Young Adult Propensity to Join Voluntary Associations: The Role of Civic Engagement and Motivations

Abstract

Based on a self-selection perspective, this study analyzes the relation between personal civic engagement and the willingness to join a voluntary association by considering the mediating role of motivations. Four factors of civic engagement are considered: civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation; in addition, three motivations are considered: instrumental, expressive, and career-related. The proposed model is tested using a survey of 408 Spanish young adults with no previous experience as members of any association. The analytical technique used is partial least squares. The findings point that instrumental motivation is the main vehicle to translate the four factors of civic engagement into associational involvement, whereas expressive motivation represents a secondary mediator in the effects of civic duty and social connection. Career-related motivation is not associated with the willingness to join a voluntary association. Implications for the recruitment and retention of young adults in voluntary associations are discussed.

Keywords

civic engagement voluntary associations motivations young adults self-selection

Introduction

For most people, the transition to adulthood is an uncertain period characterized by profound changes in several life spheres, as well as by the acquisition of civil and political rights and obligations. However, the age of majority does not usually result in immediate involvement in community life and social and political consciousness; rather, the development of a full sense of citizenship happens gradually as individuals explore their civic influence in several contexts (Marzana, Pozzi, Fasanelli, Mercuri, & Fattori, 2016). In this respect, the concept of civic engagement describes the adjustments through which adolescents and young adults become active citizens that contribute to the well-being of society (Flanagan, 2008; Marzana, Marta, & Pozzi, 2012). In a dynamic view of the construct, some theories extend its boundaries beyond the field of participation and consider further cognitive and socioemotional factors (Bobek, Zaff, Li, & Lerner, 2009; Zaff, Boyd, Li, Lerner, & Lerner, 2010). Thus, an active and engaged citizen is defined as someone who not only engages in civic behaviors but also feels a sense of community responsibility, is confident of his or her abilities to effect change, and feels strongly connected to his or her community.

Voluntary associations are known to play a significant role in the civic integration of young people (de Tocqueville, 2004; Putnam, 2000; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995), through the interaction of self-selection and socialization mechanisms (Adams, 1983; Chen, Lune, & Queen, 2013; Wilson & Musick, 1997). That is, it appears that engaged citizens are more likely to become involved in associations, in which they are confirmed and further stimulated in democracy-related attitudes, skills, and behaviors (Quintelier, 2013; Stolle, 1998; Theiss-Morse & Hibbing, 2005; van der Meer & van Ingen, 2009). Despite this capacity of associations to detect civic potential and reinforce it, the previous literature has been much more focused in analyzing the effects of membership than in explaining the mechanism through which young people join them. In particular, most previous research relies on comparisons between adult members and nonmembers or analyzes the correlates of membership (Bekkers, 2005; Standelmann-Steffen & Freitag, 2011; Stolle, 1998; Sundeen, 1992), but members are rarely surveyed before joining. Similarly, the few longitudinal studies that consider civic engagement constructs to explain later voluntary involvement (Jennings & Stoker, 2004; Quintelier, 2013) do not control for the potential effects of other factors that may affect engagement in associations. At the same time, few studies have centered on young people (Duke, Skay, Pettingell, & Borowsky, 2009; Marzana et al., 2012, Marzana et al., 2016), and these usually nearly exclusively consider samples of adolescents (Lenzi et al., 2012; Quintelier, 2013).

A better understanding of the relation between young adult nonmembers’ previous civic engagement and their willingness to join an association would offer useful insights, both for associations interested in improving the recruitment of engaged social capital and other organizations with an active role in developing civic-minded young adults in interaction with them. In this respect, the previous literature supports the convenience of matching any recruitment effort to the actual motivations of potential members, thus channeling them toward assignments that provide opportunities to best serve their particular goals (Omoto, 2012; Snyder & Omoto, 2009). Certainly, one can join an association for different reasons, including instrumental motivations like improving the community, expressive motivations like meeting people with similar hobbies, and career-related motivations like gaining professional merits (Chicharro, 2000; Handy et al., 2010; Mann & Leahy, 2010). Those motivations are presumably associated to different levels of civic engagement, as active citizenship is more likely to be exercised by members of volunteering or political associations than by members of leisure clubs or student associations (Lenzi et al., 2012; Stolle, 1998; van der Meer & van Ingen, 2009). Nevertheless, previous research rarely considered the diversity of the phenomenon (Coffé & Geys, 2007; Hooghe & Botterman, 2011; Williams & Ortega, 1986), which makes it difficult to generalize the results obtained to associations with different functions for their members and for society. Less is known regarding the role of personal civic factors in the decision to join an association and the type of motivations that mediate the process and lead to alternative patterns of youth participation.

To address the shortcomings mentioned above, this article presents exploratory research that strives to respond to two questions: What kind of motivations are associated with the willingness to join an association during one’s young adult years, and do civically engaged young adults develop different motivations and willingness? To answer these questions, we present a study carried out with a sample of Spanish young adults who had never joined an association and analyze their levels of civic engagement as well as their motivations and intentions to become members in the future. Although figures of young adults’ participation in associations in the United States are known to be declining, union rates in Spain and most European countries are considerably lower. Furthermore, whereas the most popular types of group membership in the United States are religious organizations, trade unions, and humanitarian or charitable associations, European young people are more likely to be involved in sports or leisure-time clubs (Directorate General for Education and Culture, 2014; OECD Family Database, 2015). Particularly in Spain, personal involvement is considered one of the remaining main weaknesses of the voluntary sector for the young adult cohort (García-Mainar & Marcuello, 2007), and individuals older than 35 are found to be more committed to organizations providing public benefits than those aged between 18 and 34 years (Centre of Sociological Research, 2011). Therefore, identifying more efficient ways to recruit engaged young adults and involve them in community interests can be considered a priority in this and other similar countries.

This article is organized as follows. The next sections review the previous literature on civic engagement and membership motivations and propose certain hypotheses to explain the willingness to join an association during young adulthood. Immediately thereafter, we present an empirical study to test the model with a partial least squares (PLS) technique. Last, conclusions and implications are discussed.

