A Meaningful Break in a Flat Life

Abstract

International Voluntary Service (IVS) is slowly becoming more popular as more and more people take breaks from their studies or careers to volunteer abroad. However, research on the motivation of volunteers is quite limited and mainly conducted by means of qualitative methods. This study attempts to analyze the motivations that prompt people to serve internationally. I used the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) plus some items that refer to specific motives gathered from literature. The results show multiple and mixed motivations that, according to the correlational analysis, can be grouped into two motivational patterns, one “outward focused” and the other “inward focused.” These patterns are variously associated with some perceived facets of the experience abroad. Finally, the importance of understanding the various motivations and how matching them to the sending program might enhance volunteer satisfaction is discussed.

Keywords

International Voluntary Service motivations Volunteer Functions Inventory experience abroad

Introduction

International Voluntary Service (IVS) is undergoing a quiet expansion (Leigh, 2005; McBride & Lough, 2010; McBride, Lough, & Sherraden, 2012; Sherraden, Stingham, Sow, & McBride, 2006), and people increasingly take breaks from their studies or careers to work as volunteers in other countries. Some scholars suggest due to increased globalization (Lough, 2014), the world seems smaller and “flatter” (Friedman, 2005). IVS has also, as has happened in other areas of economy and society, entered the age of Internet. This has greatly facilitated the sharing of information between countries in various parts of the world and seems to promote new initiatives by matching volunteers to organizations (Anheier & Salamon, 1999). In addition, international travel has become more widely available than ever before (Lewis, 2006). These are some conditions that make it easier for people to volunteer, but it might also be suggested that there may be “new” motives behind the decision to devote a period of one’s life to IVS.

In contemporary Western employment markets, higher order skills (G. Thomas, 2001) such as intercultural communication, leadership, teamwork, intuition, innovation, creativity, problem solving, self-assurance, and adaptability are becoming just as important as academic qualifications. Even if research on the impact of IVS experiences on the volunteers is very limited (Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Jones, 2005; Machin, 2008; McBride et al., 2012), the few studies that do exist have indicated that IVS experience potentially develops these skills. Thus, IVS seems to be an excellent way of improving job opportunities (Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Machin, 2008; McBride et al., 2012) and also generates personal growth in, for example, critical thinking, intercultural competence, self-awareness, and openness to experience. This may be an additional reason why more and more people wish to do IVS.

What IVS Is

As it embraces a vast array of disparate activities, volunteering is a complex phenomenon (Hustinx, Cnaan, & Handy, 2010). According to the various different theoretical perspectives that are related to its functions and meanings, multiple definitions of volunteerism exist, each of them referring to a number of different constituent elements. From a psychological perspective, Penner (2002) stated that there are four elements that define and distinguish volunteerism from other kinds of pro-social actions: Volunteering is (a) a planned action (i.e., it does not refer to reflexive acts of assistance or reactions to emergency situations) and (b) long-term behavior that involves (c) “non-obligated” helping (i.e., not offered to relatives, friends, or acquaintances). It also occurs in (c) an organizational context. Snyder and Omoto’s (2008) definition added two further features: Voluntary service is performed toward people who desire and accept assistance or on behalf of causes that need support; it is performed with reference to the volunteer’s own goal, without expectation of reward or other compensation. Recently, Wilson (2012) has argued for a broader definition of volunteering. Indeed, he states that whether or not a voluntary act can be labeled as such is a matter of degree (see also Hustinx et al., 2010). This is particularly true in the case of IVS, which fits some but not all of these elements.

As in the case of domestic volunteering, there is more than one definition of IVS in literature. Sherraden et al. (2006) defined IVS as

an organized period of engagement and contribution to society sponsored by public or private organizations, and recognized and valued by society, with no or minimal compensation to the participant, [who] serve[s] at least part of the time in another country. (p. 165, emphasis added)

Here the two elements that distinguish international from domestic volunteers are the volunteer’s continuous engagement restricted to a specific period of time and the location (overseas) where the voluntary service is performed—even if Sherraden and colleagues’ definition does not imply that IVS has to be limited to service performed abroad. People can serve for IVS organizations in their own countries by providing services via Internet or facilitating the collection and transfer of local resources.

Watts (2002) and Unstead-Joss (2008) highlighted a further attribute of IVS: International volunteers are people who live in high-income countries and decide to serve in poor, far-off societies (Watts, 2002, p. 60). This implies that, generally speaking, not all voluntary service abroad may be defined as IVS. Beyond the debate about a possible neocolonialistic and paternalistic attitude in the sending organizations and the people engaged in IVS (Lewis, 2006), the focus here is on the unequal conditions between the sending countries and the countries where volunteers are called to serve. The reference to cultural differences between the host and sending communities is clearly stressed in the definition proposed by G. Thomas (2001), who stressed that “international volunteers make a total commitment to another culture for a specific term, so that their contribution is not a solitary act or a voluntary donation of time, but rather a distinct period in that individual’s life” (p. 22, emphasis added). G. Thomas’s definition implies that voluntary work might also be unique in terms of its importance and meaningfulness for the volunteer.

To sum up, international volunteering, like domestic volunteering, includes an organizational background and unrewarded and “non-obligated” helping toward beneficiaries who mostly accept it. In addition, both originate from the free and intentional choice of the volunteer to help (Penner, 2002; Snyder & Omoto, 2008). Regarding the length of voluntary service, domestic volunteering generally entails continuous “short” periods of service that interrupt day-to-day life, but in contrast, IVS entails a significant break in an individual’s life (G. Thomas, 2001; Unstead-Joss, 2008) taking the person far from home for a committed, determined time. Thus, the length of service and the volunteer’s immersion in another culture seem to be the attributes that typify IVS in comparison with domestic volunteering. Obviously, despite these general definitions, IVS remains a multifaceted phenomenon that varies in many aspects (Anheier & Salamon, 1999; Lewis, 2006).

