated both with the predictors and with the
interaction term were significant, and the increase of variance explained by the interaction, although
small in absolute value, was also statistically significant, as shown in the second column of Table 2.
The values of the effect of growth motives on satisfaction vary as a function of volunteers’ age, being
nonsignificant for the young volunteers but positive and statistically significant for the older ones, as
can be seen in Table 3, in the lower rows. This effect is depicted in Figure 2.
Results completely disprove Hypothesis 1c, given that neither the interaction nor the increase of
variance associated with the interaction were significant, as shown in the third column of Table 2.

Figure 2. Moderating
Figure 2. Moderating effect
effect of
of age
age in
in the
the relationship
relationship between
between growth
growth motivations
motivations and
and satisfaction
satisfaction
with
with volunteerism.
volunteerism.

Results completely disprove Hypothesis 1c, given that neither the interaction nor the increase of
In relation with the second block of hypotheses of this study, it can be seen in Table 4 that the
variance associated with the interaction were significant, as shown in the third column of Table 2.
two first hypotheses were confirmed by the data, whereas the third hypothesis has to be rejected. The
In relation with the second block of hypotheses of this study, it can be seen in Table 4 that the
probability associated with the interaction of age in the relationship between social motives and
two first hypotheses were confirmed by the data, whereas the third hypothesis has to be rejected.
emotional exhaustion was statistically significant (Hypothesis 2a), as it was for the moderation of age
The probability associated with the interaction of age in the relationship between social motives and
in the relationship between growth motives and emotional exhaustion (Hypothesis 2b). A non-
emotional exhaustion was statistically significant (Hypothesis 2a), as it was for the moderation of age in
significant relation is observed in the moderation of age in the relationship between volunteers’
the relationship between growth motives and emotional exhaustion (Hypothesis 2b). A non-significant
security motives and emotional exhaustion (Hypothesis 2c).
relation is observed in the moderation of age in the relationship between volunteers’ security motives
and emotional exhaustion
Table 4. Multiple linear (Hypothesis
regression for 2c).
the moderation of age in the relationships between motivations
Volunteers’ age (T1) moderates the relation
for volunteerism and volunteers’ emotional exhaustion. between social motives for participation (T1) and their
emotional exhaustion (T2) such that, as can be seen in Table 5, the effect of social motives on emotional
Outcome: Volunteers’ Emotional Exhaustion (T2)
exhaustion is large and
Predictor Variables statistically significant in young
Social Motivations (T1)
volunteers but it is not
Growth Motivations (T1)
significant in older
Security Motivations (T1)
volunteers. Volunteers’ Ba age
SE (T1) t moderates
LLCI ULCI the relation
Ba SEbetweent growth
LLCI motives
ULCI B for
a participation
SE t (T1)
LLCI ULCI
and their emotional
Age (T1) 0.01exhaustion
0.00 1.67 (T2) because,
−0.002 0.02 as seen0.00
0.004 in Table
0.54 5, the
−0.01effect
0.02of −0.02
growth 0.01 motivation on
1.34 −0.05 0.009
Motivation (T1) 0.83 0.17 5.00 ** 0.50 1.16 0.35 0.12 2.89 * 0.11 0.59 −0.07 0.17 −0.37 −0.41 0.29
exhaustion is positive and statistically significant for young participants but it is not significant in
Interaction Age x
volunteers. −0.01 0.00 −3.75 ** −0.02 −0.006 −0.006 0.00 −2.52 ** −0.01 −0.001 0.002 0.00 0.43 −0.006 0.009
olderMotivation
R2 0.18 ** 0.09 ** 0.05 *
∆R2 associated to the
0.05 ** 0.03 * 0.0007
interaction term
F 16.8 ** 7.32 * 4.4 **
N = 235. a Unstandardized regression coefficients B; SE: standard error; LLCI: Lower Limit Confidence Interval;
ULCI: Upper Limit; Confidence Interval * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Volunteers’ age (T1) moderates the relation between social motives for participation (T1) and
their emotional exhaustion (T2) such that, as can be seen in Table 5, the effect of social motives on
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 9 of 16

Table 4. Multiple linear regression for the moderation of age in the relationships between motivations for volunteerism and volunteers’ emotional exhaustion.