Civic Engagement and Membership in Associations

Although the construct of civic engagement is usually linked to the spheres of volunteering and political participation (Marzana et al., 2012), some scholars argue that civic behavior might not be sufficient to attain community improvement if it is not accompanied by more substantive beliefs (Bobek et al., 2009). From this framework, Zaff et al. (2010) identify four behavioral, cognitive, and socioemotional factors that may be necessary for young individuals to be active and engaged citizens. First, civic duty refers to the desire and mindset to become involved with others and positively contribute to society. Second, civic skills concern the ability and expertise to be involved in civil society and democracy. Third, social connection defines the extent to which people in the surrounding neighborhood care for one another and their willingness to contribute to the common good (Lenzi et al., 2012). Finally, civic participation refers to the engagement in activities for the betterment of the community.

Although the four components have been found to encompass a second-order construct in samples of American adolescents (Bobek et al., 2009; Zaff et al., 2010), further research is needed to examine them in other countries and age groups, as well as to test the outcomes that result from being an active and engaged citizen. Thus, this article uses the multidimensional construct of civic engagement to explain Spanish young adults’ motivations and willingness to join an association.

Evidence on the relation between personal civic engagement constructs and self-selection into associations needs to be collected from isolated studies that focus on each specific dimension. In this respect, civic duty and other related attitudinal variables have been found to affect volunteering and participation in associations (Smith, 1994; Sundeen, 1992). For instance, Haddad (2006) explained the prevalence of different types of volunteer organizations in 68 countries from citizen attitudes toward individual and governmental responsibility. Similarly, political interests have been frequently linked to engagement in associations (Bekkers, 2005; Standelmann-Steffen & Freitag, 2011), even during adolescence (Quintelier, 2013).

Civic skills and a personal sense of competence have also been said to underlie young adults’ participation in several contexts (Marzana et al., 2016). In this sense, membership associations can be understood as pools of democracy that facilitate high levels of participation and advocate for the interests of their members (van der Meer & van Ingen, 2009). Similarly, political self-efficacy has been considered to underlie volunteer participation (Cook, 1984; Florin, Jones, & Wandersman, 1986).

In addition, several studies link social capital to membership in associations. In general, social trust and access to collective resources are said to characterize people who join voluntary associations (Bekkers, 2005; Hooghe & Botterman, 2011; Stolle, 1998). Similarly, Lenzi et al. (2012) state that neighborhood social connection can nurture young people’s willingness to work on improving the local community and the larger society. Similarly, certain studies have found that a social connection during childhood and adolescence predict a greater likelihood of involvement in social, education, and conservation groups in young adulthood (Duke et al., 2009; Hooghe & Botterman, 2011).

Finally, many researchers conceptualize membership in local organizations as a behavioral component of civic engagement (Duke et al., 2009; Lenzi et al., 2012), together with other actions targeted at improving the welfare of society. In the same respect, the previous literature concludes that active people are more likely to join associations and groups in general (McClurg, 2003). Similarly, members of associations have been found to display higher levels of political and civic action than nonmembers (Marzana et al., 2012), regardless of whether the former are passive or active participants (van der Meer & van Ingen, 2009).

With a few exceptions (Bekkers, 2005; Lenzi et al., 2012; van der Meer & van Ingen, 2009), previous studies focus on specific associational contexts or consider voluntary participation in general without reference to any organizational typology. However, voluntary membership is an essentially diverse phenomenon, with a wide set of associations in which people may participate in different ways, for diverse reasons and with different results for members and the society (Coffé & Geys, 2007; Firat & Glanville, 2017; Gordon & Babchuk, 1959; Williams & Ortega, 1986). In this context, it is expected that young adults with different levels of civic engagement develop alternative motivations for becoming involved in associations and, thus, a different willingness to join.

The Mediating Role of Motivations

It is commonly assumed that voluntary associations differ in the orientation of their service to individual members, the member collective, and the external community (Kreutzer, 2009). According to traditional classifications, associations focused inside the organization and aimed at satisfying the private interests of members are called “expressive,” whereas associations focused outside to promote social changes are called “instrumental” (Gordon & Babchuk, 1959; Jacoby & Babchuk, 1963). Because many associations are not easily classifiable according to that distinction (Faich & Gale, 1971; Knutsen & Brower, 2010), certain authors speak in terms of instrumental and expressive functions that often coexist within the same organization (Chicharro, 2000; Mann & Leahy, 2010). These different goals, as perceived by individuals, determine the nature of the relationship between the association and the member and, consequently, the motivation to join.

Associations with an instrumental orientation are organized around goals that do not represent immediate personal rewards, but broader benefits for the general public (Gordon & Babchuk, 1959), such as community improvement and political power (Mann & Leahy, 2010). These are often the most sought after outcomes of membership in political, human rights, or environmentalist associations. Conversely, in associations with expressive functions, members obtain immediate rewards, as activities are performed within and oriented to the group, representing ends instead of means to achieve other goals (Gordon & Babchuk, 1959). In this respect, affective relationships and sociability are core motivations for members (Chicharro, 2000; Jacoby, 1965), such as it occurs within sociocultural, sports, or leisure clubs. Associations usually perform a third career function for young members, by providing job opportunities or transmitting capacities, attitudes, and contacts (Chicharro, 2000; Handy et al., 2010). Student and professional associations are examples of organizations meeting these goals (Hager, 2014).

Previous research on motivations for volunteering supports the same factor structure. Thus, collective reasons (Hwang, Grabb, & Curtis, 2005), also known as altruistic or values-based motives (Clary & Snyder, 2002; Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991; Handy et al., 2010), include helping others, working for an important cause, or showing compassion for people in need. Self-oriented, social, or ego-defensive motivations (Clary & Snyder, 2002; Handy et al., 2010; Hwang et al., 2005) aim to extend one’s social networks, imitate models, or enjoy leisure. Finally, career-related reasons (Clary & Snyder, 2002; Handy et al., 2010), also referred to as utilitarian motives (Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991), seek to enhance human capital by developing job skills, creating work contacts, or reinforcing the curriculum vitae. In general, most authors conclude that people volunteer for a mixture of reasons, and different motives can coexist (Clary & Snyder, 2002; Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991; Wilson & Musick, 1997). However, using survey data from different countries, Handy et al. (2010) found that young university students recognized altruistic reasons as their main motivation to volunteer, followed by career-related drivers.