Sherraden et al. (2006) attempted to describe the forms and structure of IVS on the basis of the type of program and the type of sending organization. They proposed a distinction between IVS promoting international understanding and IVS providing development aid and humanitarian relief. The programs may be further divided in terms of the length of service and type of placement (individual or in groups). The authors make a distinction between short-term (1-8 weeks), medium-term (3-6 months), and long-term (6 months or more) service. Programs promoting international understanding typically do not require volunteers to have special skills, and young people in groups (without particular skills) are frequently recruited. Moreover, short- and medium-term service is more common for this type of service. On the contrary, programs for development aid and humanitarian relief generally recruit volunteers on the basis of their specific (often professional) competences; the expected commitment can not only be short, medium, or long term but can also be episodic, lasting several years. Service in groups is less common than individual placement.

Who Volunteers Internationally?

The demographic profile of domestic volunteers is well known. Wilson (2012) in his recent review summarized the individual characteristics and potential conditions that make people likely to volunteer. Conversely, less descriptive information is available about international volunteers. McBride and Lough (2010), using national population data relative to the year 2005, analyzed the most common demographic attributes of international volunteers in the United States. They found that, compared with domestic volunteers, those who are the most likely to volunteer internationally are young, foreign born, highly educated individuals without dependent children. They are usually not employed full-time, and they are often male.

Previously, a survey conducted by Dwyer (2004) in the United States revealed that having studied abroad increases the likelihood that young people will engage in IVS. Consequently, Horn and Fry (2013) investigated which characteristics of the programs for studying abroad foster developmental volunteering in young people. The results showed that studying abroad in a developing country, participating in an international service-learning program and participating in a longer term rather than a shorter term program each make unique contributions to the propensity for international developmental volunteering.

The psychological variables related to disposition that characterize domestic volunteers have also been widely investigated (Wilson, 2012), whereas very little is known about people who decide to serve overseas. In their longitudinal study, Hudson and Inkson (2006) recruited 47 individuals who were about to engage in IVS. The participants’ personal characteristics were investigated with the NEO Personality Inventory -Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992) in a preassignment phase. The results showed that these potential international volunteers had higher levels of openness (imagination, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values) and agreeableness than normative groups in the general population. Moreover, it appears that their personalities included values characterized by idealism and they welcomed the idea of novelty and a challenge.

Placement Conditions

As G. Thomas (2001) pointed out in his definition of IVS, the immersion of the volunteer in a culture that is different from the one that he or she belongs to is a specific facet of the experience overseas. Living side by side with members of the host community, international volunteers potentially acquire more accurate information about the culture in question. Lough (2011) defined cultural immersion as “the depth of volunteers’ involvement and participation in a new culture, which typically increases as individuals establish personal relationships with host community members, and live and study in new cultural environments” (p. 453). With reference to Allport’s (1954) suggestions concerning intergroup relationships, Lough proposed that the cultural immersion that international volunteers experience can diminish tension, prejudice, and stereotypes (Pettigrew, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and engender cultural learning (Ogberg, 1960). However, this does not exclude the risk that, as often happens, a volunteer will experience a kind of “disorienting dilemma” (Lough, 2011, p. 454). Many volunteers have reported extreme and stressful conditions during their service abroad (Fee & Gray, 2011; Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Lough, 2011; Rothwell & Charleston, 2012; Unstead-Joss, 2008). The gap between their own culture and that of the host country might exacerbate any stress perceived. However, if a volunteer copes effectively with these stressful conditions, it seems that ultimately IVS can result in an experience which is both developmental and transformative.

Lough (2011) stated that reflection (i.e., a reflective and critical appraisal of previous beliefs and assumptions enacted alone or with others) helps volunteers to deal with any stress or negative feelings such as those stemming from their first encounter with extreme poverty. In addition, when there is contact reciprocity, that is, people perceive equal status, share goals, and experience no significant competition, the IVS experience seems to be more satisfactory (Lough, 2011). Taking Lough’s suggestions into account, it might be expected that for an experience to be perceived as positive and transformative (as reported by volunteers; Unstead-Joss, 2008), it ultimately depends on whether the above-mentioned conditions are present (Lough, McBride, Sherraden, & O’Hara, 2011; Sherraden, Lough, & McBride, 2008).

Motivations to Serve Internationally

“Why people help” and “why they decide to engage in and remain committed to voluntary service” are crucial topics for nonprofit organizations and for society in general due to the importance that voluntary workforce has in fulfilling many requirements in contemporary societies in terms of welfare. Snyder and Omoto (2008) stated that volunteerism is a curious phenomenon because it occurs without pressure of circumstances and without bonds of obligation toward the recipients. Moreover, voluntary activities are generally effortful, time-consuming, and have potential costs. Nevertheless, people seek opportunities to volunteer and often continue over time. From the authors’ perspective, this is because voluntary service helps people to satisfy some of their needs. This functionalist approach assumes that although different people can perform the same actions, these actions may serve different psychological functions and satisfy different needs for different people (Clary et al., 1998). In other words, people may have different underlying motivations for volunteering, and the importance of each motive varies among individuals. Furthermore, it is more likely that a volunteer will continue to serve if volunteering fulfills the function that is most important to them (Stukas, Worth, Clary, & Snyder, 2009). Clary et al. (1998) identified the most common functions as

Values: Volunteerism permits people to express altruistic and humanitarian values and attitudes;

Understanding: Volunteering provides an opportunity to acquire new knowledge and learn new skills or to exercise those that remain unused elsewhere;

Social: Volunteering offers the opportunity to widen one’s acquaintance and to be considered in a favorable light by important others;

Career: Volunteerism may provide benefits because skills are developed which may be useful for a current or future job, and useful contacts may be established;

Protective: Volunteering can reduce feelings of guilt over being more fortunate than other people and help a volunteer to escape from negative feelings and personal problems;

Enhancement: Volunteering may enhance positive effects and improve self-esteem and self-image.