Outcome: Volunteers’ Emotional Exhaustion (T2)

Predictor Variables
Social Motivations (T1) Growth Motivations (T1) Security Motivations (T1)
Ba SE t LLCI ULCI Ba SE t LLCI ULCI Ba SE t LLCI ULCI
Age (T1) 0.01 0.00 1.67 −0.002 0.02 0.004 0.00 0.54 −0.01 0.02 −0.02 0.01 1.34 −0.05 0.009
Motivation (T1) 0.83 0.17 5.00 ** 0.50 1.16 0.35 0.12 2.89 * 0.11 0.59 −0.07 0.17 −0.37 −0.41 0.29
Interaction Age x
−0.01 0.00 −3.75 ** −0.02 −0.006 −0.006 0.00 −2.52 ** −0.01 −0.001 0.002 0.00 0.43 −0.006 0.009
Motivation
R2 0.18 ** 0.09 ** 0.05 *
∆R associated to the
2
0.05 ** 0.03 * 0.0007
interaction term
F 16.8 ** 7.32 * 4.4 **
N = 235. a Unstandardized regression coefficients B; SE: standard error; LLCI: Lower Limit Confidence Interval; ULCI: Upper Limit; Confidence Interval * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 10 of 16

Table 5. Conditional effects of age in the relationships between social and growth motivations, from one
side, and volunteers’ emotional exhaustion, from the other.

Levels of Conditional Boot p 95% CI

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW t 9 of 14
Moderator Effect a EE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Social5. Conditional
Table effects −of1age
Low (Mean SD)in the relationships
0.41 0.07
between 6.07 and
social 0.00
growth 0.27 0.54
motivations, from
Motivations High (Mean + 1 SD) 0.07 0.06
one side, and volunteers’ emotional exhaustion, from the other. 1.03 0.30 −0.06 0.20
Growth Low (Mean − 1 SD) 0.16 0.06 3.05 0.00 0.05 0.26
Motivations High (Mean + 1 SD) −0.007 0.04 Boot −0.17 0.86 −0.09 95% CI 0.07
Levels of Moderator Conditional Effect a t p
EE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
N = 238. a Unstandardized regression coefficients B; SE: standard error; LLCI: Lower Limit Confidence Interval;
ULCI: Low (Mean − 1 SD) 0.41
Upper Limit Confidence Interval. Bootstrap = 5.000 samples. 0.07 6.07 0.00 0.27 0.54
Social Motivations
High (Mean + 1 SD) 0.07 0.06 1.03 0.30 −0.06 0.20
Low (Mean − 1 SD) 0.16 0.06 3.05 0.00 0.05 0.26
Growth Motivations
Table 4 also showsHigh
that (Mean
Hypothesis
+ 1 SD) 2c is rejected because neither
−0.007 0.04 the main
−0.17 predictors
0.86 −0.09(security0.07
motives
and age), nora Unstandardized
N = 238. their interaction term reach
regression statistical
coefficients significance.
B; SE: TheLLCI:
standard error; statistically significant
Lower Limit effects of
Confidence
moderation
Interval;related to Hypotheses
ULCI: Upper 2a and 2b
Limit Confidence are represented
Interval. Bootstrap =graphically in Figures 3 and 4.
5.000 samples.

Figure
Figure 3. Moderating effect
3.Sustainability
Moderating effect of
of age
age in the
the relationship between social motivations and volunteers’
2017, 9, x FOR PEERin
REVIEWrelationship between social motivations and volunteers’
1 of 1
emotional
emotional exhaustion.
exhaustion.

2.6 2.6

2.4 2.4

2.2 2.2
Emotional exhaustion

2 2

1.8 1.8

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1
Low Low Growth
Growth Motives
Motives HighGrowth
High GrowthMotives
Motives

Youngers
Youngers Olders
Olders

Figure 4. Moderating effect of age in the relationship between growth motivations and volunteers’
Figure 4. Figure
Moderating effect of effect
4. Moderating age inoftheage
relationship between between
in the relationship growth motivations and volunteers’
growth motivations and
emotional exhaustion.
emotionalvolunteers’
exhaustion.
emotional exhaustion.