Based on the above review, we suggest that instrumental, expressive, and career-related motivations may predict young adults’ associational willingness, and more specifically that the more outcomes young adults expect to obtain, the more willing they are to become members. However, because voluntary associations represent a specific type of nonprofit organizations in which forms of involvement other than active participation are possible, we also pose that the relative importance of the goals sought may be different compared with previous studies on volunteering. Thus, current statistics show that expressive goals, such as practicing hobbies during free time and meeting people with similar interests, are common motives noted by young adults in Spain and Europe as a motivation for joining an association, whereas altruistic contributions to social causes and career enhancement are less frequent motivations (Directorate General for Education and Culture, 2014). Accordingly, we propose the following hypotheses (Figure 1):

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Instrumental motivation has a positive direct effect on the willingness to join an association.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Expressive motivation has a positive direct effect on the willingness to join an association.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Career-related motivation has a positive direct effect on the willingness to join an association.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The effect of expressive motivation on the willingness to join an association is stronger than the effects of instrumental and career-related motivations.

Figure 1.

Model of hypotheses.

Because voluntary associations differ in their levels of civic purpose and community improvement activity (Lenzi et al., 2012; Stolle & Hooghe, 2005; Sundeen, 1992; Theiss-Morse & Hibbing, 2005), there should be a link between civic engagement–related factors and members’ motivations. In fact, members of activist associations have been found to display higher levels of civic engagement than members of leisure associations (van der Meer & van Ingen, 2009), particularly when the former display active participation (Stolle, 1998). Similarly, Lenzi et al. (2012) associate the highest levels of civic engagement to participation in associations with predominantly instrumental traits.

However, several studies suggest that a certain level of civic engagement is also present in members of expressive associations. For instance, the social capital school advocates acknowledge that leisure-based associations usually serve as a breeding ground for democracy and civic action (Putnam, 2000), because they are heterogeneous (Coffé & Geys, 2007; Stolle, 1998) and horizontally structured (Glover & Hemingway, 2005; Selle & Stromsnes, 2001). Hence, to an extent, civic engagement is likely to be associated with sociability-related motivations. Similarly, because young adults are likely to be in transition from student life to the labor force (Handy et al., 2010), it may be expected that active and engaged individuals are more aware of the career opportunities linked to the associational life and thus display certain career motivations to join an association.

Extending the previous reasoning to the four factors of civic engagement analyzed in this study, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) has a positive direct effect on instrumental motivation to join an association.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) has a positive direct effect on expressive motivation to join an association.

Hypothesis 7 (H7): Civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) has a positive direct effect on career-related motivation to join an association.

Hypothesis 8 (H8): The effect of civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) on instrumental motivation is stronger than the effects on expressive and career-related motivations to join an association.

According to the previous reasoning, the relation between previous civic engagement and the willingness to join an association may be mediated by motivations. That is, although the previous literature supports a consistent relation between different factors of civic engagement and membership in associations (Duke et al., 2009; Haddad, 2006; McClurg, 2003; Quintelier, 2013), such a link appears more likely to be observed in associations with an instrumental orientation (Lenzi et al., 2012; van der Meer & van Ingen, 2009). Hence, it can be expected that young adults with high levels of civic engagement develop more instrumental motivations to become involved in an association. At the same time, a level of previous civic engagement may translate into expressive and career-related motivations (Handy et al., 2010; Putnam, 2000), as secondary paths to the associative life. Combined, this means that although young adults tend to base their decision to join an association on expressive reasons (H4), an instrumental motivation is the main vehicle to translate personal civic engagement into associational involvement. Hence, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 9 (H9): Civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) has a positive indirect effect on the willingness to join an association, through instrumental, expressive, and career-related motivations.

Hypothesis 10 (H10): The mediating effect of instrumental motivation in the relation between civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) and the willingness to join an association is stronger than the mediating effect of expressive and career-related motivations.

Empirical Study

Sample and Measures

To test the hypotheses of the model, we conducted a survey-based study with a sample of Spanish young adults aged 18 to 30 years. Data were collected in two Spanish cities, León and Salamanca. These urban areas we considered were similar regarding size (between 125,000 and 150,000 inhabitants) and the profile of the associational opportunities available for young people, based on official provincial registers. In total, 1,200 surveys were distributed, and 768 were completed properly. Participants were asked about their current or previous membership to several types of associations (religious, environmentalist, political, professional, leisure, etc.). A total of 360 respondents who were identified as members of at least one type of association at the time of the survey or before were removed from the study. Therefore, 408 respondents were considered for further analysis. Table 1 provides the sample characteristics of the study.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

Size	n = 408
Response rate	64%
Representativeness	95% (e = ± 5%; p = q = 0.50)
Gender
Males	196 (48%)
Females	212 (52%)
Age	18-30 (M = 22.23; SD = 3.63)
Region
León	260 (63.7%)
Salamanca	148 (36.3%)
Academic situation
Currently studying (University)	314 (77%)
Currently studying (Secondary)	26 (6.4%)
Currently studying (Other)	8 (1.9%)
Not studying	60 (14.7%)
Work situation
Currently working	92 (22.5%)
Previous work experience	125 (30.7%)
Any work experience	191 (46.8%)
Economic situation
Economically independent	60 (14.7%)
Economically dependent	348 (85.3%)

The scales used to measure the four components of civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) were based on previous research (Bobek et al., 2009; Duke et al., 2009; Lenzi et al., 2012; Zaff et al., 2010); however, the contents of the items were adapted to the developmental stage of the sample considered in this study.

