(title sheet) · web viewthese domains are valuable in the understanding of the psychological and...

The Relationship of Volunteerism and Perceived Control to

Personal and Neighbourhood Wellbeing

By

Michael Staples

BSocSc (Psych)

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

(Post) Graduate Diploma of Psychology

Deakin University

School of Psychology

October 2004

“I, the undersigned, declare that this Empirical Report is less than the specified word limit, and that it comprises original work and writing by me, and that due acknowledgement has been made to all other material used.

Signed_____________________________ Dated_________________”

Student number: 400048325Supervisor: Dr Sue ChambersHome campus: BurwoodWord count: 5253

Wellbeing, control & volunteerism ii

Wellbeing, control & volunteerism

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would firstly like to acknowledge the support and encouragement of all my family

and friends. In particular, thank you to my partner, Luise, as the past six years would not

have been possible without her love, support and the personal sacrifices she has endured

while my attention has been divided; and our two boys, Aiden and Joshua, who have not

experienced as much time together with me as they would have liked while I have spent

time away studying. Thank you to my parents, Dick and Lorraine for their unfailing love

and belief in me. Thank you also to Peter and Ruth, for their constant support and

understanding throughout my tertiary education was beyond the call and will not be

forgotten. Thank you also to Lucy for your patience, guidance and friendship throughout

the year and for proof reading the multitude of my assignment drafts. I would also like to

thank many of my lecturers, tutors and classmates who have been a huge support and

source of knowledge over the years. You know who you are.

Finally, thank you to my supervisor, Dr Sue Chambers, for without her tolerance,

guidance and support this project could not have been undertaken or completed.

ContentsFigures vTables viAbstract 1 Introduction 2Subjective wellbeing (SWB) 2Personal wellbeing (PWB) 2Neighbourhood wellbeing (NWB) 3Perceived Control 3

Primary control 4Secondary control 4Relinquished control 4

Volunteers 5Aim 6Hypotheses 6

iii


Method 7Participants 7Measures 7

Personal and Neighbourhood Wellbeing Indexes 7Perceived control scales 8Volunteerism 8

Procedure 8Results 8

Preliminary Data Analysis 8Reliability 10

PWB and NWB 10Perceived control 11Volunteerism 13

Hypotheses 13Hypothesis 1 13Hypothesis 2 14Hypothesis 3a 14Hypothesis 3b 16

Discussion 17Conclusion 20

References 21Appendix A – Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 25Appendix B – Plain language statement 29Appendix C – Letter to participants 30

iv


Figures

Figure 1. Model of Volunteerism as the predictor of Subjective Wellbeingthrough Perceived control strategies 6

v


Tables

Table 1. Mean Differences in PWB and NWB items and Reliabilities by Volunteer Group 10

Table 2. Mean Differences in Perceived Control and Reliabilities by Volunteer Group 12

Table 3. Means Differences in PWB and NWB Scale scores by Volunteer Group. 13

Table 4. Means and Standard deviations for Control Type by Volunteer group 14

Table 5. Hierarchical Regression for Perceived Control Type and Volunteer group on Personal Wellbeing 15

Table 6. Hierarchical Regression for Perceived Control type and Volunteer Group on Neighbourhood Wellbeing 16

vi


Abstract

Research on contributing factors to Subjective wellbeing (SWB) has been developing over

the past decade and has already proven influential in the advancement of many areas in

people’s lives including public policy and mental health treatment outcomes. This study

explored the relationship of volunteerism and perceived control to subjective wellbeing. 556

Australian adults completed a 97-item questionnaire that included Likert item scales to

measure of subjective wellbeing (Personal and Neighbourhood Life Satisfaction, Personal

wellbeing (PWB) and Neighbourhood wellbeing (NWB)); perceived control (primary,

secondary and relinquished), and a question on participation in voluntary work to form

volunteer and non-volunteer groups. Three hypotheses were tested: (1) volunteers would

have higher levels of SWB than non-volunteers; (2) volunteers will report more use of

positive control strategies (primary and secondary control) and less use of relinquished

control, than non-volunteers; (3) volunteers’ greater use of positive control strategies than

non-volunteers, would contribute to their higher levels of subjective wellbeing. One-way

ANOVAs were computed to test for Volunteer Group differences to test the first two

hypotheses, and Hierarchical regressions were computed to test the third hypothesis. The

results provided support for the first and third hypotheses. The second hypothesis was not

wholly supported. It was concluded that volunteerism has a positive effect on people’s

subjective wellbeing, and is related to the control strategies people use when facing difficult

situations. Implications of the study and recommendations for future research are

considered.

1


How people feel about their lives has become a popular topic in the field of

psychological research. The study of quality of life (QOL) through the domain of subjective

wellbeing (SWB) examines the various factors that contribute to high levels of wellbeing.

Research on SWB has been developing over the past decade and has already proven

influential in the advancement of many areas in people’s lives such as public policy, mental

health, and treatment outcomes (Cummins, 1996; Kimweli & Stilwell, 2002). This study

explores the relationships between two factors involved within the SWB construct and how

they relate to volunteerism.

Subjective Wellbeing (SWB)SWB has been defined as a construct that reflects peoples’ perceptions of their lives

in terms of emotional behaviour, and psychosocial functioning, which are all essential

dimensions of mental health (Keyes & Waterman, 2003). SWB research indicates the

domains of personality, motivation and a group of cognitive buffers (perceived control, self-

esteem and optimism), all contribute to people’s life satisfaction (Cummins, Gullone & Lau,

2002). The majority of SWB research focuses on self-evaluations of life satisfaction

directed at the personal level, although national and neighbourhood levels have also been

studied (Ahrens, 2002; Cummins, et al., 2002; Diener & Suh, 1997; Hollway, 2003; Salt,

2002).