8. Discussion
The present study had the goal of exploring the moderator role of volunteers’ ages in the
relationships between their motivations for volunteerism and the outcomes—satisfaction with
volunteerism and emotional exhaustion—in a group of healthcare volunteers aged between 26 and
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 11 of 16

8. Discussion
The present study had the goal of exploring the moderator role of volunteers’ ages in the relationships
between their motivations for volunteerism and the outcomes—satisfaction with volunteerism and
emotional exhaustion—in a group of healthcare volunteers aged between 26 and 64 years.
The results allow us to affirm, firstly, that the influence of social and growth motivations on
volunteers’ satisfaction is negative and statistically significant for the younger volunteers, whereas it is
positive and loses significance for the older ones. As suggested by Beier and Kanfer [22], one of the
terms of the person-environment fit equation are personal characteristics and motivations, which are
affected by age-related changes. Our findings would support that changes in motives for participation
affect perceptions of fit differently for younger and older volunteers, influencing their satisfaction.
Secondly, the influence of social and growth motivations on emotional exhaustion is high and statistically
significant for the younger volunteers but it is nonsignificant for the older ones. Thirdly, the relations
between security motivations and satisfaction and emotional exhaustion are not moderated by
volunteers’ age. Accordingly, it is important to note that the hypotheses related to the influence of
social and growth motivations are confirmed, whereas those related to security motivations are rejected.
These findings contribute to a growing body of evidence about the existence of emotional exhaustion
in volunteers [47].
The motivations for volunteerism have been investigated for some time, although many approaches
have preferentially focused on altruism [48]. The present findings, which confirm the existence of
a variety of motivations for volunteerism, also contribute to the debate related to the classification
of these motivations. The most recent investigations with international volunteers propose the
existence of two motivational patterns, one oriented inwards and the other outwards, which could be
applied to volunteerism in a broad sense, and which seem to correlate with volunteer satisfaction [49].
Other international studies have also supported the existence of two motivational patterns, one implicit
and the other explicit, which are linked to desirable behaviours and have been shown to be stable
cross-culturally [50].
The finding that different motivations may have different impacts on the outcomes is consistent
with other recent studies that show that volunteers who have self-determined motivation, but not
control motivations, have higher levels of health and less burnout than non-volunteers [51].
Likewise, Stukas et al. [52] found that the differences in well-being of Australian volunteers were
related to motives oriented towards others or towards oneself.
The moderating role of age deserves a more detailed comment, as older volunteers with greater
social and growth motivations express more satisfaction, whereas the opposite pattern is observed in
younger volunteers. In contrast, when social and growth motivations are higher, the older volunteers
show less emotional exhaustion. As recent studies suggest, the relevance of social motives for
Generation Zs seems less influencing on their attitudes towards volunteering [53]. These findings
seem to support the idea that social and growth motivations both have a more pronounced impact on
the outcomes for older than for younger people, accordingly to recent research on the impact of stress
on youth volunteers [54].
This evidence has diverse implications. In view of the theory of socio-emotional selectivity and of
the motivational approach of Kanfer and Ackerman [19], this adds a piece of novel evidence, as all
prior studies focused on paid employees and did not explore such differences in the volunteerism
context. These results also enhance the debate on the existence of other variables, as motivations to
volunteer, that influence emotional exhaustion and satisfaction, and that influence them differentially
as a function of age. On the one hand, it has been suggested that involvement in volunteerism can
be a substitute for the loss of roles in retirement [55], and this variable would affect the late adults
or older people. On the other hand, it is possible that the balance between life and work may affect
outcomes such as satisfaction, and this variable would influence younger people more than late adults
and older people [56]. In the same vein, other variables could be included in future studies, due to
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 12 of 16

the preliminary evidence that suggest its relevance, as emotional intelligence [57], communication
practices [58], organizational pride and trust [59], volunteer management practices [60], among others.

