Research Article
Validation of Family, School, and
Peer Influence on Volunteerism
Scale Among Adolescents
Research on Social Work Practice
23(4) 458-466
ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1049731513476144
rsw.sagepub.com
Ben M. F. Law1, Daniel T. L. Shek2,3,4, and Cecilia M. S. Ma2
Abstract
Social systems, particularly family, school, and peer, are especially critical in influencing adolescents to participate in volunteer
service; however, no objective measures of this construct exist. Objectives: This study examined the psychometric properties of
the Family, School, and Peer Influence on Volunteerism scale (FSPV) among Chinese adolescents. The FSPV is an instrument that
assesses the perceived influence of these social systems on adolescent volunteerism. There are nine identical items for each of the
three systems. Method: The FSPV was administered to 2,819 early adolescents in Hong Kong. Results: Confirmatory factor
analyses revealed four factors, namely, ‘‘Family,’’ ‘‘School,’’ ‘‘Peer,’’ and ‘‘Extrinsic influence.’’ The FSPV also demonstrated good
internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion-related validity. Conclusion: The psychometric properties of FSPV are
adequate in the assessment of the perceived influence of social systems on volunteer service participation in Chinese adolescents.
Keywords
volunteerism, Chinese, scale development, family, school, peer
This study attempted to validate the Family, School, and Peer
Influence on Volunteerism scale (FSPV), a tool for assessing
the influences of major social systems on volunteerism among
adolescents. Volunteer service is defined as an activity within
an organizational context that ‘‘is not undertaken for financial
gain.’’ It is undertaken out of one’s own free will. The activity
is arranged by a formal agency. It brings benefits to both the
third party and the volunteers. The third party refers to people
that volunteers do not know. Hence, this excludes family
members, friends, and neighbors (Law, 2008). Social work and
volunteerism are closely related. Many social work values and
ideals, notably social justice, service, and empowerment, are
actualized through community service (Finn & Checkoway,
1998). In addition, the examination of adolescent volunteerism
is especially important because of its relevance to community
development (Midgley & Livermore, 1998), youth development (Youniss, McLellan, & Mazer, 2001), and quality of life
(Sun & Shek, 2010). Adolescent volunteerism is a common
phenomenon around the world (Catalano et al., 2012; Flanagan,
Jonsson, & Botchera, 1999; Hodgkinson, 1995; Independent
Sector, 2013).
The latest review in volunteering research showed that the
antecedents were most widely studied among all aspects of the
volunteering process (Wilson, 2012). Several studies have been
devoted to individual factors such as demographic characteristics (Wilson, 2000), prior volunteering experience (Planty,
Bozivk, & Regnier, 2006), and various motivational factors
(Carlo & Randall, 2002; Clary et al., 1998; Dworkin, Larson,
& Hansen, 2003).
Aside from individual factors, the influence from social systems is also significant (Omoto & Synder, 2002). Amato (1990)
and Wilson (2000) found that social network accounted more
than personal factors in delivering volunteer service. To understand adolescent behavior within a social context, Steinberg
and Morris (2001) and Viner et al. (2012) showed that family,
school, and peer are crucial in helping young people develop
their full potential. Hence, understanding more about social
systems leading to adolescent volunteerism and how such
influences can be objectively measured is necessary. Social
workers have to intervene with individuals and social systems.
With the knowledge of social influence, social workers can
mobilize the most critical systems to enhance the volunteer
service participation. For this reason, it is of utmost importance
that this topic be explored using social work empirical research.
Existing studies that relate the three social systems to volunteerism are limited and inconclusive. A prosocial family
1
Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong
2
Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
3
Public Policy Research Institute, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong
Kong
4
Kiang Wu Nursing College of Macau, Macau, Hong Kong
Corresponding Author:
Ben M. F. Law, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Email: Blaw@hku.hk
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
Law et al.
