Why do students differ in the value they place on pro-social activities?

Abstract

Pro-social activities are intended to benefit someone or something other than oneself. There is little known about the pro-social activities students valorize or why students differ in the value they place on different activities. The study seeks to present an understanding about both these matters. Informed by the critical theorist Jürgen Habermas we first constructed a conceptual model to analyse the desirability and feasibility of pro-social activity among our sample. Using data from an online survey with students involved and not involved in a pro-social activity, we found a significant moderator effect of this engagement. Moreover, students differed in the way they valued different activities, with the engaged group devoting time to educational pro-social activities, while the others were more attracted to alleviating hunger and poverty as pro-social activities.

Keywords

community higher education social change

The increase in literature on citizenship education especially in the UK (Davies, 2001) and the US (see the Kellogg Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good, 2011a, 2011b) has been accompanied by a growing recognition of the legitimacy of service-learning as an appropriate pedagogy that universities can use to teach students about citizenship (Billig et al., 2005; Hildreth, 2000; Kahne and Westheimer, 2006). As Hustinx et al. (2005: 524) note this upsurge in interest reflects a number of parallel concerns. The first is that in the wake of challenges such as the recent global financial crises, climate change and increasing social unrest, service-learning helps universities demonstrate that they are responding to these ‘troubled times’ (Marullo and Edwards, 2000a) by fostering graduate attributes such as a ‘sense of civic responsibility’, ‘social responsibility’ and ‘citizenship’ (GAP, 2008). Service-learning thus softens the image of universities as institutions preoccupied with ensuring graduates are ‘market-ready’ and possess transferable ‘work’ skills (Crick and Joldersma, 2006), and gives the impression instead that they also act as vehicles for transforming society (Boyer, 1996; Marullo and Edwards, 2000b) operating with a discourse of care rather than only accountability (Crick and Joldersma, 2006). At the level of the individual student, service-learning has been found to improve academic performance (Eyler and Giles, 1999), practical understanding of academic theories (Eyler et al., 2001), social, cognitive and interpersonal skills (Klute and Billig, 2002), and a positive attitude in students towards their educational institution (Furco, 2002).

Importantly, service-learning develops students’ civic responsibility (Ballantyne and Phelps, 2002; Ngai, 2006) as by definition, service-learning entails working with the community (Caspersz et al., 2012) in response to community-identified needs and opportunities (Kenworthy-U’ren et al., 2006). In other words, service-learning necessitates a pro-social activity or ‘some sense of connection to others and to the common good’ (Flanagan and Bundick, 2011: 20) that is intended to benefit someone or something other than oneself (Batson, 1998); without pro-social activity, there can be no service-learning, nor can there be citizenship education. Yet, while we may understand why students volunteer for pro-social activity (see Hustinx et al., 2005 for instance), there is little in-depth knowledge about the types of activities students valorize, or the motivation for these activities.

In this article, we therefore seek to contribute to this understanding about the pro-social activities students valorize and why students differ in the value they place on different pro-social activities. This has been done by surveying students who are and who are not involved in a pro-social activity. We argue that this understanding will assist those working in this field in developing more effective educational responses in both citizenship education and service-learning to maximize the pro-social proclivity that other research suggests is already evident in Generation Y (the generation that make up the sample in the research) (Hustinx et al., 2005; Welch and Welch, 2007; Wolburg and Pokrywczynski, 2001).

The research approach

The social theorist Jürgen Habermas guides the conceptualization developed in the study. Habermas argued that changing either ourselves or our ‘world’ involves re-orientating our life-world (Habermas, 1987). Habermas suggested that the life-world was ‘the indirect context of what is said, discussed, addressed in a situation’, a kind of ‘inner knowing’ (Habermas, 1987: 131 in Brookfield, 2005: 1141). In Habermas’s framework, the life-world has three structural components: culture or the particular traditions of a community, the network of solidarities or society and, finally, processes of socialization or personality development that formulate identities. The life-world therefore reflects a ‘disposition’ or tendency to act that is influenced by situational features, that is, culture, tradition, society and socialization. Action or engagement can thus be conceptualized as emerging from changes to meaning in the life-world.

In The Theory of Communicative Action (1984), Habermas suggests that changing our understanding of meaning in the life-world is attainable through ‘communicative rationality’, which is the attaining of new meaning through social engagement or social action with others (Roderick, 1985). Communicative rationality differs from cognitive rationality, which reflects a goal-directed or instrumental action. Instead, through communicative action or by freely engaging in ‘argumentation’ about intersubjective meaning with others, life-world meaning can be re-framed. Habermas’s concept of discourse ethics clarifies the status we accord to these meanings.