9. Limitations and Future Lines of Research

Some limitations of the study must be considered. Even though we considered a broad array of
motivations for volunteerism, such a set of motivations still represents a selection. Other motivations
could be significant and should be included in future studies. Especially, ego-defensive motivations
and escaping from loneliness might have a strong influence on individual outcomes and, at the same
time, be moderated by age.
Moreover, although we think that our measures of volunteers’ satisfaction and emotional
exhaustion adequately assessed volunteers’ attitudes, such measures give a global representation of
the emotional experience of volunteers regardless of the activities in which they are involved, more or
less regularly. Thus, future studies could use other methodologies, such as the Happiness Test or the
Short-Day Reconstruction [61], in order to better consider the complexities of the positive and negative
experiences of volunteers associated with the performance of volunteerism tasks.
In this study, we considered only healthcare volunteers, however our results should be tested in
volunteers’ associations that operate in different fields, such as the environmental or political ones.
Another limitation of the study is that data were obtained from a non-random sample. We cannot
exclude that our respondents belong to a self-selected group of volunteers that has different
characteristics from volunteers in different centres. Although our findings confirm previous studies,
our results should be treated with caution.
On another hand, although our results show that the temporal prospects associated with age
could influence the relation between motivations and outcomes, we have no measures of the relevance
of the interviewees’ age, so this conclusion seems to be based on indirect reasoning rather than on
direct evidence. In future studies, volunteers could be asked directly if their age and the associated
changes are important for them in relation to their volunteer activities, and to include this information
as moderator variables in the analyses [62].
Despite these limitations and the unresolved issues, the present study contributes to the growing
body of literature on volunteers’ motivations and attitudes. It also extends this literature, adding
the evidence of a longitudinal study that relates volunteers’ motivations and attitudes with their
age. This study has strengths and weaknesses. Among its main weaknesses, we must point out the
self-reported nature of the data and the measurement of all the variables by means of questionnaires.
A novel aspect is the confirmation of the hypotheses on the different impact of motivation as a function
of volunteers’ age. Another strength is the longitudinal design which, separating along time the
independent and the dependent variables, allows stronger conclusions about the potential effects of
motivations to participate on satisfaction for volunteering and the emotional exhaustion related to
volunteer activities.

Implications for Practitioners

Motivation of volunteers and consequences resulting from their volunteerism are important
for the effective management of volunteers [63]. In this sense, educational programs for non-profit
administrators on recruitment, selection and training of volunteers should be beneficial. In particular,
it seems that communication concerning social and growth motivations should be present but not be
too much emphasized for young people, because high levels of such motivations seems related to
the decrease of satisfaction and the increase of emotional exhaustion; thus, unfortunately, our results
suggest what not to do with younger people than what to do. More clear results concern the late adults
and older people, which seems to be mainly motivated by growth needs, aiming to increase skills or
facing challenging activities that have to be mastered. However, inquiry into the strategies which
would be more effective to incorporate volunteers into the daily life may help to design successful
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 13 of 16

entry programs. In the same vein, education programs at the universities could help to introduce
volunteer students, as suggested [64].
Regarding the differences in motivations of volunteers as a function of their age, it must be
considered that most non-volunteers are of working age, and this information should be considered in
planning volunteers’ activities in all contexts. More project-type activities could be offered that might
be more motivating for a wide range of citizens [65].
This line of investigation serves to inform future interventions aimed at increasing volunteers’
satisfaction and reducing their emotional exhaustion. Specifically, it may enhance the design of
volunteer management strategies, differentiated as a function of volunteers’ ages and their most
relevant motivations. This will contribute to better performances of volunteers, and to more
effective achievements.

