Egoism and commitment: a multidimensional approach to understanding sustained volunteering.

Attracting and retaining volunteers are two great challenges facing agencies that are dependent on individuals to give their time and talents without financial remuneration. Agency recruiting and retention success depends in part on understanding the various reasons why individuals volunteer. Three categories of explanatory variables exist (Hartenian, 2004): individual characteristics, agency efforts to attract and retain volunteers, and cultural norms. All three are necessary to bring a volunteer and agency together for a lasting relationship. The list of individual characteristics is extensive. For example, an individual's decision to volunteer is related to his or her motives (e.g., Harrison, 1995), disposition (Penner and Finkelstein, 1998), needs (e.g., Culp, 1997), personality (e.g., Bakker et al., 2006), demographic characteristics (e.g., age, education, gender) (see O'Driscoll et al., 1992; Unger, 1991), and social and role identity (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Piliavin and Callero, 1991; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Altruistic and egoistic orientations have been examined to better understand the reasons why individuals volunteer. This study will examine the factor structure of the egoistic orientation in a manner that parallels the study of altruism.

Studies that have focused squarely on individuals' altruistic orientations note that altruistic individuals are concerned about others' welfare and engage in behaviors designed to help others, often at great personal expense. The value to the agency is that the altruistic volunteer is not financially rewarded, and this volunteer expects to give more than receive. When altruism is the basis for one's volunteering, the agency may find that this individual will become a long-term volunteer (Piferi et al., 2006). Clearly, the agency would want to attract those with altruistic motivations (Batson et al., 2002).

On the other hand, various egoism reasons for volunteering have been offered, including: to improve one's own welfare (Martin, 1994), to relieve the discomfort one might feel when noticing someone in distress (Piliavin et al., 1981), to gain job experience, to meet new people with similar interests (Klein et al., 1994), to demonstrate skills and increase the opportunity to be hired into a paid organization position (Murnighan et al., 1993), to avoid punishment for not helping (Cialdini et al., 1987), to receive praise (Batson et al., 1988), and to satisfy his or her own internal need to feel good about himself/herself (Batson and Flory, 1990; Batson and Gray, 1981; Darley and Batson, 1973). Egoistic reasons for volunteering have been viewed negatively. After all, how could people be called "volunteers," when they come to an agency with personal agendas? People who volunteer for egoistic reasons are suspected of being less persistent in volunteering and believed to be more likely to stop volunteering when their personal needs have been met (e.g., Clary and Orenstein, 1991; Farmer and Fedor, 1999).

From a practical perspective, can an agency afford to ignore those who have egoistic motivations for volunteering? The answer is "no" for many reasons (e.g., Anderson and Clary, 1987; Batson et al., 2002; Brudney, 1990; Omoto and Snyder, 1995; Turner, 1992). First, personal reasons are not necessarily selfish reasons (see Locke's arguments for the necessity of self-interest among leaders (Avolio and Locke, 2002)). Egoistic orientations also have been linked to positive outcomes for the organization (Omoto and Snyder, 1995). Second, the number of people who volunteer for strictly altruistic reasons is likely to be small when compared to those who have egoistic reasons (Hu and Liu, 2003). Third, altruism and egoism motivations can reside in the same individual. When a person volunteers, he or she simultaneously fulfills an internal need to feel caring and selfless (satisfying an egoistic need) and fulfills an external need to help others (satisfying an altruistic need) (see Smith et al., 1981; Houle et al., 2005; Mowen and Sujan, 2005; Huseman et al., 1987). This functional approach to understanding volunteerism recognizes that several motives can be served by the same volunteer behavior (Houle et al., 2005; Omoto and Snyder; 1995). The good news is that agencies should be able to satisfy the volunteer's egoistic needs without diminishing the importance of the volunteer's contribution to the agency and the recipients of the agency's services.

Aside from practical observations about the importance of egoism in volunteering, theoretical issues have been examined as well, including social role theory and psychological contract theory. Social role theory and role identity theory explain how the larger social group to which an individual belongs guides behaviors and the choice of activities in which to engage so that they are congruent with role expectations (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Scott, 1998). One adjunct to role theory, activity theory, predicts individuals will volunteer to stay busy (e.g., Sainer and Zander, 1971). According to a second adjunct, ephemeral role theory, individuals develop additional roles to satisfy social-psychological needs that are not met through dominant roles (e.g., work, family) (Zurcher, 1978). Note that in these examples, the individual's interests or needs are primary. Agency or others' needs are not considered explicitly.

According to psychological contract theory, agency-employee and agency-volunteer relationships carry a set of obligations for individuals and the agency (see Liao-Troth, 2001). Agency-employee relationships tend to be explicitly set out. Volunteer relationships usually are not (Farmer and Fedor, 2001), yet both individuals and agencies recognize their obligations to each other (e.g., Robinson et al., 1994). Short-term relationships are economic, reciprocal, transactional, and based on self-interest (Farmer and Fedor, 1999; Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999). These relationships are egoism-based with the volunteer seeking specific personally-relevant outcomes. On the other hand, long-term relationships are value-based (Kanter, 1968; Rousseau and Parks, 1993) and relational (Farmer and Fedor, 1999). Even in the long-term scenario, individuals expect that outcomes which are not necessarily defined in the present will be received at a future point in time. What is not known is whether the expectation for receipt of these undefined outcomes is stronger or more important than the expectation that the volunteer will be doing something of value for the agency or others.

In summary, practical and theoretical justification is strong for considering that volunteers can simultaneously have egoistic as well as altruistic orientations. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss whether altruism or egoism is more important. It may be sufficient to recognize that when individuals volunteer, they will have complex reasons for doing so.