Similarly, the procedure used in previous studies on volunteering (Handy et al., 2010; Hwang et al., 2005) was followed to derive indicators of instrumental, expressive, and career-related motivations to join an association. Finally, a new scale was developed for the willingness to join an association. Appendices A, B, and C illustrate the measurement scales used in the study. All items were asked using a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Prior to data analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to analyze the expected dimensionality of the civic engagement and motivations scales (results are available upon request). To replicate the four-factor structure of the civic engagement construct, we ran a principal components analysis with Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization. The obtained factors fit the expected constructs and explained 68.29% of the total variance. Two items initially designated to measure civic participation did not load significantly in any component and were removed from the survey analysis. A second principal components analysis was conducted to determine whether the motivations’ three-factor structure was supported. As expected, the analysis revealed the presence of three components, which explained 72.91% of the total variance. Two items reflecting expressive motivations loaded in two different components and were removed from subsequent analysis.

Data Analysis

To test the hypotheses of the model, we used a structural equation modeling (SEM) technique of PLS, with the software SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005). In contrast to covariance-based methods centered on the estimation of model parameters and overall fit measures, the objective of PLS is to maximize the variance explained by indicators and latent variables through the estimation of ordinary least squares and principal components analysis. In this context, data treatment responds to the creation of optimal linear predictive paths with minimal demands on measurement scales, residual distributions, and sample sizes (Chin, 1998b; Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). Therefore, compared with maximum likelihood methods, the PLS approach better matches the requirements of exploratory and theory building applications (Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995; Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003), such as in this research.

The PLS procedure allows for estimating the research model in two stages (Hulland, 1999). The first of these implies evaluating the strength of the measurement model by examining item reliabilities, internal consistency, and construct validity. The second stage focuses on the estimation of the fit parameters for the structural model, reporting on the fulfilment of the research hypothesis through standardized path coefficients and R² values.

Assessment of the Measurement Model

Table 2 shows the items included in the measurement model and their psychometric properties. Item reliabilities were evaluated by examining the significance of the standardized loadings (λ) or simple correlations of indicators with their respective latent variables. All loadings were above the threshold of .50 (Barclay et al., 1995; Chin, 1998b), and item communalities (λ²) exceeded the minimum requirement of .25 (Bollen, 1989).

Table 2.

Measurement Model Assessment.

Constructs and items	Loading (λ)	Communality (λ²)	Cronbach’s α	Composite reliability (ρ_c)	AVE
Willingness to join			.87	.90	.53
WJ1	.87***	.76
WJ2	.82***	.67
WJ3	.76***	.58
WJ4	.74***	.55
WJ5	.73***	.53
WJ6	.70***	.49
WJ7	.63***	.40
WJ8	.55***	.30
Instrumental motivation			.90	.92	.62
IM1	.83***	.69
IM2	.83***	.69
IM3	.80***	.64
IM4	.79***	.62
IM5	.77***	.59
IM6	.76***	.58
IM7	.72***	.52
Expressive motivation			.70	.81	.52
EM1	.82***	.67
EM2	.75***	.56
EM3	.66***	.44
EM4	.64***	.41
Career-related motivation			.77	.87	.69
CM1	.85***	.72
CM2	.82***	.67
CM3	.82***	.67
Civic duty			.86	.89	.59
CD1	.85***	.72
CD2	.84***	.71
CD3	.82***	.67
CD4	.74***	.55
CD5	.70***	.55
CD6	.62***	.38
Civic skills			.85	.88	.52
CS1	.78***	.61
CS2	.77***	.59
CS3	.77***	.59
CS4	.75***	.56
CS5	.71***	.50
CS6	.65***	.42
CS7	.59***	.35
Social connection			.80	.86	.50
SC1	.81***	.66
SC2	.74***	.55
SC3	.73***	.53
SC4	.68***	.46
SC5	.65***	.42
SC6	.62***	.38
Civic participation			.87	.90	.59
CP1	.83***	.69
CP2	.81***	.66
CP3	.80***	.64
CP4	.71***	.50
CP5	.67***	.45

Note. AVE = average variance extracted.

***

p < .001.

For measuring the internal consistency of scales, PLS produces two indicators: Cronbach’s alpha (α) and composite reliability (ρ_c); the latter is considered by certain authors to be superior to the first measure because of its independence from the number of attributes associated with each construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The interpretation of both indices is very similar, and values above .70 are considered reasonable (Barclay et al., 1995; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Convergent validity was examined using the average variance extracted (AVE) index, which quantifies the amount of variance that a construct captures from its indicators in relation to the amount of variance caused by the measurement error. For all latent variables, AVE values were above the minimum benchmark of .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Similarly, to test discriminant validity (Table 3), we verified that manifest variables correlated more strongly with their associated latent variable (square root of AVE) than any other latent variable (Barclay et al., 1995; Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Table 3.

Correlations, Square Roots of AVE, and Summary Statistics.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Willingness to join	.73
2. Instrumental motivation	.52**	.79
3. Expressive motivation	.45**	.44**	.72
4. Career-related motivation	.19**	.26**	.31**	.83
5. Civic duty	.39**	.62**	.41**	.14	.77
6. Civic skills	.37**	.33**	.21**	.20*	.19*	.72
7. Social connection	.29**	.45**	.36**	.24**	.36**	.33**	.71
8. Civic participation	.40**	.44**	.22**	.01	.53**	.22*	.19**	.77
M	3.01	3.44	4.01	3.42	3.84	3.27	2.88	2.33
SD	0.86	0.80	0.60	0.93	0.69	0.86	0.79	0.88

Note. Square roots of AVE are in bold. AVE = average variance extracted.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Assessment of the Structural Model

Once the reliability and validity of the measurement model were evaluated, the hypothesized relations among latent variables were analyzed. A bootstrapping procedure with 500 resamples was applied to determine the statistical significance of each estimated path in the model (Table 4).

Table 4.

Structural Model Results.