Author Contributions: M.A. and G.T. contributed to the conceptualization, design, supervision, formal analysis,
and writing—original draft. M.A., S.Z. and G.T. collaborated to the preparation and writing—review and editing
the different versions of the final manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. McCloughan, P.; Batt, W.H.; Costine, M.; Scully, D. Second European Quality of Life Survey. Participations in
Volunteering and Unpaid Work; Eurofound: Dublin, Ireland, 2011.
2. GHK, Volunteering in the European Union. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/doc1018_
en.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2019).
3. Gil-Lacruz, A.I.; Marcuello-Servós, C.; Saz-Gil, M.I. Youth volunteering in countries in the European Union:
Approximation to differences. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2016, 45, 971–991. [CrossRef]
4. Erlinghagen, M.; Hank, K. The participation of older Europeans in volunteer work. Ageing Soc. 2006, 26, 567–584.
[CrossRef]
5. Van Ingen, E.; Wilson, J. I volunteer, therefore I am? Factors affecting volunteer role identity. Nonprofit Volunt.
Sect. Q. 2016. [CrossRef]
6. Chacón, F.; Vecina, M.L.; Dávila, M.C. The three-stage model of volunteer’s duration. Soc. Behav. Personal.
2007, 35, 627–642. [CrossRef]
7. Finkelstein, M.A. Correlates of satisfaction in older volunteers: A motivational perspective. Int. J. Volunt.
Adm. 2007, 24, 6–12.
8. Galindo-Kuhn, R.; Guzley, R.M. The volunteer satisfaction index: Construct definition, measurement,
development, and validation. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 2002, 28, 45–68. [CrossRef]
9. Omoto, A.M.; Snyder, M. Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and
perceived attitude changes among AIDS volunteers. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 68, 671–686. [CrossRef]
10. Hansen, T.; Aartsen, M.; Slagsvold, B.; Deindl, C. Dynamics of volunteering and life satisfaction in midlife
and old age: Findings from 12 European countries. Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 78. [CrossRef]
11. Kulik, L. Burnout among volunteers in the social services: The impact of gender and employment status.
J. Community Psychol. 2006, 34, 541–561. [CrossRef]
12. Lewig, K.A.; Xanthopoulou, D.; Bakker, A.B.; Dollard, M.F.; Metzer, J.C. Burnout and connectedness among
Australian volunteers: A test of the job demands-resources model. J. Vocat. Behav. 2007, 71, 429–445.
[CrossRef]
13. Edwards, J.R.; Cable, D.M.; Williamson, I.O.; Lambert, L.S.; Shipp, A.J. The phenomenology of fit: Linking the
person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 802–827.
[CrossRef]
14. Clary, E.G.; Snyder, M.; Ridge, R.D.; Copeland, J.; Stukas, A.A.; Haugen, J.A.; Miene, P.K. Understanding and
assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1516–1530.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 14 of 16