Given egoism's important role in volunteering, and that egoism issues are diverse, we believe the egoism construct should be examined in a multidimensional manner, similar to the literature's treatment of altruism. Studies have validated a multidimensional view of altruism that predicts volunteer decisions more accurately than does a one-dimension altruism construct. Our study focuses on identifying whether a multidimensional view of egoism predicts volunteer behavior more accurately than does a one-dimension egoism construct. We chose our dependent variable, commitment, for a couple of reasons. First, individuals anticipate what the volunteer experience will be with an agency, and they ultimately evaluate that experience. The evaluation process and the implicit nature of volunteer obligations have implications for pre-entry commitment (see Meyer et al., 1991). Second, individuals are likely to spend more time volunteering and to continue volunteering if they feel committed to the organization (Hellman and House, 2006; Meyer et al., 1991).

Commitment

In this study, we seek to build on our understanding of the role of commitment in volunteering. Organizational initiatives often are directed at influencing a volunteer's commitment (and satisfaction) to keep them around (Dailey, 1986). If information about a volunteer's early commitment to an agency could be obtained, then agencies might increase the likelihood that they could attract volunteers who will remain with the agency in the long run. Volunteer attitudes toward the agency can be positively affected if the agency can influence individuals' perceptions of the fit between their needs and the agency's needs (Ravlin and Ritchie, 2006).

Commitment is an attitude that reflects identification with an organization and acceptance of its goals (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Steers et al., 1982). An individual with high commitment intends to be involved in, and remain with, the organization; when one's commitment decreases, he or she is more likely to leave the organization (Dunham et al., 1994).

Researchers have noted that commitment can develop early (e.g., Meyer et al., 1991) and may be evoked from the very act of volunteering (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Tang et al., 1987). Yet commitment cannot be used as a criterion to select individuals from a potential volunteer pool because commitment to an agency is measured after a person has begun to volunteer. Commitment is believed to be developed once a volunteer is exposed to, or involved in, agency programs, policies and activities (e.g., taking on leadership roles enhances commitment) (Stephens et al., 2004). What we need is an individual characteristic that can be measured before a person volunteers--one that predicts commitment. Additional theory on commitment is presented with development of the hypotheses in subsequent sections.

In order to present theoretical hypotheses, we must first conduct a factor analysis to determine if a multidimensional representation of egoism is relevant. This is accomplished in Step One, which is discussed next. Step Two contains the predicted relationships between egoism and commitment.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

Participants--Step One and Step Two

A questionnaire pamphlet was sent to 475 regional area volunteers for a national organization that offers services to children and adolescents. To minimize the variance associated with factors external to our study, we used this pamphlet to gather data for both Step One and Step Two. Further, the data are part of a larger ongoing study on volunteers. The research protocol was approved by an Institutional Review Board and followed the guidelines of the American Psychological Association. Questionnaire pamphlets were returned by 120 respondents, for a response rate of 25.3%. Respondent volunteers were primarily female (85%). Most were young, with 31.6% below age 21, 43.9% were between ages 21 and 30, 11.4% were between ages 31 and 40, and the remaining 13.1% were over age 40. Many of the younger volunteers were college students. Correspondingly, in terms of education, 8.7% of respondents had a top education of high school or below, while 42.1% of respondents had completed some college studies; 32.5% of respondents had completed a technical or undergraduate degree, and 16.7% had progressed through some or all of a graduate degree.

Design and Procedure--Step One and Step Two

This research involved two empirical steps. Step One is exploratory and is guided by the literature. Given that egoism measures already exist and are being used by researchers, we felt it would be most beneficial to explore the multidimensionality of these existing measures. We examined data from 120 actual volunteers to discern whether egoism is reasonably represented by multiple dimensions or by one overall dimension. Because we found that a multidimensional representation was appropriate, we continued in Step Two to compare that model (with commitment as a dependent variable) to the more commonly used single-factor model (also linked to commitment).

Exploratory Step One Materials

Our egoism measures are adapted primarily from work by Omoto and Snyder (1995) and questions asked of the volunteers addressed both altruism and egoism motivations; the basic structure of the questions was modified to reflect the context and type of services provided by the agency in this study. Respondents were asked to consider each egoism need (shown in Table 1), indicating: (1)the importance of the need (used in Step One) and (2) the degree to which each need was fulfilled through volunteering at the agency (used in Step Two). As an example, one egoism item was "Help build my resume." Two egoism items examined the respondents' perceived importance of resume-building as a reason for continued volunteering and the degree to which volunteering was fulfilling this resume building need. The response scale for Importance ranged from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). The response scale for how highly the need was being met through volunteering for the agency ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

Exploratory Step One Results

To begin to evaluate whether multiple dimensions provide a better representation of egoism than a single dimension, first we conducted a maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis on the Importance items, using varimax rotation and specifying eigenvalues [greater than or equal to] 1.0 as the criteria for identifying factors. Seven of the nine egoism scales loaded on three factors. Table 1 shows the measures and corresponding factor loadings. (Two egoism scale items are omitted from Table 1: "Have fun and be helpful at the same time" and "Enhance my self image." These scale items did not have loadings that were clearly interpretable. The measures only explained a small portion of the variance, thus they were excluded from our further analysis.)

The exploratory results provide some empirical justification for viewing egoism as three dimensional. The grouping of scale items into dimensions matches the egoism conceptual discussions found in the literature. The first factor appears to represent an outward focus (Outward Egoism). The needs reflected in this factor parallel the conceptualizations offered by Murnighan et al. (1993) and Batson et al. (1988)--to demonstrate skills to others and to increase the likelihood of being hired. The second factor appears to represent an inward focus, similar to what Batson and Flory (1990) refer to as the need to feel caring and selfless (Inward Egoism). Finally, the third factor appears as an experiential component, corresponding to Klein et al.'s (1994) egoistic need to engage in fulfilling experiences (Experiential Egoism).