Discourse ethics melds two aspects: substantive questions of good (that is, condition U) which can only be answered in accordance with the self-referentiality principle, or rather what is good for me or for us (Principle D). That is, discourse ethics (or how we come to know what is good for me and us) could be described as agreements that the self reaches that are attained through communicative action (or moral argumentation) between participants who freely engage in their debate. Thus, discourse ethics are our own self-understandings or values; they are not universal codes. Nonetheless, while there can be no universal agreement on these, at the same time, discourse ethics can only be conducted in reference to what Habermas calls ‘condition U’ or the substantive question of a good or moral point of view. As King says:

If one refuses to base one’s moral decision-making on the validity of the arguments of others rather than one’s own interests and desires, then one is not engaged in moral argumentation at all. (2009: 295)

Finally, Habermas offers a third conceptualization that has been useful in the study and that is the framework on knowledge/interests wherein Habermas distinguished between instrumental, hermeneutic and emancipatory knowledge/interests (Habermas, 1968). Instrumental interest reflects purposeful intervention by humans and is associated with a technical, objective knowledge. Habermas associates hermeneutic knowledge with the knowledge developed by human disciplines such as history or the social sciences. This is considered a strategic knowledge as the individual draws on this to position themselves in the web of social relationships. Emancipatory knowledge/interest is Habermas’s third form, which he associates with the knowledge generated by the critical sciences. Through communicative rationality social actors free themselves from the constraints of current roles, interactions, identities, interpretive patterns and norms to ‘construct’ ‘new’ meanings. That is, through communicative rationality individuals change both dispositional and situational features that inform an alternative or new meaning of events. This is the emancipatory knowledge/interest that in turn fosters a tendency towards action.

Habermas’s conceptualization has informed the study with regard to the concepts of perceived desirability and feasibility of students to participate in pro-social activity. Perceived desirability refers to the ‘personal attractiveness’ of actions, while perceived feasibility refers to the degree to which one feels personally capable of acting (Krueger et al., 2000). Research notes that there are particular features of disposition that inform perceived desirability or feasibility of engagement in pro-social activities for an individual (Basil and Weber, 2006; Omoto et al., 2010): egoistic motivations, altruistic motivations or a combination of both. Egoistic motivations are when an individual acts pro-socially out of a concern for appearances, thus wishing to appear socially desirable (Basil and Weber, 2006). The desire to develop social ties was an additional egoistic motivation found to inform an individual’s disposition to act pro-socially (Boz and Palaz, 2007). Altruistic motivation or a concern for the welfare of others (Silk and House, 2011) has long been thought of as a major reason for pro-social activity such as volunteering (Boz and Palaz, 2007).

Other research similarly notes the importance of situational factors embedded in societal dynamics for engagement in pro-social activity. For instance, pro-social behaviour in students has been found to correlate with positive attitudes towards their community and family (Morrissey and Werner-Wilson, 2005). Participation in social action differs by regions of the world (Allik and Realo, 2004) as a result of the ideology of countries and their institutions (Curtis et al., 2001; Flanagan et al., 1998). For instance Omoto et al. (2010) argue that the widespread support of citizen participation supports a tradition of engagement in community organizations and voluntary associations, whereas Boz and Palaz (2007) argue that, while volunteering in Turkish society is valued, it has traditionally been confined to activities at an individual level, such as providing financial help and accommodation for the poor and homeless.

Research also confirms the relationship between social engagement (and hence the opportunity for communicative rationality) and higher levels of perceived desirability and feasibility of engaging in pro-social activity (Boz and Palaz, 2007; Omoto et al., 2010). For instance, through engagement (or communicative rationality) participants develop an understanding of citizenship (Obradović and Masten, 2007), an affiliation to their community (Boz and Palaz, 2007; Pavey et al., 2011; Zeldin, 2004), and subsequently seek to actively participate as citizens (Youniss, 2011). Similarly, participation in structured activities has been found to affect an individual’s pro-social activity (Albanesi et al., 2007; Eccles et al., 2003; Morrissey and Werner-Wilson, 2005), with participation in religious activities being highlighted as having a particularly positive effect on future engagement (Eccles et al., 2003; Hustinx et al., 2005; Perry et al., 2008). Peterman and Kennedy (2003) describe this as the influence of breadth and positiveness of prior experience on the future perceived desirability and feasibility of actions.

Informed by this Habermasian interpretation of the research we thus investigated the effects of experience, situation and disposition on the intentions of students to engage in pro-social activity. We surveyed two groups of students: those already involved in a pro-social activity and those not involved in a pro-social activity. In addition to asking students about ‘why’ they were involved, we also asked ‘what’ activities they devoted their time to and what activities they would like to devote their time to (see measures on situational factors, and pro-social activity). The following propositions subsequently guided the study:

P1a and b: Perceived desirability (a) and feasibility (b) about pro-social behaviour in university students will be positively related to breadth and positiveness of prior experience.

P2: Students with broader and more positive prior experience will be more willing to engage in pro-social behaviour.

P3a and b: Perceived desirability (a) and feasibility (b) of pro-social behaviour is positively associated with the willingness to participate in activities aimed at social change.

P4a and b: Situational features will positively impact on the (a) perceived desirability and (b) feasibility of participating in pro-social activities.

P5: Situational features will positively impact on students’ willingness to engage in pro-social behaviour.

P6: Individuals with high scores in values-related personality traits, altruism, motivation and ego-enhancement traits (or concern for appearances) are more likely to engage in pro-social behaviour.

P7a and b: High dispositional factors are likely to increase perceived (a) desirability (b) and feasibility of the pro-social activities.

P8: There is a positive relationship between perceived feasibility and desirability of the engagement in pro-social behaviour.

P9: Participation in an appropriate program will moderate the relationships between previous experience, situational, and dispositional factors and perceived desirability and feasibility of pro-social actions, and well as willingness of future engagement.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model (being or not involved in SIFE is considered moderator – P9).