459
atmosphere can be instrumental in encouraging adolescents to
volunteer (Tolan, Gorman–Smith, & Henry, 2003). Parental
modeling is the strongest predictor for adolescent volunteerism
in some studies (Independent Sector, 2013). Encouragement
from parents can motivate adolescents to participate (Fletcher,
Elder, & Mekos, 2000). Additionally, many adolescents attend
schools. The influence of close school personnel (teachers and
social workers) is also indispensable. The school attitude
toward adolescent volunteerism directly affects the subsequent
participation (Institute for Volunteering Research, 2013; Takahashi & Hatano, 1999). Finally, peers influence each other to
take part in adolescent volunteerism (Hartup, 1996). However,
very little literature has been devoted to peer influence and
adolescent volunteerism (Ma, Cheung, & Shek, 2007; Youniss
et al., 2001).
Family, school, and peer have a different infrastructure in
terms of types, composition, hierarchy, power control, norm
setting, and activities; hence, comparing their influences may
be difficult. However, to promote evidence-based youth
services, objective measures in this area are indispensable.
A cognitive motivational approach may be adopted to
understand the influences. Beliefs are the acceptance of some
(cognitive) propositions, statements, or doctrine as being causal, correlational, good or bad, true or false, desirable or undesirable (Bar–Tal, 1990; Rokeach, 1973). Whether an individual
volunteers or not is influenced by multiple beliefs (Snyder,
Clary, & Stukas, 2000), one type of which is the perceived
influence of social systems. The internal structure of the perceived influence for different social systems can be identical.
Cognitive motivational approach further argues that beliefs can
drive behaviors (Heckhausen & Dweck, 1998). Social influence can enhance one’s motivation to volunteer.
There are three approaches in understanding the perceived
environmental influence, namely social learning approach,
give-and-take reciprocity, and extrinsic influence:
1.
2.
Social learning approach emphasizes observations and
modeling (Bandura, 1986). It also emphasizes the influence of social systems and how one assimilates the information into the behavioral repertories of learned
behaviors. Perceived beliefs and behavior of a social
system on a social behavior, and modeling are parameters
derived. For example, when the parents were devoted
volunteers to an organization, they will transmit the
behavior and beliefs to their children and the children will
model their parents’ behavior in return.
Reciprocity is the social exchange between two people,
which can be conveyed through invitation, support, and
tutorage for a particular behavior. If a social system invites
us to perform a certain action and that social system is
close to us in proximity and being impactful, we also tend
to perform that action as reciprocity in relationships. Otherwise, the relationship is difficult to sustain (Chan, Ng, &
Hui, 2010) after several interactions. In a similar, a social
system showing supportive attitudes to adolescents to
volunteer will have a positive influence to adolescent
volunteering. When the social systems teach and provide
skills input to adolescents related to volunteer service, the
impact is more tremendous.
3. Extrinsic influence is another dissimilar source that
induces adolescents for volunteer service participation.
The focus of the extrinsic influence is not on the social systems, but on the nature of demand or reward (Deci & Ryan,
2000). Extrinsic influence transcends all social systems.
Extrinsic influence mainly consists of two groups, namely,
reward and social coercion. By ignoring social influence
and the intrinsic meaning of volunteer work, the reward
or the coercion shifts the attention away from the volunteering service. Hence, extrinsic motivation may have a
negative impact on volunteering intention (VI) and behavior. In short, extrinsic motivation can be regarded as an
influence transcending different social systems.
A survey of the literature shows the absence of a scale to
measure and compare different types of influence of a particular social system, as well as to make a comparison across different systems. A valid and reliable instrument is needed.
The development and validation of the FSPV scale set the stage
for research on understanding the social influences on adolescent volunteerism. Based on the aforementioned assertions,
nine types of influence are proposed:
1. Adolescent perception of the involvement of members of a
particular social system in volunteer service.
2. Adolescent perception of the volunteerism beliefs that are
held by members of social systems.