	Path coefficient (β)	Effect size (f²)
Direct effects
Instrumental motivation → Willingness to join	.40***	.16
Expressive motivation → Willingness to join	.28***	.09
Career-related motivation → Willingness to join	.01 (ns)	.00
Civic duty → Instrumental motivation	.44***	.23
Civic duty → Expressive motivation	.32***	.10
Civic duty → Career-related motivation	.12(ns)	.01
Civic skills → Instrumental motivation	.15**	.03
Civic skills → Expressive motivation	.08(ns)	.01
Civic skills → Career-related motivation	.15*	.02
Social connection → Instrumental motivation	.21***	.06
Social connection → Expressive motivation	.22***	.05
Social connection → Career-related motivation	.17**	.02
Civic participation → Instrumental motivation	.13**	.02
Civic participation → Expressive motivation	.01(ns)	.00
Civic participation → Career-related motivation	.14(ns)	.01
Indirect effects
Civic duty → Instrumental motivation → Willingness to join	.17***	.05
Civic duty → Expressive motivation → Willingness to join	.09***	.03
Civic duty → Career motivation → Willingness to join	.01(ns)	.00
Civic skills → Instrumental motivation → Willingness to join	.06**	.02
Civic skills → Expressive motivation → Willingness to join	.03(ns)	.00
Civic skills → Career motivation → Willingness to join	.01(ns)	.00
Social connection → Instrumental motivation → Willingness to join	.08***	.02
Social connection → Expressive motivation → Willingness to join	.06**	.01
Social connection → Career motivation → Willingness to join	.01(ns)	.00
Civic participation → Instrumental motivation → Willingness to join	.06*	.02
Civic participation → Expressive motivation → Willingness to join	.01(ns)	.00
Civic participation → Career motivation → Willingness to join	.01(ns)	.00
Overall fit	R ²	Q ²
Willingness to join	.33	.17
Instrumental motivation	.47	.29
Expressive motivation	.23	.10
Career-related motivation	.09	.05

Note. ns = nonsignificant.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In support of H1 and H2, the effects of instrumental (β = .40, p < .001) and expressive motivations (β = .28, p < .001) on the willingness to join an association were statistically significant. In contrast, H3 was not supported, because career-related motivation was not related to willingness. To test the relative effect of each motivation, we used Cohen’s f² effect size statistic. Guidelines for assessing the degree of substantive impact are indicated by values of .02, .15, and .23, representing small, medium, and large effects, respectively (Cohen, 1988). In contrast to what was expected, the effect of instrumental motivation on associational willingness (f² = .16) was larger than the direct effect of expressive motivation (f² = .09); thus, H4 was not supported. It is noteworthy that this behavior occurs when the mean score obtained for the total sample in expressive motivation exceeded that in instrumental motivation (M = 4.01 > M = 3.44; t = 11.01, p < .001).

We then tested the effect of civic engagement on motivations. In support to H5, the four civic engagement factors, civic duty (β = .44, p < .001), civic skills (β = .15, p < .01), social connection (β = .21, p < .001), and civic participation (β = .13, p < .01), had statistically significant effects on instrumental motivation. H6 and H7 received partial support, because expressive motivation was associated with civic duty (β = .32, p < .001) and social connection (β = .22, p < .001), whereas career-related motivation was associated with civic skills (β = .15, p < .05) and social connection (β = .17, p < .01). When comparing the relative impact of the four civic engagement factors on the three categories of motivations, the effect of civic duty on instrumental motivation (f² = .23) was notably larger than on expressive and career-related motivations. Similarly, the effects of civic skills, social connection, and civic participation on instrumental motivation were slightly larger. In general, these results support H8.

To test H9, we calculated the isolated effect of each civic engagement factor on associational willingness through each category of motivations (Table 4). As expected, instrumental motivation mediated the indirect effects of all civic duty (β = .17, p < .001), civic skills (β = .06, p < .01), social connection (β = .08, p < .001), and civic participation (β = .06, p < .05). Expressive motivation mediated the effects of civic duty (β = .09, p < .001) and social connection (β = .06, p < .01). Career-related motivation did not perform any mediating role in the model. These results offer partial support to H9. Although all mediating effects were small, f² values were larger for instrumental motivation than for expressive and career-related motivations, thus supporting H10. A summary of the research hypotheses is presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Summary of Hypotheses.

Hypotheses	Outcome
H1: Instrumental motivation has a positive direct effect on the willingness to join an association	Supported
H2: Expressive motivation has a positive direct effect on the willingness to join an association	Supported
H3: Career-related motivation has a positive direct effect on the willingness to join an association	Not supported
H4: The effect of expressive motivation on the willingness to join an association is stronger than the effects of instrumental and career-related motivations	Not supported
H5: Civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) has a positive direct effect on instrumental motivation to join an association	Supported
H6: Civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) has a positive direct effect on expressive motivation to join an association	Partially supported
H7: Civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) has a positive direct effect on career-related motivation to join an association	Partially supported
H8: The effect of civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) on instrumental motivation is stronger than the effects on expressive and career-related motivations to join an association	Supported
H9: Civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) has a positive indirect effect on the willingness to join an association, through instrumental, expressive, and career-related motivations	Partially supported
H10: The mediating effect of instrumental motivation in the relationship between civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) and the willingness to join an association is stronger than the mediating effect of expressive and career-related motivations	Supported

The lower portion of Table 4 includes the R² indices of the global adjustment of the model. Previous civic engagement factors explained 47% of the variance in instrumental motivation, 23% in expressive motivation, and 9% in career-related motivation. Combined, significant paths explain 33% of the variance in the willingness to join an association. Moreover, the Q² values associated with the Stone–Geisser criterion (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974) were consistently higher than zero, indicating that prerequisites of predictive relevance for the model were fulfilled (Chin, 1998a). Figure 2 summarizes the research model.

Figure 2.

Research model.

Discussion

One main purpose of this study was to analyze the relation between motivations and the willingness to join an association. In general, our findings reveal that in accordance with official statistics based on samples of actual members (Directorate General for Education and Culture, 2014), young adult nonmembers tend to expect expressive outcomes (such as sociability and leisure) in associational involvement to a larger extent than altruistic and career-related returns. However, we did not find support for the hypothesis that such expressive motivation had the strongest effect on the willingness to join an association. Instead, instrumental motivation played a prevailing role in our model. That is, when socialization effects are controlled, the desires to help others and to contribute to important causes appear to be the main drivers of associational participation, whereas expressive goals exert a secondary effect. Career-related motivation did not appear associated with the propensity to join. These findings may be interpreted according to expectancy theories (Vroom, 1964), which posit that human behavior is largely dependent on both expected outcomes and the personal value placed on those outcomes. That is, although entertainment, sociability, and career enhancement are frequently expected rewards of participation, it is a sense of positive contribution to the external community that encourages young adults to become more involved in an association. This result matches previous research on youth volunteering (Handy et al., 2010), thus concluding that when a mixture of reasons may coexist, altruistic motives are strong drivers of civic involvement in different nonprofit contexts.