Whereas it is considered that altruistic and humanitarian values are other-focused in nature and reflect the volunteer’s desire to benefit other people, the other motivational functions are self-focused in nature and lead to benefits for the volunteer (Omoto & Snyder, 1995). To assess the six functions and their importance, the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) was developed. According to Wilson (2012), the VFI is extremely useful and has in fact been used in many studies, even though it has been criticized on a number of grounds, for example, it is not exhaustive in terms of potential motivations, it has a social desirability bias, it prompts reasons that might not have occurred to the respondent before, and there is variability in the salience of motivations from one situation to another (see Shye, 2010).

However, no empirical investigations into the motivations of international volunteers returning from overseas placements have as yet been carried out using the VFI. Nevertheless, the six motivational functions that the VFI assesses have been used as a theoretical reference in a few studies which have analyzed motivations to volunteer internationally by means of interviews.

Houle, Sagarin, and Kaplan (2005) and Handy et al. (2010) found that people chose types of voluntary service according to what they perceived would satisfy the motives that are most important to them. In line with this, it would be expected that, beyond a general intention to engage in volunteering, specific motivations can affect the decision to engage in IVS. As the VFI was developed to capture the functions that volunteering seems to serve with reference to domestic volunteers, it might be that some aspects (i.e., those that prompt the decision to volunteer internationally) are lacking. Indeed, some researchers (Rehberg, 2005; Unstead-Joss, 2008) found that many motivations reported by international volunteers in interviews met the six functions of the VFI and that additional motives exist. All of these help in terms of understanding better the motivational structure underlying international volunteering.

A pioneering study was conducted by Rehberg (2005) who interviewed 118 potential international volunteers (people who had previously inquired about options in volunteering overseas) and asked them why they were interested in it. The analyses of the responses led to the formation of 12 categories divided by Rehberg into three groups: “Achieving something positive for others,” “Quest for new,” and “Quest for oneself.” The first and third groups overlap some of the functions in the VFI (specifically: values, understanding, career, and enhancement). With reference to “Quest for new,” even if this may be related to understanding (i.e., the concept of exploring something unknown), Rehberg seems to emphasize the significance of the volunteers’ specific interest in exploring new cultures, new people, and foreign languages, in addition to their desire to do something completely different and get away from their normal environment. As is usual, one motive frequently occurred with others of the same or a different group, but often (40%) the replies included a pattern of motives belonging to all three groups. Therefore, as the research into domestic volunteering has already shown (Kiviniemi, Snyder, & Omoto, 2002; Marta, Guglielmetti, & Pozzi, 2006), a combination of altruistic and self-oriented motivations is extremely common in international volunteers. Watts’s (2002) interviews with people serving in Cambodia also suggested the presence of egoistic motivations. In this study, the participants stated that changed circumstances (which in extreme cases might refer to personal and professional traumas) consistently preceded the decision to volunteer. Watts’s results in any case seem to suggest that altruism was not part of the decision to volunteer.

The preassignment phase of the longitudinal study conducted by Hudson and Inkson (2006) included interviews which aimed to investigate the participants’ motivations to engage in IVS. The participants reported multiple reasons but those more frequently reported can be grouped into seven categories that the authors referred to as always wanted, altruism, different culture, search for meaning, challenge, adventure, and career move. Among these, Hudson and Inkson stressed the importance of the opportunities for challenge, adventure, and life change that IVS offers.

Unstead-Joss (2008) argued that both a general motivation to “do good” and the wish to change the lives of others could be recognized. Her findings supported the idea that a commitment to a process of change involves a process of empowering the host community by first empowering the volunteers themselves (in terms of Freire’s, 1973, concept of “conscientisation”¹). Unstead-Joss conducted 12 interviews with returning volunteers. In her analysis, the motivations reported by the participants were, where possible, categorized according to the motivational functions outlined by Clary et al. (1998). Most met the six motivational functions, but some of the participants’ explanations seem to enrich the sources of motivation: Sometimes the intention to leave was prompted by an acknowledgment that the humanitarian values that the person adhered to were not the same as those of the people they lived and worked with; sometimes participants mentioned their wish to be immersed in another culture to learn about different ways of life. Indeed, the opportunity for full immersion that IVS provides was what led them to reject the idea of traveling abroad to work as a highly paid expatriate.

To sum up, the motivations of international volunteers which do not directly relate to the six motivational functions of Clary et al. (1998) seem to refer to a desire to change something in their lives and to take advantage of an opportunity to learn more about other cultures. This desire for change seems to imply a desire for new experiences and/or a wish to get away from old experiences calling to mind the dichotomy related to “escape-seeking” and the concept of “push-pull” factors as interplaying motivational forces (e.g., Iso-Ahola, 1980). In turn, these concepts are related to novelty and arousal seeking as discussed by Berlyne (1966), Zuckerman (1979), and Mehrabian and Russel (1973). In other words, what seems to characterize people’s motivations to engage specifically in IVS is that this type of voluntary activity satisfies a desire for adventure and/or challenges. This is because IVS provides an opportunity to experience a way of life that, culturally speaking, is completely different from the person’s usual way of life.