3. Support for volunteering.
4. Modeling for volunteering.
5. Tangible reward for volunteering.
6. Conforming to pressure from social systems.
7. Tutorage (in terms of skills and knowledge) in volunteering.
8. Invitation to volunteer.
9. Sponsorship for volunteering.
The FSPV consists of 27 items for family, school, and peer
(i.e., nine types of influence in three systems). Family refers to
close family members. School refers to significant school personnel, teachers, or social workers. Peers refer to close peers or
classmates.
Despite originating from social systems, extrinsic influence
may exert a unique influence. Extrinsic influence can be further
classified into reward and coercions. Three hypothetical models are tested:
1. The first model is a three-factor model, which consists of
family, school, and peer factors. The model is based on the
assumption that every system exerts an influence
independently.
2. The second model includes extrinsic influence in each
social system, and transcends different social systems.
Hence, it is a four-factor model based on three social systems and extrinsic influence (i.e., family, school, peer, and
extrinsic influence).
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
460
Research on Social Work Practice 23(4)
Table 1. Factor Loadings of the FSPV Based on the EFA.
Items
F1: My family members participate actively in volunteer activities
F2: My family members consider volunteering participation very meaningful
F3: I volunteer because of family support
F4: I volunteer because of family modeling
F5: I volunteer because of material reward from my family
F6: I volunteer because of family coercion
F7: I volunteer because my family teaches me how to do so
F8: I volunteer because of family invitation
F9: I volunteer because of family financial sponsorship
S1: My school personnel actively participate in volunteer activities
S2: My school personnel consider volunteering participation very meaningful
S3: I volunteer because of school support
S4: I volunteer because of school modeling
S5: I volunteer because of material reward from my school
S6: I volunteer because of coercion by my school
S7: I volunteer because my school teaches me how to do so
S8: I volunteer because of school invitation
S9: I volunteer because of school financial sponsorship
P1: My friends participate in volunteer activities actively
P2: My friends consider volunteering participation very meaningful
P3: I volunteer because of peer support
P4: I volunteer because of peer modeling
P5: I volunteer because of material reward from my peers
P6: I volunteer because of peer coercion
P7: I volunteer because my friends teach me how to do so
P8: I volunteer because of peer invitation
P9: I volunteer because of financial sponsorship from my friends
Factor
Variance explained (%)
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
h2
.02
.10
.14
.07
.04
.06
.04
.02
.01
.78
.79
.69
.61
.21
.07
.65
.61
.24
.10
.12
.04
.03
.11
.10
.02
.04
.08
SCHOOL
30.15
.00
.12
.05
.07
.65
.62
.03
.06
.38
.04
.06
.00
.09
.71
.63
.02
.01
.49
.06
.07
.01
.06
.78
.73
.19
.02
.59
EXTRINSIC
12.97
.10
.14
.04
.09
.11
.14
.04
.07
.02
.02
.01
.11
.12
.07
.08
.06
.10
.02
.75
.72
.81
.73
.27
.23
.63
.72
.25
PEER
6.61
.65
.58
.64
.67
.31
.14
.68
.68
.38
.03
.00
.04
.15
.04
.10
.04
.03
.07
.07
.10
.07
.11
.06
.11
.05
.00
.02
FAMILY
5.18
.49
.53
.51
.58
.56
.41
.64
.64
.44
.60
.65
.57
.58
.53
.37
.62
.57
.47
.67
.68
.73
.65
.68
.57
.60
.62
.52
Note. EFA ¼ exploratory factor analysis; FSPV ¼ Family, School, and Peer Influence on Volunteerism scale; h2 ¼ communalities for each item of the FSPV.
3.
The third model considers the differentiation of extrinsic
influence as coercion and reward. It is a five-factor model
that includes the three social systems, as well as reward
and coercion.
