The Journal of Social Psychology

ISSN: 0022-4545 (Print) 1940-1183 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/vsoc20

Volunteering as a Means to an Equal End? The

Impact of a Social Justice Function on Intention to
Volunteer

Patrick Jiranek, Elisabeth Kals, Julia Sophia Humm, Isabel Theresia Strubel &
Theo Wehner

To cite this article: Patrick Jiranek, Elisabeth Kals, Julia Sophia Humm, Isabel Theresia Strubel
& Theo Wehner (2013) Volunteering as a Means to an Equal End? The Impact of a Social Justice
Function on Intention to Volunteer, The Journal of Social Psychology, 153:5, 520-541, DOI:
10.1080/00224545.2013.768594

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.768594

Published online: 26 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1919

View related articles

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsoc20
 The Journal of Social Psychology, 2013, 153(5), 520–541
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ARTICLES

Volunteering as a Means to an Equal End?

The Impact of a Social Justice Function
on Intention to Volunteer
PATRICK JIRANEK
ETH Zurich

ELISABETH KALS
Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt

JULIA SOPHIA HUMM

ETH Zurich

ISABEL THERESIA STRUBEL

Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt

THEO WEHNER
ETH Zurich

ABSTRACT. In the present study, we combined components of the theory of planned

behavior and the functional approach to predict the social sector volunteering intention
of nonvolunteers (N = 513). Moreover, we added a new other-oriented “social justice func-
tion” to the Volunteer Functions Inventory of Clary and colleagues (1998), which contains
mainly self-oriented functions. We distinguished the social justice function from the other
five measured volunteer functions in confirmatory factor analysis, and showed its incre-
mental validity in predicting intention to volunteer beyond established constructs such as
self-efficacy, subjective norm, and the five volunteer functions. This study suggests that

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Swiss National Science
Foundation (grant no. 100014L_135380) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant
no. KA 1328/6-1). We thank the editor, two anonymous reviewers, and Stefan T. Güntert
for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Address correspondence to Patrick Jiranek, ETH Zurich, Department of Management,
Technology and Economics, Weinbergstrasse 56/58, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland; pjiranek@
ethz.ch (e-mail).

520
 Jiranek et al. 521

emphasizing potential social justice improvements by means of volunteering may attract

new volunteers.
Keywords: functional approach, justice (motive) theory, prosocial behavior, social justice,
theory of planned behavior, volunteering

THE VERY FACT THAT BETWEEN 30% and 60% of adults in western
European countries are engaged in organized and regular voluntary work reflects
volunteering’s social importance (Plagnol & Huppert, 2009). These volunteers
engage for various causes in local and international non-profit organizations. In the
mission and vision statements of international non-profit organizations social
justice often emerges as an ultimate goal to be accomplished.1 However, no exist-
ing inventory in volunteering research has yet incorporated social justice as an
antecedent of volunteering: Neither the functional approach (Clary, Snyder, &
Ridge, 1992); nor the widely used theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
In addition, very few studies have applied the two theories together and if so, both
theories were tested in competition (Greenslade & White, 2005). We believe that
they can complement each other and, thus, we have combined components from
both theories. Moreover, we developed an other-oriented social justice function
that we perceive as relevant and yet missing in the Volunteer Functions Inventory.
Hence, our objective was twofold: a) the first aim was to integrate single compo-
nents of two established approaches into one parsimonious model; b) the second,
major aim was to test the validity, reliability and predictive utility of an innovative
social justice function with regard to social sector volunteering intention.
Below, we introduce both the theory of planned behavior and the func-
tional approach. Afterwards, we discuss their integrative potential, followed by
limitations that call for their extension. Next, we present and delineate our con-
ceptualization of the social justice function as the promotion of equality via
volunteering. Finally, we state our main objectives and hypotheses.

The Theory of Planned Behavior and Volunteering

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) suggests that intention to perform a

behavior is a function of perceived behavioral control (i.e. individual’s appraisal
that they are capable of performing a behavior), attitude (i.e. individual’s approval
or disapproval of a behavior), and subjective norm (i.e. perceived expectations
of others to perform a behavior) and that it mediates the impact of these three
determinants on behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, according to the TPB intention to
perform a behavior is the most proximal antecedent of manifest behavior (Ajzen,
1988).
With regard to volunteering, various authors have successfully applied TPB
to the prediction of intention to volunteer and volunteering behavior and pro-
vided empirical support for the theory’s key assumptions. Okun and Sloane (2002)
522 The Journal of Social Psychology

showed that perceived control, attitude and subjective norm were significant and
positive predictors of intention to volunteer. In addition, they showed that intention
to volunteer was the only significant predictor of behavior. Other authors have
also found intention to be the most proximal predictor of manifest volunteer-
ing behavior (Greenslade & White, 2005; Harrison, 1995; Warburton & Terry,
2000).
TPB stresses the necessity of specifying the exact behavior to be predicted
(Ajzen, 1991). Yet volunteering activities differ in their constituent characteris-
tics and there are many forms of volunteering (Wilson, 2000). For example, some
volunteers engage in palliative care, whereas other volunteers provide informa-
tion at sports events. Furthermore, volunteering can be categorized into informal
(independent of organizations, lacking formal commitment) and formal voluntary
work. In the present study, we particularly focused on formal social sector volun-
teering defined as “unpaid, organized social work, which requires an expenditure
of time and could also be carried out by a third person and could potentially be
remunerated” (Wehner, Mieg, & Güntert, 2006, p. 20).