Based on the previous, the study also intended to analyze the relation between four factors of civic engagement (civic duty, civic skills, social connection, and civic participation) and the willingness to join an association by considering the mediating role of motivations. Supporting our hypothesis, the four civic engagement factors had an effect on instrumental motivation. In accordance with previous studies (Lenzi et al., 2012; Stolle, 1998; van der Meer & van Ingen, 2009), this result notes that a personal civic orientation is linked to active participation in activist and other instrumental associations, while extending such evidence to multidimensional models of civic engagement. Furthermore, instrumental motivation was found to be a main mediator in the relation between those civic engagement factors and the willingness to join an association. Thus, it can be concluded that preexisting civic attitudes, abilities, connections, and behaviors create a perfect breeding ground for the development of related altruistic and collective goals, which represent, as previously stated, the main motivation of young adults to become involved in an association.

Expressive motivation was related to two civic engagement factors, namely, social connection and civic duty, and represented a secondary mediator in the relation between those dimensions and the willingness to join an association. From these results, it can be said that people who perceive high levels of social trust in their immediate surrounding communities are more likely to seek leisure and sociability in associations (Duke et al., 2009; Lenzi et al., 2012). Similarly, in support of previous studies (Putnam, 2000), it appears that certain civic attitudes may also be associated with patterns of expressive participation, although civic engagement is predominantly linked to instrumental goals (van der Meer & van Ingen, 2009), particularly when civic skills and participation are considered.

This study links career-related motivation to civic skills and social connection. This means that young adults with positive perceptions of their civic ability and social capital appear to be more aware of the career opportunities offered by associations (Handy et al., 2010). However, civic duty and participation did not affect career motivation; this again supports the general idea that personal civic engagement is more strongly associated with altruistic motivations. Similarly, because career-related motivation was not associated with associational willingness, it was not found to be an efficient vehicle to translate civic engagement into participation.

In sum, this study’s results contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve the understanding of self-selection into associations, by testing the effects of a multidimensional construct of civic engagement (Bobek et al., 2009; Zaff et al., 2010) and showing that different factors may actually have different effects on motivations and, thus, on the willingness to join. These insights have interesting practical implications, both for organizations with an active role in developing engaged and active young adults and for those attempting to improve their recruitment and retention in associational contexts. Regarding the former, universities and other educational institutions should provide young adults with an integral training in all the different components of personal civic engagement, to ensure the development of a stable commitment to community service. Thus, although basic knowledge and skills may be easily enhanced in classroom settings, further service learning and other teaching strategies providing direct experiences in real nonprofit organizations (Jacoby, 1996) may be more efficient in reinforcing the initial attitudes and mindsets at the time than in providing opportunities to practice the skills acquired and to build useful contacts.

Regarding practitioners in associations, our research recommends considering the diversity of functions performed by each organization (Hager, 2014) and using specific motivational appeals in member recruitment (Omoto, 2012; Snyder & Omoto, 2009). Although statistics usually report sociability and leisure as young people’s main expected returns, instrumental and altruistic reasons may be a much more potent underlying motivation to translate previous civic engagement into associational involvement (Handy et al., 2010). Therefore, organizations with a clear community orientation, such as political, human rights, or environmentalist associations, may need to make their instrumental purposes more explicit in their recruitment materials and campaigns. Similarly, sociocultural, sports, and leisure associations, more oriented to expressive goals, may find it beneficial to include certain instrumental dimensions in their daily activity, through collaborations with community organizations, the organization of occasional service events, or the contribution to important causes. In addition, although career hooks may be indispensable in student and professional associations’ recruitment campaigns, such a strategy does not appear to be effective to attract young adults’ participation in other types of associations and hence should be minimized when other motivating components are present.

This study suffers from certain limitations that should be addressed in future research. Mainly, we note the novelty of the theoretical framework used in the application of the multidimensional model of civic engagement to the study of young adults’ associational involvement and, therefore, to the operationalization of the factors included in the research model. Although the reliability and the validity of the scales used were ensured, more research into the conceptualization of those factors would be helpful.

Similarly, data were derived from a single sample of Spanish young adults, and thus, the model should be tested in other settings before generalizing the implications of this study. Cross-country comparisons in regions with higher levels of young adults’ participation like the United States, for instance, would be useful to replicate the present results and refine the constructs and their measurement. In similar terms, the cross-sectional design used does not allow for the establishment of causal interpretations from the relations between variables. Therefore, new longitudinal and experimental studies could help to clarify the influence of personal civic engagement on motivations and on the willingness to join an association in more controlled circumstances.

In addition, it may be pertinent to study the model in samples of young actual members of instrumental and expressive associations and examine whether civic engagement factors are associated with the same type of motivations and intentions to remain in the organization. Although this research considered a sample of nonmembers, it may be that initial expectancies and motivations change when associational experience is accumulated. For instance, expressive motivations may gain importance for members once they are in touch with others, with this becoming their main motivation to remain. Moreover, self-selection and subsequent socialization effects may be analyzed jointly in longitudinal designs to better describe the evolution of associational willingness in the form of actual new entries of a different nature and a different level of involvement.

Finally, to improve the predictive validity of the model, future attempts should pursue the consideration of other life-cycle stages and their interaction with the variables of the model, combined with the analysis of situational factors that may affect many of the relations hypothesized.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Civic Engagement.