To further evaluate the three egoism dimensions, Cronbach Alpha's were examined (see Table 2). The three items that comprise Outward Egoism have an Alpha of 0.835. The two items that comprise Inward Egoism have an Alpha of 0.809. The two items for Experiential Egoism have an Alpha of 0.773.

Confirmatory Step Two Theory and Hypotheses

In Step Two, we compare the three-dimension egoism model to a single overall egoism dimension. Per our earlier discussion, this comparison involves testing the link between egoism and commitment. In this section we discuss commitment and present hypothesized relationships we expect to find between commitment and Outward Egoism, Inward Egoism, and Experiential Egoism.

We use O'Reilly and Chatman's (1986) three-dimension commitment model--Compliance, Identification, and Internalization. This model was developed based on seminal work by Kelman (1958); its validity has been subsequently examined (Vandenberg et al., 1994). The original measures are provided in the Appendix, column 1. Though in subsequent research, they moved to a two-dimension model (Caldwell et al., 1990), our factor analysis supported three factors. Hence, we proceeded to develop hypotheses between egoism and commitment using three dimensions. The adapted scale items as we used them are shown in column 2. The scale items were only changed to fit the organization whose volunteers were completing the questionnaire.

The Compliance factor refers to the individual's receptiveness to following directions. From the agency's perspective, this aspect of commitment is a particularly challenging one for managers to foster in volunteers. Management must handle volunteers differently than employees. In the typical employment relationship, the organization maintains the "right to influence others" (authority) (Aldag and Kuzuhara, 2002: 297), and employees admit to having limited autonomy and complying with organizational directives (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).

Volunteers, on the other hand, are only held to the organization by a psychological contract (Robinson et al., 1994). The agency-volunteer relationships usually are not explicit; they neither state responsibilities and obligations, nor establish expectations. Yet the volunteer enters this relationship anticipating a similar response to agency authority--compliance. They implicitly comply with agency directives because they believe that personal outcomes will accrue (O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Anything that threatens a loss of outcomes would be avoided because the loss of outcomes might be seen as economically inefficient. This loss would be small if the relationship ended early, suggesting a low level of implicit compliance in short-term relationships. But, the longer one stays with an agency, whether to achieve tangible or intangible outcomes, or to meet role needs, the greater the level of implicit compliance they are expected to have.

Individuals are expected to comply most readily when they believe following directions will lead to receipt of extrinsic rewards (O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Therefore, Compliance should connect with Outward Egoism, because this dimension reflects needs that are tangible and outcomes that are visible. Next, Inward Egoism also relates to Compliance but for a different reason. Inward Egoism reflects needs such as feeling caring and selfless when one helps another. Volunteers will comply because following directions will allow them to remain in contact with the agency's clientele, thereby maintaining the relationships that allow the volunteer to feel good.

Thus, we expect:

H1: The Compliance dimension of commitment will be directly correlated with meeting the needs of Outward Egoism.

H2: The Compliance dimension of commitment will be directly correlated with meeting the needs of Inward Egoism.

The Identification factor refers to an individual's desire to be affiliated with an agency. As noted earlier, identification with a particular agency can occur before an individual even begins to volunteer. First, individuals voluntarily enter the decision process; voluntary acts can bind an individual to a final agency choice (Kiesler, 1971). This bond reflects one's identification with the organization, where an individual accepts influence so they can be part of the group (O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986).

Second, individuals also conduct pre-entry evaluations (Phillips, 1982). Early information (e.g., realistic job previews) minimizes the gap between individuals' pre-entry expectations and what volunteers actually do, reducing attrition from the recruitment process (Phillips, 1998). Also, individuals may feel connected to a group without ever interacting with a group (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Once part of the group, the longer the volunteer stays with an agency the more likely he/she will develop a role identity with that particular organization (Piliavin and Callero, 1991).

Finally, the Internalization factor refers to individuals' beliefs that the agency's values are congruent with their own. The longer one remains with an agency, the more likely positive changes occur in individuals as a result of that time spent volunteering (see Callero et al., 1987; Clary and Miller, 1986). They develop commitments to the values of the agency (Knoke and Wright-Isak, 1982). As long as agency values are upheld and outcomes accrue to the beneficiaries and the community, the volunteer continues to believe in the agency (Rousseau and Parks, 1993).

If meeting one's egoism needs leads to commitment, then we contend that an important question is whether the three egoism factors link in different ways to the commitment factors. If they do, then agency efforts to increase commitment must examine if the volunteers' needs are high or low on each of the factors. The examples in Table 3 show the various combinations of High and Low needs on the three factors. When an individual scores high (HHH) or low (LLL) on all three factors, no advantage exists for the multidimensional construct over the single construct. In all other situations, knowledge of individual needs on each factor would direct management efforts in specific ways; misapplication of the egoism construct would result in wasted resources (time, money) as well as a reduced level of volunteer commitment. The next three examples under High--Egoism (HHL, HLH, LHH) depicts situations where volunteers may appear to have high "overall" commitment (if one scale were used) when (in fact) they are Low on one factor. In the second set of examples under "Low--Egoism," only the first row (LLL) would accurately reflect a person who did not have an Egoistic orientation. In the next three rows (LLH, LHL, HLL), a person would be deemed Low in Egoism, when in fact, they were high on one of the Egoism scales.

Suppose egoism was believed to be one-dimensional, when it really is three-dimensional. The agency may be able to satisfy two of the egoism needs but not the third. If the third dimension is important for developing a highly committed volunteer, the agency is now faced with a more difficult decision regarding whether to invite this particular individual to volunteer for the agency. If the individual will not stay with the agency, is it worth the agency's time to train this volunteer?