Aims of the Study

As IVS is a growing phenomenon and as, under the right conditions, it potentially develops important skills in volunteers, it is crucial to examine why people decide to engage in IVS and how the institutional programs can make these experiences meaningful for the volunteers and useful for the host community (Lough, 2014). Accurate investigations into why people decide to volunteer overseas might increase the efficacy of sending organizations in terms of management and strategies (Unstead-Joss, 2008).

The present study aimed to investigate the motivations of a group of volunteers who had returned from IVS to determine whether and to what extent during their period abroad those conditions that seem to result in a satisfactory experience were present. In particular, I focused on (a) which of the motivational functions that volunteering serves in domestic volunteers are perceived to be the most important for international volunteers; (b) how these motivations are associated with the specific reasons that prompt people to engage in IVS; and (c) the relationships between these motivations (in terms of their importance) and the quality of the experience that the volunteer had during his or her placement. The quality of the experience was operationalized in terms of the degree of immersion, reflection, and contact reciprocity.

The Study

Participants

All data were collected via a secure website. To guarantee anonymity, the author contacted a number of Italian IVS organizations who then invited their volunteers to fill in the questionnaire. The information sent to each organization included a brief description of what constitutes an international volunteer to prevent them including other people working in international non-governmental organizations (NGOs; for example, paid NGO workers). In total 138 people accessed to website, and 77 of them completed the questionnaire in full.

Personal information relating to the period of data collection (2012)

The mean age was 44.60 (SD = 13.29; minimum = 22, maximum = 72), 63.6% were women, 27.3% volunteered only internationally, whereas the others reported that they were also domestic volunteers.

Information relating to the IVS experience

The volunteers did their IVS in various countries: 40.8% of the assignments were in Africa, 39.5% in South America, and 19.7% in Asia; 39.0% of the volunteers served overseas only once, 26.0% had served twice, 9.1% had served 3 times, and 25.9% had served more than 3 times.

Future intentions

The participants were asked whether they would engage in IVS in the future; 55.8% asserted that they intended to volunteer overseas again in their life and 37.7% did not totally exclude it as a possibility.

Instruments

Motivation was assessed by means of the VFI (Clary et al., 1998), the 30-item scale that measures the functions that volunteering can serve. The validation and adaptation of the VFI into Italian was conducted by Capanna, Steca, and Imbimbo (2003). In the Italian version, a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely) is used to indicate the extent to which each motive is important. The scores of the six functions were calculated by computing the averages of the scores of the five items relating to each subscale. Means and alpha values are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Alpha Values Related to the Variables Assessed.

	M	SD	α	Number of items
VFI–Values	3.44	0.94	.691	5
VFI–Understanding	3.40	0.88	.728	5
VFI–Social	2.42	0.95	.721	5
VFI–Career	2.31	1.27	.917	5
VFI–Protective	2.05	1.19	.912	5
VFI–Enhancement	2.61	0.92	.787	5
Cultural learning	3.51	1.49	—	1
Seek	2.66	1.24	.840	2
Escape	2.25	1.36	.811	2
Reflection	3.33	0.94	.777	5
Contact reciprocity	3.58	1.14	.921	3
Cultural immersion	3.58	1.13	.739	3

Note. In the last column, the total number of items used to measure each variable is reported. VFI = Volunteer Functions Inventory.

In addition, on the basis of the results of the studies carried out by Rehberg (2005), Hudson and Inkson (2006), and Unstead-Joss (2008), who investigated the motivations that prompt people to volunteer abroad, I created five items specifically referring to potential motives to engage in IVS as reported in Table 2. Using a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely), the participants evaluated the importance of each motive. As these specific motives may satisfy some of the same motivational functions that the VFI assesses, I examined this by conducting an oblique factor analysis with 35 items. The resulting scree plot of the eigenvalues revealed that the leveling off to a straight horizontal line occurred after the sixth eigenvalue. Therefore, I ran the analysis to a preselected six-factor solution which accounted for 65.02% of the total variance. The results showed that motives which are specific to engaging in IVS share communalities with some subscales of the VFI. Interest in increasing knowledge of other cultures (Item 1) loaded on VFI–Understanding (.769). Desire for adventure (Item 2) loaded on VFI–Career (.434). Item 3 (a wish to do something different from routine) loaded on VFI–Enhancement (.314). Finally, Item 4 (the opportunity to leave the place where the volunteer lives/works) and Item 5 (using dead time) both loaded on VFI–Protective and VFI–Career (Item 4: .457 and .531; Item 5: .456 and .527). Taken as a whole, these results suggest that these specific motives might contribute toward some of the volunteering motivational functions.

Table 2.

Factor Loadings After Varimax Rotation for the Two-Factor Solution of the Specific Motivation to Serve Internationally.

	Factor 1	Factor 2
1. By means of volunteering, I can increase my knowledge of different countries and cultures.		−.855
2. Volunteering satisfies my desire for adventure.	.929
3. Volunteering satisfies my desire to do something different, something outside my usual routine.	.881
4. Volunteering enables me to temporarily leave the place where I live and work.		.646
5. Voluntary service is a means to fruitfully use empty time during a period of my life in which I do not have any other occupation.		.747

However, as I was mainly interested in the relationships between the motivations which are specific to international volunteering and the six motivational functions as well as the degree of immersion in the host culture, I decided to consider the five specific items as a stand-alone scale. I therefore tested their structure by running an exploratory factor analysis (principal components method, varimax rotation), and this showed that two main components are present (total variance explained = 81.20%; eigenvalues > 1): Factor 1 (Seek) refers to the desire to encounter something new, and Factor 2 (Escape) refers to the wish to escape from a way of life or a period in life which is felt to be empty and worthless (Table 2). Owing to the negative loading value of Item 1 (Cultural learning), I decided to remove it from Factor 2. For “seek” and “escape,” the scores were calculated by computing the average of the scores of the two items loading each factor. Means and alpha values are reported in Table 1.

