Abstract
Religiosity has long been known to promote volunteering in the US and elsewhere. Despite the growing body of research examining religious correlates of volunteering, however, few studies have focused on whether and how religious attitudes affect volunteering. With data from the Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS II), 2004–2006, we examine the influences of religious attitudes, namely, the religiously based feelings of exclusiveness and inclusiveness, and openness to other religious faiths, on volunteering. We find that while religious exclusiveness significantly promotes volunteering only in religious areas, religious inclusiveness promotes both religious and secular volunteering. Moreover, those who are open to other religious faiths are more likely to engage in both types of volunteer work. Implications of these findings are discussed for future research linking religious attitudes to volunteering.
Résumé
Aux États-Unis et ailleurs, la religiosité est depuis longtemps connue pour favoriser le bénévolat. Malgré le nombre croissant d’études portant sur les corrélats religieux du bénévolat, rares sont celles qui s’interrogent sur la façon dont les postures religieuses peuvent retentir sur le bénévolat. À partir de données provenant de la base Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS II, 2004–2006), nous examinons l’influence des postures religieuses, à savoir les sentiments d’exclusivité et d’inclusivité religieuse ainsi que l’ouverture aux autres convictions religieuses, sur le bénévolat. Nous démontrons qu’alors que l’exclusivité religieuse ne promeut le bénévolat de manière significative que dans les milieux religieux, l’inclusivité religieuse favorise à la fois le bénévolat religieux et le bénévolat laïque. De plus, les personnes ouvertes aux autres convictions religieuses sont davantage susceptibles de s’engager dans les deux types d’activités bénévoles. Nous envisageons enfin ce qu’impliquent ces conclusions, en vue de recherches futures sur le sujet des liens existant entre attitudes d’ordre religieux et bénévolat.
Zusammenfassung
In den USA und anderorts ist seit langem bekannt, dass Religiösität die Ausführung ehrenamtlicher Tätigkeiten fördert. Zwar nehmen die Forschungsarbeiten zu der Wechselbeziehung zwischen Religiösität und ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeiten zu, doch konzentrierten sich bislang nur wenige Studien darauf, ob und wie sich religiöse Einstellungen auf ehrenamtliche Tätigkeiten auswirken. Anhand der erhobenen Daten aus der in den USA von 2004 bis 2006 durchgeführten Befragung „Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS II)” untersuchen wir, inwieweit religiöse Einstellungen, insbesondere die religiös basierten Gefühle von Exklusivität und Inklusivität, und die Offenheit gegenüber anderen Glauben Einfluss auf ehrenamtliche Tätigkeiten nehmen. Wir stellen fest, dass religiöse Exklusivität ehrenamtliche Tätigkeiten ausschließlich in religiösen Bereichen besonders fördert, während religiöse Inklusivität sowohl religiöse als auch nicht religiöse ehrenamtliche Tätigkeiten fördert. Weiterhin sind Personen, die sich anderen religiösen Glauben gegenüber offen zeigen, eher dazu geneigt, in beiden Bereichen ehrenamtlich tätig zu sein. Die Schlussfolgerungen dieser Ergebnisse werden für zukünftige Forschungsarbeiten zu der Beziehung zwischen religiösen Einstellungen und ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeiten erörtert.
Resumen
Siempre se ha sabido que la religión contribuye a fomentar el voluntariado, tanto en EE.UU. como en cualquier otro país. Pese a la gran cantidad de estudios realizados para analizar la relación entre religión y voluntariado, pocos se han centrado en averiguar si la actitud religiosa afecta al voluntariado y cómo. Con datos de Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS II), 2004–2006, analizamos la influencia de la actitud religiosa, es decir, el sentimiento, con base religiosa, de inclusión y exclusión y de apertura a otras creencias sobre el voluntariado. Hemos descubierto que, aunque es cierto que la exclusividad religiosa sólo fomenta notablemente el voluntariado en lugares religiosos, la inclusión religiosa fomenta tanto el voluntariado secular como el religioso. Es más, aquellos que están abiertos a otras creencias religiosas presentan más propensión a comprometerse en ambos tipos de trabajo voluntario. Se debaten las implicaciones de estos hallazgos para futuras investigaciones sobre la relación entre la actitud religiosa y el voluntariado.
摘要
人们早就知道,笃信宗教能够促进美国和其他地方的志愿服务。尽管越来越多的研究机构探讨志愿服务与宗教的关联性,但是,很少有研究关注宗教观念是否以及如何影响志愿服务。利用美国中年发展调查(MIDUS II) 2004–2006年的数据,我们研究了宗教观念对志愿服务的影响,即排他性和包容性的宗教情感,以及对其他宗教信仰的开明程度。我们发现,虽然宗教的排他性显著推进了宗教领域的志愿服务,但宗教的包容性却能共同推进宗教领域和宗教以外的其他世俗领域的志愿服务。此外,接受其他宗教信仰的人们更有可能从事这两种类型的志愿工作。对这些研究结果的意义进行讨论,以便在以后研究宗教态度对志愿服务的影响。.