This study aims to explore the psychometric properties of
the FSPV. Early adolescents were chosen for this validation
study because they are responsive to family, school, and peer
(Larson & Richards, 1991). In addition to factorial validity and
reliability, two forms of validity are examined. As volunteers
generally experienced more influence from the social systems
than did the nonvolunteers, their scores on the scale were
expected to be higher than those of the nonvolunteers (Hypothesis 1). In addition, according to the cognitive motivational
approach, the perceived influence as beliefs affects the VI and
volunteering behavior. Therefore, the existence of correlations
among beliefs, intention, and motivation was hypothesized
(Hypothesis 2).
Method
Participants and Procedure
The current study was conducted in the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, which is a major international city
south of Guangdong province in the People’s Republic of
China. A total of 2,819 high school Grades 7–9 students consisting of 1,095 males (39%) and 1,750 females (61%) from
32 high schools participated in this study. The mean age of the
respondents was 13.3 (standard deviation [SD] ¼ .73).
Informed consent was obtained from the adolescents and
their parents. All respondents completed the scales and demographic characteristics in a self-administered test with adequate
time provided. Ethical approval was granted by the Research
Ethics Committee for the first author’s university before the
commencement of the research.
Instruments
Family, School, and Peer Influence on Volunteerism Scale (FSPV).
The 27-item FSPV is a self-reported rating scale consisting
of statements of perceived influence from the social systems
to volunteer. The social systems include family, school, and
peer. The influence includes members’ volunteering behavior,
members’ volunteering beliefs, support, modeling, reward,
coercion, tutorage, invitation, and sponsorship. Participants
were requested to indicate whether or not they agree with
particular items using a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Table 1 shows the
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
Law et al.
461
items in the FSPV. Law (2008) has already reviewed the content validity with the assistance of an expert panel of social
workers and high school teachers. Overall, the experts were
satisfied with the FSPV items. The scale attained acceptable
content validity.
Volunteering Intention Scale (VI). The VI scale consists of 4 items
measuring the tendency to volunteer, but not the actual behavior. These 4 items include being interested in volunteering,
acceptance of invitation to volunteer, VI, and paying attention
to information about volunteer service. A high score in this
scale implies a strong willingness to participate. The Cronbach’s a of VI is .82.
Service Hours. Volunteering behavior was measured by the selfreported total hours of community service within the past 12
months. Those who have served the community within the past
12 months were classified as ‘‘volunteers,’’ whereas those with
zero service hours were classified as ‘‘nonvolunteers.’’
Data Analytic Strategy. The sample was randomly split into two
groups (Samples 1 and 2). Sample 1 (n ¼ 1,399) was used to
explore the factor structure of the FSPV via an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Then, Sample 2 (n ¼ 1,420) was used to
examine factorial validity via confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). Fifty-three respondents did not complete the whole survey, and thus excluded from this analysis through the likewise
deletion method. The final size of Sample 2 is 1,367.
To explore the psychometric properties of the FSPV, the
EFA was performed via the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences 19.0. Among the various methods of EFA, principal
axis factor analysis (PAF) without specification of the number
of retained factors was conducted on the 27 items. A direct
oblimin rotation (with d ¼ 0) was conducted to examine the
relationships among the FSPV subscales. The PAF was used
because it examines the common and error variance in the
items, and suggests the number of FSPV factors (Kline,
2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The number of factors to
be extracted was determined based on the factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Kaiser, 1974) and visual inspection of
screen plot (Cattell, 1978).