Personal Wellbeing (PWB)

PWB is an integral factor of SWB. Studies have found seven domains important to

SWB; standard of living, health, achievement in life, safety, relationships, community

connectedness, and future security (Cummins, et al., 2003a). These domains are valuable in

the understanding of the psychological and physical makeup of individuals and identifies

components that contribute to SWB generally. According to Cummins, et al., (2003b) PWB

for adults in Western nations scores in the range of 70 – 80% SM and is held at this high

level homeostatically for each individual, as with blood pressure or body temperature.

Research suggests that some of the domains contributing to PWB may relate to the

activity they engage in. For example, research by Gidron (1984) on volunteer retention

found that recognition received, achievement of positive outcomes, and contact with other

volunteers were significant factors in differentiating between people who withdrew from

volunteering, and those who continued. The research tells us that PWB is a fundamental

2


component of SWB, however, research also suggests that people’s neighbourhoods are an

influential factor to levels of life satisfaction (Chambers, Hollway, Parsons & Wallage,

2003).

Neighbourhood Wellbeing (NWB)

The NWB scale (Holloway, 2003) is a recently developed measure of a range of

domains impacting on neighbourhood wellbeing consisting of trust, participation, common

goals, security, natural environment, availability of resources, and reciprocity, making this

scale a more complete measure of neighbourhood wellbeing than single item NWB

measures commonly used (Christakopoulou, Dawson & Gari, 2001).

The multi-dimensional aspect of NWB is important in understanding the

psychological function of neighbourhoods and the influence of these factors on people’s

overall subjective wellbeing. For example, people who consider themselves to be connected

to, or involved in their neighbourhood report high levels of wellbeing (Cohen, Mason,

Bedimo and Scribner, 2003).

In addition to the PWB and NWB domains, Cummins, et al. (2002) proposed that

the cognitive buffers of perceived control, self-esteem and optimism are also important

components in the maintenance of SWB, however Perceived control is particularly

important to examinations of PWB and NWB, as extensive research has been conducted

involving perceived control and PWB (Cummins, et al., 2002) and the inclusion of NWB

has largely been ignored.

Research reports that NWB consistently scores less than PWB (Chambers, et al.,

2003). Cummins (2003b), proposed that the disparity in mean scores between the two

subscales is due to proximal-distal differences, suggesting that individuals perceive they

retain more control over their personal life and less control in their external life as

objectives become increasingly less self-related.

Perceived Control

The cognitive buffer of Perceived control allows individuals to dynamically control

situations and experiences to meet their personal aspirations in what Snyder and Cantor

(1998) refers to as operating on “agendas for action”. The influence of different control

strategies has been shown to perform a critical function in the maintenance of SWB (Bailis,

3


Segall, Mahon, Chipperfield, & Dunn, 2001; Keyes & Waterman, 2003; Van Willigen,

2000). Perceived control has been defined by Skinnner (1996) as models regarding the

likely cause of desired and undesired events, and the individual’s judgement of success or

failure as an outcome. Three types of perceived control have been identified in the

literature; Primary control, Secondary control and Relinquished control (Deiner, Oishi, &

Lucas, 2003; Lang & Heckhausen, 2001; Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982).

Primary control. When primary control is employed, an individual aims to increase

their rewards by influencing existing realities, attempting to achieve direct control over

situations through their personal actions (Petito & Cummins, 2000; Rothbaum, et al., 1982;

Schulz & Heckhausen, 1996).

Secondary control. Secondary control is where an individual aims to increase their

rewards by passively influencing existing realities and increase satisfaction to fit in with

their perceived environment (Skinner, 1996). Modifying expectations to fit outcomes,

aligning oneself with luck or fate, or depending on powerful others are examples of

secondary control (Klein & Helweg-Larsen, 2002; Thompson & Spacapan, 1991). In

contrast with primary control, secondary control is aimed at the self rather than the

environment.

Relinquished control. Control can also be relinquished by the individual in

perceiving an event as uncontrollable and resigning the motivation for control through

inaction (Rothbaum, et al., 1982; Skinner, 1996). For example, an individual may react to a

negative event or situation by not responding to it at all, or by giving up attempts to do

anything about a negative situation (Thurber & Weisz, 1997). Relinquished control is

generally accepted as an additional factor to the two-process model of primary and

secondary control (Rothbaum, et al., 1982; Skinner, 1996).

Research by Iwasaki and Mannell (2000) found that the choices people make in their

leisure activity has the potential for individuals to develop feelings of empowerment, to

cope better generally, to enhance moods, and to help manage stress. Conceivably, no

situation better illustrates the efficacy of this approach to community participation than a

study of volunteerism in the neighbourhood. This view is supported by Thoits and Hewitt

(2001), who reported that people in good physical and mental health are likely to possess

cognitive resources (such as a sense of control over life) that promote participation in

4


volunteerism. These behaviours are normally freely chosen, which Stukas and Dunlap

(2002) believe may reflect individual’s personal objectives and cognitive resources, rather

than impulsive actions.

Volunteers

Research has identified sources of satisfaction related to volunteer activity. Defined

by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2001a) as “Someone who, in the last 12

months, willingly gave unpaid help in the form of time, service or skills, through an

organisation or group”, voluntary work provides benefits for both the volunteer and the

community. According to research conducted by the ABS (2001b), Australians are

increasing participation in their communities through volunteer activity. Being a benefit to

the community was found to be the primary reason for volunteering by 47% of volunteers,

and 43% reporting personal satisfaction as the main reason they volunteered (ABS, 2001b).

Surprisingly there is a dearth of literature regarding the direct impact of volunteering

on physical and psychological wellbeing. However, recent research has shown that

volunteerism can be beneficial to psychological wellbeing and the wellbeing of individuals

and communities. Research has reported increased longevity (Deiner & Seligman, 2004),

personal satisfaction (ABS, 2001b), personal resources and wellbeing (Thoits & Hewitt,

2001), sense of achievement (Curtis & Van Nouhuys, 1999), and resistance to stressors

(Iwasaki, Zuzanek, & Mannell, 2001) are some of the personal benefits of volunteering.