Construct	Measurement
Civic duty (unimportant to very important; 5-point)	How important is for you in your life . . .? CD1—Helping to reduce hunger and poverty in the world CD2—Helping to make the world a better place to live in CD3—Helping to make sure all people are treated fairly CD4—Ensuring that people in the future can have things better CD5—Contributing to improve the community and society CD6—Helping disadvantaged people
Civic skills (strongly disagree to strongly agree; 5-point)	How much do you agree that are able to . . .? CS1—Send an e-mail or written petition to an institution CS2—File a formal complaint against a firm or public entity CS3—Contact a political representative in the community CS4—Gather resources to solve problems in the community CS5—Spread political or social messages by e-mail CS6—Contact the media to express your opinion on an issue CS7—Express your view in front of a group of people
Social connection (strongly disagree to strongly agree; 5-point)	How much do you agree with the following affirmations? SC1—I trust the institutions of my city SC2—I could ask for help or a favor from neighbors SC3—In my town or city, I feel like my opinion counts SC4—In my neighborhood, there are lots of people who care about me SC5—In a critical situation, I could turn to many institutions in my city SC6—In my neighborhood, people often stop to talk to each other
Civic participation (never to very often; 5-point)	How often do you . . .? CP1—Collaborate in social or environmental campaigns in your city CP2—Attend and participate in local charitable events CP3—Volunteer your time CP4—Donate money to social or environmental organizations CP5—Donate food or clothes to charity CP6—Be part of political or syndical bodies (excluded) CP7—Donate blood (excluded)

Appendix B

Motivations to Join an Association.

Construct	MeasurementHow important are for you the following reasons to join an association?
Instrumental motivation (unimportant to very important; 5-point)	IM1—To advocate basic citizen rights IM2—To contribute to solve problems in the community IM3—To help disadvantaged people IM4—To provide a service in the community IM5—To denounce social injustices IM6—To participate in public decision making IM7—To change the things that go wrong in society
Expressive motivation (unimportant to very important; 5-point)	EM1—To relate to people with similar interests and goals EM2—To participate in ludic activities EM3—To enjoy leisure and fun during free time EM4—To meet new people EM5 -To practice my favorite hobby (excluded) EM6 -To spend time with my friends (excluded)
Career-related motivation (unimportant to very important; 5-point)	CM1—To enhance the curriculum vitae CM2—To acquire professional skills CM3—To create work contacts

Appendix C

Willingness to Join.

Construct	Measurement
Willingness to join (strongly disagree to strongly agree; 5-point)	How much do you agree with the following affirmations? WJ1—I would be pleased to join an association WJ2—Sometimes, I think about joining an association WJ3—I like the idea of joining an association WJ4—I am willing to dedicate my time to participate in an association WJ5—I am willing to get actively involved in an association WJ6—I feel like joining an association WJ7—There are many associations I would like to join WJ8—I sympathize with the ideals of some associations I know

Construct

Measurement

Willingness to join
(strongly disagree to strongly agree; 5-point)

How much do you agree with the following affirmations?
WJ1—I would be pleased to join an association
WJ2—Sometimes, I think about joining an association
WJ3—I like the idea of joining an association
WJ4—I am willing to dedicate my time to participate in an association
WJ5—I am willing to get actively involved in an association
WJ6—I feel like joining an association
WJ7—There are many associations I would like to join
WJ8—I sympathize with the ideals of some associations I know

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.

Author Biographies

Ana Lanero is a professor in the Department of Business Management at the University of León. She has a PhD in social psychology, with a thesis about entrepreneurship education in European university contexts. Her research lines are entrepreneurship education, youth participation, and nonprofit marketing.

José Luis Vázquez is a professor of marketing in the Department of Business Management at the University of León. He is the founder and president of the International Association on Public and Nonprofit Marketing. His topics of research include public and nonprofit marketing, entrepreneurship, and corporate social responsibility.

Pablo Gutiérrez is a professor of marketing in the Department of Business Management, at the University of León. He has a PhD in economics and business, and his research lines are public and nonprofit marketing, quality of service, and entrepreneurship.

References

Adams

D. S.

(1983). Selection, socialization, and four types of members in the Red Cross chapter: A typology of voluntary association members. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 12, 31-45.

Barclay

Higgins

Thompson

(1995). The Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285-309.

Bekkers

(2005). Participation in voluntary associations: Relations with resources, personality, and political values. Political Psychology, 26, 439-454.

Bobek

Zaff

Lerner

R. M.

(2009). Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of civic action: Towards an integrated measure of civic engagement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 615-627.

Bollen

K. A.

(1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Centre of Sociological Research. (2011). Barómetro de Marzo [March’s Barometer]. Estudio nº 2.864. Madrid, Spain: Centre of Sociological Research.

Chen

K. K.

Lune

Queen

E. L.

(2013). How values shape and are shaped by nonprofit and voluntary organizations: The current state of the field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 856-885.

Chicharro

M. M.

(2000). Sobre jóvenes y sus asociaciones: Utilidad y significados de las asociaciones juveniles para sus socios: Un estudio de casos [About the youth and their associations. Utility and meanings of youth associations for members. A case study] (Unpublished thesis). Complutense University of Madrid, Spain.

Chin

W. W.

(1998a). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22, 7-16.

10.

Chin

W. W.

(1998b). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In George

(Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.

11.

Chin

W. W.

Marcolin

B. L.

Newsted

P. R.

(2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14, 189-217.

12.

Clary

E. G.

Snyder

(2002). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 156-159.

13.

Cnaan

R. A.

Goldberg-Glen

R. S.

(1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer in human services. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 269-284.

14.

Coffé

Geys

(2007). Toward an empirical characterization of bridging and bonding social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 121-139.

15.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Cook

C. E.

(1984). Participation in public interest groups: Membership motivations. American Politics Quarterly, 12, 409-430.

17.

de Tocqueville

. (2004). Democracy in America. New York, NY: Library of America.

18.

Directorate General for Education and Culture. (2014). Flash Eurobarometer 408 (European Youth). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_408_en.pdf.

19.

Duke

N. N.

Skay

C. L.

Pettingell

S. L.

Borowsky

I. W.

(2009). From adolescent connections to social capital: Predictors of civic engagement in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 161-168.

20.