To further examine the factor structure of the FSPV, the
CFA was performed using the LISREL 8.80 program (Jöreskog
& Sörbom, 2006). A preliminary analysis was conducted to
check any violations of multivariate normality assumption and
the skewness and kurtosis values of all items. To test the model
fit, several indices were examined, including chi-square (w2),
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),
goodness-of-fit index (GFI), standardized mean square residual, Bentler–Bonett nonnormed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and expected cross-validation index
(ECVI; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). For GFI, CFI, and
NNFI, the values of .95 or greater indicate a satisfactory fit
to the data (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). The values of both
SRMR and RMSEA below .08 and .06, respectively, represent
acceptable model data fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
As mentioned earlier, we compared the fit of three hypothesized models: (a) Model 1: a three-factor model, in which 27
items were loaded on their respective social systems as latent
factors (e.g., 9 items for family, school, and peer, respectively);
(b) Model 2: a four-factor model based on social systems and
extrinsic influence (i.e., family, school, peer, and extrinsic
influence); and (c) Model 3: a five-factor model in which the
extrinsic influence (Items 5, 6, and 9) are further split into
‘‘reward’’ (Items 5 and 6) and ‘‘coercion’’ (Item 9) as two separate latent factors.
Results
EFA of the FSPV
Results of the Barlett test of sphericity (w2 ¼ 20993.03, p < .01)
and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
(.90) suggested that the observed data were suitable for the
EFA (Kaiser, 1974) . Four factors with eigenvalues greater than
1.0 emerged. Items with factor loadings of .30 or above were
retained (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The four-factor solution
accounted for 54.90% of the response variance, and was further
supported by the scree plots of eigenvalues. Consistent with our
expectation, the results indicated the four factor of the FSPV.
The eigenvalues of a four-factor solution were 8.14, 2.50,
1.79, and 1.40 (Table 1). The first factor, accounting for
30.15% of the total variance, comprised 6 items that assessed
school influence and named as ‘‘SCHOOL.’’ The second
factor, accounting for 12.96% of the total variance, comprised
9 items that assessed extrinsic influence and named as
‘‘EXTRINSIC.’’ The third factor, accounting for 6.61% of the
total variance, encompassed 6 items that assessed peer and
named as ‘‘PEER.’’ The fourth factor, accounting for 5.18%
of the total variance, comprised 6 items that assessed the family
and named as ‘‘FAMILY.’’ The loadings of these items ranged
from .49 to .81. The intercorrelations among the four factors
were significant (.33 to .54), and thus supported the use of an
oblique rotation (Table 4).
CFA of the FSPV
All variables were normally distributed (i.e., the univariate
skewness and kurtosis values were lower than 2 and 7, respectively; Chou & Bentler, 1995). Therefore, maximum likelihood
estimation with the covariance matrix was used. Table 2 shows
the overall GFIs for all models. Our data did not support the
three-factor model (Model 1: w2 (321) ¼ 8,222.15, p < .01,
RMSEA ¼ .18; CFI ¼ .85; GFI ¼ .57; NNFI ¼ .84; SRMR ¼
.09; expected cross-validation index [EVCI] ¼ 10.38). Similar
results were shown in the five-factor model (Model 3: w2 (314)
¼ 5,717.44, p < .01, RMSEA ¼ .12; CFI ¼ .90; GFI ¼ .75; NNFI
¼ .89; SRMR ¼ .10; EVCI ¼ 4.71). Compared to the other models, the four-factor model (Model 4) reached the best level of fit to
the data (Model 2: w2 (313) ¼ 5,062.03, p < .01, RMSEA ¼ .11;
CFI ¼ .91; GFI ¼ .76; NNFI ¼ .90; SRMR ¼ .13; EVCI ¼
4.25). Inspection of the modification indices (MI) revealed three
pairs of error covariance (Items F7 and F8, Items S1 and S2,
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
462
Research on Social Work Practice 23(4)
Table 2. Summary of Goodness of Fit for all CFA models.