Community benefits include better health and community life (McDowell & Ekegren,

2002), reduced public expenditure (Stukas & Dunlap, 2002), and increased neighbourhood

trust (Forte, 1997).

Research by Van Willigen (2000) also reveals that both PWB and NWB can be

improved through volunteering as the extent to which individuals consider they are a part of

a supportive community, have a sense of perceived control over the outcomes of their lives,

increased work satisfaction, and foresee attainable rewards, influences their psychological

wellbeing.

Aim

5


The aim of the present research is to examine how perceived control functions in

relation to SWB through the personal and neighbourhood wellbeing domains in volunteers

and non-volunteers. A theoretical model of relationships among these variables can be seen

in Figure 1. It is suggested that perceived control influences volunteer activity and this in

turn influences the personal and neighbourhood levels of SWB. The current study will

explore the relationship of these key variables through three hypotheses.

Figure 1. Model of the Relationship between Volunteerism, Perceived control strategies, and

Subjective Wellbeing.

Hypotheses

The present study tested three hypotheses based on the above model on the

relationship of volunteerism and perceived control to personal and neighbourhood

wellbeing. The first hypothesis predicts that volunteers will have higher SWB than non-

volunteers as measured by NWB, PWB, general personal life satisfaction and

neighbourhood satisfaction. Secondly, it is hypothesised that volunteers will use different

control strategies to non-volunteers; namely more use of positive control strategies (primary

and secondary control), and less use of relinquished control. The third hypothesis predicted

that volunteers’ greater use of positive control strategies than non-volunteers, would

contribute to their higher levels of PWB and NWB.

Subjective

WellbeingVolunteerism

Cognitive Buffer:Control

Personal

Wellbeing

Neighbourhood

Wellbeing

Primary Perceived Control

Secondary Perceived Control

Relinquished Perceived Control

6


Method

Participants

The sample was taken from the Australian Unity Wellbeing longitudinal study and

consisted of 556 adults from across Australia, aged from 18 to 90 years (M = 53.01, SD =

15.64), with 218 males (39.21 %), 331 females (59.53 %), and seven participants who did

not respond to the gender question (1.26%). The responses of these participants were

included in the analyses as gender was not essential to our hypotheses. The participants

represented a broad range of socio-economic, ethnic and geographical backgrounds. A total

of 1620 questionnaires were sent to individuals who had previously indicated that they

would be willing to participate in further research surveys. A response rate of 34.32% was

achieved. The study was conducted as a component of a 4th year psychology university

course.

Measures

The questionnaire items relevant to this study were the measures of PWB (items 2-

9), NWB (items 35-41), Perceived Control (items 60-68) and Volunteerism (item 53).

Personal and Neighbourhood Wellbeing Indexes. Personal wellbeing was measured

by the Personal Wellbeing scale developed by Cummins, et al. (2003b). The seven item

scale measures level of personal satisfaction participants’ have across seven broad domains;

standard of living, health, personal relationships, achievements, safety, community

connection, and future security (see Table 1). The PWB scale has previously reported good

internal reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 (Cummins, et al., 2001). Items were

preceded with the lead statement, “How satisfied are you with...”.

The measurement of Neighbourhood Wellbeing (NWB) was based on a scale

developed by Ahrens (2002), Salt (2002) and Holloway (2003). The 6-item scale measures

trust, participation, common goals, natural environment, availability of resources, and

reciprocity. The NWB scale has been shown to have good internal reliability with a

Cronbach’s alpha of .89 (Holloway, 2003).

Overall life satisfaction was assessed with a single item (item 1), “how satisfied

were you with life as a whole”, and overall NWB satisfaction was also assessed with a

single item (item 35), “how satisfied were you with life in your neighbourhood as a whole”.

7


These items were excluded from the PWB and NWB scales since they are considered too

general in nature, rather than specific domains like the remaining items.

Both the PWB scale, NWB items and the two life satisfaction items require

participants to respond using an 11-point Likert scale ranging from “Very dissatisfied” (0),

to “Very satisfied” (10). All 6 of the NWB items (see Table 1) were preceded with the lead

statement, “How satisfied are you with…”

Perceived Control Scales. Primary, secondary and relinquished control was

measured using items developed by Cousins (2001) and Hollway (2003), with three items

for each type of control (See Table 2). Chambers, Hollway, Parsons and Wallage (2003)

reported satisfactory reliabilities for the Primary (.88), Secondary (.90) and Relinquished

(.70) Perceived Control subscales.

The perceived control items required participants to respond using an 11-point

Likert scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” (0), to “Strongly agree” (10). All of the

perceived control items were preceded with the lead statement, “When something bad

happens to me...”

Volunteerism. Volunteer activity was measured by the participant answering yes or

no to the question, “Do you work as a volunteer outside your home”.

Procedure

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Deakin University Ethics

Committee. Questionnaires were sent to participants in an envelope containing the 97-item

questionnaire (Appendix A), a plain language statement (Appendix B), a letter to

participants (Appendix C) and a reply paid envelope. The plain language statement

informed participants that return of a completed questionnaire signified consent and

participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses.

Results

Preliminary Data Analysis

SPSS descriptives were used to identify any data entry errors. Minimum and

maximum scores for all variables were checked and incorrect data entry points were

identified and substituted with the mean as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).

8


Missing data were less than 5%. Inspection indicated there was no pattern in the missing

data distribution. A frequency analysis was re-run to ensure all data entry errors were

corrected.

To allow comparisons with Cummins’ (2003a; 2003b) subjective wellbeing research

findings, the Likert scale data from the Personal and Neighbourhood scales were

transformed into units of Percentage Scale Maximum (%SM) ranging from 0 to 100. Table

1 shows the Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for each item of the two wellbeing

subscales, and Table 2 shows the same set of statistics for each item of the perceived control

subscales.