Faich

R. G.

Gale

R. P.

(1971). The environmental movement: From recreation to politics. The Pacific Sociological Review, 14, 270-287.

21.

Firat

R. B.

Glanville

J. L.

(2017). Measuring diversity in voluntary association membership: A comparison proxy and direct approaches. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(1), 218-230.

22.

Flanagan

C. A.

(2008). Young people’s civic engagement and political development. In Furlong

(Ed.), International handbook of youth and young adulthood (pp. 293-306). London, England: Routledge.

23.

Florin

Jones

Wandersman

(1986). Black participation in voluntary associations. Journal of Voluntary Associations, 15, 65-86.

24.

Fornell

Bookstein

F. L.

(1982). A comparative analysis of two structural equation models: Lisrel and PLS applied to market data. In Fornell

(Ed.), A second generation of multivariate analysis (Vol. 1. pp. 289-324). New York, NY: Praeger.

25.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

26.

García-Mainar

Marcuello

(2007). Members, volunteers, and donors in nonprofit organizations in Spain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 100-120.

27.

Geisser

(1974). A predictive approach to the random effects model. Biometrica, 61, 101-107.

28.

Glover

T. D.

Hemingway

J. L.

(2005). Locating leisure in the social capital literature. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 387-401.

29.

Gordon

Babchuk

(1959). A typology of voluntary associations. American Sociological Review, 24, 22-29.

30.

Haddad

M. A.

(2006). Civic responsibility and patterns of voluntary participation around the world. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 1220-1242.

31.

Hager

M. A.

(2014). Engagement motivations in professional associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2 Suppl.), 39S-60S.

32.

Handy

Cnaan

R. A.

Hustinx

Kang

Brudney

J. L.

Haski-Leventhal

… Zrinscak

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

33.

Hooghe

Botterman

(2011). Urbanization, community size, and population density: Is there a rural-urban divide in participation in voluntary organizations or social network formation? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 120-144.

34.

Hulland

(1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195-204.

35.

Hwang

Grabb

Curtis

(2005). Why get involved? Reasons for voluntary-association activity among Americans and Canadians. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 387-403.

36.

Jacoby

A. P.

(1965). Some correlates of instrumental and expressive orientations of associational membership. Sociological Inquiry, 35, 163-175.

37.

Jacoby

A. P.

(Ed.). (1996). Service-Learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

38.

Jacoby

A. P.

Babchuk

(1963). Instrumental and expressive voluntary associations. Sociology and Social Research, 47, 416-417.

39.

Jennings

M. K.

Stoker

(2004). Social trust and civic engagement across time and generations. Acta Politica, 39, 342-379.

40.

Knutsen

W. L.

Brower

R. S.

(2010). Managing expressive and instrumental accountabilities in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A qualitative investigation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 588-610.

41.

Kreutzer

(2009). Nonprofit governance during organizational transition in voluntary associations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20, 117-133.

42.

Lenzi

Vieno

Perkins

D. D.

Santinello

Elgar

F. J.

Morgan

Mazzardis

(2012). Family affluence, school and neighborhood contexts and adolescents’ civic engagement: A cross-national study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 197-210.

43.

Mann

Leahy

(2010). Social capital in an outdoor recreation context. Environmental Management, 45, 363-376.

44.

Marzana

Marta

Pozzi

(2012). Young adults and civic behavior: The psychosocial variables determining it. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 40, 49-63.

45.

Marzana

Pozzi

Fasanelli

Mercuri

Fattori

(2016). The relation between participatory social practices and social representations of citizenship in young adulthood. Voluntas, 27, 1152-1170.

46.

McClurg

S. D.

(2003). Social networks and political participation: The role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 449-464.

47.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

48.

OECD Family Database. (2015). Participation in voluntary work and membership of groups and organization for young adults. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/family/CO4.1-Participation-voluntary-work.pdf.

49.

Omoto

A. M.

(2012). Social policy: Barriers and opportunities for personality and social psychology. In Deaux

Snyder

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 804-829). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

50.

Putnam

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

51.

Quintelier

(2013). Socialization or self-selection? Membership in deliberative associations and political attitudes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 174-192.

52.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Will

(2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). Hamburg, Germany: University of Hamburg.

53.

Selle

Stromsnes

(2001). Membership and democracy. In Dekker

Uslaner

(Eds.), Social capital and participation in everyday life (pp. 134-147). London, England: Routledge.

54.

Smith

D. H.

(1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23, 243-263.

55.

Snyder

Omoto

A. M.

(2009). Who gets involved and why? The psychology of volunteerism. In Liu

E. S. C.

Holosko

M. J.

T. W.

(Eds.), Youth empowerment and volunteerism: Principles, policies and practices (pp. 3-26). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.

56.

Standelmann-Steffen

Freitag

(2011). Making civil society work: Models of democracy and their impact on civic engagement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 526-551.

57.

Stolle

(1998). Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized trust in voluntary associations. Political Psychology, 19, 497-525.

58.

Stolle

Hooghe

M. R. J.

(2005). Inaccurate, exceptional, one-sided or irrelevant? The debate about the alleged decline of social capital and civic engagement in Western societies. British Journal of Political Science, 35, 149-167.

59.

Stone

(1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36, 111-133.

60.

Sundeen

R. A.

(1992). Differences in personal goals and attitudes among volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21, 271-291.

61.

Theiss-Morse

Hibbing

J. R.

(2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 227-249.

62.

van der Meer

van Ingen

E. J

. (2009). Schools of democracy? Disentangling the relationship between civic participation and political action in 17 European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 48, 281-308.

63.

Verba

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

H. E.

(1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.

64.

Vroom

V. H.

(1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley.

65.

Williams

J. A.

Ortega

S. T.

(1986). The multidimensionality of joining. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 15(4), 35-44.

66.

Wilson

Musick

M. A.

(1997).Work and volunteering: The long arm of the job. Social Forces, 76, 251-272.

67.

Zaff

Boyd

Lerner

J. V.

Lerner

R. M.

(2010). Active and engaged citizenship: Multi-group and longitudinal factorial analysis of an integrated construct of civic engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 736-750.