w2
Model Description
1
2
3
2b
Three-factor model
Four-factor model
Five-factor model
Four-factor model with three pairs of error
covariance
8,225.15**
5,062.03**
57,17.44**
4,093.70**
Df RMSEA [90% CI] CFI GFI SRMR NNFI
321
313
314
315
.18 [.17, .18]
.11 [.11, .11]
.12 [.12, .12]
.10 [.10, .10]
.85
.91
.90
.93
.57
.76
.75
.80
.09
.13
.10
.08
.84
.90
.89
.93
ECVI [90% CI]
10.38
4.25
4.71
3.42
[10.10, 10.67]
[4.07, 4.43]
[4.52, 4.90]
[3.27, 3.59]
Note. CFA ¼ confirmatory factor analysis; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; CI ¼ confidence interval; ECVI ¼ expected cross-validation index; GFI ¼ goodness-of-fit
index; NNFI ¼ Bentler–Bonett nonnormed fit index; RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation; SRMR ¼ standardized root mean square residual.
**p < .01.
and Items P1 and P2; the value of MIs ranging from 192.86
to 474.46). They are allowed to be correlated as they belong
to the same factor. We then tested Model 2b by correlating
these three pairs of error covariance. This model fit the data
the best (Model 2b: w2 (315) ¼ 4,093.70, p < .01, RMSEA ¼
.10; CFI ¼ .93; GFI ¼ .80; NNFI ¼ .93; SRMR ¼ .08;
EVCI ¼ 3.42). All factor loadings were significant (t >
1.95, p < .05) and ranged from .52 to .87. Consistent with
the EFA results, the four factors were interrelated (ranging
from .36 to .67). Given the satisfactory fit of this model,
Model 2b was chosen as the final model. This model comprises four factors as outlined in Figure 1. Item statistics are
shown in Table 3.
showed that the volunteers scored significantly higher scores
on social systems than nonvolunteers, thus supporting the
criterion-related validity of the FSPV.
Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients among the four
FSPV subscales, VI, and actual service hours in the past 12
months. Results indicated that all subscales related to social
systems (FAMILY, SCHOOL, and PEER) were associated
with VI and behavior. The relationship between beliefs about
social influence and intention (.37 to .44, p < .001) was stronger
than that between beliefs about social influence and behavior
(.05 to .07, p < .05). Again, EXTRINSIC did not associate with
intention and behavior. These findings provide evidence for the
construct validity of the FSPV (Hypothesis 2).
Reliability and Validity of the FSPV
Discussion and Applications to Social Work
The Cronbach’s a values of the FAMILY, SCHOOL, PEER,
and EXTRINSIC subscales were .87, .87, .90, and .87, respectively (Table 3). The reliability of the entire FSPV was .92.
Both the complete scale and the subscales attained satisfactory
internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978).
The influence of social systems to volunteer for volunteers
is expected to be higher than nonvolunteers (Hypothesis 1).
Participants were grouped into volunteers and nonvolunteers
based on their volunteering experience in the past 12 months.
Analyses showed that the FAMILY, SCHOOL, PEER, and the
overall FSPV scores of these two groups differ. The mean score
of FAMILY for volunteers was higher than nonvolunteers
(volunteers: M ¼ 3.90, SD ¼ 1.05; nonvolunteers: M ¼ 3.58,
SD ¼ 1.03; t ¼ 7.04, p < .00; effect size [ES] ¼ .31). The
mean score of SCHOOL for volunteers was higher than nonvolunteers (volunteers: M ¼ 4.30, SD ¼ .98; nonvolunteers: M ¼
4.02, SD ¼ 1.03; t ¼ 6.36, p < .001; ES ¼ .28). The mean
score of PEER for volunteers was higher than nonvolunteers
(volunteers: M ¼ 3.86, SD ¼ 1.13; nonvolunteers: M ¼ 3.46,
SD ¼ 1.18; t ¼ 8.15, p < .001; ES ¼ .35). The overall mean
score of the FSPV for volunteers was higher than nonvolunteers (volunteers: M ¼ 3.58, SD ¼ .76; nonvolunteers: M ¼
3.37, SD ¼ .79; t ¼ 6.56, p < .001; ES ¼ .27). The effect size
scores for the difference, as indicated by Cohen’s d, fell into the
small-to-medium range. The EXTRINSIC for nonvolunteers
was descriptively higher than volunteers, and it did not attain
statistical difference (volunteers: M ¼ 2.70, SD ¼ 1.00; nonvolunteers: M ¼ 2.71, SD ¼ .98; t ¼ .263, p ¼ .79). The evidence
The influence of important social systems to adolescent volunteerism has not been systematically assessed in the current literature. This study attempted to develop and validate a scale to
address this knowledge gap. Specifically, the FSPV measures
the perceived influence on adolescent volunteerism from significant family members, school personnel, and peers. This
study has several unique characteristics. First, the perceived
influence of social systems was adopted. Despite the differences in the nature of social systems, the perceived influence
is a common denominator that the impact of various social
systems can be compared. Second, the domains of the influence
are conceptually grounded by social learning perspectives,
reciprocity, and extrinsic motivation. Third, several important
psychometric properties, including factor structure, criterionrelated validity, and construct validity, were examined.