Univariate outliers were assessed using SPSS Descriptives and Explore. Boxplots

revealed the presence of 11 univariate outliers which were deleted as recommended by

Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). Means were then compared, with no large discrepancies

being found.

The data were screened for subsequent multivariate outliers assessing the

differences between the samples and the relationships between the key variables. Tests for

multivariate outliers using Mahalanobis distance with a cut-off criterion of p < .001

revealed a number of multivariate outliers. As the sample size was more than adequate to

meet the minimum number of participants for a regression, N <50 + 8m (m = number of

participants) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) the 9 multivariate outliers found were deleted. No

suppressor variables were evident.

Normality was assessed with SPSS Explore revealing the independent variables

were mildly negatively skewed. However the data were not transformed as it is typical for

wellbeing scores to be negatively skewed with an average life satisfaction rating of 75+2.5

SM% (Cummins, et al., 2003b).

SPSS Scatterplots were inspected to assess the data’s linearity and homoscedasticity.

No violations were evident. To see if autocorrelation was present the Durbin-Watson

statistic was calculated, revealing an independence of error. All variables were assessed for

multicollinearity and singularity through a tolerance test with no violations being found.

9


As a consequence of the data cleaning procedures, 525 surveys were used in the

analyses testing the hypotheses.

Reliability

PWB and NWB scales. Cronbach’s alpha for PWB scale was high (.84). Inter-item

correlations for PWB indicate internal consistency was achieved on all of the PWB subscale

items (see Table 1). Internal reliability analyses for the NWB scale indicated high NWB

inter-item correlations of between r = .33 and .70, and the scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of r

= .87.

Table 1 shows that the means of the PWB and NWB items are all in the positive end

of life satisfaction (in excess of 50%SM), with PWB (M = 74.13, SD = 13.67) being higher

than NWB (M = 64.32, SD = 17.74) in accordance with Cummins, et al., (2003b).

Table 1

Mean Differences in PWB and NWB items and Reliabilities by Volunteer Group

Volunteer

(n = 204)

Non-volunteer

(n = 321)

Items M SD M SD F r

Personal Wellbeing

2. Your standard of living? 78.71 15.32 76.23 17.44 2.77 .36

3. Your health? 72.18 19.53 71.25 21.21 .25 .29

4. What you achieve in life? 75.49 16.94 71.75 19.04 5.23a .47

5. Your personal relationships? 76.72 19.89 74.30 22.62 1.56 .35

6. How safe you feel? 81.01 16.20 77.26 17.16 6.24b .44

7. Feeling part of your

community?

79.02 15.63 68.20 18.25 48.90c .38

8. Your future security? 72.84 20.55 69.09 20.53 4.15a .51

(Table continued next page)

10


Neighbourhood Wellbeing

36. The level of trust in your

neighbourhood?

77.17 18.61 68.88 21.76 20.19c .48

37. The amount of social

participation in your

neighbourhood?

68.25 21.92 58.38 23.75 22.87c .66

38. The common goals and

values in your

neighbourhood?

65.15 20.88 58.32 22.27 12.31c .70

39. The state of the natural

environment in your

neighbourhood?

68.97 21.55 64.04 23.34 5.91b .40

40. The availability of public

resources in your

neighbourhood?

63.82 24.92 62.88 23.80 .18 .33

41. The amount of people’s

sharing and borrowing in

your neighbourhood?

65.83 22.19 58.66 23.57 12.08b .54

Significant at a p <.05; bp <.01; c p <.001

N = 525

Perceived control. Item analyses were conducted on the 9 items hypothesised to

assess the three perceived control subscales; Primary perceived control (items 60-62),

Secondary perceived control (items 63-65) and Relinquished control (items 66-68). Table 2

shows the results of the perceived control overall item analysis.

11


Table 2

Mean Differences in Perceived Control and Reliabilities by Volunteer Group

Volunteer

(n = 204)

Non-volunteer

(n = 321)

Item M SD M SD F r

Primary Control

60. I ask others for help or

advice

55.59 29.14 56.82 27.12 .24 .07

61. I look for different ways to

improve the situation

78.27 17.00 75.17 17.48 3.99a .58

62. I use my skills to overcome

the problem

79.12 16.34 74.91 17.80 7.41b .56

Secondary Control

63. I remind myself something

good may come of it

70.93 24.57 67.57 23.75 2.43 .42

64. I remind myself I am better

off than some others

79.31 21.20 76.88 19.91 1.76 .43

65. I remember that the

situation will improve if I

am patient

70.49 23.80 67.60 22.70 1.95 .43

Relinquished Control

66. I don’t do anything as

nothing can help

16.13 21.25 19.53 22.76 2.94 .07

67. I spend time by myself 45.00 30.11 50.96 28.79 5.15a .06

68. I just let my feelings out so

others know how I feel

41.04 26.73 41.93 28.36 .13 .01

a Significant at p <.05; b p <.01

N= 525

Table 2 shows that reliability coefficients varied for the three Primary control items

from r = .07 to .58, to r = .42 to .43 for Secondary control items, and r = .01 to .07 for

Relinquished control items. Cronbach’s alphas for the Primary and Secondary Control

scales were .56 and .80 respectively. The alpha for the Relinquished Control scale was .22.

12


Previous research by Chambers et al., (2003), also reported lower reliabilities for the

Relinquished Control subscale of .70, and had deleted three items to achieve an acceptable

level. Given this study is exploratory in examining the relationship between these variables

and volunteerism, that relinquished control in the Chambers et al., (2003) clearly

distinguished strategies used by individuals, and since there were just three items in the

scale, it was decided to retain the Relinquished control subscale. However, it is important to

note that any significant results found are based on a scale with very a low level of item

reliability.

Volunteerism. Item 53 asked, “Do you work as a volunteer outside your home”, to

which the participant was asked to respond with “yes” or “no”. This item was used to form

volunteer/non-volunteer groups. SPSS Frequencies revealed that of the 556 respondents, 204

(36.69%) responded that they did participate in volunteer activity, and the remaining 352

respondents (63.61%) were regarded as non-volunteers.