To investigate the volunteers’ perception of the conditions that can make an IVS experience satisfactory, some items previously employed by Lough (2011) were used: five items relate to Reflection (e.g., “I reflected often on the new experiences I encountered while volunteering”) and three items relate to Contact reciprocity (e.g., “The activities I performed matched local priorities”). The scores of each group of items were calculated by means of the average value of the items related to it. The degree of Cultural immersion in the host culture was assessed by means of three items that I created on the basis of suggestions from literature (Lough, 2011): One item investigated to what extent the volunteer had engaged in friendships with members of the host community (quality of relationships) and two items established the proportion of time that the participant had spent with members of host community. The participants used a 5-point scale: 1 = totally false for me, 5 = totally true for me. The unidimensionality of each group was confirmed by means of three principal components analyses (varimax rotation; cutoff of .30). Loading values were higher than .40. Means and alpha values are reported in Table 1.

Results

The six motivational functions that volunteering may serve affected the volunteers’ decision to engage in IVS with varying degrees of importance (Table 1). The opportunities to express altruistic and humanitarian values (VFI–Values) and embrace new learning experiences and exercise knowledge and skills unused elsewhere (VFI–Understanding) are those that the participants evaluated as being the most important. Conversely, they seem less interested in the potential acquisition of skills which may be useful for their career, gaining social approval, escaping from personal problems, and improving self-esteem and self-image. Acquiring knowledge about other cultures is the most important specific motivation in the decision to serve internationally. With regard to the degree of immersion in the host community (i.e., the intimacy and frequency of relationships with members of the host community) and the presence of the conditions (contact reciprocity and reflection) that favor positive perceptions, all the average values fall to the right of the central point of the rating scale.

As shown in Table 3, the motivational functions (VFI) correlate with each other and are associated with motivations specific to IVS, each with different correlational patterns. VFI–Values only correlates positively with VFI–Understanding. VFI–Social, VFI–Career, VFI–Protective, and VFI–Enhancement are strongly linked to each other: Among these, the highest values of correlation are those that refer to the association between VFI–Protective, VFI–Social, and VFI–Career. VFI–Career and VFI–Protective correlate negatively with VFI–Values and do not correlate with VFI–Understanding. VFI–Social does not correlate with VFI–Values and VFI–Understanding, but correlates positively (although weakly) with VFI–Enhancement.

Table 3.

Pearson Correlations.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.
1. VFI–Values	—
2. VFI–Understanding	.588**	—
3. VFI–Social	−.168	−.098	—
4. VFI–Career	−.507**	−.017	.347**	—
5. VFI–Protective	−.429**	−.176	.572**	.635**	—
6. VFI–Enhancement	−.002	.252*	.527**	.386**	.556*	–
7. Cultural learning	.653**	.693**	−.388**	−.357**	−.600**	−.134	—
8. Seek	.088	.445**	−.012	.406**	−.086	.317**	.180	—
9. Escape	−.512**	−.003	.297**	.737**	.585**	.446**	−.357**	.522**	—
10. Reflection	.539**	.495**	−.195	−.276*	−.328**	−.190	.534**	.136	−.311**	—
11. Contact reciprocity	.696*	.383*	−.261	−.619**	−.644**	−.266	.580**	−.088	−.661**	.472**	—
12. Cultural immersion	.603**	.279*	−.214	−.554**	−.475**	−.060	.443**	.058	−.395**	.206	.473**	—
13. Age	−.109	−.363**	.335**	−.175	.169	.041	−.226*	−.300**	−.214	.104	−.001	−.151

Note. VFI = Volunteer Functions Inventory.

p < .01. **p < .001.

When IVS is considered to be particularly important because it enables a volunteer to acquire knowledge about other cultures (cultural learning), the motivational function relating to humanitarian and altruistic values is particularly significant. On the contrary, reasons relating to a desire to seek for something different (seek) are not associated with this motive, and the desire to leave one’s usual life behind (escape) is relatively irrelevant. Those who engage in IVS because it satisfies a wish to embrace new learning experiences or because it offers the opportunity to use skills which cannot be practiced elsewhere, greatly desire to know more about other cultures but are not prompted by a desire to escape. However, these volunteers do seek changes in their lives in terms of exploring the new and doing something different in contrast to their normal routine. The motivation to satisfy normative expectations is negatively correlated with the search for new knowledge of different cultures and positively correlated with a wish to leave their usual way of life. The participants motivated by career considerations are also less interested in the acquisition of knowledge about other cultures, whereas they seem to be strongly motivated by a desire for change, in particular in terms of leaving the place where they live/work and making use of dead time. When the protective motivational function is valued as important by the volunteer, his or her interest in the knowledge of other cultures seems to be quite limited, whereas a desire to escape is strongly present. Finally, personal and positive growth positively correlates with the desire to search for something new and different, together with the wish to leave a life that, at that particular moment, is not stimulating but it does not correlate with “cultural learning.”

These correlational patterns suggest the presence of two types of motivation. To explore these groupings of motivations, I ran a principal components analysis (varimax rotation; cutoff of .30) using the total scores for each subscale of the VFI and the total score for the three specific motivations to engage in IVS (“cultural learning,” “seek,” and “escape”). The analysis showed that two main components are present (total variance explained = 67.90%; eigenvalues > 1): Factor 1 includes “escape,” VFI–Career, VFI–Protective, VFI–Enhancement, and VFI–Social; Factor 2 includes VFI–Understanding, “cultural learning,” and VFI–Values (Table 4). The loading values of the desire to encounter something new (“seek”) showed that this motivation is associated with both types of motivation (Factor 1: .555; Factor 2: .554).