The FSPV is an instrument with satisfactory psychometric
properties that include high internal consistency for the entire
scale and the subscales, criterion-related validity differentiating volunteers and nonvolunteers, construct validity with VI
and volunteering behavior, and factorial validity. The FSPV
consists of four factors, namely, family influence, school influence, peer influence, and extrinsic influence. Interested readers
can obtain a copy of the final version of the FSPV from the first
author.
The study has shown the significance of including family,
school, peer, and extrinsic motivation in understanding adolescent volunteerism. This finding confirms the importance of
these three social systems in facilitating adolescent social
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
Law et al.
463
F1
F2
F3
S1
S2
Family
F4
F7
S3
School
F8
S4
P1
P2
S7
S8
P3
Peer
P4
F5
P7
F6
P8
F9
S5
Extrinsic
S6
S9
P5
P6
P9
Figure 1. Results of confirmatory factor analysis based on Model 2b.
behavior. More importantly, one of the original contributions
of this measure is the internal dimensions of the influence of
each system. No previous studies have explored the internal
domains of the perceived influence with general consensus and
theoretical support. The nine dimensions can be used as evaluation yardsticks without considering the distinctive features of
social systems. The common yardsticks can be used for
comparison.
Both the FSPV-intention and the FSPV-behavior correlation
coefficients were significant, implying the relationship among
beliefs, intention, and behavior. However, the FSPV-intention
relationship was much stronger. Beliefs have motivational
components rather than behavioral components (Rokeach,
1973), thus explaining the current result. People with good
beliefs and intentions may fail to act on them (Gollwitzer,
1999). Several push and pull factors affect the actual behavior.
The study has also shown that extrinsic influence is distinctive and transcends all social systems. Reward and coercion are
grouped together. Operational conditioning argues that we are
governed by reward and punishment regardless of the systems
(Skinner, 1953). Extrinsic motivation is not related to VI and
volunteering behavior. Reward and coercion have no direct significant impacts to VI and volunteering behavior. The operant
conditioning theories cannot be applied directly here (e.g.,
Greene, Sternberg, & Lepper, 1976; Ryan & Deci, 2006). However, when we examine the findings more close, we find that
extrinsic influence does not stand alone. It carries a positive
relationship with family, school, and peer influence. When
used wisely, extrinsic influence can enhance the influence of
the three social systems. Further investigation should be carried
out to clarify the relationships among these four factors.
This study has several social work implications. First, social
workers, particularly school social workers, can use the scales
to assess environmental influences on adolescent volunteerism.
Instead of simply motivating adolescents to volunteer, social
workers can invest more resources in other social domains.
Ecological perspective is put into practice. The tool can facilitate the development of prosocial behavior among adolescents.
Second, the influence of different social systems on adolescents
can be traced and compared. Before this study, comparing different social systems is difficult. This study has made comparison feasible with the introduction of perceived influence.