The Identification dimension of commitment is associated with feeling affiliated to an agency. First, we expect that affiliation feelings are connected to feelings of meeting Inward Egoism needs. For Inward needs, volunteering is an act of caring by all volunteers who participate in the agency. Thus, as a volunteer feels his/her own participation reflects higher caring, then the volunteer should perceive higher caring among others who volunteer at the agency, because they also engage in the same selfless work. Our expectation is that, generally, as people work with others who demonstrate similar concerns and caring, their sense of affiliation should grow. Second, we expect affiliation feelings are connected to feelings of meeting Experiential Egoism needs. Across many types of agencies, volunteer or otherwise, people affiliate to share an experience. If Experiential Egoism needs are not met, the desire to affiliate should lessen. Thus,

H3: The Identification dimension of commitment will be directly correlated with meeting the needs of Inward Egoism.

H4: The Identification dimension of commitment will be directly correlated with meeting the needs of Experiential Egoism.

Finally, the Internalization dimension of commitment is associated with feeling that one's values are similar to the agency's values. Here we expect shared feelings of values are connected to feelings of meeting Experiential Egoism needs. This expectation is based on noting that people who pursue similar experiences often have similar values, and this may be particularly strong among volunteering experiences. For example, in the present study, we gathered data from volunteers who serve at an agency that offers services to children and adolescents. Individuals who volunteer with Experiential Egoism needs frequently desire to experience a sharing with children, and this reflects a value they associate with helping children. As this Experiential Egoism need is met to a greater degree, the sense that values are shared should also increase. Thus,

H5: The Internalization dimension of commitment will be directly correlated with meeting the needs of Experiential Egoism.

Confirmatory Step Two Materials

As noted when describing the method for Step One analysis, data for Step Two were gathered as part of the same questionnaire pamphlet used in Step One. Recall that respondents were asked to rate the importance of each need; the egoism dimensions developed in Step One were based on those ratings. For Step Two we used data from parallel questions that asked respondents then to "rate the degree to which each need was fulfilled." Commitment dimensions were created using scales adapted from O'Reilly and Chatman (1986).

Items used in Step Two analysis are shown in Table 4. The egoism measures continue to have relatively high Cronbach Alpha reliability scores when based on how well volunteers' needs actually were met. The Alpha for the items comprising the Outward Egoism scale was 0.698. The Alpha for the items comprising the Inward Egoism scale was 0.823. And the Alpha for the items comprising the Experiential Egoism scale was 0.784. Alphas for the commitment scales could not be compared to O'Reilly and Chatman's work, as none was reported in their study. The Alpha for our items comprising the Compliance commitment scale was 0.582. The Alpha for the items comprising the Identification commitment scale was 0.767. Two items were used to measure Internalization, one positively worded ("I volunteer for (this agency) because of what it stands for and its values") and one negatively worded ("If the values of (the agency) were different, I would not be as attached to it."). Upon further examination we surmised some respondents had difficulty with the negatively worded question. Ultimately we kept the positively worded measure as a sole indicator of the Internalization commitment dimension. One-item measures can be effective predictors (Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007).

Confirmatory Step Two Results

We tested all hypotheses simultaneously by conducting a path analysis using Amos 5 (Arbuckle, 2003). Conservatively, the full model was tested; in other words we included all links--hypothesized and non-hypothesized--that connect the egoism dimensions to commitment dimensions (with nine regression coefficients tested). Figure I shows the complete model; the hypothesized links are depicted in Figure I with solid arrows, and the non-hypothesized links are depicted with dash arrows.

Four of five hypotheses were supported; results are shown in Table 4. As expected, Outward Egoism and Inward Egoism are associated with Compliance (H1 and H2). Also as expected, Experiential Egoism is associated with Identification and Internalization commitment dimensions (H4 and H5). However, H3 was not supported; that is, the link between Inward Egoism dimension and Identification was not supported.

As an added test, we compared model fits focusing on the model shown in Figure I and a model where all three egoism dimensions were combined into one. As expected, the model with separate egoism dimensions fits the data better ([chi square] = 50.1) than the model with one combined egoism dimension ([chi square] = 55.0), both with three degrees of freedom. These chi-square values indicate both models are significant, and so neither model fully explains the variation in commitment. This is expected, given egoism is the only factor being used to predict commitment, and for our purposes we have omitted other factors that lead to commitment.

DISCUSSION

This study examined whether egoism was multidimensional, as is altruism. We have shown that egoism is composed of three dimensions that relate differentially to each of three dimensions of commitment. Armed with this information, practitioners and researchers may develop a better sense of how and why volunteers continue to participate in agencies.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Managerial Implications

While this study does not demonstrate that any causal relationship exists, we have been able to show that positive correlations exist between egoism and commitment. This finding provides some support for believing that egoistic individuals will develop attitudes that can lead to longer-term relationships with an agency. We also are not able to conclude that egoism is more important than altruism, or vice versa, but we have been able to show that those who study egoism should use a multidimensional conceptualization of egoism. Interestingly, recent medical research found that what is good for us and what is good for others are tracked by the same area of the brain. This suggests that egoism and altruism are intertwined physiologically, and hence pitting one against the other may not make sense (Harbaugh et al., 2007). Finally, as noted above, knowledge about a volunteer's egoistic orientation will not fully explain his or her level of commitment to an agency. In subsequent paragraphs, we discuss the usefulness of egoism as a partial explanatory variable.

As noted by Omoto and Snyder (1995), positive outcomes can accrue to agencies who enlist the help of egoistic volunteers. True, an egoistic volunteer may not remain as long as an altruistic volunteer. Other factors about the situation, however, may determine whether the time an egoistic individual spends in the agency really matters. These might include the immediacy of the need for assistance by the agency or the specialized skill a volunteer brings to the agency. What if, for example, the volunteer brings a critical skill to an agency that agency personnel lack (e.g., ability to facilitate a strategic planning session)? The outcome for the volunteer may be to build a network of organizational connections or to add one more agency to his or her resume. Just because these outcomes have been experienced by the volunteer does not diminish the importance of the volunteer's contribution to the agency and the recipients of the agency's services.