The research site

The research was conducted with SIFE1 (Students in Free Enterprise) and non-SIFE students. SIFE is about students creating sustainable positive social change in their community. SIFE is a student-driven team-based activity that is offered at most universities as a co-curricular activity. The SIFE mission is to ‘bring together the top leaders of today and tomorrow to create a better, more sustainable world…’, and SIFE activities are conducted as per the following criterion:

Considering the relevant economic, social and environmental factors, which SIFE team most effectively empowered people in need by applying business and economic concepts and an entrepreneurial approach to improve their quality of life and standard of living.²

SIFE was chosen because this is a pro-social activity. Guided by the mission and criterion, SIFE projects are either targeted at assisting low socio-economic groups (to enhance their capacity to be sustainable in their community and society, for instance, by developing self-supporting economic projects); or developing and implementing community activities (such as enhancing financial literacy in young children and/or at risk youth).

Research measures

In the study, breadth and positiveness of prior experience (Table A1) was measured using 13 items using a 7-point Likert scale. These were drawn from Smith et al. (2009) and adapted for our purposes. Participants were asked to indicate whether they were likely to engage in this activity (yes/no) and, if so ‘how many times’ they had engaged in this activity. Sample items include: ‘Have you helped others with housework’, ‘Made a point of talking to a friend’, ‘Family or acquaintance who you know is depressed’, or ‘Given money to charity’. The activities were separated in low/surface and high involvement level activities. An example of a low/surface involvement activity was ‘giving directions’, whereas examples of a high involvement activity were ‘donating blood’ or ‘volunteering for charity’.

Situational factors (Table A2) referred to the opportunities for developing pro-social activity and attitudes towards community. These were measured with 8 items using a 7-point Likert scale (‘Don’t know at all’ being 1 to ‘Know all the time’ being 7). Items were drawn from Morrissey and Werner-Wilson (2005) and adapted accordingly. Sample items include: ‘Do the following activities exist in your community?’ (e.g. church, youth group/community action group, etc.), ‘Is your community a good place to live?’, ‘What has been your involvement in a: church, youth group/community action group, etc.?’

Dispositional factors (Tables A3–A5) included a cognitive component of motivation (understanding the values and needs of the community), altruistic motivations (values-related personality traits) and social ties and the egoistic motivations (ego-enhancement traits). These were measured with 28 items that were drawn from Basil and Weber (2006) and Smith et al. (2009) using a 7-point Likert scale (‘Unimportant’ being 1 to ‘Important all the time’ 7). Sample items included asking participants to indicate how important the following causes are to them: education, youth, care-giving, etc.; and using a yes/no response participants were then asked whether they have donated any money or time to these causes. They also included social ties such as; ‘family and friends know where I am when going out’, ‘importance of knowing friends’, as well as personality traits, altruistic (‘concerned feelings for others’) and egoistic motivations (‘how I look is important to me’).

The perceived desirability and perceived feasibility of pro-social activities (Table A6) were measured with 18 items using a 7-point Likert scale items. These items were drawn from Peterman and Kennedy (2003) and Sprecher and Fehr (2005) and adapted accordingly. Sample items included asking participants about ‘feeling compassionate love for people from everywhere’, ‘feeling happy when strangers are happy’, ‘understanding rather than judging’ actions of strangers, ‘being there for people when needed’.

Items to measure pro-social activity were drawn from Sprecher and Fehr (2005) and adapted accordingly. The behaviour was measured in reported frequency, duration, and amount of effort in conducting pro-social activities (e.g., ‘How often’ or ‘How much time was dedicated to activities that will benefit individuals or causes’).

Finally, the questionnaire also included information about the student’s cultural and religious background, level of education, employment and traditional socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age).

Research procedures

An online survey was first tested with 11 participants for clarity of the question wording. The survey was administered during November 2009–February 2010 to participants in four universities: two Australian universities, one in China and one in the Netherlands. The survey was administered to all participants engaged in our pro-social activity of SIFE. We used a census design given the fact that the population of interest is small and identifiable. We also sampled a quota of non-SIFE participants in the faculties where the SIFE participants were enrolled.

With respect to the control group (not involved in SIFE activities) of 105 participants across Australia, China, and the Netherlands, random sampling was not possible, due to the lack of a sampling frame (confidentiality of student records). Through filtering questions on socio-demographics, we aimed at obtaining a non-SIFE group paired to the SIFE members; however the response rate was lower, which can be partly explained by participants not being given any incentives for participation in the study.

Multiple item measures were used to help determine the psychometric properties of 17 constructs and the statistical analysis further ensured the internal consistency (see Appendix). A two-step approach (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) was adopted which involved testing the measurement model first and building uni-dimensional congeneric models to be used in the second step of testing the structural equations model. As indicated, the measuring instruments were primarily adapted from prior validated scales with adjustments from the pilot test.

Research results

The total sample included 242 respondents: 130 were females. There were 137 SIFE participants (representing a 71% overall response rate) and 105 non-involved in SIFE. Fifty-seven participants were members of a religious faith. The average age of 21.1 (SD = 4.1) years indicates presence of postgraduate and of undergraduate participants in their later years of study. On an ordinal scale up to 4, our respondents indicated an average intention to be involved in pro-social activities of 3.5 (SD = 0.87). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of gender or age, but it is uncertain whether attitudes and preferences may have introduced any bias in results.