A Functional Approach to Volunteering

The functional approach comprises the notion that a great deal of human
behavior is motivated by different goals and needs and that motivation varies
inter-individually (Clary et al., 1998). Clary et al. (1992) adapted this notion in
their Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) and transferred it to research on sus-
tained and organized prosocial behavior in terms of volunteering. The decision
to become an active volunteer is determined by the perceived potential of volun-
teering to serve six specific functions: a) values function, which is characterized
by altruistic concern for other people; b) understanding function, which reflects
gaining new skills and knowledge through volunteering experience; c) social
function, which reflects motivations concerning relationships and the normative
influence of others; d) career function, which is concerned with career-related
benefits that may be obtained from volunteering; e) protective function, which is
concerned with shielding the ego from negative emotions and experiences; and
f) enhancement function, which involves a motivational process concerning the
growth and development of the self. Within the VFI, the utilitarian career func-
tion (Clary et al., 1998) is theoretically the most distant from the other-oriented
values function. Different studies have empirically shown weak or nonsignifi-
cant correlations between values and career (e.g., Greenslade & White, 2005;
Moreno-Jiménez & Villodres, 2010; Okun & Schultz, 2003). Overall, recent inter-
national volunteering research has accounted for the relevance and validity of
the six functions in various contexts (Houle, Sagarin, & Kaplan, 2005; Moreno-
Jiménez & Villodres, 2010). Furthermore, Clary and colleagues (1998) validated
the use of the VFI for volunteers and nonvolunteers (those not currently engaged in
volunteering).
 Jiranek et al. 523

Integrating TPB and VFI

According to Wilson (2000), in volunteering research on the individual level,

there are theories that stress individual motivations on the one hand, such as the
functional approach, and those that stress rational action on the other, such as
TPB. Both theories have been applied separately and successfully in the con-
text of volunteering (Greenslade & White, 2005), but we argue that they can
complement each other. In essence, the VFI ignores whether people feel able to
perform a certain behavior “even in the face of difficult obstacles” (Fishbein &
Ajzen, 2010, p. 160) in terms of perceived behavioral control, whereas TPB lacks
the volunteering-specific functions. A close inspection of the two instruments
reveals potentials in mutual adaptability regarding the attitude measure of TPB
and the VFI as a whole and subjective norm of TPB and the social function of
the VFI:

● According to TPB, attitudes are operationalized in terms of semantic dif-

ferentials with labels ranging for example from worthwhile to useless, good
to bad, etc. (e.g. Warburton & Terry, 2000). Rooted in theories of attitudes
(e.g. Katz, 1960), the VFI reflects rather elaborated and specific volunteer-
ing attitudes that additionally contain a motivational component and thus
go beyond mere attitudes like in the TPB. That is, an attitude per se, as
conceived by the TPB, does not provide information about what is neces-
sary to alter the attitude. If, however, the function that an attitude serves
is regarded as well, attitude change can better be understood and initiated
(Snyder, 1993). Moreover, different authors have shown inconsistent patterns
in the predictive utility of such attitude measures. In a study by Warburton
and Terry (2000), the TPB attitude measure did not qualify as a predic-
tor of volunteering intention and behavior. Harrison (1995) reported mixed
results concerning the role of attitudes as predictors of intention to volunteer.
Only Okun and Sloane (2002) found attitude to be a significant predictor of
intention to volunteer. In addition, the practical implications derived from
the functions that volunteering serves are broader than those observed in
mere attitudinal statements (e.g. whether people think volunteering is good
or bad). In sum, these past empirical inconsistencies and conceptual consid-
erations led us to combine the two measures, replacing the attitude measure
of the TPB with the VFI.
● Upon closer inspection of the social function (sample item: “People I’m
close to want me to volunteer”) and subjective norm (sample item: “The
people who are important to me would approve of my volunteering”), the
conceptual similarity of these two constructs becomes evident. Both reflect
normative influences of others on the self to become a volunteer. Hence, we
argue that in an integrated, parsimonious approach, subjective norm is an
adequate conceptual substitute for the social function.
524 The Journal of Social Psychology

Limitations of TPB and VFI

Limitations of TPB. In addition to the subjective norm, attitude, and perceived

behavioral control determinants, some authors have suggested including a fourth
determinant, moral norm, to enhance the predictor set of TPB (Armitage &
Conner, 2001; Manstead, 2000). The relevance of moral norms and obligations
has been stipulated (e.g. Schwartz & Tessler, 1972) and empirically tested by
adapting the TPB to predict prosocial behavior (Pomazal & Jaccard, 1976) and
volunteering (Harrison, 1995; Warburton & Terry, 2000). The empirical results
of these studies suggest that the inclusion of a moral construct leads to signifi-
cant increments in explained variance (Manstead, 2000). Harrison (1995) showed
that moral obligation had a positive and unique effect on intention. Warburton and
Terry (2000) demonstrated that the measure of moral obligation further improved
the predictive utility of TPB.

Limitations of VFI. With regard to the VFI, Clary et al. (1998) suggested that
“future research very well may indicate systematic domain to domain variation
in the number of motivations that are salient to volunteers and prospective volun-
teers” (p. 1528). This suggestion implies that the measure might not be exhaustive
(Shye, 2010); therefore, other functional dimensions, which are currently not mea-
sured by the instrument, might prove relevant (Snyder, 1993). The expression of
values constitutes one of the most important volunteer motivations (Penner &
Finkelstein, 1998). Looking at the VFI in detail, however, it becomes evident that
it stresses mainly self-oriented aspects (the intended beneficiary of volunteering
is the self). Conceptually, only the values function is other-oriented; that is, it
relates primarily to entities beyond the self. However, the values function is one
single, generalized dimension; whereas career, protective, enhancement, social,
and understanding reflect diverse self-oriented functions.
In sum, if it is true that “volunteering takes many forms” and that “highly
generalized value questions fail to capture this variation” (Wilson, 2000, p. 219),
then an expansion of the Volunteer Functions Inventory with an other-oriented
function appears adequate. In an attempt toward this endeavor, Bierhoff, Schülken,
and Hoof (2007) suggested that political and social responsibility be included as
functions, and provided empirical support for the validity of these additional other-
oriented dimensions.