Our study provides some good news for agencies that recognize that some of its volunteers have egoistic reasons for being there. Specific instances arise when an agency would want volunteers to be strong on the Outward, Inward, and Experiential Egoism dimensions. For example, agencies may turn to those volunteers who scored high on Experiential Egoism for roles as community advocates or community educators or to assist with fund-raising activities associated with capital campaigns, operations, special projects, and scholarships. Experiential Egoism is correlated with two dimensions of commitment, Identification and Internalization. Likely the agency will need to groom these volunteers before they are able to assume the roles mentioned earlier. Nonetheless, volunteers who desire personal growth experiences and acquiring new skills would be particularly good candidates for mentoring in any of those roles.

In some contexts, other egoism dimensions may become more salient. For example, if an agency is pursing a low-cost strategy (i.e., it appeals to customers based on the low cost of its services), managers would be particularly interested in recruiting volunteers who are high on the Outward Egoism and Inward Egoism dimensions. Our results show that Outward Egoism and Inward Egoism are cot related with Compliance Commitment. Compliance is important for agencies that are constrained by budget issues. Similarly, many agencies have confidentiality requirements, usually regarding clients or customer files (Hartenian, 2007). These agencies need volunteers (and employees) who accept the authority of agency management, follow directions, abide by standard operating procedures and maintain confidentiality requirements. Deviations from routine operations are often costly, something that is highly undesirable when operating within a tight budget or when lawsuits over lack of confidentiality are possible.

While the egoism and commitment scales have not been presented in this paper in a way that fit specific industry or agency applications, additional research can determine how best to measure these constructs. Working with someone skilled in questionnaire or interview measurement techniques, agencies can assess the reliability and predictive validity of the egoism and commitment scales in a selection context. The development of context-specific scales could enable managers to use the results of our study to directly benefit their agencies.

Research Implications

This study adds to the literature by developing a useful multidimensional representation of egoism. Inward Egoism, Outward Egoism, and Experiential Egoism factors provide a logical extension of prior research that has established a multidimensional representation of altruism. As noted in Table 3, a unidimensional egoism construct is only useful if an individual scores high on all aspects of egoism or low on all aspects--two out of the eight possible combinations across the three factors. A more fully specified model of egoism will do a better job of explaining the variance in commitment and long-term volunteering.

The results of this research thus add knowledge to the study of commitment as well as the study of egoism. Compliance may be more important in contexts where immediate action is needed. Internalization, on the other hand, may be more important in contexts where volunteers must be more autonomous. With the connections we find between egoism and commitment, researchers can now look more thoughtfully at egoism and focus on the egoism dimensions that link to key commitment dimensions.

Limitations and Future Research

Limitations of the research included sample size, number of agencies represented, and gender composition. While a response rate of 25% is acceptable in survey research, a second mailing might have resulted in additional responses. Unfortunately, a limited auxiliary budget precluded the second mailing. Volunteers from only one agency were included in this study; in the future including additional agencies may allow us to study organizational-level variables such as agency efforts to attract volunteers, type of agency rewards available to volunteers, and level of screening completed before accepting an individual as a volunteer with the agency. Finally, because most of the volunteers were women, a comparison across gender was not possible. Mohamed et al. (2006) reviewed the extensive literature on the relationship between gender and commitment. Consistent with earlier research, their findings showed that gender did not interact significantly with the work-related variables in their study. Yet their review noted other research where men were found to have higher commitment than women. And other studies have found women have higher commitment in certain contexts (cf. Chatman and O'Reilly, 2004). Because of these inconsistencies, it may be wise to include gender as either an explanatory or as a control variable.

An empirical limitation in our study was the inability to use O'Reilly and Chatman's (1986) complete set of compliance scale items. Although these commitment items are accepted in the literature, in our context only a subset of the commitment items were useful. As a result, one of our commitment factors, Internalization, was measured with a single item. While we hoped to use multiple-item scales for each construct, our preliminary analysis indicated a single item was more appropriate for this study. Further, we note that recent researchers have concluded that, for many constructs, the predictive validity of single-item scales is as high as the predictive validity of multiple-item scales (Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007).

Future research should compare the relationship between the three dimensions of egoism and the dimensions of altruism. Altruism and egoism have both been viewed as levers that encourage volunteering. Altruism explains some of the variation in volunteering, and yet a solid argument underscores the notion that people volunteer for self-interested reasons. It may be that the multiple dimensions of egoism align with different dimensions of altruism. If so, then the altruism-egoism debate may be more completely resolved by noting how different seemingly-altruistic efforts correspond to specific egoism issues.

A second area worth pursuing is to compare our three-dimensional egoism conceptualization to other multidimensional egoism conceptualizations. For example, consider the reward and punishment dimensions of egoism (Batson et al., 1988). These two dimensions of egoism may be appropriate to understanding the decision to volunteer; whereas, our three dimensions may be more appropriate to understanding the decision to continue volunteering. An important addition to the literature may be clarifying the different ways to decompose egoism, toward a general understanding of this important construct.

Finally, the present research should be followed by a more comprehensive look at causality and predictive validity. Using information about egoism and altruism orientations of individuals gathered prior to a volunteering assignment, the relationship of these orientations to actual types of commitment and to long-term engagement with an agency can be established. Are individuals who have Compliance commitment to an organization as likely to continue to participate as individuals who have Internalized commitment? Do the types of commitment volunteers have to an organization matter? Hence, future research on volunteering should aim toward a more comprehensive model that includes commitment and long-term volunteering as dependent variables. Our contribution illustrates how egoism is one important precursor of commitment, and our work reflects one component of an overall commitment model. A logical extension would be to integrate our findings into a broader commitment model. The comprehensive model presented by Mowen and Sujan (2005) could be expanded upon to include a richer description of the antecedent traits to the type of volunteer orientation that leads to continuous participation with an agency.