ملخص
التدين كان معروف لمدة طويلة بأنه ينهض بالعمل التطوعي في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية و الأماكن الأخرى. بالرغم من أن المجموعة المتنامية من البحوث تربط الدراسة الدينية للعمل التطوعي، لكن، دراسات قليلة ركزت على ما إذا وكيف تؤثر المواقف الدينية على العمل التطوعي. مع البيانات من منتصف مرحلة التنمية في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية (MIDUS II)، 2004-2006، نحن ندرس تأثيرات المواقف الدينية، خاصة، المشاعر على أساس ديني من التفرد و الشمول، و الإنفتاح على ديانات أخرى، في العمل التطوعي. إننا نجد إنه بينما التفرد الديني يشجع العمل التطوعي بدرجة كبيرة في الأماكن الدينية، الشمولية الدينية تعززعلى حد سواء العمل التطوعي الديني والدنيوي. علاوة على ذلك، المنفتحون على الديانات الأخرى هم أكثر ميلاً للانخراط في كلا النوعين من العمل التطوعي. تم مناقشة الآثار المترتبة على هذه النتائج للبحوث في المستقبل التي تربط المواقف الدينية بالعمل التطوعي.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The studies cited here focus on either the level of volunteering or the number of voluntary association membership types.
It is not possible to calculate an exact response rate for MIDUS (Research Network on Successful Midlife Development 1999).
Questions on how often the respondent prays or meditates and reads the Bible or other religious literature were not asked at Wave I. Religious inclusiveness cannot be measured with MIDUS I, either. Thus, the probit model was run without these variables.
We also estimated the identical model with data from both waves by excluding the frequencies of praying and reading religious literature and the feelings of religious inclusiveness. Two sets of estimates turned out to be quite similar.
The response of 1 (=yes) on volunteering for “any other organization, cause or charity” was recoded to the response of 0 (=no) for those who reported that they never engaged in activities, other than service attendance, organized by religious groups (e.g., dinners and volunteer work). We reasoned that if the respondent said s/he did not participate in any activity that was organized by a religious group, s/he could not have engaged in any religious volunteering.
Specifically, we estimate an ordered logit model, (or “proportional odds” model) by maximum likelihood with Stata’s Generalized Linear Latent and Mixed Models (gllamm) (Rabe-Hesketh et al. 2004).
The proportion of volunteers in our sample (47%) is much higher than the proportion based on the 2006 Current Population Survey (27%) (BLS 2007). As mentioned earlier, respondents who remained for the follow-up survey are more likely than those who did not to have volunteered. Even then, the proportion of volunteers in the original sample of MIDUS is 40%, which is still quite high. The discrepancy may be partly due to the different ways the two surveys define adult population. The MIDUS defines adults as those in their mid 20s and older, whereas the CPS defines them those aged 16 and older. Thus, the MIDUS sample omits the age group 16–24, which according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor 2007), has the lowest volunteering rate. Also, despite their limitations, volunteering questions in the MIDUS are more inclusive than those asked in the CPS. For instance, unlike the MIDUS, the CPS fails to ask about volunteering in the areas of health and politics. Finally, not all of the CPS data are based on self-reports given that the CPS is a household survey (BLS 2007).
Sampling weight, B1PWGHT2 (gender × age × education), was used.
A high factor loading indicates that an item is a good measure of the latent variable. Specifically, the factor loading larger than one indicates that the item is more strongly associated with the latent variable than the referent. The factor loading close to zero indicates that the item does not measure the latent variable.
References
Argue, A., Johnson, D. R., & White, L. K. (1999). Age and religiosity: Evidence from a three-wave panel analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38(3), 423–435.
Barro, R., Hwang, J., & McCleary, R. (2010). Religious conversion in 40 countries. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(1), 15–36.
Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Tsang, J. (2002). Four motives for community involvement. The Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 429–445.
Batson, C. D., Denton, D. M., & Vollmecke, J. T. (2008). Quest religion, anti-fundamentalism, and limited versus universal compassion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(1), 135–145.
Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., Carpenter, A., Dulin, L., Harjusola-Webb, S., Stocks, E. L., et al. (2003). “As you would have them do unto you”: Does imagining yourself in the other’s place stimulate moral action? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1190–1201.
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., et al. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118.
Becker, P. E., & Dhingra, P. H. (2001). Religious involvement and volunteering: Implications for civil society. Sociology of Religion, 62(3), 315–335.
Beeghley, L., Velsor, E. V., & Bock, E. W. (1981). The correlates of religiosity among black and white Americans. Sociological Quarterly, 22(3), 403–412.
Bekkers, R., & Schuyt, T. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Explaining denominational differences in charitable giving and volunteering in the Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, 50(1), 74–96.
Berger, I. E. (2006). The influence of religion on philanthropy in Canada. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(2), 115–132.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). Volunteering in the United States, 2006. [News release USDL 07-0019]. Retrieved August 17, 2007, from www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/volun.pdf.
Caputo, R. K. (1997). Women as volunteers and activists. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 156–174.
Chaves, M. (1991). Family structure and Protestant church attendance: The sociological basis of cohort and age effects. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(4), 329–340.
