Sociological theories have shed light on volunteering as a form of prosocial behaviour and group behaviour. They have placed volunteers in a broader social context where group norms influence behaviour, however, the influences of ‘rational man’ thinking appear to have affected even this sociological approach which aims to understand why people would be altruistic.
Altruism is a form of prosocial behaviour which is ‘intended to benefit another, even when this risks possible sacrifices’ (Monroe 1996 cited in Knox 1999: 477).
Altruism is seen as fundamental to the ethos of volunteering “the value of
disinterested giving and altruistic action” (Kenny 2003: 17). Cultural, psychological, evolutionary and personality theories have all been used to answer questions of altruism.
Reciprocity is a key sociological explanation for altruism. It is argued that altruism is maintained in society because altruistic behaviour is rewarded, and non-altruistic behaviour punished by a large portion of the population (Gintis 2003; Trivers 1971 cited in Penner et al. 2005). While the strength of ‘blood ties’ and prosocial behaviour has been demonstrated in numerous studies, the role of groups and reciprocal altruism is used to explain altruism with those other than relatives (Penner et al. 2005: 370). This reciprocal type of altruism is believed to have provided evolutionary benefits to humans (Penner et al. 2005: 369-371) and these evolutionary arguments have been widely accepted though not unchallenged (Gintis 2003: 157; Penner et al. 2005: 369-372).
Initially evolutionary approaches supported the argument that altruism was really based on self-interest and harsh judgements of altruistic behaviour were common in the 1970s: ‘What passes for cooperation turns out to be a mixture of opportunism and exploitation….Scratch an altruist, and watch a hypocrite bleed’ (Ghiselin 1974: 247 cited in Gintis et al. 2003: 154). However, Gintis and others (Gintis 2003; Gintis et al. 2003) using experimental data have begun to argue that not all reciprocity can be explained by self-interest, and propose that ‘strong reciprocity’ is a predisposition to cooperate with others that spreads through the internalization of norms and provides evolutionary benefits. This approach fits more strongly with ideas of an inherent prosocial capacity in humans and Archer’s (2000) theory of the developmental process of identity.
The process of internalizing norms of altruism is central to Gintis’s (2003:181) explanation of prosocial behaviour. Socialisation theory with the idea that cultural and social norms are passed on over generations by the internalization of norms has strongly influenced many sociological studies (Durkheim 1951; Mead 1963; Parsons 1967). There is support for the socialisation link to volunteering as the link between cultural norms and volunteering has been shown in many studies.
For example, studies have found strong links between religiosity and volunteering (Fisher, and Schaffer 1993; Wilson, and Musick 1997; Wuthnow 1987, 1998); and differences in gendered volunteer roles (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2000).
Cultural explanations of volunteering have recently considered identity and roles as explanatory frameworks. Grube and Piliavin (2000; 2002) used a role identity model to explain volunteer retention. The model explains that the perceived expectations of others motivate individuals to volunteer, but that the experience of organisational factors such as status or the role, lead to the development of a ‘volunteer role identity’ where the role becomes part of the volunteers personal identity (Grube, and Piliavin 2000). The model when tested found significant associations between volunteer role identity and intentions to continue volunteering and the hours volunteered and the authors argue that a volunteer role identity is necessary for sustained volunteering. The study also considered the effect of organisational experiences on retention and fostering a volunteer role identity and found that status and how the organisation used funds were important. The role identity model while providing new insights into volunteer retention continues to focus on the volunteer as an individual, and targets managerial concerns of sustained volunteering. By focusing on role identity, the authors place themselves within the psychological identity tradition of the late 1970s which lacked a critical edge, presenting identities as relatively fixed and stable factors born of roles.
In a development on their original work, the concept of role as a resource was used to incorporate matters of both structure and agency in a study of how identity could explain social dissent (Piliavin et al. 2002). The authors place social roles as ‘a central resource for establishing identity and for structuring the self’ (Piliavin et al. 2002: 481). These findings highlight that studies of identity may be a fruitful area of theoretical exploration in volunteer studies.
The use of social identity for explanations of prosocial behaviour have focused on the way an individual’s identity is influenced by group norms and values and how this facilitates cooperative action (Klandersman 2001: 277). There is a significant level of loyalty between members of in-groups, but group boundaries are flexible
and can change as situations change, in a manner that fits with Archer’s
morphogenesis (2000). Some studies have found that re-categorising in-groups to be more inclusive can reduce conflict and bias (Gaertner et al 2000 cited in Penner et al. 2005: 382) There is room for further work on how volunteer identity affects group performance and the stratification and power issues inherent in in-group and out-group interactions and conflicts.
Studies of prosocial behaviour have demonstrated similar patterns to those of
citizenship and volunteer motivation, that is a siloing of economic, psychological and sociological theory (Gintis 2003: 155). All of these single factor analyses increase our understanding of volunteers, however, only recently have explanations of
volunteering that incorporate elements of psychological, economic and
socio-structural theories been proposed. Gintis (2003) uses internalization of norms to link sociological, economic and evolutionary arguments of altruism. Volunteering has also been explained by linking personality, social structures, and intrapersonal
cognitive processes (such as identity) through the use of a large national dataset (Hart, Atkins and Donnelly cited in Penner et al. 2005). In another example, demographic characteristics were linked with a range of capital (social, cultural, and human) to look for predictors of volunteering (Wilson, and Musick 1997).
The use of more integrative theories to explain volunteering fits with the approach taken in this study, where both individual and collective concerns are incorporated. However, within volunteer studies such approaches are still relatively new, and there is a dearth of literature that includes structural concerns within such approaches. The upsurge in interest in social capital and networks has been one recent approach that links cultural and structural concerns to explanations of volunteering, and the utility of this approach will be explored next.