As indicated, we analysed the latent constructs involved in the structural model of pro-social behaviour and a multi-group comparison to identify the main differences between SIFE and non-SIFE students (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Correlations between latent constructs.

Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1 Breadth of prior experience (surface involvement)	1
2 Breadth of prior experience (deep involvement)	−0.565**	1
3 Positiveness of prior experience (surface involvement)	−0.191**	−0.053	1
4 Positiveness of prior experience (deep involvement)	−0.030	0.118	−0.430**	1
5 Attitudes toward community	0.256**	0.186**	−0.06	−0.009	1
6 Perceived value – education	0.322**	0.291**	0.037	−0.138	0.235**	1
7 Engagement – donate moneyforeducation	0.008	0.079	−0.069	0.057	0.004	0.159*	1
8 Engagement – donate money for hunger and poverty	0.171*	0.118	−0.031	0.042	0.044	0.220**	0.609**	1
9 Perceived value – hunger and poverty	0.306**	0.285**	0.06	0.057	0.153*;	0.691**	0.323**	0.141	1
10 Engagement – time dedicated tohunger and poverty	−0.027	0.041	−0.078	0.150*	−0.077	0.149*	0.576**	0.502**	0.235**	1
11 Engagement – time dedicated education	−0.133	−0.101	0.153*	0.024	−0.064	0.191**	0.440**	0.352**	−0.097	−0.505**	1
12 Social ties	0.178*	0.101	0.089	−0.113	0.262**	0.413**	0.053	0.139	0.322**	0.063	−0.182*	1
13 Ego-enhancement traits	−0.007	−0.036	0.095	−0.055	0.105	0.113	0.184**	0.147*	0.084	0.03	−0.063	0.073	1
14 Altruistic motivations	0.258**	0.196**	0.095	−0.177*;	0.179*	0.532**	0.187**	0.234**	0.487**	0.128	−0.153*	0.365**	0.126	1
15 Perceived desirability of intentions to engage**	0.198**	0.209**	0.054	−0.049	0.038	0.413**	0.436**	0.456**	0.503**	0.305**	0.306**	0.291**	0.106	0.514**	1
16 Perceived feasibility of intentions to engage	0.333**	0.342**	0.005	−0.074	0.105	0.561**	0.271**	0.293**	0.456**	0.190**	0.226**	0.319**	0.045	0.572**	0.776**

Note: ** indicates correlations significant at 0.05 level and * significant at 0.1 level.

The reliability above 0.7 and validity of the constructs show that the combined set of indicators represents the 13 exogenous and 4 endogenous constructs (confirmatory factor analysis conducted in AMOS with good non-significant models, average variance > 0.5 and most standardized factor loadings > 0.5). The situational factors, the perceived desirability and feasibility of pro-social behaviour, and engagement (of time and donations) have the highest reliability values, whereas breadth and positiveness of prior experience and ego-enhancement traits have the lowest.

Analysis of data

Figure 2 presents the set of relations found to be significant in the structural equations model (SEM) estimated using the data set described above.

Figure 2.

Estimated model (being involved or not in SIFE is considered moderator).

The model has acceptable GOF measures (Hair et al., 2010) indicating that the matrix of variances-covariances from the sample is closely replicated by the model: Chi-sq = 50.066 (Bollen-Stine p = 0.015); GFI = 0.957; AGFI = 0.85; CFI = 0.963; RMSEA = 0.065; AIC = 178.066 (751.525 independence model).

As can be noted in Table 2, the results confirmed five propositions, six partially, and disconfirm six propositions.

Table 2.

Research findings.

Propositions			Whole sample		SIFE		Non-SIFE
			Par. estimate	p	Par. estimate	p	Par. estimate	p
Breadth prior experience (deep involvement) →	Perceived desirability	P1a confirmed	0.145	0.002	0.145	0.004	0.146	0.053
Breadth prior experience (deep involvement) →	Perceived feasibility	P1b partially confirmed	0.168	<0.001	0.02	0.705	0.359	<0.001
Breadth prior experience (deep involvement) →	Engaged scholarship / pro-social activities	P2 partially confirmed	0.123	0.024	0.131	0.046	0.11	0.25
Perceived desirability →	Engaged scholarship / pro-social activities	P3a disconfirmed	0.092	0.225	0.137	0.212	0.06	0.595
Perceived feasibility →	Engaged scholarship / pro-social activities	P3b disconfirmed	0.090	0.428	0.045	0.141	0.098	0.712
Altruistic motivations →	Engaged scholarship / pro-social activities	P6 partially confirmed	0.199	0.006	0.11	0.269	0.277	0.012
Altruistic motivations →	Perceived desirability	P7a disconfirmed	0.056	0.401	0.097	0.125	−0.026	0.797
Perceived value (importance education) →	Perceived desirability	P7a partially confirmed	−0.222	0.076	−0.16	0.163	–0.286	0.01
Perceived value (importance hunger) →	Perceived desirability	P7a confirmed	0.273	<0.001	0.232	0.006	0.29	<0.001
Time given hunger →	Perceived desirability	P7a disconfirmed	0.275	0.098	0.298	0.138	0.287	0.25
Time given education →	Perceived desirability	P7a disconfirmed	0.436	0.149	0.366	0.171	0.284	0.297
Altruistic motivations →	Perceived feasibility	P7b confirmed	0.433	<0.001	0.413	<0.001	0.528	<0.001
Perceived value (importance education) →	Perceived feasibility	P7b confirmed	0.377	0.002	0.398	<0.001	0.259	0.048
Time given education →	Perceived feasibility	P7b partially confirmed	0.290	0.190	0.532	0.061	−0.024	0.941
Perceived value (importance hunger) →	Perceived feasibility	P7b disconfirmed	−0.015	0.829	0.068	0.45	−0.047	0.651
Time given hunger →	Perceived feasibility	P7b partially confirmed	0.336	0.091	−0.21	0.328	0.848	0.003
Perceived feasibility →	Perceived desirability	P8 confirmed	0.689	<0.001	0.826	<0.001	0.6	<0.001