Summary and Conclusion

Our most notable finding is that egoism is best represented by multiple dimensions: Inward Egoism, Outward Egoism, and Experiential Egoism. Further, these dimensions are differentially correlated with three dimensions of commitment. Our results help put egoism on a more even footing with altruism from a theoretical perspective.

Our study impacts the literature in three ways. First, researchers should incorporate dimensions of egoism in their studies of volunteering, along with altruism, regardless of the typology they are using to explain volunteer behavior. Second, our findings suggest context-specific measures of egoism dimensions should be developed. Future context-specific measures of egoism dimensions would help generalize our findings to other populations. Third, given the strong relationship between commitment and retention of staff, the next step in exploring this complex relationship is to conduct a path analysis from egoism and altruism, through commitment, to length of service as a volunteer.

The importance of volunteers to many agencies underscores the need to continue to explore how personal characteristics, situational characteristics, and agency characteristics promote long-term volunteering. Working to understand the role that each may play and the dynamics between them benefits theoretical and practical agendas.

Appendix

O'Reilly and Chatman                Commitment Scales in
(1986) Scales                       Current Study

1. If the values of this            1. If the values of [agency] were
   organization were different,        different, I would not be as
   I would not be as attached to       attached to it.
   this organization.

2. The reason I prefer this         2. I prefer [agency] because of
   organization to others is           what it stands for and its
   because of what it stands           values.
   for, its values.

3. I am proud to tell others that   3. I am proud to tell others that
   I am a part of this                 I volunteer for [agency].
   organization.

4. I talk up the university         4. I talk up [agency] to friends
   to my friends as a great            as a great place to volunteer.
   organization to work for.

5. I feel a sense of "ownership"    5. I feel a sense of "belonging"
   for this organization rather        at [agency].
   than being just an employee.

6. Unless I'm rewarded for it in    6. Unless I'm rewarded in some
   some way, I see no reason to        way, I see no reason to expend
   expend extra effort on behalf       extra effort on behalf of
   of this organization.               [agency].

7. How hard I work for the          7. I work harder for [agency]
   organization is directly            when I feel I am appreciated.
   linked to how much I am
   rewarded.

8. In order for me to get           8. In order for me to get
   rewarded around here, it is         rewarded around here, it is
   necessary to express the            necessary to express the
   right attitude.                     "right" attitude.

References

Aldag, R.J. and L. W. Kuzuhara. 2002. Organizational Behavior and Management.

Cincinnati, OH: South-western.

Allen, N.J. and J. P. Meyer. 1990. "Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to Organization." Journal of Occupational Psychology 63: 1-18.

Anderson, J. and B. Clary. 1987. "Coproduction in Emergency Medical Services." Journal of Voluntary Action Research 16 (3): 33-42.

Arbuckle, J. L. 2003. Amos 5. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corp.

Ashforth, B. E. and F. Mael. 1989. "Social Identity Theory and the Organization." Academy of Management Review 14: 20-39.

Avolio, B.J. and E. E. Locke. 2002. "Contrasting Different Philosophies of Leader Motivation: Altruism versus Egoism." Leadership Quarterly 13 (2): 169-191.

Bakker, A. B., K. I. van der Zee, K. A. Lewig and M. F. Dollard. 2006. "The Relationship Between the Big Five Personality Factors and Burnout: A Study Among Volunteer Counselors." Journal of Social Psychology 146 (1): 31-50.

Batson, C. D., N. Ahmad and J. Tsang. 2002. "Four Motives for Community Involvement." Journal of Social Issues 58 (3): 429-245.

--, J. L. Dyck, J. R. Brandt, J. G. Batson, A. L. Powell, M. R. McMaster and C. Griffitt. 1988. "Five Studies Testing Two New Egoistic Alternatives to Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 55: 52-77.

--and J. D. Flory. 1990. "Goal-relevant Cognitions Associated with Helping by Individuals High on Intrinsic, End Religion." Journal for Scientific Study of Religion 29 (3): 346-361.

--and R. A. Gray. 1981. "Religious Orientation and Helping Behavior: Responding to One's Own or to the Victim's Needs?" Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 40 (3): 511-520.

Bergkvist, L. and J. R. Rossiter. 2007. "The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item Versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs." Journal of Marketing Research 34 (2): 175-184.

Brudney, J. L. 1990. Fostering Volunteer Programs in the Public Sector. Planning, Initiating, and Managing Voluntary Activities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Caldwell, D. F., J. A. Chatman and C. A. O'Reilly. 1990. "Building Organizational Commitment: A Multifirm Study." Journal of Occupational Psychology 63: 245-261.

Callero, P. L., J. A. Howard and J. A. Piliavin. 1987. "Helping Behavior as Role Behavior: Disclosing Social Structure and History on the Analysis of Prosocial Action." Social Psychology Quarterly 59: 247-256.

Chatman, J. A. and C. A. O'Reilly. 2004. "Asymmetric Reactions to Work Group Sex Diversity Among Men and Women." Academy of Management Journal 47 (2): 193-208.

Cialdini, R. B., M. Schaller, D. Houlihan, K. Arps, J. Fultz and A. L. Beaman. 1987. "Empathy-based Helping: Is it Selflessly or Selfishly Motivated?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 749-758.

Clary, E. G. and J. Miller. 1986. "Socialization and Situational Influences on Sustained Altruism." Child Development 57 (6): 1358-1369.

--and L. Orenstein. 1991. "The Amount and Effectiveness of Help: The Relationship of Motives and Abilities to Helping Behavior." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17 (1) : 58-64.