Table 4.

Second-Order Factor Analysis (Principal Components Method, Varimax Rotation) for the Two-Factor Solution Relating to the Specific Motivations to Serve Internationally and the VFI Subscales.

	Factor 1	Factor 2
Escape	.852
VFI–Career	.828
VFI–Protective	.778
VFI–Enhancement	.733
VFI–Social	.571
Seek	.555	.554
VFI–Understanding		.908
Cultural learning		.831
VFI–Values		.741

Note. VFI = Volunteer Functions Inventory.

The amount of time spent with members of the host community is greater, and relationships are closer when motivations such as VFI–Values and improving “cultural learning” are very important (Table 3). Conversely, when there are high scores for VFI–Career and VFI–Protective and when “escape” is considered to be one of the most important motives, the degree of immersion in the host culture was less. There is a greater degree of reflection and contact reciprocity when there are high scores in VFI–Values, VFI–Understanding, and in the desire to learn about new cultures, but these are less present when career and protective motives, as well as a desire to escape, are more important. Finally, contact reciprocity (but not reflection) is associated with a greater degree of immersion in the host community.

As some studies conducted with domestic volunteers have shown that the importance of certain motivations changes during the course of a person’s life (Clary, Snyder, & Stukas, 1996; Okun & Schultz, 2003; Omoto, Snyder, & Martino, 2000), I investigated to what extent this demographic variable correlates to the scores relating to motivation. Table 3 shows that VFI–Understanding, the desire for “cultural learning,” and the motive titled “seek” all decrease with age. On the contrary, the only motivation that seems to increase with age is VFI–Social. With reference to gender, the number of placements, and the future intentions of volunteers, the analyses performed (t test and ANOVA) did not reveal any significant differences.

Discussion

The present study, in accordance with the functionalist perspective, investigated (using VFI classification; Clary et al., 1998) the most important motives prompting the decision to volunteer internationally. In addition to these motivational functions, I also assessed the importance of some motivations that seem to be specific of the decision to engage in IVS. This was done by means of referring to some items related to the results of previous studies involving interviews (Hudson & Inkson, 2006; Rehberg, 2005; Unstead-Joss, 2008). The findings shed light on the motivational structure pertaining to those who volunteer overseas.

Taken as a whole, the means of the six motivational functions are lower than in Italian domestic volunteers (Capanna et al., 2003; Meneghini & Carbognin, 2008), but the ranking is the same except in the case of the less important motivational functions (VFI–Protective and VFI–Career) which emerge with an inverted order among international volunteers. Thus, people seem to engage in domestic and international voluntary work with very similar expectations in terms of satisfying their personal needs. In line with other studies (e.g., Omoto & Snyder, 1995) which found that the most important motives are associated with positive aspects of the volunteering experience, the data in the present study showed that VFI–Values, VFI–Understanding, and “cultural learning” as specific motivation to IVS are in fact strongly associated with placement conditions that are suggested as being ideal (Lough, 2011).

Studies on domestic volunteers in Italy (Capanna et al., 2003; Meneghini & Carbognin, 2008) and elsewhere (e.g., Okun & Schultz, 2003) reported differences between younger and older volunteers. For example, career motivations are obviously more important for younger volunteers. On the contrary, VFI–Social seems to increase with age. The international volunteers in the present study follow this trend. However, as suggested by Omoto et al. (2000), there may be some features of motivational functions that may vary during the course of a person’s life and that the VFI is not able to capture. For example, Omoto et al. discovered that there are some differences between younger and older volunteers in terms of the importance attributed to interpersonal purposes (i.e., relationships) and societal ones (i.e., societal obligations). Further studies using appropriate instruments would clarify this issue.

Research has demonstrated that domestic volunteering is driven by multiple motives (Kiviniemi et al., 2002; Marta et al., 2006; Treuren, 2014) and that the motivations of volunteers are a combination of both self-focused motivations and other considerations (Clary & Snyder, 1999). The results of the present study showed that in the case of IVS, the motivations underlying the decision to serve internationally are also multiple and mixed. These findings are in line with other studies: For example, Rehberg (2005) described the motives to do IVS as a mixture of altruism and egoism. The opportunities to express altruistic and humanitarian values and to learn new knowledge and skills or to exercise those that remain unused elsewhere (other-oriented and instrumental motivations) are the most important motivations and these form a pattern that in many cases sustains the decision to volunteer abroad. Further self-oriented instrumental motivations such as psychological growth, protection of self, search for relationships and social approval, as well as more career opportunities, are less intense and form another motivational pattern.

The motivations hypothesized as being specifically related to IVS are the desire to know more about other cultures, the desire to introduce some changes in one’s life, and the desire to escape from the current lifestyle. The first of these is negatively related to the third. Conversely, when a person wishes to escape from the place where he or she lives and works, he or she may decide to engage in IVS because he or she positively evaluates the opportunity to explore something new and adventurous.

The patterns emerging from the correlational analyses of the motivational functions of the VFI and the specific motivations for IVS are extremely interesting. In cases where the opportunity to broaden their knowledge of other cultures is really important, people are also motivated to engage in IVS because it allows them to express their personal values as well as learn new competences or practices those they already have in a way that they cannot in their normal life. When people are searching for some excitement in their lives, they decide to engage in IVS because maybe they also want to broaden their knowledge and competences and improve their career opportunities. When a wish to escape is present, the volunteers seem to be less motivated by the opportunity to express personal values but are more strongly influenced by instrumental motivations.