Social Justice

There is widespread empirical support for a significant relationship between

justice appraisals and prosocial behavior (e.g., Bierhoff, Cohen & Greenberg,
1986; Greenberg & Cropanzano, 2001; Lerner & Vermunt, 1986). Yet prosocial
behavior and volunteering differ insofar that the former relates to rather spon-
taneous behavior, whereas the latter relates to sustained, regular, and organized
 Jiranek et al. 525

activities. To the best of our knowledge, very few studies have investigated the
relationship of justice-related antecedents with volunteering intention and behav-
ior, aside from Moschner (1998). Her path-analyses revealed that dispositional
justice variables (e.g. belief in a just world, which measures the extent to
which individuals perceive the world as being a just place) predicted internal
responsibility ascription (i.e. assuming self-responsibility for social and political
issues). These variables predicted self-reported volunteering and this reflects the
presumably first and only empirical proof for the relevance of justice constructs
for volunteering.
According to equity theory (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978) and theory
of relative privilege (Montada, Schmitt, & Dalbert, 1986), people feel burdened
with perceived injustice even if the injustice is advantageous for them. Whether
a situation or distribution is appraised as unjust depends on the principles of jus-
tice that people apply (Lerner, 1977). According to Deutsch (1975), in cooperative
relations based on economic productivity, equity instead of equality is expected to
be the most influential justice principle. In contrast, in cooperative relations based
on promoting or sustaining social relations, equality is the most influential justice
principle (Deutsch, 1975). With regard to social sector volunteering, we argue that
the principle of equality in terms of other-orientation should be relevant. To con-
ceptualize the social justice function in terms of equality, we built on Lerner’s
justice theory (1977). Lerner (1977) focused on how individuals perceive others,
in order to understand the circumstances under which certain principles of justice
will hold; in essence, “associated with the perception of the other as person is the
expectation that each member is equivalent, equally good or bad, and therefore
deserves the same relevant outcomes” (Lerner, 1977, p. 43). Equal treatment can
be conceived as a baseline condition in society and is thus a core concept of social
justice (Koller, 1995).
A social justice motivation in terms of equality promotion is conceptually
distinct from similar constructs like altruistic and prosocial motivations. Batson
and colleagues (1995, p. 1051) could show that “empathy-induced altruism and
justice are two independent prosocial motives,” which have two different ultimate
goals: empathy-induced altruism refers to helping someone for whom empathy is
felt; the ultimate goal of justice is to maintain a moral principle.
Adding a social justice function (SJF) to the VFI appears promising, as it
is moralistic in nature, other-oriented, and interrelated with, yet distinct from,
the values function. Its inclusion provides first insight into the importance of
social-justice-specific motivations in volunteering. The aforementioned normative
variable of moral obligation (e.g. Harrison, 1995; Warburton & Terry, 2000) is
concerned with the internalized general moral expectations of others (Manstead,
2000) and is, thus, rather self-oriented. In contrast, SJF is built upon an other-
oriented social justice motivation in terms of promoting equality by means of
volunteering.
526 The Journal of Social Psychology

Study Objective and Hypotheses

In the present study, the first objective was to empirically account for an
integrated, parsimonious model consisting of TPB and VFI components. For the
sake of parsimony, we did not include attitude as proposed by TPB, as we per-
ceived attitudes toward volunteering to be more specifically covered by the VFI
and the SJF. In addition, we excluded the social function of the VFI and replaced
it by TPB’s subjective norm due to their conceptual similarity. The second and
major objective was to account for the validity and predictive utility of a social
justice function—based on the justice principle of equality—with regard to self-
reported intention to volunteer in nonvolunteers. Hence, we applied components
of the TPB and VFI to test for the construct validity of the social justice function.
We formulated the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): In relation to the established volunteer functions, we

expected an equality-based SJF to emerge as an independent factor.

H2a: Of the five measured VFI dimensions, we expected the weakest cor-
relation of SJF with career and the strongest correlation of SJF with
values.

H2b: We expected SJF to be significantly and positively correlated with self-

reported intention to volunteer of nonvolunteers.

H3: In addition to the variance explained in volunteering intention by subjec-

tive norm, self-efficacy, career, values, enhancement, protective, and under-
standing, we expected a positive impact and an incremental explanation of
variance by SJF.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 513) who responded to our survey indicated to be cur-

rently not engaged in any sort of formal volunteering activity. Women comprised
36.5% of participants. The mean age of participants was 40.93 years (SD = 15.45;
range = 16–85 years). With regard to education, participants had mainly voca-
tional training with no higher education such as college (37.5%), some had higher
education (15.5%) or advanced education (21.6%), and few had no completed
education (2.0%). The participants’ yearly incomes yielded a similar income dis-
tribution as in the Swiss population according to the Swiss Federal Statistical
Office (2012).
 Jiranek et al. 527

Design and Procedure

We used a cross-sectional design and we developed the final questionnaire

after two separate pretests (N = 20). Subsequently, we recruited a convenience
sample by posting a link to our online questionnaire in a Swiss online newspaper.
Participants were offered the chance to win 100 Francs. As nonvolunteers do not
perform a specific volunteering activity, they can conceivably relate their ratings
of subjective norm, self-efficacy, the functions of the VFI, and SJF to an array
of activities, which remain unknown to the researcher. Hence, in order to enable
participants to relate to a specific behavior, and specifically to ensure measuring
antecedents with regard to social sector volunteering, we presented a choice of five
social sector volunteering activities to the participants.2 We asked them to answer
the questionnaire with the chosen activity in mind.

Measures

Volunteer functions inventory. We used the validated German translation of the

VFI scale by Oostlander, Güntert, van Schie, and Wehner (in press). We measured
values, career, understanding, enhancement, and protective functions (see Table 1
for items). Participants responded to the items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (extremely unimportant) to 7 (extremely important.) All of the subscales
had Cronbach’s alphas above .80 as shown in Table 3.