Analysis of differences between SIFE and non-SIFE students

The results of MANOVA analysis, presented in Figures 3 and 4, indicate differences between our SIFE (engaged) and non-SIFE (not engaged) students.

Figure 3.

Differences between SIFE and non-SIFE students (significant at 0.01 level).

Figure 4.

Differences between SIFE and non-SIFE students (significant at 0.05 level).

The comparison shows that SIFE students had significantly higher breadth of experience in helping others, although not more positive experience than the non-SIFE students. SIFE students have also more frequently engaged in education activities, as a result of the importance they give to education issues. SIFE students in general seem to be more connected with family and friends, and their perceived desirability and feasibility of pro-social behaviour are significantly larger than for non-SIFE students. Further differences were that while SIFE students actively dedicate time for education, non-SIFE students are more inclined to channel their actions on dealing with social issues such as hunger.

Discussion

Drawing on the findings and the conceptual framework we present the discussion under the following headings:

factors motivating students across the sample to engage (or not) in pro-social activity;

differences in factors motivating engagement between SIFE and non-SIFE students and;

the pro-social activities valorized by SIFE and non-SIFE students.

Factors motivating students to engage in pro-social activity

In the study, positiveness of prior experience was likely to increase the perceived feasibility (self-confidence) and intention to further engage in pro-social activity, but not the perceived desirability of engagement. We also found that students with a breadth (broader) and positiveness of prior experience are more likely to engage in pro-social activity. Unlike previous research (see Hustinx et al., 2005; Morrissey and Werner-Wilson, 2005) we did not find significance for situational factors, but like others (see Boz and Palaz, 2007; Silk and House, 2011), the findings confirmed the importance of an altruistic disposition and perceived feasibility of engagement in pro-social activity.

Thus, the findings confirm the importance of the ‘inner knowing’ or life-world in fostering both desirability and feasibility of engaging in pro-social activity. While these findings highlight the importance of engagement in activity in informing this inner knowing, the differences we noted between the SIFE and non-SIFE students both confirm and extend this understanding further.

Differences in factors motivating students between SIFE and non-SIFE students

Experience was particularly significant for SIFE students’ engagement in pro-social activity (or behaviour) (Table 2, P2).

Taken together, we suggest that for SIFE students, experience had affirmed a criticality in their life-world whereby their disposition to participate in pro-social activities was embedded in their nature, regardless of the feasibility of actions: that is they were ‘inevitable’ participants in pro-social activities (Fitzsimmons and Douglas, 2010). However non-SIFE students are still ‘experimenting’ with engagement, thus experience is not only significant in shaping their desirability to act, but also the feasibility of action. Experience is thus an important feature forming their intentions to further engage.

A strong positive association was found across both SIFE and non-SIFE participants between perceived feasibility and desirability of engaging in pro-social behaviours. Our interpretation of this is (and especially given 1b) that having the skills and confidence to participate in pro-social activities is key to amplifying the desirability (feasibility) to engage in pro-social activities.

As we have already discussed in parts above, the results of MANOVA analysis, presented in Table 2, confirm differences between our SIFE (engaged) and non-SIFE (not engaged) participants. On this basis we suggest that P9 is supported.

Pro-social activities valorized by SIFE and non-SIFE students

Respondents found that higher-level opportunities for developing socially responsible behaviour are provided by performing clubs and community groups, rather than church youth groups (Table A2). Also, it appears that the community at large – as a network – is of greater importance to students rather than dyadic relationships between individuals in any one neighbourhood. Engagement via donations and time (volunteering) has consistently lower loadings than the importance of the dimension for engagement, possibly reflecting constraints when exercising pro-social behaviour (Table A3).

Implications

The findings reported above lead us to claim that the research provides an insight into the two areas that we believe it is necessary for us to better understand if we are to be more effective in the delivery of programs such as service-learning and civic education, that is what factors motivate student engagement in pro-social activity, and what pro-social activities students valorize.

The findings confirm the importance of engagement in moulding students’ life-worlds to encourage them to either engage in pro-social activity (as in the case of non-SIFE participants) or continue this engagement (as in the case of SIFE participants).