To sum up, two motivational patterns emerged from these data. The first relates to the expression of personal values and instrumental motives in terms of a development of understanding (VFI–Understanding and “cultural learning”) and it appears to be characterized by an interest in the welfare of others and a desire to gain knowledge of those belonging to different culture (comprising the development of personal social skills). This might be labeled an “outward focused” motivational pattern and includes a kind of curiosity toward and a desire to know more about the unusual and different (from a cultural point of view). It also involves a wish to search for adventure and new experiences, very similar to what Zuckerman (1979) defined as “experience seeking,” which is a component of the sensation-seeking motive. The second motivational pattern seems to be self-oriented. It is strongly characterized by a desire for change to deal with a particular period in the person’s life which may be perceived as empty and worthless, and it is less associated with concern for and interest in others. It might be labeled “inward focused” in that it seems to be linked to specific expectations that the volunteer wants to satisfy.

Various motives can play a determining role in terms of how people will behave when they are actually involved in voluntary activities (Stukas & Dunlap, 2002) and how much satisfaction they will gain as a result (Stukas et al., 2009). The present study analyzed how the motivational patterns emerging from the data are associated with some aspects of the placement. First, the results showed (in line with other studies, for example, Lough, 2011) that the conditions favoring a meaningful experience (high degree of immersion, reflection, and contact reciprocity) are positively associated with the “outward focused” motivational pattern and negatively associated with the instrumental motivational pattern. It might be suggested that whenever a volunteer is driven by this type of motivation, he or she probably did not attempt to create these conditions, and therefore, there were fewer opportunities to share experiences and acquire knowledge about other cultures. Moreover, the presence of two motivational patterns, each with a different orientation (i.e., self and other), supports Rehberg’s (2005) theory about the structural changes taking place in IVS. He hypothesized that beyond “traditional” volunteering (characterized by religious and political involvement, long-term and membership-based commitment, and altruistic motivations), a “new” type of volunteerism is emerging. These “modern,” more project-oriented volunteers have specific expectations about the personal benefits that they can gain from voluntary work.

Conclusion

When the motivations underlying volunteering are many and most of them are fulfilled, the volunteer feels more satisfied (Stukas et al., 2009). As voluntary work is often stressful (especially in the case of international service), when the affordances available from the task match the motivations of the volunteer, this may mitigate any negative effects (Wilson, 2012). The results of the present study suggest that, for international volunteers, the “right motivation” might be outward focused. Frequently, potential volunteers think of IVS as a source of valuable experiences for themselves and for members of host communities. IVS has this power, provided that the programs are structured appropriately and well implemented (Lough, 2014; McBride et al., 2012). For this reason, it is crucial to investigate the motivations that drive potential volunteers and assess to what extent these motivations are linked to some aspects of the IVS experience: If individual personal motives for volunteering can be matched to specific assignments and tasks, this should result in greater satisfaction for the volunteer (Stukas et al., 2009) and better outcomes for the host communities (Lough, 2014). Clarifying motivations means understanding what is expected from the experience, and this is particularly important because people invest so much in it.

This study is not intended to be exhaustive but hopefully sheds light on the relationships between the motivational patterns that drive people to serve internationally. The main limitation of this study is that it cannot definitively establish any causal relationships between previous motivations and the type of experience that the volunteer has. These may have influenced the importance that the participants in the study attributed to their motivations. Longitudinal studies may yield invaluable insights into the contribution of motives, facets of experience, and consequences. In addition, even though this study involved only a limited number of participants, they had been engaged in various different programs. Conversely, many studies conducted on the motivation and impact of IVS have been carried out using as participants volunteers serving for just one or only a small number of programs that had been organized by a small number of sending organizations (Unstead-Joss, 2008). Furthermore, the number of items used to assess the motivations which are specific to IVS is rather limited in this study. If a greater number of items are created, future researchers may be able to explore this very specific type of motivation more deeply.

Finally, Lough (2011) stated that international volunteers are in a unique position to develop intercultural skills that have been widely identified in modern society as critical skills to effectively function across cultures (Earley & Ang, 2003; Nam & Fry, 2010; D. C. Thomas & Inkson, 2004). As these skills become ever more important and the number of people performing IVS increases, it is crucial to provide meaningful experiences during service abroad, because this will assist in terms of improving people’s ability to interact in other intercultural settings, beyond the particular experience (Lough, 2011).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Anna Maria Meneghini is a researcher in Dynamic Psychology at the University of Verona (Italy), where she teaches the Psychology of Motivations and Community Psychology. She conducts research on many aspects of volunteerism, motivations, and emotions.

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Anheier

H. K.

Salamon

L. M.

(1999). Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Initial comparison. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 43-65.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153, 25-33.

Capanna

Steca

Imbimbo

(2003). Una scala per la misura della motivazione al volontariato [A scale to measure the motivation of volunteers]. Rassegna di Psicologia, 1, 73-90.

Clary

E. G.

Snyder

(1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 156-159.

Clary

E. G.

Snyder

Ridge

R. D.

Copeland

Stukas

A. A.

Haugen

Miene

(1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516-1530.

Clary

E. G.

Snyder

Stukas

A. A.

(1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Findings from national survey. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485-505.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Dwyer

M. M.

(2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers, 10, 151-163.

10.

Earley

P. C.

Ang

(2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

11.

Fee

Gray

S. J.

(2011). Fast-tracking expatriate development: The unique learning environments of international volunteer placements. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 530-552.

12.

Freire

(1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum.

13.