Development of the “social justice function.” We deductively developed SJF

based on a review of social justice literature (Hinkin, 1998), expert judgments
to assure content validity (Rossiter, 2008), and the justice principle of equality
(Lerner, 1977). First, we generated a pool of 21 items using similar wording
and sentence structure as the VFI (Clary et al., 1998), then identified redundant
items in two iterative sessions and reduced the initial pool to 15 items. Second,
five external scientists who have expertise in the field of justice research–two
post-Docs and three PhD students–rated the 15 remaining items, eliminating six
more items. Third, we presented the nine remaining items along with the estab-
lished measures including instructions to representative nonvolunteers (Npretest 1 =
15), as suggested by Hinkin (1998). We asked participants to comment on the
items that appeared unclear or redundant to them. Fourth, we applied cog-
nitive methodology in survey development and asked participants (Npretest 2 =
5) to think aloud while rating the questionnaire. We recorded the concurrent
think-aloud. In order to reduce measurement error, we then analyzed both the
written comments (pretest 1) and the recorded concurrent think-aloud (pretest
2) with regard to issues of misunderstanding, inconsistent interpretation, and
context effects (Collins, 2003). Subsequently, we quantitatively tested variance
in responses from both pretests (N = 20). Based on both pretests, we elimi-
nated three more items and used the remaining six items in the questionnaire.
528 The Journal of Social Psychology

Finally, we selected five items for the final scale (see Table 1). In line with
the VFI, the items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(extremely unimportant) to 7 (extremely important.) Cronbach’s alpha for SJF
was .93.

Self-efficacy. Following different authors, we decided to measure self-efficacy

instead of perceived behavioral control (Terry & O’Leary, 1995; Wang et al.,
2011), as the former proved to be more reliable (Povey, Conner, Sparks, James, &
Shepherd, 2000). Fishbein and Ajzen (2010, p. 161) stated that “from a the-
oretical perspective self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control are virtually
identical.” We thus modified a three-item scale by Wang et al. (2011) measur-
ing self-efficacy with regard to social sector volunteering. That is, we split one
item (“How much confidence do you have to overcome obstacles and challenges
in volunteer activities?”) in two items that stress “obstacles” and “challenges”
separately (see Appendix for complete scale). The four items were measured on
a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree.) In
the present study, Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .77.

Subjective norm. We adapted the three-item scale by Warburton and Terry (2000)
to measure the perceived social pressure to engage in volunteering behavior and
added one similarily worded item (e.g., “The people who are important to me
would approve of my volunteering”; see Appendix for complete scale). The four
items were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree.) Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .75.

Volunteering intention. The five-item volunteering intention scale was opera-

tionalized as an organized, sustained prosocial behavior, performed on a regular
basis in the social sector. We asked participants to report the probability of engag-
ing in said forms of activity in the future (see Appendix for complete scale).
We based the operationalization on the above-stated definition by Wehner et al.
(2006), which is in line with the postulate of specificity with regard to action,
target, time, and context (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). The items were assessed on
a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 10 (very likely) and
Cronbach’s alpha was .79.

Results

Data Analysis Strategy and Overview

The first set of analyses deals with the factor structure of the VFI applied to a
nonvolunteer sample and with the validation of SJF. For this purpose, exploratory
 Jiranek et al. 529

TABLE 1. Factor Loadings of Exploratory Factor Analysis of VFI and SJF

Scales (N = 513)

Factors

Scale and item 1 2 3 4 5 6

Social justice
1. Volunteering allows me to even out .89
unequal social conditions.
2. Volunteering lets me promote equal .89
opportunities.
3. Volunteering enables me to create .84
equal opportunities for all people.
4. By volunteering I can enable all .80
people to be equally involved in
public life.
5. Volunteering enables me to facilitate .79
access to those things that everyone
is equally entitled to.
VFI Clary et al.:
Protective
6. No matter how bad I’ve been feeling, .94
volunteering helps me to forget
about it.
7. By volunteering I feel less lonely. .60
8. Doing volunteer work relieves me of
some of the guilt over being more
fortunate than others.
9. Volunteering helps me work through .64
my own personal problems.
10. Volunteering is a good escape from .83
my own troubles.
Values
11. I am concerned about those less .35 .56
fortunate than myself.
12. I am genuinely concerned about the .80
particular group I am serving.
13. I feel compassion toward people in .44
need.
14. I feel it is important to help others. .55
15. I can do something for a cause that is .46
important to me.
Career
16. Volunteering can help me to get my .87
foot in the door at a place where
I would like to work.
17. I can make new contacts that might .75
help my business or career.
(Continued)
530 The Journal of Social Psychology

TABLE 1. (Continued)

Factors

Scale and item 1 2 3 4 5 6

18. Volunteering allows me to explore .51 .31

different career options.
19. Volunteering will help me to succeed .87
in my chosen profession.
20. Volunteering experience will look .55
good on my résumé.
Understanding
21. I can learn more about the cause for .50
which I am working.
22. Volunteering allows me to gain a new .49
perspective on things.
23. Volunteering lets me learn things .64
through direct, hands on experience.
24. I can learn how to deal with a variety .51
of people.
25. I can explore my own strengths. .46
Enhancement
26. Volunteering makes me feel important.
27. Volunteering increases my .88
self-esteem.
28. Volunteering makes me feel needed. .43
29. Volunteering makes me feel better .81
about myself.
30. Volunteering is a way to make new .36 .31
friends.

Note. Specified six-factor solution with oblimin rotation. Only factor loadings >.30 are shown.
VFI = Volunteer Functions Inventory, SJF = Social Justice Function.

and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. To interpret the latter, we cal-
culated a descriptive measure of overall model fit as reflected in the Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI).
In the second set of analyses we investigated the correlation of SJF with vari-
ables that we perceived as theoretically close and distant constructs. That is,
we investigated whether SJF showed a significant strong correlation with values
and a significant weak correlation with career to account for convergent and
discriminant validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Furthermore, we investigated the
criterion-related validity as reflected in SJF’s correlation with intention to volun-
teer (Hinkin, 1998). In a third set of analyses, we investigated the incremental
potential of SJF in explaining variance in intention to volunteer after partialling
 Jiranek et al. 531

out socio-demographic variables, two TPB variables, and five volunteer functions,
in particular the values function.