15. Kulik, L. Volunteering during an emergency. A life stage perspective. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. 2017, 46, 419–441.
[CrossRef]
16. Barrick, M.R.; Stewart, G.L.; Piotrowski, M. Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of
motivation among sales representatives. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 43–51. [CrossRef]
17. Kooij, D.T.; De Lange, A.H.; Jansen, P.G.; Kanfer, R.; Dikkers, J.S. Age and work-related motives: Results of a
meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 197–225. [CrossRef]
18. Clary, E.G.; Snyder, M. The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Curr. Dir.
Psychol. Sci. 1999, 8, 156–159. [CrossRef]
19. Kanfer, R.; Ackerman, P.L. Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2004, 29, 440–458.
[CrossRef]
20. Kooij, D.; De Lange, A.; Jansen, P.; Dikkers, J. Older workers’ motivation to continue to work: Five meanings
of age: A conceptual review. J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 364–394. [CrossRef]
21. Okun, M.A.; Schultz, A. Age and motives for volunteering: Testing hypotheses derived from socio-emotional
selectivity theory. Psychol. Aging 2003, 18, 231–239. [CrossRef]
22. Beier, M.; Kanfer, R. Work performance and the older worker. In The Sage Handbook of Aging, Work and Society;
Field, J., Burke, R., Cooper, C., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2013; pp. 97–117.
23. Carstensen, L.L. Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation; Jacobs, J.E., Ed.; University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE, USA, 1993;
Volume 40; pp. 209–254.
24. Baltes, P.B.; Baltes, M.M. Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization
with compensation. In Successful Aging: Perspectives from the behavioral Sciences; Baltes, B., Baltes, M., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 1–34.
25. Scheibe, S.; Zacher, H. A lifespan perspective on emotion regulation, stress, and well-being in the workplace.
In The Role of Emotion and Emotion Regulation in Job Stress and Well-Being; Perrewe, P.L., Rosen, C.C.,
Halbesleben, J.R., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2013; pp. 163–193.
26. Isaacowitz, D.M.; Blanchard-Fields, F. Linking process and outcome in the study of emotion and aging.
Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 7, 3–17. [CrossRef]
27. Mather, M.; Carstensen, L.L. Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in attention and memory.
Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005, 9, 496–502. [CrossRef]
28. Kristof-Brown, A.L.; Jansen, K.J.; Colbert, A.E. A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit
with jobs, groups, and organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 985–993. [CrossRef]
29. Kristof-Brown, A.L.; Zimmerman, R.D.; Johnson, E.C. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work:
A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Person. Psychol.
2005, 58, 281–342. [CrossRef]
30. Oh, I.S.; Guay, R.P.; Kim, K.; Harold, C.M.; Lee, J.H.; Heo, C.G.; Shin, K.H. Fit happens globally:
A meta-analytic comparison of the relationships of person–environment fit dimensions with work attitudes
and performance across East Asia, Europe, and North America. Person. Psychol. 2014, 67, 99–152. [CrossRef]
31. Westerman, J.W.; Yamamura, J.H. Generational preferences for work environment fit: Effects on employee
outcomes. Career Dev. Int. 2007, 12, 150–161. [CrossRef]
32. Dávila, M.C.; Chacón, F. Factores psicosociales y tipo de voluntariado [Psychosocial Factors and the type of
volunteerism]. Psicothema 2004, 16, 639–645.
33. Farrell, J.M.; Johnston, M.E.; Twynam, G.D. Volunteer motivation, satisfaction, and management at an elite
sporting competition. J. Sport Manag. 1998, 12, 288–300. [CrossRef]
34. Vecina, J.M.; Chacón, F.F.; Sueiro, A.M. Volunteer satisfaction: Internal structure and relationship with
permanence in organizations. Psicothema 2009, 21, 112–117.
35. Capner, M.; Caltabiano, M.L. Factors affecting the progression towards burnout. A comparison of professional
and volunteer counseling. Psychol. Rep. 1993, 73, 555–561. [CrossRef]
36. Glass, J.C.; Hastings, J.L. Stress and burnout: Concerns for the hospice volunteer. Educ. Gerontol. 1992, 18, 717–731.
[CrossRef]
37. Paradis, L.F.; Usui, W.M. Hospice staff and volunteers: Issues for management. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 1989, 7, 121–140.
[CrossRef]
38. Iorga, M.; Dondas, C.; Zugun-Eloae, C. Depressed as freshmen, stressed as seniors: The relationship between
depression, perceived stress and academic results among medical students. Behav. Sci. 2018, 8, 70. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 15 of 16