However, the differences between desirability and feasibility among our sample lead us to conclude that experience is not enough. While experience influenced the intentions of non-SIFE students to engage (as per perceived desirability and feasibility, Fitzsimmons and Douglas, 2010), this did not influence the likelihood of their engagement in pro-social behaviour (see P2 in Table 1). The importance of the relationship between experience and engagement was reinforced by SIFE students, whereby their experience was significantly related to the likelihood of being involved in pro-social activities (P2). The implication of this finding is that while we may expect levels of desirability and feasibility to indicate an intention to act (Kuehn, 2008; Fitzsimmons and Douglas, 2010) this may not translate into ‘actual’ engagement.

Furthermore, the differences between SIFE and non-SIFE participants in terms of the activities they valorize as creating social change, suggests that intention or propensity to act is also linked to the type of pro-social activity. While Table 2 shows that non-SIFE participants are more likely to donate money and give time to projects aimed at alleviating hunger and poverty, SIFE participants also valorize these activities, but are more likely to give time to educational activities. This suggests a number of implications worthy of consideration. For those with high intentions, but who still lack engagement (such as the non-SIFE participants), the type of pro-social activity likely to attract their engagement has to be both identifiable as a pro-social activity and feasible in terms of engagement: that is, donating money and time to hunger and poverty campaigns is a high-profile pro-social activity that is readily available. These activities are also accessible to those who lack a breadth of experience (for instance, the non-SIFE participants).

On the other hand, SIFE participants may have already graduated through this stage of engagement. As a result of their prior experience, valorizing education as a pro-social activity could be interpreted as evidence of changes in their life-world that values the long-term impact of educational activities in creating change for individuals or communities. This is as opposed to donating money and time to hunger or poverty, which may meet a short-term need, but not necessarily lead to long-term change.

These findings imply there is a scale of engagement in terms of pro-social behaviour by students. The relation between experience and feasibility and desirability suggests that those with no or minimal prior experience need experience to stimulate future engagement, while participants such as the SIFE students have become inevitable or embedded engagers in pro-social activity.

Finally, the differences we have noted between SIFE and non-SIFE participants indicates the opportunity that an enabling platform can give in shaping intentions to perform pro-social behaviour in participants. This reinforces recommendations in current scholarship that educational institutions can proactively foster perceived feasibility in participants towards performing pro-social behaviours, by offering appropriate teaching and learning experiences (Younnis, 2011).

Limitations and future research

While our analysis is based on an acceptable number of survey returns, the robustness of any quantitative analysis would undoubtedly be assisted by a greater sample size, consistent with the number of parameters to be estimated (the result of the complexity of our model). In addition, the quota sample for the non-SIFE students does not enable the estimation of the sampling error in this group at this stage. Although this data has produced a valuable comparison – considering the information provided and the purpose of the research – in order to assess how far the conditions have been satisfied for valid scientific generalization, replication with a representative sample of students would be required.

Furthermore, while reflecting diversity we have aggregated our findings in terms of reporting here. Further research is required to ascertain the stability of these findings as per contexts and cultures (Fitzsimmons and Douglas, 2010).

We also are aware that our research would be enriched by further qualitative data that explores our antecedents in greater depth, and by using a longitudinal study or at least a pre- and post-testing of students involved in a platform such as SIFE. We thus suggest that this is an area for future research, recognizing the inability of cross-sectional data to demonstrate cause–effect relationships. A longitudinal study would assist in demonstrating the cumulative progression towards social entrepreneurship and, in particular, enhance our understanding of ‘breadth of prior experience’ as an antecedent, highlighting the influence prior experience in a particular service-learning community-oriented program such as SIFE may have on future intentions to engage in positive social change. Moreover, multiple waves of data would assist in confirming the measurement model.

We hope to address these limitations in future research. However, we believe that in this article we enhance current understanding of the antecedents influencing student engagement in pro-social activities, as well as contribute to understanding how to develop a pedagogical approach in this field.

Finally, we suggest that in light of the research findings showing that feasibility influences the desirability of acting pro-socially, we may have highlighted a pathway to embed sustainability in students of intentions to perform pro-social behaviour in the future. If we are able to ensure that students realize the feasibility of their behaviour, and hence enhance the desirability of this behaviour for them, we are cultivating their intentions to perform pro-social behaviour in the future.

Footnotes

Appendix: measurement models

Table A6.

Perceived desirability and feasibility of intentions to engage.

Construct	Loadings
Perceived desirability
I would rather suffer myself than see someone else (a stranger) suffer	0.704
I would rather engage in actions that help others, even though they are strangers, than engage in actions that would help me	0.700
If a person (stranger) is troubled, I usually feel extreme tenderness and caring	0.788
I feel considerable compassionate love for people from everywhere	0.755
One of the activities that provides me with the most meaning to my life is helping others in the world when they need help	0.766
I spend a lot of time concerned about the well-being of humankind	0.643
I want to spend time with people I don’t know well so that I can find ways to help enrich their lives	0.739
I often have tender feelings towards people (strangers) when they seem to be in need	0.716
I accept others whom I do not know even when they do things I think are wrong	0.604
When I hear about someone (a stranger) going through a difficult time, I feel a great deal of compassion for him/her	0.655
Perceived feasibility
I try to understand rather than judge people who are strangers to me	0.753
I try to put myself in a stranger’s shoes when he/she is in trouble	0.698
I feel happy when I see that others (strangers) are happy	0.763
I tend to feel compassion for people even though I do not know them	0.714
Those whom I encounter through my work and public life can assume that I will be there when they need me	0.588
I very much wish to be kind and good to fellow human beings	0.771
It is easy for me to feel the pain (and joy) experienced by others, even though I do not know them	0.684
When I see people I do not know feeling sad, I feel a need to reach out to them	0.666
Reliability (perceived desirability): α = 0.907; rc = 0.964
Reliability (perceived feasibility): α = 0.890; rc = 0.911
GOF (perceived desirability): Chi-sq = 74.698 (p_BS = 0.008); GFI = 0.940; AGFI = 0.894; CFI = 0.961; RMSEA = 0.08; AIC = 122.698 (1199.075 independence model)
GOF (perceived feasibility): Chi-sq = 42.434 (p_BS = 0.154); GFI = 0.956; AGFI = 0.916; CFI = 0.972; RMSEA = 0.074; AIC = 76.434 (867.879 independence model)

