Volunteering Applications and methodology Applied Social Psychology VU University Amsterdam January...

VolunteeringApplications and

methodologyApplied Social PsychologyVU University Amsterdam

January 6, 2015

René BekkersPhilanthropic Studies

VU University Amsterdamr.bekkers@vu.nl

Today’s story

• How can we use insights from social psychology theories and research to get people to give and volunteer more?

• Today’s story is not about tricks - ‘nudging’ and ‘priming’.

• Instead, it is about theory, data, methodology, and the industry called ‘social science’.

The Empirical Cycle

Context

RQ

TheoryResearch

Policy

Context

1. “Participation society”: volunteers become more important in the provision of public goods.

2. “Trust crisis”: trust in banks, organized religion, politics, and ultimately generalized social trust are at risk.

3. In an ageing society, keeping people active as long as possible may reduce health costs.

Research Questions

1. Does volunteering make people more trusting?

2. Does volunteering keep people healthy?

…leaving the question ‘How can we get people to volunteer more?’ for a future occasion.

Now here’s a social dilemma

Should I volunteer?

This is a social dilemma because

• There is an opportunity cost for me: volunteering takes time that I could spend working for pay.

• The benefits of volunteering accrue to a collective.

• Personally I would be better off not volunteering, but the group would not.

What type of social dilemma?Trust game

Dictator gameUltimatum game

Public goods gameVolunteer’s dilemmaSamaritan’s dilemmaOr something else?

Perhaps it is not a social dilemma at all.

Three facts

1. Volunteers live in better health.2. Volunteers are less likely to get

depressed.3. Volunteers ultimately live longer.

More facts

• Volunteers have larger and more diverse social networks.

• Volunteers have more altruistic values, a stronger sense of social responsibility, and a stronger belief in the trustworthiness of others.

So…

• If these are the results of voluntary participation, there is no social dilemma at all!

But…

• Does volunteering indeed have these nice benefits for volunteers?

• Are networks, trust, health, subjective well being the result of volunteering?

Whence the difference?

• Do the attitudes, values, networks, and health change because people volunteer?This is the common interpretation. CAUSATION:

NetworksVoluntary action Values

Health

Whence the difference?

• Or do attitudes, values, networks, and health lead people to volunteer?This is the SELECTION Model:

NetworksValues Voluntary ActionHealth

Or perhaps..

• The relationship between volunteering, attitudes, values, networks, and health is confounded by OMITTED VARIABLES:

Voluntary ActionOther factors

Networks Values

Health

x

e.g., education, religion

Selection

• Selection: some people are more likely to be drawn into voluntary action.

• These are the more happy, trusting, healthy, people with larger networks.

• They are more likely to start volunteering, and they are less likely to quit volunteering.

A theory on selection for values

• ‘Interactionism’ in personality and social psychology

• Individual differences in prosocial values shape the attractiveness of situations that involve contributions to the well being of others

• Individuals with larger networks are more likely to be asked to start and continue volunteering

• Individuals in better health are more able to continue volunteering

Theories on causation for values

• Group socialization theory– People adopt the values of the groups

that they are in (family, church, work)– ‘Social capital’ (attitude) formation

• Self-perception theory– People adapt their values and self-

identity to their behavior– Role identity theory: volunteer role

identity is reinforced through volunteering

Other theories on causation

• Meeting opportunities– People gain access to new networks in

organizations through participation– ‘Social capital’ (network) formation

• Networks protect health– Information, social control, access to

social support, stress buffering effect• Personality strength

– Mastery, self-efficacy, purpose in life

Data and methods of previous studies

• Many studies use cross-sectional data, including a limited set of controls.

• Selection and omitted variables are a huge problem here.

• Studies using longitudinal panel data have almost all used inadequate regression models.

• Selection and omitted variables are still a problem here.

Adequate Testing, Please!

• The conventional ‘change model’ includes a lagged dependent variable Yt-1

• Halaby (2004, Annual Review of Sociology) shows this is not enough.

• The Yt-1 does not rule out selection effects.

• Use fixed effects regression models, eliminating variance between individuals

• Previous studies have rarely used this.