39. Amarneh, B. Social support behaviors and work stressors among nurses: A comparative study between
teaching and non-teaching hospitals. Behav. Sci. 2017, 7, 5. [CrossRef]
40. Puertas Molero, P.; Zurita Ortega, F.; Ubago Jiménez, J.L.; González Valero, G. Influence of emotional
intelligence and burnout syndrome on teachers well-being: A systematic review. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 185.
[CrossRef]
41. Okray, Z.; Abatay, G.B. The comparison of job burnout and job satisfaction among nurses of primary health
care and inpatient treatment institutions. Turk. Int. J. Special Educ. Guid. Couns. 2016, 4, 49–57.
42. Dávila, M.C.; Chacón, F. Adaptación del inventario de funciones del voluntariado a una muestra española
[Adaptation of the Inventory of Motivations for Volunteerism for Spanish volunteers]. Encuentros en Psicol.
Soc. 2003, 1, 22–26.
43. Gil-Monte, P.R. Burnout: An occupational illness in the well-being society. In El síndrome de Quemarse Por el Trabajo
(“burnout”). Una Enfermedad Laboral en la Sociedad del Bienestar; Ediciones Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2005.
44. Chacón, F.; Vecina, M.L. Análisis de la fiabilidad de un cuestionario de motivaciones del voluntariado en SIDA
[Reliability analysis of the Inventory of Motivations for AIDS Volunteerism]. Psicothema 1999, 11, 211–223.
45. Gil-Monte, P.R.; Figueiredo-Ferraz, H. Psychometric properties of the ‘Spanish Burnout Inventory’ among
employees working with people with intellectual disability. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2013, 57, 959–968.
[CrossRef]
46. Hayes, A.F.; Preacher, K.J. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Br. J.
Math. Stat. Psychol. 2014, 67, 451–470. [CrossRef]
47. Farzadfar, M.; Ganjooyi, F.A.; Hezaveh, H.S. Factors Affecting the Burn-Out of Sports Boards’ Volunteers in
Kermanshah Province. International SAMANM J. Mark. Manag. 2014, 2, 62–70.
48. Smith, D.H. Altruism, volunteers, and volunteerism. J. Volun. Action Res. 1981, 10, 21–36. [CrossRef]
49. Meneghini, A.M. A Meaningful Break in a Flat Life the Motivations behind Overseas Volunteering.
Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2016. [CrossRef]
50. Liu, Y.; Mo, S.; Song, Y.; Wang, M. Longitudinal analysis in occupational health psychology: A review and
tutorial of three longitudinal modeling techniques. Appl. Psychol. 2015, 65, 379–411. [CrossRef]
51. Ramos, R.; Güntert, S.; Brauchli, R.; Bauer, G.; Wehner, T.; Hämmig, O. Exploring the interaction between
volunteering status, paid job characteristics and quality of volunteers’ motivation on mental health.
VOLUNTAS: Int. J. Volun. Nonprofit Organ. 2016, 27, 790–809. [CrossRef]
52. Stukas, A.A.; Hoye, R.; Nicholson, M.; Brown, K.M.; Aisbett, L. Motivations to volunteer and their associations
with volunteers’ well-being. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2016, 45, 112–132. [CrossRef]
53. Cho, M.; Bonn, M.; Han, S. Generation Z’s sustainable volunteering: Motivations, attitudes and job
performance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1400. [CrossRef]
54. Roditi, E.; Bodas, M.; Jaffe, E.; Knobler, H.Y.; Adini, B. Impact of stressful events on motivations, self-efficacy,
and development of post-traumatic symptoms among youth volunteers in emergency medical services. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1613. [CrossRef]
55. Chambré, S.M. Volunteerism by elders: Past trends and future prospects. Gerontologist 1993, 33, 221–228.
[CrossRef]
56. Visser, M.; Mills, M.; Heyse, L.; Wittek, R.; Bollettino, V. Work–Life balance among humanitarian aid workers.
Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2016. [CrossRef]
57. Vveinhardt, J.; Bendaraviciene, R.; Vinickyte, I. Mediating factor of emotional intelligence in intercultural
competence and work productivity of volunteers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2625. [CrossRef]
58. Bauer, S.; Lim, D. Effect of communication practices on volunteer organization identification and retention.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2467. [CrossRef]
59. Im, S.; Chung, Y. Employee volunteering meaningfulness and organizational citizenship behavior: Exploring
the effects of organizational support, pride, and trust. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4835. [CrossRef]
60. Kim, D.; Park, C.; Kim, H.; Kim, J. Determinants and outcomes of volunteer satisfaction in mega sports
events. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1859. [CrossRef]
61. Smith, J.; Ryan, L.H.; Queen, T.L.; Becker, S.; Gonzalez, R. Snapshots of mixtures of affective experiences in a
day: Findings from the health and retirement study. J. Popul. Ageing 2014, 7, 55–79. [CrossRef]
62. Goecke, T.; Kunze, F. The contextual role of subjective age in the chronological age/absenteeism relationship
in blue and white-collar teams. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2018, 27, 1–15.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4477 16 of 16

63. Kimberlin, S.E.; Schwartz, S.L.; Austin, M.J. Shelter Network: Serving homeless families and individuals
(1987–2007). J. Evid.-Based Soc. Work 2011, 8, 179–197. [CrossRef]
64. Baek, W.; Cho, J. Identifying the virtuous circle of humanity education and post-graduate employment:
Evidence from a Confucian country. Sustainability 2018, 10, 202. [CrossRef]
65. Yeung, A.B. An intricate triangle—religiosity, volunteering, and social capital: The European perspective,
the case of Finland. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2004, 33, 401–422. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).