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Author biographies

Donella Caspersz is currently in Management and Organisations at the University of Western Australia (UWA) Business School. In addition to research on pro-social behaviour, she conducts research and teaches on employment relations and management topics, including family business, governance, bargaining and labour migration.

Doina Olaru is currently in Management and Organisations at the University of Western Australia (UWA) Business School. A transport modeller by background, she has a broad research portfolio including quantitative data analysis, network analysis, and artificial intelligence applications in business and transport. She has also been the Faculty Advisor for the UWA Enactus team (previously known as Students in Free Enterprise, SIFE) to which this research is related.

References

Albanesi

Cicognani

Zani

(2007) ‘Sense of Community, Civic Engagement and Social Well-Being in Italian Adolescents’, Journal of Community & Applied Psychology 17: 387–406.

Allik

Realo

(2004) ‘Individualism-collectivism and Social Capital’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35: 29–49.

Anderson

J.C.

Gerbing

D.W.

(1988) ‘Structural Equation Modelling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach’, Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411–23.

Ballantyne

Phelps

(2002) ‘What Can I Do? Applying Classroom Knowledge to Service Work, or Doing Practice Sociology’, Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology 4(1): 41–52.

Basil

D.Z.

Weber

(2006) ‘Values, Motivation and Concern for Appearances: The Effect of Personality Traits on Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 11(February): 61–72.

Batson

C.D.

(1998) ‘Altruism and Pro-social Behaviour’, pp. 282–316 in Gilbert

Fiske

Lindzey

(eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn, vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Billig

Root

Jesse

(2005) The Impact of Participation in Service Learning on High School Students’ Civic Engagement, CIRCLE Working Paper 33. Denver, CO: RMC Research Corporation.

Boyer

(1996) ‘The Scholarship of Engagement’, Journal of Public Service and Outreach 1(1): 11–20.

Boz

Palaz

(2007) ‘Factors Influencing the Motivation of Turkey’s Community Volunteers’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36(4): 643–61.

10.

Brookfield

(2005) ‘Learning Democratic Reason: The Adult Education Project of Jurgen Habermas’, Teachers College Round 107(6): 1127–68.

11.

Caspersz

Olaru

Smith

(2012) ‘Striving for Definitional Clarity: What Is Service Learning?’, paper presented at the Teaching and Learning Forum 2012: Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment – Engagement, Equity, and Retention, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, 2–3 February.

12.

Crick

R.D.

Joldersma

C.W.

(2006) ‘Habermas, Lifelong Learning and Citizenship Education’, Studies in Philosophical Education 26: 77–95.

13.

Curtis

J.E.

Baer

D.E.

Grabb

E.G.

(2001) ‘Nations of Joiners: Voluntary Association Memberships in Democratic Societies’, American Sociological Review 66: 783–805.

14.

Davies

(2001) ‘Citizenship, Education and Contradiction’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 22(2): 299–308.

15.

Eccles

Barber

Stone

Hunt

(2003) ‘Extracurricular Activities and Adolescent Development’, Journal of Social Issues 59(4): 865–89.

16.

Eyler

Giles

D.E.

Jr (1999) Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

17.

Eyler

Giles

D.E.

Jr Stenson

C.M.

Gray

C.J.

(2001) At a Glance: What We Know about the Effects of Service-Learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions and Communities, 1993–2000, 3rd edn. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service.

18.

Fitzsimmons

J.R.

Douglas

E.J.

(2010) ‘Interaction between Feasibility and Desirability in the Formation of Entrepreneurial Intentions’, Journal of Business Venturing 4: 1–10.

19.

Flanagan

Bundick

(2011) ‘Civic Engagement and Psychosocial Well-being in College Students’, Liberal Education spring: 20–7.

20.

Flanagan

Bowes

Johnson

Csapo

Sheblanova

(1998) ‘Ties that Bind: Correlates of Adolescents’ Civic Commitments in Seven Countries’, Journal of Social Issues 54: 457–75.

21.

Furco

(2002) ‘Is Service-learning Really Better than Community Service? A Study of Highschool Service’, pp. 23–50 in Furco

Billig

S.H.

(eds) Advances in Service-learning Research, vol. 1: Service-learning: The Essence of the Pedagogy. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

22.