Giving in the Netherlands Panel Study (GINPS)

• A sample of individuals fills out surveys on the web every other year since 2002

• You are welcome to use these data. See the user manual at http://geveninnederland.nl/file/208/ginps_codebook.pdf

Development of generalized social trust (‘most people can

be trusted’)

2,9

3

3,1

3,2

3,3

3,4

3,5

2002 2004 2006

never

quit

joined

sustained

Source: GINPSBekkers, R. (2012). ‘Trust and Volunteering: Selection or Causation? Evidence From a 4 Year

Panel Study’. Political Behaviour, 34: 225-247, DOI 10.1007/s11109-011-9165-x (open access)

Volunteering effects on values

Trust Altruistic values

Social responsibility

Constant 3.125 3.460 3.727

Random effects ***.096 ***.203 ***.147

Fixed effects -.034 **.058 .035

Hausman test ***22.72 ***96.62 ***30.30

Estimates on effects of volunteering (m=40%) from random and fixed effects regression models. Source: GINPS, 2002-2006 (n=4,754; 2,783). Bekkers, R. (2007). ‘Values and Volunteering. A Longitudinal Study of Reciprocal Influences in the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Study’. Paper presented at the 36th Arnova conference, Atlanta, 2007.

Similar results in other countriesSwitzerland

(SHP)UK

(BHPS)Australia (HILDA)

Random effects ***.957 ***.182 ***.485

Fixed effects -.053 ***.033 .034

First difference .025 ***.049 .039

Estimates on effects of volunteering in Switzerland (m=32%), the UK (21%) and Australia (18%) from between and fixed effects logistic regression models of trust. Van Ingen, E. & Bekkers, R. (2013). Trust Through Civic Engagement? Evidence from Five National Panel Studies. Political Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12105

Effects of trust

Bekkers, R. (2012). ‘Trust and Volunteering: Selection or Causation? Evidence From a 4 Year Panel Study’. Political Behaviour, 34: 225-247, DOI 10.1007/s11109-011-9165-x (open access)

A one SD increase in trust is associated with a 2.3% increase in the likelihood of starting to volunteer, 3.5% decrease in quitting, and 8.3% increase in the likelihood of being asked to volunteer

Selection and omitted variables+ Start t0-2

Altruistic values t0

-+

Quit t0-2

Trust t0 +

+ Confidence t1

+ Confidence t2

Based on Bekkers, R. & Bowman, W. (2009). The Relationship Between Confidence in Charitable Organizations and Volunteering Revisited. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38 (5): 884-897.

Laurence (2015)

• How does job displacement affect trust?

• The NCDS was a sample of all individuals born in a single week in March, 1958.

• What happened to trust in the UK between 1991 and 2008?

• What happened to the trust of those Britons whose jobs were displaced between 1991 (age 33) and 2008 (age 50)?

Changes from age 33 to 50

distrust (at 33)

trust (at 33)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

to distrust (at 50)

to distrust (at 50)

to 'depends' (at 50)

to 'depends' (at 50)

to trust (at 50)

to trust (at 50)

FROM

N =

Changes from age 33 to 50

distrust (at 33)

trust (at 33)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

to distrust (at 50)

to distrust (at 50)

to 'depends' (at 50)

to 'depends' (at 50)

to trust (at 50)

to trust (at 50)

FROM

LOSS OF TRUST

N =

Questions for Laurence (2015)

• The article uses longitudinal data, right?• How are selection effects taken into

account?• How can you check for selection effects by

inspecting changes in ‘X’ as a result of changes in ‘Y’ in this case?

• How is the lagged dependent model different from a fixed effects model?

Volunteering Effects on Health

Depression (CESD)

Subjective health

Constant 8.809 3.540

Random effects ***-1.569 ***.163

Fixed effects ***-.814 ***.097

Hausman test ***36.96 ***19.00

Estimates on effects of volunteering on depression and subjective health from random and fixed effects models. Source: LASA, 1992-2002 (n=7,864; 2,362). Bekkers, R., Van Tilburg, T.G., Aartsen, M., Brown, S. & Wilson, J. (2007). ‘Volunteering and Health: A Prospective Study of Mediating Mechanisms’. Unpublished manuscript.

So…

• Use longitudinal data and then still do not claim too much about effects of voluntary action.

• Selection effects are a big part of the reason why voluntary action is related to networks, values and health.

• Always check for selection effects by inspecting changes in ‘X’ as a result of changes in ‘Y’.

• Estimate fixed effects and first difference models.

Questions on Konrath et al.

• The article uses longitudinal data, right?• How are selection effects taken into

account?• How can you check for selection effects by

inspecting changes in ‘X’ as a result of changes in ‘Y’ in this case?

• How to estimate a fixed effects model of mortality?

• How to estimate a first difference model?

Contact• ‘Geven in Nederland’, Philanthropic

Studies, Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: www.geveninnederland.nl

• René Bekkers, r.bekkers@vu.nl• Blog: renebekkers.wordpress.com• Twitter: @renebekkers• Please do get in touch if you want to

write your thesis on charitable giving, volunteering, blood donation, etc.!