Hypotheses TestingHypothesis One. The hypothesis that volunteers have higher levels of PWB, NWB

and life satisfaction than non-volunteers was tested with a one-way ANOVA, with

Volunteer Group as the between subjects factor for PWB and NWB scales. The results of

the analysis can be found in Table 3.

Table 3

Means Differences in PWB and NWB Scale scores by Volunteer Group

Significant at b p <.01; c p <.001

As can be seen in Table 3, volunteers reporting significantly higher levels of both

PWB and NWB than non-volunteers.

Scale Volunteers

(n= 204)

Non-volunteers

(n=321)

M SD M SD F

Personal wellbeing (PWB) 76.57 12.51 72.58 14.17 10.79b

Neighbourhood wellbeing (NWB) 68.19 16.26 61.86 18.22 16.39c

13


Overall Personal Life Satisfaction based on the single item was analysed using a one-

way ANOVA which revealed a significant difference in the level of life satisfaction

between volunteers (M = 79.17, SD = 14.88) and non-volunteers (M = 75.23, SD = 18.23),

with volunteers being significantly more satisfied with their life as a whole than non-

volunteers F(1, 523) = 6.67, p <.05.

The same kind of analysis was used to find the overall Neighbourhood Life

Satisfaction for volunteers and non-volunteers. This analysis revealed a significant

difference in the level of life satisfaction between volunteers (M = 78.43, SD = 17.46) and

non-volunteers (M = 72.43, SD = 21.51), with volunteers being significantly more satisfied

with life in their neighbourhood as a whole than non-volunteers F(1, 523) = 11.19, p <.05.

The results indicated strong support for the first hypothesis. There were significant volunteer

group differences in both PWB and NWB items and scales, in the direction of volunteers

having a consistently higher level of satisfaction at the personal and neighbourhood level, as

well as personal and neighbourhood life in general.

Hypothesis 2. The second hypothesis tested volunteer group differences for the three

types of perceived control. Group differences were tested using one-way ANOVA. From

Table 4 it can be seen that although volunteers were higher than non-volunteer on the

positive control strategies of primary and secondary control, and lower on relinquished

strategies, there was only one significant group difference, which was for relinquished

control. It can be seen from Table 2 that the latter difference was primarily due to the group

difference on item 67, “I spend time by myself”.

Table 4

Means and Standard deviations for Control Type by Volunteer group

Control Type Volunteers

(n = 204)

Non-volunteers

(n = 321)

M SD M SD F

Primary Control 71.00 15.57 68.97

70.68

37.47

15.72

18.68

16.64

2.08

Secondary Control 73.58 19.81 2.86

Relinquished Control 34.05 16.53 5.30a

a Significant at p <.05

14


Hypothesis 3a. Using SPSS Regression, two multiple regression analyses were

conducted to test the third hypothesis, whether using more positive control strategies and

fewer negative control strategies will contribute to volunteers’ higher levels of PWB and

NWB than for non-volunteers. The first analysis related to the first part of the third

hypothesis (Hypothesis 3a), and tested PWB with the three types of perceived control

strategies (Primary, Secondary and Relinquished control) as predictors in the first step of

the regression analysis. Volunteer Group was added at the second step to assess the

additional contribution of Volunteer Group to the relationship of perceived control to PWB.

As can be seen in Table 5, the results of the first step in the regression analysis

indicate that perceived control strategies accounted for a significant amount of variability

(25%) on PWB, R2 = .25, F(3, 521) = 57.73, p <.001. Participants who used more positive

control strategies (i.e., primary and secondary control) and fewer relinquished control

strategies, had higher PWB scores.

Table 5

Hierarchical Regression for Perceived Control Type and Volunteer Group on Personal Wellbeing

β t sr2 R 2 Δ R 2

Step 1

Primary control .27 6.44 c .25 .2

5

Secondary control .26 6.26 c .24

Relinquished control .21 -5.45 c .21

Step 2


5

.01 a


Relinquished control .20 -5.22 c .20

Volunteer group .09 2.28a .09

Significant at a p <.05; c p <.001.

N=525

15


In the second step, Volunteer Group was added. From Table 5, it can be seen that the

addition accounted for a small, but significant amount of variability on PWB, Δ R2 = .01,

F(4, 520) = 44.94, p <.001, suggesting that although the effect of perceived control is a very

strong predictor of PWB, volunteerism remained a small additional and significant influence

on wellbeing.

Hypothesis 3b. Equivalent analysis was conducted for the prediction of

Neighbourhood Wellbeing. As can be seen in Table 6 the results at the first step indicate that

perceived control strategies accounted for a significant amount of variability on NWB, R2

= .178, F(3, 521) = 35.09, p <.001, again suggesting that people who use more positive

control strategies and less relinquished control, have higher levels of NWB. The addition of

Volunteer Group at the second step of the analysis added a small, but significant amount of

variability on NWB, R2 change = .02, F(4, 520) = 29.62, p <.001.

These regression results for the contribution of perceived control and volunteerism to

PWB and NWB and provide support for the third hypothesis. There is clear evidence that the

pattern of control strategies used by volunteers versus non-volunteers, differs and that

control strategies are a substantial predictor of PWB and NWB. It is thus plausible that the

differences in perceived control are very important in the distinction of the approach that

volunteers and non-volunteers use in trying to control situations.

Table 6

Hierarchical Regression for Perceived Control type and Volunteer Group on NWB

β t sr2 R 2 Δ R 2

Step 1



Relinquished control .12 -3.07a .12

Step 2

Primary control .26 5.88 c .23 .19 .02 c


Relinquished control .11 2.76a .11

Volunteer group .13 3.34 c .13

Significant at a p <.05; c p <.001.

N = 525

16


The results of the regression analysis provide support for the third hypothesis.