Culp, K., III. 1997. "Motivating and Retaining Adult Volunteer 4-H Leaders." Journal of Agricultural Education 38 (2): 1-7.

Dailey, R. C. 1986. "Understanding Organizational Commitment of Volunteers: Empirical and Managerial Implications." Journal of Voluntary Action Research 15: 19-31.

Darley, J. M. and C. D. Batson. 1973. "From Jerusalem to Jericho: A Study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 27 (1): 100-108.

Dunham, R. B., J. A. Grube and M. B. Castaneda. 1994. "Organizational Commitment: Utility of an Integrative Definition." Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 370-380.

Farmer, S. M. and D. B. Fedor. 2001. "Changing the Focus on Volunteering: An Investigation of Volunteers' Multiple Contributions to a Charitable Organization." Journal of Management 27: 191-211.

--and--. 1999. "Volunteer Participation and Withdrawal: A Psychological Contract Perspective on Role of Expectations and Organizational Support." Nonprofit Management & Leadership 9: 349-367.

Harbaugh, W. T., U. Mayr and D. R. Burghart. 2007. "Neural Responses to Taxation and Voluntary Giving Reveal Motives for Charitable Donations." Science 316 (5831): 1622-1625.

Harrison, D. A. 1995. "Volunteer Motivation and Attendance Decisions: Competitive Theory Testing in Multiple Samples from a Homeless Shelter." Journal of applied Psychology 80 (3): 371-386.

Hartenian, L. S. 2007. "Dependence on Direct Service and Indirect Support Volunteers: An Empirical Investigation of Voluntary Organizational Characteristics." Nonprofit Management & Leadership 17 (3): 319-334.

--2004. "Applying Decision Theory to the Decision to Volunteer." Paper presented at the 2004 Academy of Management Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA (paper available upon request).

Hellman, C. M. and D. House. 2006. "Volunteers Serving Sexual Assault Victims." Journal of Social Psychology 146 (1): 117-123.

Houle, B. J., B. J. Sagarin and M. F. Kaplan. 2005. "A Functional Approach to Vohmteerism: Do Volunteer Motives Predict Task Preference?" Basic and Applied Social Psychology 27 (4): 337-344.

Hu, Y. A. and D. Y. Liu. 2003. "Altruism versus Egoism in Human Behavior of Mixed Motives." American Journal of Economics & Sociology 62 (4): 77-705.

Huseman, R. C., J. D. Hatfield and E. W. Miles. 1987. "A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct." Academy of Management Review 12 (2): 222-234.

Kanter, R. M. 1968. "Commitment and Social Organization: A Study of Commitment in Utopian Communities." American Sociological Review 33: 499-517.

Kelman, H. C. 1958. "Compliance, Identification and Internalization." Journal of Conflict Resolution 2: 51-60.

Kiesler, C. A. 1971. The Psychology of Commitment: Experiments Linking Behavior to Belief. San Francisco, CA: Academic Press.

Klein, N. A., K. A. Sondag and J. C. Drolet. 1994. "Understanding Volunteer Peer Health Educators' Motivations: Applying Social Learning Theory." Journal of American College Health 43 (3): 126-131.

Knoke, D. and C. Wright-Isak. 1982. "Individual Motives and Organizational Incentive Systems." Research in the Sociology of Organizations 1 : 209-254.

Liao-Troth, M. A. 2001. "Attitude Differences between Paid Workers and Volunteers." Nonprofit Management & Leadership 11 (4): 423-442.

Martin, M. W. 1994. Virtuous Giving: Philanthropy, Voluntary Service, and Caring. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Meyer, J. P., D. R. Bobocel and N.J. Mien. 1991. "Development of Organizational Commitment During the First Year of Employment: A Longitudinal Study of Pre- and Post-Entry Influences." Journal of Management 17 (4): 717-733.

Mohamed, F., G. S. Taylor and A. Hassan. 2006. "Affective Commitment and Intent to Quit: The Impact of Work and Non-work Related Issues." Journal of Managerial Issues 18 (4): 512-527.

Mowen, J. C. and H. Sujan. 2005. "Volunteer Behavior: A Hierarchical Model for Investigating its Trait and Functional Motive Antecedents." Journal of Consumer Psychology 15 (2): 170-182.

Murnighan, J. K.,J. W. Kim and R. A. Metzger. 1993. "The Volunteer Dilemma." Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (4): 515-538.

O'Driscoll, M. P., D. R. Ilgen and K. Hildreth. 1992. "Time Devoted to Job and Off-Job Activities, Interrole Conflict, and Affective Experiences." Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (3): 272-279.

Omoto, A. M. and M. Snyder. 1995. "Sustained Helping without Obligation: Motivation, Longevity of Service, and Perceived Attitude Change among MDS Volunteers." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (4): 671-686.

O'Reilly, C., III and J. Chatman. 1986. "Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization of Prosocial Behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3): 492-499.

Penner, L. A. and M. A. Finkelstein. 1998. "Dispositional and Structural Determinants of Volunteerism." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (2): 525-537.

Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers.

Phillips, M. 1982. "Motivation and Expectation in Successful Volunteerism." Journal of Voluntary Action Research 11: 118-125.

Phillips, J. M. 1998. "Effects of Realistic Job Previews on Multiple Organizational Outcomes: A Meta-analysis." Academy of Management Journa1 41 (6): 673-690.

Piferi, R. L., R. L. Jobe and W. H.Jones. 2006. "Giving to Others during National Tragedy: The Effects of Mtruistic and Egoistic Motivations on Long-Term Giving." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 23 (1): 171-184.