Driskell, R. L., Lyon, L., & Embry, E. (2008). Civic engagement and religious activities: Examining the influence of religious tradition and participation. Sociological Spectrum, 28(5), 578–601.
Gallagher, S. (1994). Doing their share: Comparing patterns of help given by older and younger adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(3), 567–578.
Gunnoe, M., & Moore, K. (2002). Predictors of religiosity among youth aged 17–22: A longitudinal study of the national survey of children. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4), 613–622.
Hodgkinson, V. A., & Weitzman, M. S. (1990). Giving and volunteering in the United States: Findings from a national survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.
Jackson, E., Bachmeier, M., Wood, J., & Craft, E. (1995). Volunteering and charitable giving: Do religious and associational ties promote helping behavior? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24(1), 59–78.
Keaten, J. A., & Soukup, C. (2009). Dialogue and religious otherness: Toward a model of pluralistic interfaith dialogue. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2(2), 168–187.
Kwon, O. (2003). Buddhist and Protestant Korean immigrants: Religious beliefs and socioeconomic aspects of life. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
Lam, P.-Y. (2002). As the flocks gather: How religion affects voluntary association participation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(3), 405–422.
Lam, P.-Y. (2006). Religion and civic culture: A cross-national study of voluntary association membership. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(2), 177–193.
Loveland, M. T., Sikkink, D., Myers, D. J., & Radcliff, B. (2005). Private prayer and civic involvement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(1), 1–14.
Newport, F. (1979). The religious switcher in the United States. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 528–552.
Park, J. Z., & Smith, C. (2000). ‘To whom much has been given’: Religious capital and community voluntarism among churchgoing Protestants. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 272–286.
Pekkanen, R., & Tsujinaka, Y. (2008). Neighbourhood associations and the demographic challenge. In F. Coulmas, H. Conrad, A. Schad-Seifert, & G. Vogt (Eds.), The demographic challenge: A handbook about Japan (pp. 707–720). Leiden, The Netherlands: BRILL.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2004). GLLAMM manual. U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series, Paper 160.
Reitsma, J., Scheepers, P., & Grotenhuis, M. T. (2006). Dimensions of individual religiosity and charity: Cross-national effect difference in European countries? Review of Religious Research, 47(4), 347–362.
Research Network on Successful Midlife Development. (1999). Technical report on the methodology of the MIDUS Survey. http://midmac.med.harvard.edu./tech.html (downloaded on June 8, 2009).
Rossi, A. S. (2001). Domains and dimensions of social responsibility: A sociodemographic profile. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Caring and doing for others: Social responsibility in the domains of family, work, and community (pp. 97–134). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 Countries. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 191–210.
Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, W. (2001). Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Evidence from 24 countries. Working Paper of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, 40. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
Sherkat, D. E., & Wilson, J. (1995). Preferences, constraints, and choices in religious markets: An examination of religious switching and apostasy. Social Forces, 73(3), 993–1026.
Smith, L. M. (1975). Women as volunteers: The double subsidy. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 4(3), 119–136.
Staub, E. (1995). How people learn to care. In P. G. Schervish, V. A. Hodgkinson, & M. Gates (Eds.), Care and community in modern society: Passing on the tradition of service to future generations (pp. 51–67). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Taniguchi, H. (2006). Men’s and women’s volunteering: Gender differences in the effects of employment and family characteristics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 83–101.
Tajfel H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. (Reprinted from M. Hogg, & D. Abrams (Eds.). (2001), Intergroup relations (pp. 94–109). Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press).
Uslaner, E. M. (2001). Volunteering and social capital: How trust and religion shape civic participation in the United States. In P. Dekker & E. Uslaner (Eds.), Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life (pp. 104–117). London: Routledge.
Uslaner, E. M. (2002). Religion and civic engagement in Canada and the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 239–254.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walter, T., & Davie, G. (1998). The religiosity of women in the modern West. British Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 640–660.
Wang, L., & Graddy, E. (2008). Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 23–42.
Welch, M. R., Sikkink, D., & Loveland, M. T. (2007). The radius of trust: Religion, social embeddedness and trust in strangers. Social Forces, 86(1), 23–46.
Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.
Wilson, J., & Janoski, T. (1995). The contribution of religion to volunteer work. Sociology of Religion, 56(2), 137–152.
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 694–713.
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1999). Attachment to volunteering. Sociological Forum, 14(2), 243–272.
Wuthnow, R. (1988). The restructuring of American religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wuthnow, R. (1991). Acts of compassion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wuthnow, R. (1994). God and mammon in America. New York: The Free Press.
Wuthnow, R. (1998a). Loose connections: Joining together in America’ fragmented communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wuthnow, R. (1998b). After heaven: Spirituality in America since the 1950s. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Wuthnow, R. (1999). Mobilizing civic engagement: The changing impact of religious involvement. In T. Skocpol & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 331–363). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 129–166.
Yeung, A. B. (2004). An intricate triangle—religiosity, volunteering, and social capital: The European perspective, the case of Finland. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 401–422.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taniguchi, H., Thomas, L.D. The Influences of Religious Attitudes on Volunteering. Voluntas 22, 335–355 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-010-9158-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-010-9158-0