GAP (2008) Graduate Attributes Project: Global Perspective, URL (consulted 15 September 2010): http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/nationalgap/resources/gamap/map.cfm?ga=7

23.

Habermas

(1968) Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

24.

Habermas

(1984) Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society, vol.1. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

25.

Habermas

(1987) Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

26.

Hair

Black

Babin

Anderson

(2010) Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

27.

Hildreth

R.W.

(2000) ‘Theorizing Citizenship and Evaluating Public Achievement’, PS: Political Science and Politics 33: 627–33.

28.

Hustinx

Vanhove

Declercq

Hermans

Lammertyn

(2005) ‘Bifurcated Commitment, Priorities, and Social Contagion: The Dynamics and Correlates of Volunteering within a University Student Population’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 26(4): 523–38.

29.

Kahne

Westheimer

(2006) ‘The Limits of Political Efficacy: Educating Citizens for a Democratic Society’, PS: Political Science and Politics 39(2): 289–96.

30.

Kellogg Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good (2011a) Civic Education, URL (consulted 13 August 2011): http://www.thenationalforum.org/Docs/PDF/Civic_Education.pdf

31.

Kellogg Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good (2011b) Service Learning, URL (consulted 20 August 2011): http://www.thenationalforum.org/Docs/PDF/Service%20Learning_finalfeb07.pdf

32.

Kenworthy-U’ren

McStay

U’ren

(2006) ‘Integrating Entrepreneurship, Business Planning, and Service-learning: Preparing Students for Business Plan Composition and Community Engagement’, International Journal of Case Method Research and Application 18(2): 170–8.

33.

King

(2009) ‘Clarifying the Foucault Habermas Debate: Morality, Ethics, and “Normative foundations”’, Philosophy and Social Criticism 35: 287–314.

34.

Klute

M.M.

Billig

S.H.

(2002) The Impact of Service-learning on MEAP: A Large-scale Study of Michigan Learn and Serve Grantees. Denver, CO: RMC Research Corporation.

35.

Krueger

Reilly

Carsrud

(2000) ‘Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intent’, Journal of Business Venturing 15: 411–32.

36.

Kuehn

K.W.

(2008) ‘Entrepreneurial Intentions Research: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education’, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 11: 87–98.

37.

Marullo

Edwards

(2000a) ‘Service-learning Pedagogy as Universities’ Response to Troubled Times’, American Behavioural Scientist 43: 746–55.

38.

Marullo

Edwards

(2000b) ‘From Charity to Justice: The Potential of University–Community Collaboration for Social Change’, American Behavioural Scientist 43: 895–912.

39.

Morrissey

K.M.

Werner-Wilson

R.J.

(2005) ‘The Relationship between Out-of-school Activities and Positive Youth Development: An Investigation of the Influences of Communities and Family’, Adolescence 40(157): 67–85.

40.

Ngai

S.S.

(2006) ‘Service-learning, Personal Development and Social Commitment: A Case Study of University Students in Hong Kong’, Adolescence 41(161): 165–77.

41.

Obradović

Masten

A.S.

(2007) ‘Developmental Antecedents of Young Adult Civic Engagement’, Applied Developmental Science 11(1): 2–19.

42.

Omoto

A.M.

Snyder

Hackett

J.D.

(2010) ‘Personality and Motivational Antecedents of Activism and Civic Engagement’, Journal of Personality 78(6): 1703–34.

43.

Pavey

Greitemeyer

Sparks

(2011) ‘Highlighting Relatedness Promotes Prosocial Motives and Behaviour’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(7): 905–17.

44.

Perry

Brudney

Coursey

Littlepage

(2008) ‘What Drives Morally Committed Citizens? A Study of the Antecedents of Public Service Motivation’, Public Administration Review 68(3): 445–58.

45.

Peterman

N.E.

Kennedy

(2003) ‘Enterprise Education: Influencing Students’ Perceptions of Entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice winter: 129–44.

46.

Roderick

(1985) ‘Habermas on Rationality’, Man and World 18: 203–18.

47.

Silk

J.B.

House

B.R.

(2011) ‘Evolutionary Foundations of Human Pro Social Sentiments’, PNAS 108(2): 10910–17.

48.

Smith

S.L

Smith

S.W.

Pieper

K.M.

Downs

Yoo.

J.H.

Bowden

. (2009) ‘Measuring Prosocial Behavior, Altruism, and the Science of Compassionate Love on US Television’, pp. 53–77 in Fehr

Sprecher

Underwood

L.G.

(eds) Compassionate Love: Theory, Research, and Applications. Singapore: John Wiley and Sons.

49.

Sprecher

Fehr

(2005) ‘Compassionate Love for Close Others and Humanity’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(5): 629–51.

50.

Welch

(2007) ‘Generation’s Y Bad Rap’, Business Week, URL (consulted August 2011): http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_41/b4053117.htm

51.

Wolburg

J.M.

Pokrywczynski

(2001) ‘A Psychographic Analysis of Generation Y College Students’, Journal of Advertising Research 41(5): 33–52.

52.

Youniss

(2011) ‘Service, Public Work, and Respectful Public Citizens’, Liberal Education spring: 28–33.

53.

Zeldin

(2004) ‘Preventing Youth Violence through the Promotion of Community Engagement and Membership’, Journal of Community Psychology 32(5): 623–41.