Piliavin, J. A. and P. Callero. 1991. Giving Blood: The Development of an Altruistic Identity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

--, J. F. Dovidio, S. L. Gaertner and R. D. Clark III. 1981. Emergency Intervention. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Ravlin, E. C. and M. C. Ritchie. 2006. "Perceived and Actual Organizational Fit: Multiple Influences on Attitudes." Journal of Managerial Issues 18 (2): 175-192.

Robinson, S. L., M. S. Kraatz and D. M. Rousseau. 1994. "Changing Obligations and the Psychological Contract: A Longitudinal Study." Academy of Management Journal 37 (1): 137-152.

Rousseau, D. M. and J. M. Parks. 1993. "The Contracts of Individuals and Organizations." Chapter in Research in Organizational Behavior. Eds. B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 1-43.

--and S. A. Tijoriwala. 1999. "What's a Good Reason to Change? Motivated Reasoning and Social Accounts in Promoting Organizational Change." Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (4): 514-528.

Sainer, J. and M. L. Zander. 1971. "Guidelines tor Older Person Volunteers." The Gerontologist 11: 201-204.

Scott, W. R. 1998. Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Smith, D., B. Baldwin and W. Chittick. 1981. "U.S. National Vohmtary Organizations, Transnational Orientations and Development." Chapter in Volunteers, Voluntary Associations, and Development. Eds. D. H. Smith and F. Elkin. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Steers, R., R. Mowday and L. Porter. 1982. Fmployee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover: New York, NY: Academic Press.

Stephens, R. D., D. D. Dawley and D. B. Stephens. 2004. "Commitment on the Board: A Model of Volunteer Directors' Levels of Organizational Commitment and Sell:reported Performance." Journal of Managerial Issues 16 (4): 593-604.

Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner. 1985. "The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviors." Chapter in Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Eds. S. Worchel and W. G. Austin. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. pp. 7-24.

Tang, T. L., P. S. Tollison and H. D. Whiteside. 1987. "The Effect of Quality Circle Initiation on Motivation to Attend Quality Circle Meetings and on Task Performance." Personnel Psychology 40 (4): 799-814.

Turner, H. B. 1992. "Older Volunteers: An Assessment of Two Theories." Educational Gerontology 18: 41-55.

Unger, L. S. 1991. "Altruism as a Motivation to Volunteer." Journal of Economic Psychology 12: 71-100.

Vandenberg, R. J., R. M. Self and J. H. Seo. 1994. "A Critical Examination of the Internalization, Identification, and Compliance Commitment Measures." Journal of Management 20 (1): 123-140.

Zurcher, L. A. 1978. "Ephemeral Roles, Voluntary Action, and Voluntary Associations." Journal of Voluntary Action Research 7: 65-74.

Linda S. Hartenian

Professor of Management and Human Resources 

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

Bryan Lilly

Associate Professor of Marketing

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

* The authors would like to thank JMI's anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and insights, and the editorial staff for their direction.

Table 1
Step One Analysis: Egoism Dimension

                                    Factor-1   Factor-2     Factor-3
Importance                          Outward     Inward    Experiential
                                     Egoism     Egoism       Egoism

Repay the organization.              .506*      .241         .239
Complete school/community service
  requirement.                       .759*      .213         .103
Help build my resume.                .689*      .103         .182
Develop better human relations
  skills.                            .234       .945*        .203
Become more sensitive to others.     .331       .611*        .244
Have personal growth
  opportunities.                     .159       .251         .599*
Acquire/develop new skills,
  experiences.                       .248       .346         .863*

Note: The bold numbers indicate the scale
item loadings on the final factors.

Note: The bold numbers indicate the scale item
loadings on the final factors indicated with *.

Table 2
Step Two Analysis: Measures Used for Commitment and Egoism

                 Measure                        Dimension      Alpha *

Egoism: Degree Need was Met

1. Repay the organization.                       Outward        .698

2. Complete school/community                     Egoism        (.835)
   service requirement.

3. Help build my resume.

4. Develop better human relations skills.        Inward         .823

5. Become more sensitive to others.              Egoism        (.809)

6. Have personal growth opportunities.        Experiential      .784

7. Acquire/develop new skills,                   Egoism        (.773)
   experiences.

Commitment: Adapted from O'Reilly and Chatman (1986)

1. Unless I'm rewarded in some way, I see
   no reason to expend extra effort on
   behalf of (organization).

2. In order for me to get rewarded around      Compliance       .582
   here, it is necessary to express the
   "right" attitude.
3. I work harder for (organization) when
   I feel I am appreciated.

4. I am proud to tell others that I
   volunteer for (organization).

5. I talk up (organization) as a great       Identification     .767
   place to volunteer.

6. I feel a sense of belonging at
   (organization).

7. I volunteer for (organization) because    Internalization   Single
   of what it stands for/its values.                           item **

* The Cronbach Alpha's from Step I are in parentheses.

** A second item for the Internalization dimension was negatively
worded, "If the values of (the organization) were different, I
would not be as attached to it." The Alpha between the two
Internalization items was low, and we kept the positively worded
item.

Table 3
High and Low Levels of Commitment for Three Egoism Factors

                        Three Egoism Factors

                  Outward   Inward   Experiential
                  Egoism    Egoism      Egoism

High Commitment
  Full               H        H           H
  Partial            H        H           L
  Partial            H        L           H
  Partial            L        H           H

Low Commitment
  Full               L        L           L
  Partial            L        L           H
  Partial            L        H           L
  Partial            H        L           L

Table 4
Step Two Analysis: Path Coefficients

                Hypothesis                    Coefficient  P-value

H1: Outward Egoism ... Compliance                .141        .029
H2: Inward Egoism ... Compliance                 .241        .028
H3: Inward Egoism ... Identification             .016          ns
H4: Experiential Egoism ... Identification       .322       <.001
H5: Experiential Egoism ... Internalization      .439       <.001