Volunteers used more effective control strategies than non-volunteers, and this difference

related to group difference in PWB and NWB.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to explore the relationship of volunteerism and

perceived control to subjective wellbeing, as measured by personal wellbeing (PWB) and

neighbourhood wellbeing (NWB) scales and general personal life and neighbourhood

satisfaction. The initial model assumed that perceived control influences volunteer activity

and that this in turn influences an individual’s personal and neighbourhood levels of

subjective wellbeing. The relationships between the key variables were supported by the

results.

The first hypothesis, predicting that people who volunteer would have higher levels

of PWB and NWB than those who do not volunteer was supported. This is consistent with

previous research by Thoits and Hewitt (2001) and Van Willigen (2000) who both found

that volunteer activity could be beneficial to the psychological wellbeing of individuals.

Research by McDowell and Ekegren (2002) reports that volunteerism contributed to

people’s feelings of wellbeing toward their neighbourhood and volunteers reported being

happier than non-volunteers. In the present study, volunteers were significantly more

satisfied than non-volunteers with what they achieve in life, their safety, their future

security, and their feelings of being a part of their community. These specific findings

provide a clearer understanding to how volunteerism may contribute to an individual’s

higher levels of subjective wellbeing.

Volunteers were also significantly more satisfied than non-volunteers in aspects

relating to their neighbourhood wellbeing in the level of trust within their neighbourhood,

the amount of social participation, the common goals and values, the state of environment in

their neighbourhood, and the amount of people’s sharing and borrowing in their community.

These findings supports the evidence of Cohen, et al., (2003) who reported that people who

feel that they are connected to, or involved within their neighbourhood, report high levels of

17


wellbeing. Due to their community involvement and the subsequent contact with others

participating in voluntary activity it perhaps stands to reason that a volunteer would feel

more satisfied on a personal and neighbourhood level with their participation in their

neighbourhood’s social and environmental conditions and community resources, than non-

volunteers, who are not exposed to such activity. This result is important because it indicates

that individuals involved in volunteer activity are more likely to feel better about themselves

and their environment, and be more satisfied with their lives overall. These findings have

potential implications with people’s health, life satisfaction, relationships, community

sociability and cohesion and the role of volunteerism in people’s lives.

It was further predicted that volunteers use different control strategies than non-

volunteers; with use of more positive control strategies (primary and secondary perceived

control) and less use of relinquished control. The results revealed a lack of general support

for this hypothesis. This is in contrast to some previous research. Iwasaki and Mannell

(2000) found that an individual’s choice of leisure activity could develop feelings of

empowerment, contribute to coping behaviours and improve wellbeing. Thoits and Hewitt

(2001) reported that cognitive resources, such as control, promote participation in volunteer

opportunities and higher life satisfaction levels. Van Willigen (2000) found that volunteer

work facilitates the development of psychosocial resources and has a positive effect on

individual wellbeing. Although significant differences between volunteers and non-

volunteers were not found on complete scales, there were group differences on three items;

two items for primary control and one for relinquished control.

Volunteers were more likely than non-volunteers to use primary control strategies

through the use of skills in overcoming a problem, and were more likely to look for ways to

improve a situation. These findings for primary control strategies support Snyder and

Cantor’s (1998) claim that many individuals actively choose to volunteer to meet their

personal goals, and support Warburton, et al. (2001) who reports that perceived control is

the individual’s perceptions that they can access the necessary resources or opportunities to

perform the behaviour successfully.

The finding of a significant difference between volunteers and non-volunteers on the

use of relinquished control is consistent with Chambers et al., (2003) finding that responses

on relinquished control items were substantially distinct from those for primary and

secondary control. To some extent, this consistency mitigates the low item reliability of the

18


relinquished control scale used in the present study and indicates the need for further

research on this measure. Given the different pattern of results for the three perceived

control types, further studies are required to study the three types of control items against the

personality and cognitive buffer measures used in wellbeing research.

The third hypothesis expected that volunteers’ greater use of positive control

strategies than non-volunteers would contribute to their higher levels of PWB and NWB.

This hypothesis was supported, with a substantial amount of variance in both PWB and

NWB accounted for by the three control strategies and a small additional contribution of

volunteerism. These results are consistent with research by Van Willigen (2000) who

reported that individuals who consider that they are a part of a supportive community have a

sense of positive perceived control over the outcomes of their lives which influences their

psychological wellbeing. Furthermore, Thoits and Hewitt (2001), reported control strategies

and wellbeing are factors that facilitate participation in volunteer work, and that wellbeing

was subsequently enhanced by volunteer activity. These results suggest that volunteers will

positively respond to activity that is challenging and beneficial to the greater good. This has

potential implications with organisations utilising volunteers in improving volunteer

retention levels through the development of programs that complement volunteer tasks with

their use of control strategies.

It is of interest in considering the results of this study in terms of the direction of

influence of one variable on another. This study has focused on the contributions of

volunteerism and perceived control predicting SWB. Other researchers cited above, focus on

what factors predict volunteerism. Like many psychological studies, the flow of causation in

complex behaviour is difficult to establish, but should be kept in mind, so that alternative

explanations can be entertained, other than the initial model. Future research may determine

the direction of influence, the contexts and other factors that could be considered in

attempting to explain these relationships. Such studies of volunteerism, perceived control

and subjective wellbeing could have important applications. Given volunteers feel more

satisfied not only about themselves, but also with their neighbourhood, volunteer activity

may have positive outcomes in the treatment of mental health such as depressive disorders

(Iwasaki, et al., 2001).

In considering methodological issues in the present study, the need for a more

reliable measure of relinquished control has already been mentioned. The results may also

19


be limited by the sample. Although a large Australia wide adult sample was used in this

study, all participants had already volunteered to complete additional surveys following

earlier research. It is unclear whether a study of volunteers, based solely on the responses of

volunteers limits the generalisability of the findings to the general adult population.