Factor Structure

We conducted exploratory factor analyses including the five established VFI

dimensions and the developed social justice function in order to investigate the
assumed factor structure in the nonvolunteer sample.3 In line with Clary and col-
leagues (1998), we used a minimum factor loading of .30 as the threshold to
include items within a factor. We began with a principal-axis factor analysis with
oblimin rotation and identified five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The
total summed variance explained by the five factors was 57.72%. With the the-
oretical a-priori assumptions in mind we then performed a principal-axis factor
analysis with oblimin rotation to a preselected six-factor solution (see Table 1)
accounting for 60.07% of total variance explained. Overall, items from the dif-
ferent scales loaded as theorized on the predicted factors; however, both item 30
(enhancement) and item 18 (career) loaded on understanding as well, and item 11
(values) loaded on social justice. With regard to enhancement, two items loaded
as predicted on the factor. However, item 30 (enhancement) loaded on protective,
item 26 (enhancement) did not exceed the minimum factor loading of .30, and
item 28 (enhancement) loaded on values. Overall, the results of the present study
are in accordance with a VFI validation study by Oostlander et al. (in press), who
developed and tested a German version of the VFI in a volunteer sample (N =
2255) and accounted for its construct validity.
To further assess the fit of the theorized six-factor model we conducted
confirmatory factor analyses. That is, we tested whether the six-factor model based
on theoretical a-priori assumptions provided the best model fit. The fit indices of
alternative models are shown in Table 2. We calculated a five- and a six-factor
model using R (R Development Core Team, 2011) and Lavaan (Rosseel, 2012).
The five-factor model included a combined factor, values and social justice, which
was chosen in order to test for the distinctness of the social justice function from
values. It can be seen in Table 2 that the six-factor model, comprising the five VFI
dimensions as well as the distinct social justice function, provided better fit in
comparison with the five-factor model. Additionally, we calculated a Chi-square
difference test that indicated that the six-factor model provided a significantly bet-
ter fit than the five-factor model (p < .001). In sum, these findings support H1.

Construct Validity

The relevance of social justice in terms of the descriptive value of this con-
struct is high. As shown in Table 3, participants, on average, rated SJF with 5.11,
which is the second highest score of all proposed predictors after values (M =
5.14) and significantly higher than the scale’s midpoint (t = 17.53, df = 509,
532 The Journal of Social Psychology

p < .001). With the exception of career, all measured VFI dimensions showed
significant and positive correlations with SJF. Convergent validity of the SJF was
indicated by the significant positive correlation with values (r = .65, p < .001),
which assesses a similar other-oriented construct as opposed to career, and the
null-correlation of SJF and career accounts for the discriminant validity of SJF.
These findings support H2a. Criterion-related validity of the SJF was indicated
by its positive and significant correlation with intention, supporting H2b. To fur-
ther test the discriminant validity and to account for the predictive utility of SJF,
hierarchical regression analyses were conducted.

Prediction of Intention to Volunteer

We used hierarchical regression analyses to investigate the effects of differ-

ent sets of variables on intention to volunteer. In a preliminary analysis, we had
entered income, employment status, education (dummy-coded), nationality, and
number of children, however, none of these variables had significant effects on
intention to volunteer. In Step 1, we entered the demographic variables of age,
sex (coded as 1 [female], and 2 [male]), and past volunteering behavior (coded
as 0 [no volunteering experience], and 1 [past volunteering experience]) to con-
trol for their effects. As shown in Table 4, age and sex both significantly predicted
intention to volunteer. We entered TPB’s self-efficacy and subjective norm in Step
2 in order to test for the impact of these two established rational action predictors
before entering VFI variables and the focal SJF in two further consecutive steps.
Both TPB variables explained a significant increment of variance in intention
(11.6%) and significantly predicted the outcome. In Step 3, the entry of the career,
understanding, protective, values, and enhancement volunteer functions explained
a significant increment of 13.2% of variance in intention. Of the five volunteer
functions that we entered in Step 3, only understanding and values significantly
contributed to the prediction of intention. We entered the proposed social justice
predictor in Step 4 and accounted for a significant increment of 2.6% of variance
explained in intention. Moreover, the increment of variance explained by SJF, after
values had been partialled out in the previous step, accounted for SJF’s discrim-
inant validity. In addition, we conducted different analyses to test for a possible

TABLE 2. Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analyses of VFI and SJF Scales
χ2
Model χ2 df /df CFI RMSEA

Five factors 1604.68 424 3.78 .85 .07

Six factors 1340.99 419 3.20 .88 .06

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index. RMSEA = Root Mean Square of Error Approximation.
TABLE 3. Descriptive Analysis of Predictor and Criterion Variables: Means, Standard Deviations, Bivariate
Correlations, and Alpha Coefficients

Variable M SD n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
1. Intention 4.18 1.95 502 (.79) .31 .22 −.01 .47 .13 .37 .15 .45∗∗
2. Subjective norm 4.19 1.34 510 (.75) .32∗∗ .04 .34∗∗ .13∗∗ .25∗∗ .10∗ .26∗∗
3. Self-efficacy 5.07 1.01 511 (.77) .00 .36∗∗ .03 .26∗∗ .01 .25∗∗
4. Career 2.88 1.34 507 (.87) −.03 .58∗∗ .45∗∗ .50∗∗ .00
5. Values 5.14 1.11 510 (.80) .26∗∗ .50∗∗ .24∗∗ .65∗∗
6. Enhancement 3.21 1.28 508 (.83) .51∗∗ .73∗∗ .13∗∗
7. Understanding 4.54 1.24 507 (.84) .44∗∗ .45∗∗
8. Protective 2.35 1.15 506 (.83) .16∗∗
9. Social justice 5.11 1.43 510 (.93)

Note. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are depicted in parentheses along the diagonal. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .001.
Jiranek et al.
533
534 The Journal of Social Psychology

interaction effect of SJF and the activity participants had chosen. The results of
these analyses suggest that the influence of SJF on intention does not vary across
the five activity types.
When considering all significant predictors of the equation in sum, the results
indicated that non-volunteers were more likely to intend to volunteer if they were
older, female, perceived others to support their volunteering, perceived volunteer-
ing to enable new learning opportunities, perceived concerns for other people to
be satisfied by volunteering, and perceived volunteering as a means to establish
social justice. These findings support H3.