Friedman

T. L.

(2005). The world is flat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

14.

Handy

Cnaan

Hustinx

Kang

C. H.

Brudney

J. L.

Haski-Leventhal

. . .Zrinščak

(2010). A cross-cultural examination of student volunteering: Is it all about résumé building? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 498-523.

15.

Horn

A. S.

Fry

G. W.

(2013). Promoting global citizenship through study abroad: The influence of program destination, type, and duration on the propensity for development volunteerism. Voluntas, 24, 1159-1179.

16.

Houle

B. J.

Sagarin

B. J.

Kaplan

M. F.

(2005). A functional approach to volunteerism: Do volunteer motives predict task preference? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 337-344.

17.

Hudson

Inkson

(2006). Volunteer overseas development workers: The hero’s adventure and personal transformation. Career Development International, 11, 304-320.

18.

Hustinx

Cnaan

R. A.

Handy

(2010). Navigating theories of volunteering: A hybrid map for a complex phenomenon. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40, 410-434.

19.

Iso-Ahola

S. E.

(1980). The social psychology of leisure and recreation. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

20.

Jones

(2005). Assessing international youth service programmes in two low income countries. Voluntary Action, 7, 87-100.

21.

Kiviniemi

M. T.

Snyder

Omoto

A. M.

(2002). Too many of a good thing? The effects of multiple motivations on stress, cost, fulfillment, and satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 732-743.

22.

Leigh

(2005). The evolving nature of the international service through the United Nations Volunteers. International Service and Volunteering: Developments, Impact and Challenges, 7, 27-34.

23.

Lewis

(2006). Globalization and international service: A developmental perspective. Voluntary Action, 7, 13-26.

24.

Lough

B. J.

(2011). International volunteers’ perceptions of intercultural competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 452-464.

25.

Lough

B. J.

(2014). Social work perspectives on international volunteer service. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 1340-1355. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct001

26.

Lough

B. J.

McBride

A. M.

Sherraden

M. S.

O’Hara

(2011). Capacity building contributions of short-term international volunteers. Journal of Community Practice, 19, 120-137.

27.

Machin

(2008). The impact of returned international volunteers on the UK: A scoping review. London, England: Institute for Volunteering Research.

28.

Marta

Guglielmetti

Pozzi

(2006). Volunteerism during young adulthood: An Italian investigation into motivational patterns. Voluntas, 17, 221-232.

29.

McBride

A. M.

Lough

B. J.

(2010). Access to international volunteering. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 21, 195-208.

30.

McBride

A. M.

Lough

B. J.

Sherraden

M. S.

(2012). International service and the perceived impact on volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 969-990.

31.

Mehrabian

Russel

J. A.

(1973). A measure of arousal seeking tendency. Environment and Behavior, 5, 315-333.

32.

Meneghini

A. M.

Carbognin

(2008). Perchè mi impegno nel volontariato: le motivazioni dei volontari [The Volunteer Motivation Scale to measure autonomous motivation in volunteers: an introductory analysis]. Psicologia di Comunità, 2, 93-105.

33.

Nam

K. A.

Fry

G. W.

(2010). The development of global literacy and intercultural competence as a response to the complex challenges of the 21st century: A meta-synthesis. Asian Journal of Educational Research and Synergy, 2, 9-32.

34.

Ogberg

(1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177-182.

35.

Okun

M. A.

Schultz

(2003). Age and motives for volunteering: Testing hypotheses derived from socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 18, 231-239.

36.

Omoto

A. M.

Snyder

(1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671-686.

37.

Omoto

A. M.

Snyder

Martino

S. C.

(2000). Volunteerism and the life course: Investigating age-related agendas for action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 181-197.

38.

Penner

L. A.

(2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447-467.

39.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.

40.

Rehberg

(2005). Altruistic individualists: Motivations for international volunteering among young adults in Switzerland. Voluntas, 16, 109-122.

41.

Rothwell

Charleston

(2012). International volunteering: Employability, leadership and more. Education+Training, 55, 159-173.

42.

Sherraden

M. S.

Lough

B. J.

McBride

A. M.

(2008). Effects of international volunteering and service: Individual and institutional predictors. Voluntas, 19, 395-421.

43.

Sherraden

M. S.

Stingham

Sow

S. C.

McBride

A. M.

(2006). The forms and structure of International Voluntary Service. Voluntas, 17, 163-180.

44.

Shye

(2010). The motivation to volunteer: A systematic quality of life theory. Social Indicators Research, 98, 183-200.

45.

Snyder

Omoto

A. M.

(2008). Volunteerism: Social issues perspectives and social policy implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2, 1-36.

46.

Stukas

A. A.

Dunlap

M. R.

(2002). Community involvement: Theoretical approaches and educational initiatives. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 411-427.

47.

Stukas

A. A.

Worth

K. A.

Clary

E. G.

Snyder

(2009). The matching of motivations to affordances in the volunteer environment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 5-28.

48.

Tajfel

Turner

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 94-109). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

49.

Thomas

D. C.

Inkson

(2004). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

50.

Thomas

(2001). Human traffic: Skills, employers and international volunteers. London, England: Demos.

51.

Treuren

G. J. M.

(2014). Enthusiasts, conscripts, or instrumentalists? The motivational profiles of event volunteers. Managing Leisure, 19, 51-70.

52.

Unstead-Joss

(2008). An analysis of volunteer motivation: Implication for international development. Voluntary Action, 9, 3-20.

53.

Watts

(2002). Should they be committed? Motivating volunteers in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Development in Practice, 12, 59-70.

54.

Wilson

(2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 176-212.

55.

Zuckerman

(1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.