A definition of volunteerism was not provided in the questionnaire. A diverse range

of definitions describing volunteerism is apparent in the literature and opinions are also

likely to vary in the general population (Stukas and Dunlap, 2002). Furthermore, the

measure of volunteerism used is bound to be critical as to whether it is measuring salient

aspects of volunteerism. This study used the question “Do you work as a volunteer outside

your home”, to which responses could reflect a great range of situations. In defence of the

question asked in the present study, it did appear to serve the purpose of achieving

reasonable size groups, and plausible group differences. Further research on volunteers

might consider the inclusion of a clear and comprehensive definition and a greater range of

domains within the construct of “volunteerism”, so that a more elaborate understanding of

the relationship of volunteers, perceived control and subjective wellbeing can be established.

Conclusion

This study examined the influence of perceived control, specifically in relation to

SWB through the personal and neighbourhood wellbeing domains in volunteers. The extent

to which individuals consider they are a part of a supportive community, perceive control

over the outcomes of their lives, gain satisfaction in their daily work, and foresee attainable

rewards, influences their psychological wellbeing. The act of participation in volunteer

activity appears to facilitate the outcome of these psychological reserves and it is evident

that undertaking volunteer activity has a positive effect on people’s subjective wellbeing,

and is related to the control strategies people use when facing difficult situations.

20


References

Ahrens, L. (2002). Neighbourhood quality of life. Unpublished honours thesis, Deakin

University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001a) Media release: More than 4 million Australians do

voluntary work. Retrieved March, 9, 2004 from http://www.abs.gov

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001b). Voluntary work, Australia. Retrieved March, 9,

2004 from http://www.abs.gov

Bailis, D. S., Segall, A., Mahon, M. J., Chipperfield, J. G., & Dunn, E. M. (2001). Perceived

control in relation to socioeconomic and behavioral resources for health. Social

Science and Medicine. 11, 1661-1676. Retrieved May 5, 2004, from the Science Direct

database.

Chambers, S., Holloway, J., Parson. E. & Wallage, C. (2003). Perceived

Control and Wellbeing. Proceedings of the 5th Australian Conference on

Quality of Life. Deakin University, November. Retrieved 17 October 2004,

from http://www.deakin.edu.au/acqol/Conferences/abstracts_papers

Christakopoulou, S., Dawson, J., & Gari, A. (2001). The community well-being

questionnaire: Theoretical context and initial assessment of its reliability and

validity. Social Indicators Research, 56, 321-335. Retrieved March 23, 2004, from

the Proquest database.

Cohen, D. A., Mason, K., Bedimo, A., & Scribner, R. (2003). Neighbourhood physical

conditions and health. Journal of public health, 93, 467 - 472.

Cousins, R. (2001). Predicting subjective quality of life: The contributions of personality

and perceived control. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Deakin University, Burwood,

Victoria, Australia.

Cummins, R. A. (1995). On the trail of the gold standard for subjective well-being. Social

Indicators Research, 35, 179-200.

Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos. Social

Indicators Research, 38, 303-332.

Cummins, R. A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic

model. Social Indicators Research, 64, 225-256.

21


Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J. V., & Misajon, R. (2003a).

Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity wellbeing

index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159-190.

Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Lo, S. K., Okerstrom, E., Davern, M., & Hunter, B. (2003b).

Wellbeing index: Survey 8, Report 8.0: The Wellbeing of Australians – Feeling

Connected to Australia. Melbourne: School of Psychology: Deakin University.

Retrieved June, 11, 2004 from, http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/index_wellbeing

Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Lo, S. K., Okerstrom, E., Hunter, B, & Davern, M (2003c).

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Cumulative Psychometric Record (Volume 9).

School of Psychology: Deakin University, Melbourne. Retrieved October 25, 2004

from, http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/instruments/wellbeing_index.htm

Cummins, R.A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., van Vugt, J., Shelly, J., Pusey, M., & Misajon, R.

(2001). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Report #1. School of Psychology, Deakin

University, Melbourne.

Cummins, R. A., Gullone, E., & Lau, L .D. (2002). A model of subjective well-being

homeostasis: The role of personality. In, E. Gullione, & R.A. Cummins (Eds.), The

Universality of Subjective Wellbeing Indicators (7-46). Netherlands: Kluwer.

Curtis, A. & Van Nouhuys, M. (1999). Landcare participation in Australia: The volunteer

perspective. Sustainable Development, 7, 98-111.

Deiner, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being:

Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403-

426. Retrieved, 22 April, 2004, from the Proquest database.

Deiner, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-

being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1-31.

Diener, E., Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective

indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189-216.

Forte, J. A. (1997). Calling students to serve the homeless: A project to promote altruism

and community service. .Journal of social work Education, 33, 151-167. Retrieved

March, 8, 2004, from the Proquest database.

Gidron, B. (1984). Predictors of retention and turnover among service volunteer workers.

Journal of Social Service Research, 8, 1-16.

Hollway, J. (2003). Neighborhood subjective wellbeing and the role of perceived control in

maintaining wellbeing. Unpublished honours thesis, Deakin University, Burwood,

Victoria, Australia.

22


Iwasaki, Y., & Mannell. R. C. (2000). The effects of leisure beliefs and coping strategies on

stress-health relationships: A field study. Leisure/Loisir: The Journal of the

Canadian Association for Leisure Studies, 24, 3-57. Retrieved April 22, 2004, from

the Proquest database.

Iwasaki, K., Zuzanek, J., & Mannell, R. C. (2001). The effects of physically active leisure

on stress-health relationships. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92, 214-219.

Retrieved April 22, 2004, from the Proquest database.

Keyes & Waterman. (2003). Dimensions of well-being and mental health in adulthood. In,

M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, & K. Moore (Eds.), Wellbeing:

Positive Development Across the Life Course (pp. 477-500). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Kimweli, D. M. S., & Stilwell, W. E. (2002). Community subjective well-being, personality

traits and quality of life therapy. Social Indicators Research, 60, 193-225.