Discussion

In the present study, we investigated two yet unaddressed issues. First, we

built on the theory of planned behavior and the functional approach integrat-
ing selected components of both approaches in one parsimonious model, and
tested this model to predict social sector volunteering intention in adult nonvol-
unteers. Second, we empirically tested the role of social justice as a motivation
for volunteering intention. Although the VFI’s factor pattern is not completely
satisfactory—especially with regard to enhancement—we recommend revisiting
VFI’s dimensions (Bierhoff et al., 2007) instead of abstaining from its further use,
as suggested by Francis (2011).
In relation to the five measured volunteer functions, we expected the equality-
based social justice function to emerge as an independent factor (H1). In the
exploratory factor analysis, the items that we expected to load onto the social
justice dimension showed the highest factor loadings. The confirmatory factor
analysis results indicate a better fit of the six-factor model with an independent
social justice factor. Thus, the results confirmed H1.
Of the five measured VFI dimensions, we further expected the weakest cor-
relation of SJF with career and the strongest correlation of SJF with values
(H2a). The results supported H2a, as career showed the weakest and value the
highest correlation with SJF. We interpreted the null-correlation of social justice
with career as stemming from the strongly diverging functions they serve and
thus accounting for SJF’s discriminant validity. The career function is a strongly
self-oriented motivation, whereas SJF builds on other-oriented justice appraisals.
On the whole, the interrelations of the antecedents indicate the construct validity
of SJF.
Justice theory suggests that justice is an important motive of behavior (Lerner,
1977), and TPB stresses intention to be the most proximal behavioral antecedent
(Ajzen, 1988). Building on these two assumptions, we expected social justice to be
significantly and positively correlated with the self-reported intention to volunteer
of non-volunteers (H2b). The significant and second highest correlation of social
 Jiranek et al. 535

TABLE 4. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Intention to

Volunteer

Variable B SE B β R2 Adj. R2 R2

Step 1 .06 .05 .06∗∗

Constant 4.84 .35
Age .02 .01 .19∗∗
Sex (1 = f, 2 = m) −.79 .18 −.19∗∗
Past volunteering (0 = −.05 .19 −.01
no, 1 = yes)
Step 2 .17 .17 .12∗∗
Constant 1.55 .56
Age .03 .01 .21∗∗
Sex (1 = f, 2 = m) −.76 .17 −.19∗∗
Past volunteering (0 = −.15 .18 −.04
no, 1 = yes)
Self-efficacy .20 .09 .10∗
Subjective norm .43 .06 .29∗∗
Step 3 .31 .29 .13∗∗
Constant −.77 .62
Age .02 .01 .18∗∗
Sex (1 = f, 2 = m) −.42 .16 −.10∗
Past volunteering (0 = .00 .16 .00
no, 1 = yes)
Self-efficacy −.01 .08 .00
Subjective norm .27 .06 .18∗∗
Career −.10 .08 −.07
Understanding .39 .08 .25∗∗
Values .44 .09 .25∗∗
Enhancement −.13 .09 −.08
Protective .12 .10 .07
Step 4 .33 .32 .03∗∗
Constant −1.08 .61
Age .02 .01 .20∗∗
Sex (1 = f, 2 = m) −.40 .16 −.10∗
Past volunteering (0 = .00 .16 .00
no, 1 = yes)
Self-efficacy .00 .08 .00
Subjective norm .25 .06 .17∗∗
Career −.08 .08 −.06
Understanding .31 .08 .20∗∗
Values .22 .10 .12∗
Enhancement −.07 .09 −.05
Protective .10 .10 .06
Social justice .30 .07 .22∗∗

Note. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .001.

536 The Journal of Social Psychology

justice with intention–compared to all other antecedents measured—confirmed

H2b.
We hypothesized a positive impact of SJF on the outcome and a further expla-
nation of variance in volunteering intention by SJF in addition to selected variables
of the two established approaches combined (H3). The incremental and significant
rise in variance explained by the social justice function provided support for our
hypothesis. Although these results must be viewed with caution, as causality can-
not be inferred due to the cross-sectional rather than longitudinal or experimental
design, we provided initial evidence of a positive, significant relationship between
social justice as a motivation and social sector volunteering intention. Of the VFI,
both learning opportunities (understanding) and concern for other people (val-
ues) are relevant for social sector volunteering. With regard to the TPB variables,
perceived social expectations to volunteer (subjective norm) turned out to be a
significant predictor of social sector volunteering, whereas the perceived ability to
volunteer (self-efficacy) becomes non-significant in the last step. The latter result
is somewhat surprising. An interpretation could be that non-volunteers might not
perceive social sector volunteering as a challenging, but rather as a quite intu-
itively manageable task. The relevance of single predictors from our proposed,
integrated model might thus depend on the volunteering activity to be predicted.
In sum, the combination of TPB and the VFI proved effective, as components
from both approaches emerged as significant predictors of volunteering intention.
Hence, our theoretical rationale and empirical results provide initial support for
the mutual adaptableness of these two approaches. Furthermore, our analyses pro-
vide empirical support for a valid and reliable construct of social justice. That is,
the descriptive, correlational, and multivariate results support our hypotheses and
we see the potential of adding SJF as a further other-oriented function to the VFI.
Accordingly, the inclusion of other-oriented social justice appeals in volunteer
recruitment should prove effective for the acquisition of new volunteers.