Klein, C., & Helweg-Larsen, M. (2002). Perceived control and the optimistic bias: A meta-

analytic review. Psychology and Health, 17, 437–446.

Lang, F. R., & Heckhausen, J. (2001). Perceived control over development and subjective

well-being: Differential benefits across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81, 509-523.

McDowell, B. M., & Ekegren, K. (2002). Volunteering – a community partnership. Journal

for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 7, 121-122.

Petito, F., & Cummins, R. A. (2000). Quality of life in adolescence: The role of perceived

control, parenting style, and social support. Behaviour Change, 17, 196-208.

Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the

self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social


Salt, A. (2002). An investigation into community wellbeing in urban and rural populations.

Unpublished honours thesis, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.

Schulz, R., & Heckhausen, J. (1996). A life span model of successful aging. American

Psychologist, 51, 702-714.

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to the constructs of control. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 71, 549-570.

Snyder, M., & Cantor, N. (1998). Understanding personality and social behavior: A

functionalist strategy. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of

social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 635–679). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

23


Stukas, A. A., & Dunlap, M. R. (2002). Community Involvement: Theoretical Approaches

and Educational Initiatives Journal of Social Issues, 58, 411—427.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Sydney:

Allyn & Bacon.

Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health

and Social Behaviour, 42, 115-131.

Thompson, S. C., & Spacapan, S. (1991). Perceived control in vulnerable populations.

Journal of Social Issues, 47, 1-21.

Thurber, C. A., & Weisz, J. R. (1997). “You can try or you can just give up”: The impact of

perceived control and coping style on childhood homesickness. Developmental


Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering across the life course. The

Journals of Gerontology, 55B, 308-318.

Warburton, J., Terry, D. J., Rosenman, L. S. & Shapiro, M. (2001). Differences between

older volunteers and nonvolunteers attitudinal, normative, and control beliefs.

Research on Aging, 23, 586-605.

24


Appendix A(Note: question numbers slightly out – correct up to 51 – one question added after 51

[e.g. Q52 was actually Q 53] – question added not a part of this study - this statement not in thesis)

25

Wellbeing, control & volunteerism 26


Appendix B

PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT

This research project is being conducted by Kimberly Dobrzynski who is completing an Honours degree and also Jung Ching, Belinda Davey, Lucy Lake, Bridget Monro, and Michael Staples who are completing Graduate Diploma in Psychology degrees at the School of Psychology, Deakin University. The research is under the supervision of Dr. Sue Chambers, a Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology at Deakin University.

The project aims to investigate the factors that relate to how satisfied people feel about their lives (their subjective wellbeing). The factors being studied are perceived control (i.e. strategies you use to feel in control of situations), self-esteem, optimism, social values, depression, anxiety and stress. The study also aims to examine how neighbourhood wellbeing (people's sense of wellbeing about their neighbourhood) relates to people's subjective wellbeing, and the role voluntary participation in local communities may play. These factors are measured by participants' responses to items on the enclosed questionnaire.

You are invited to participate in this research project. If you agree to participate, you will be required to complete the enclosed questionnaire which will take approximately twenty minutes of your time to complete. Questionnaires will be anonymous to the researchers; therefore, if you decide to withdraw from the study you can do so by not returning your questionnaire. Returning your completed questionnaire signifies your consent for your responses to be used in the research study.

The questionnaire has a range of items to measure the factors being studied. One question on the personal wellbeing scale is “How satisfied are you with your standard of living?” A question on the neighbourhood wellbeing scale is “How satisfied are you with security in your neighbourhood?” A question about your voluntary participation in your neighbourhood is “I am satisfied with the amount of time I have invested in unpaid community participation.” A perceived control item is “When something bad happens to me I use my skills to overcome the problem.” Other items ask about your feelings. For instance, based on your experiences in the last week, your level of agreement with the statement “I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything.” Other questions ask you to play a simple game in which you choose the allocation of points between players. Other questions ask for general information about you, such as “Which age group are you in?”

Returned questionnaires are stored in a locked cabinet in the School of Psychology at Deakin University for a period of six years and are then destroyed. You will not be identified in any published findings of this questionnaire. It is not expected that participating in this study will cause you any emotional discomfort, stress or harm. However, if this does occur a contact phone number is provided at the end of this statement.

If you have any further questions regarding the study, or would like information about the findings of this study please contact Dr Sue Chambers on (03) 9244 6262.

Should you have any concerns about the conduct of the research project please contact the Chair, Dr Mark Stokes, Deakin University Human Research Ethics Subcommittee – Health and Behavioural Sciences. Telephone (03) 9244 6865.

29


Appendix C

1st July, 2004

Dear Friend of The Australian Centre on Quality of Life

Some time ago now, you were kind enough to complete a telephone interview in respect of the research being conducted as a joint venture by our Centre and our industry partner, Australian Unity. Your interview data contributed to one of the quarterly surveys we conduct across the Australian population, which measure how good we feel about ourselves as Australians, and how good we feel about Australia. These data are used to create Reports, one for each survey, and these Reports are available from our web-site acqol.deakin.edu.au. Enclosed with this letter you will find a copy of the Executive Summary from our last report.

At the end of your telephone interview you indicated that you would be willing for us to contact you again with a view to completing another survey. This is the purpose of our renewed contact. The new questionnaire and other documents are enclosed.

The purpose of this continuing research is to track the wellbeing of Australians across time. If you are willing to join us in this venture, you can expect to receive one survey from us each year. I wish we could offer you some form of tangible reward for your continuing involvement, but we are struggling to financially support the project at a very basic level. Consequently, we have to call once again on your good will, and hope that you will be able to find the time to remain as an active voluntary contributor to this remarkable project.

Please feel free to contact me with any queries concerning this project.

Kind regards

Robert A. Cummins Professor of Psychology.

30

(title sheet) · web viewthese domains are valuable in the understanding of the psychological and...

Documents