Strengths and Limitations

The present study had several strengths. First, we combined two established
approaches that have previously only been tested separately or in comparison
(Greenslade & White, 2005). Second, we added a distinct other-oriented function
to expand and further differentiate the VFI. Third, past research on nonvolun-
teers’ intentions and their motivations to volunteer left the activity unspecified.
That is, what kind of activity respondents had in mind and what they related vol-
unteer functions to could not be determined. Therefore, we dealt with this issue
by specifying the activity as social sector volunteering.
The present study also had limitations. The correlational design chosen to
test for initial interrelations between SJF and intention to volunteer limits the
explanatory power regarding causality. Furthermore, we did not apply both the
VFI and TPB as complete measures but eliminated the overlapping constructs
 Jiranek et al. 537

social function and attitude towards behavior based on theoretical considerations,

but not based on empirical analyses: We did not test whether the social function
and subjective norm are in fact highly correlated to justify the omission of social
from the integrated model. In addition, according to the target-action-context-time
principle of TPB, the time frame of the behavior needs to be specified. We fol-
lowed the recommendation of TPB as we focused on social sector volunteering
(target) and provided a choice of specific activities (action) in a volunteering
organization (context). However, we abstained from asking nonvolunteers whether
they would for example volunteer within the next three months. Instead, we spec-
ified the behavior with regard to time as regular and sustained volunteering. This
was to keep both the VFI and TPB measures at corresponding levels of specificity.
Yet, this might have impacted the predictive power of the TPB variables. A higher
specificity regarding a time frame might have increased the parameters’ predictive
power.

Implications and Future Research

Some volunteering activities might appear to lack opportunities to serve the

SJF, as it relates to resolving complex socio-structural issues, and they thus may
not offer immediate, visible rewards. In comparison, helping individuals (and
by so doing, serving the values function) provides observable rewards derived
from a direct feedback from the job (Piliavin, Grube, & Callero, 2002). In conse-
quence, non-profit organizations (NGOs) should consider a) further elaborating
their mission and vision statements and signal that all activities within the
organization–from stuffing envelopes to more complex tasks such as campaign
management–contribute toward the eradication of social injustice; and b) offering
appropriate affordances in activities that match volunteers’ motivations (Stukas,
Worth, Clary, & Snyder, 2009). Hence, NGOs might need to monitor the impor-
tance of social justice promotion for their volunteers and design both jobs and
feedback accordingly. Future studies should thus investigate the match of certain
volunteer activities and SJF in terms of a person x situation approach and ana-
lyze in which specific activities volunteers perceive high self-efficacy in fostering
social justice.
Furthermore, social-justice-attuned volunteers who choose activities, which
promise resolving socio-structural problems, but which in fact fail to do so, might
become frustrated by not being able to fulfill SJF. By building on justice theory
(Lerner, 1977) and relative privilege theory (Montada, Schmitt, & Dalbert, 1986)
further research should address the role of emotions, such as anger or indignation,
emanating from an unfulfilled SJF.
Finally, another possible scenario is that SJF as a motivation reflects a bot-
tomless pit. That is, SJF might be a motivational source that does not wither, as
the struggle for social justice in terms of equality is most likely infinite. Future
longitudinal studies should therefore test the stability or decline of a social justice
motivation over time.
538 The Journal of Social Psychology

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study provides initial empirical support for an integrated

model of TPB and VFI components and for the validity and relevance of a social
justice function in intention to volunteer. The findings of the present study indicate
that social justice appraisals, in terms of equality, matter with regard to sustained,
organized and regularly performed prosocial behavior in terms of social sector
volunteering. We hope that other researchers find the integrative, parsimonious
model as well as the empirical results regarding the relevance of social justice use-
ful. In consequence, they might reconsider currently applied measures to predict
volunteering intention and behavior.

NOTES
1. Of six large international non-profit organizations (Amnesty International, Caritas,
Terre des hommes, WWF, Greenpeace, and Red Cross), five mention justice in their
external communication.
2. The five activities comprised: a) nursing/care for non-relatives in need; b) campaign
work in a humanitarian organization; c) strategic/organizational/administrative office work
in an organization that helps people in need; d) assistance for non-relatives in need; and e)
counseling and competence building for non-relatives in need.
3. We performed factor analyses to a preselected six-factor solution on two subsam-
ples: those indicated to have volunteered in the past (former volunteers) and those who
have never volunteered before (never volunteers). The factor structure did not differ and
therefore the results presented relate to the complete sample.

AUTHOR NOTE
Patrick Jiranek is affiliated with the Department of Management, Technology
and Economics, ETH Zurich. Elisabeth Kals is affiliated with the Catholic University
Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. Julia Sophia Humm is affiliated with the Department of
Management, Technology and Economics, ETH Zurich. Isabel Theresia Strubel is affili-
ated with the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. Theo Wehner is affiliated with the
Department of Management, Technology and Economics, ETH Zurich.

REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago, IL: Dorsey.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Some unresolved issues. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-
analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.
Batson, C. D., Klein, T. R., Highberger, L., Shaw, L. L. (1995). Immorality from empa-
thy induced altruism: When compassion and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 1042–1054.
Bierhoff, H.W., Cohen, R., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.). (1986). Justice in social relations. New
York, NY: Plenum.
Bierhoff, H. W., Schülken, T., & Hoof, M. (2007). SEEH—Skalen der Einstellungsstruktur
ehrenamtlicher Helfer. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 6, 12–27.
 Jiranek et al. 539

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Ridge, R. (1992). Volunteers’ motivations: A functional strat-
egy for the recruitment, placement, and retention of volunteers. Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, 2, 333–350.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene,
P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516–1530.
Collins, D. (2003). Pre-testing survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods.
Quality of Life Research, 12, 229–283.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used
as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action
approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Francis, J. E. (2011). The functions and norms that drive university student volunteering.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16, 1–12.
Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.). (2001). Advances in organizational justice.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Greenslade, J. H., & White, K. M. (2005). The prediction of above-average participation
in volunteerism: A test of the theory of planned behavior and the volunteers functions
inventory in older Australian adults. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 155–172.
Harrison, D. A. (1995). Volunteer motivation and attendance decisions: Competitive theory
testing in multiple samples from a homeless shelter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
371–385.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Houle, B. J., Sagarin, B. J., & Kaplan, M. F. (2005). A functional approach to volunteerism:
Do volunteer motives predict task preference? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27,
337–344.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 24, 163–204.
Koller, P. (1995). Soziale gleichheit und gerechtigkeit. In H. P. Müller & B. Wegener (Eds.),
Soziale ungleichheit und soziale gerechtigkeit (pp. 53–80). Opladen, Germany: Leske +
Budrich.
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms.
Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52.
Lerner, M. J., & Vermunt, R. (Eds.). (1986). Social justice in human relations. New York,
NY: Plenum Press.
Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude-behavior relationship.
In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of
norms and group membership (pp. 11–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Montada, L., Schmitt, M., & Dalbert, C. (1986). Thinking about justice and dealing with
one’s own privileges: A study of existential guilt. In H.W. Bierhoff, R. Cohen & J.
Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 125–143). New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Moreno-Jiménez, M. P., & Villodres, M. C. H. (2010). Prediction of burnout in volunteers.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1798–1818.
Moschner, B. (1998). Ehrenamtliches engagement und soziale verantwortung. In B.
Reichle & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Verantwortung, gerechtigkeit und moral. Zum psychologis-
chen verständnis ethischer aspekte im menschlichen verhalten (pp. 73–86). Weinheim,
Germany: Juventa.
540 The Journal of Social Psychology

Okun, M. A., & Schultz, A. (2003). Age and motives for volunteering: Testing hypotheses
derived from socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 18, 231–239.
Okun, M. A., & Sloane, E. S. (2002). Application of planned behavior theory to predicting
volunteer enrollment by college students in a campus-based program. Social Behavior
and Personality, 30, 243–250.
Oostlander, J., Güntert, S. T., van Schie, S., & Wehner, T. (in press). Volunteer Functions
Inventory (VFI): Psychometrische eigenschaften und konstruktvalidität der deutschen
adaptation [Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI): Psychometric properties and construct
validation of the German adaptation]. Diagnostica.
Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispositional and structural determinants of
volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 525–537.
Piliavin, J. A., Grube, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (2002). Role as resource for action in public
service. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 469–485.
Plagnol, A. C., & Huppert F. A. (2009). Happy to help? Exploring the factors associated
with variations in rates of volunteering across Europe. Social Indicators Research, 97,
157–176.
Pomazal, R. P., & Jaccard, J. J. (1976). An informational approach to altruistic behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 317–326.
Povey, R., Conner, M., Sparks, P., James, R., & Shepherd, R. (2000). The theory of
planned behavior and healthy eating: Examining additive and moderating effects of
social influence variables. Psychology & Health, 14, 991–1006.
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical com-
puting [Computer software and manual]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of
Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
Rossiter, J. R. (2008). Content validity of measures of abstract constructs in management
and organizational research. British Journal of Management, 19, 380–388.
Schwartz, S. H., & Tessler, R. C. (1972). A test of a model for reducing measured attitude-
behavior discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 225–236.
Shye, S. (2010). The motivation to volunteer: A systemic quality of life theory. Social
Indicators Research, 98, 183–200.
Snyder, M. (1993). Basic research and practical problems: The promise of a “functional”
personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19,
251–264.
Stukas, A. A., Worth, K. A., Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (2009). The matching of motiva-
tions to affordances in the volunteer environment: An index for assessing the impact of
multiple matches on volunteer outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38,
5–28.
Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2012). Frequency distribution of the employed
persons by brackets of gross income from employement per year (No. Je-e-
03.04.03.00.01) Retrieved from http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/
themen/03/04/blank/data/03.html
Terry, D. J., & O’Leary, J. E. (1995). The theory of planned behavior: The effects of per-
ceived behavioural control and self-efficacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34,
199–220.
Walster, E., Walster, G.W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wang, J.-W., Wei, C.-N., Harada, K., Minamoto, K., Ueda, K., Cui, H.-W., . . . Ueda, A.
(2011). Applying the social cognitive perspective to volunteer intention in China: The
mediating roles of self-efficacy and motivation. Health Promotion International, 26,
177–187.
 Jiranek et al. 541

Warburton, J., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Volunteer decision making by older people: A test of a
revised theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 245–257.
Wehner, T., Mieg, H., & Güntert, S. (2006). Frei-gemeinnützige arbeit. In S. Mühlpfordt &
P. Richter (Eds.), Ehrenamt und erwerbsarbeit (pp. 19–39). Munich, Germany: Hampp.
Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.

Received July 18, 2012

Accepted January 15, 2013

Appendix

Theory of Planned Behavior Variables

Self-efficacy. In the following, please refer to your previously chosen activity

(in a volunteering organization) aimed at benefitting people in need in terms of
organized, regular, and sustained volunteering.
I am confident . . .
(1) . . . that I could overcome daily obstacles in the volunteer activity.
(2) . . . that I have the ability to participate in the volunteer activity.
(3) . . . that I could overcome daily challenges in the volunteer activity.
(4) . . . that I could participate in the volunteering activity.

Subjective norm. The following statements deal with what people who are impor-
tant to you approve of with regard to your previously chosen activity (in a volun-
teering organization), which is organized, regular, and sustained volunteering.
Those people who are important to me . . .
(1) . . . would approve if I decided to volunteer.
(2) . . . think that I should volunteer.
(3) . . . want me to volunteer.
(4) . . . would approve of my volunteering.

Intention. Please indicate how likely it is that you might pursue the following
voluntary activities in the future. We are herein particularly interested in organized
activities on a regular and sustained basis (in a volunteering organization).
(1) Nursing/care for non-relatives in need.
(2) Campaign work in a humanitarian organization.
(3) Strategic/organizational/administrative office work in an organization
that helps people in need.
(4) Assistance for non-relatives in need.
(5) Counseling and competence building for non-relatives in need.