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
464
Research on Social Work Practice 23(4)
Table 3. Completely Standardized Factor Loadings, Uniqueness,
Squared Multiple Correlations for Model 2b, With Item Mean Scores
and Reliabilities.
Factor/items
Family
F1
F2
F3
F 4a
F7
F8
School
S1
S2
S3
S 4a
S7
S8
Peer
P1
P2
P 3a
P4
P7
P8
Extrinsic
F5
F6
F9
S5
S6
S9
P 5a
P6
P9
FL
Uniqueness
SMC
Mean (SD)
Table 4. Correlations Among FAMILY, SCHOOL, PEER, EXTRINSIC, Volunteering Intention, and Service Hours.
FAMILY
SCHOOL
PEER
EXTRINSIC
VI
.51**
.54**
.33**
.37**
.05*
—
.49**
.21**
.39**
.07*
—
.27**
.44**
.07*
—
.02
.02
.15**
a
.70
.65
.73
.81
.70
.68
.51
.58
.47
.35
.51
.54
.49
.42
.53
.65
.49
.46
3.48 (1.39)
4.33 (1.33)
4.07 (1.33)
3.54 (1.40)
3.43 (1.40)
3.30 (1.44)
.87
.61
.56
.78
.82
.75
.73
.63
.69
.39
.33
.43
.47
.37
.31
.61
.67
.57
.53
4.28 (1.24)
4.74 (1.16)
4.23 (1.27)
3.73 (1.35)
3.89 (1.35)
4.00 (1.38)
.87
.75
.75
.87
.84
.69
.73
.43
.44
.25
.30
.53
.46
.57
.56
.75
.70
.47
.54
3.78 (1.39)
4.04 (1.40)
3.82 (1.42)
3.62 (1.42)
3.23 (1.45)
3.67 (1.50)
.90
.69
.55
.56
.69
.52
.63
.80
.69
.72
.53
.60
.68
.52
.73
.60
.36
.52
.48
.47
.30
.32
.48
.27
.40
.64
.48
.52
2.64 (1.39)
2.46 (1.35)
2.91 (1.44)
2.83 (1.45)
2.84 (1.48)
2.82 (1.45)
2.34 (1.33)
2.27 (1.30)
2.37 (1.37)
.87
SCHOOL
PEER
EXTRINSIC
VI
Hours
Note. Hours ¼ service hours within 12 months; VI ¼ volunteering intention.
**p <.001; *p < .05.
Note. FL ¼ completely standardized factor loading; SD ¼ standard deviation;
SMC¼squared multiple correlation.
All parameters were significant (p < .05).
a
Item was fixed to a value of 1.0.
Third, the FSPV can be used to quickly assess the suitability of
potential volunteers. The criterion-related validity has shown
that volunteers have higher scores than nonvolunteers. The
mean scores in the Results section can be used as a benchmark
for selecting suitable potential volunteers. Fourth, the nine
FSPV dimensions can be an entry point to examine the perceived influence of other social systems, such as church and
uniformed groups. The influence of various significant others,
such as mothers and fathers, can be determined as well.
The study has several limitations. First, given that the
reported findings are only based on adolescents in Hong Kong,
replicating the findings among adolescents in other contexts is
necessary. Second, although the present sample size was large,
participants were not randomly sampled. Thus, the generalizability of the findings to other adolescent populations should
be interpreted with caution. Third, we can add negative influence for further study. We should not underestimate pull influence such as discouragement to volunteer. According to a study
by Law and Shek (2011), some adolescents believe that volunteerism is meaningless work and a form of exploitation. Fourth,
the theoretically driven model arrived is the best among the
proposed models. However, if we follow Hu and Bentler
(1999)’s criteria strictly, all goodness of fits measures are satisfactory. But the RMSEA value is only marginally fit. By and
large the model is still acceptable. Despite these limitations, the
present study is the first to construct a validated instrument to
measure the social influence on helping others among adolescents in a Chinese community, which is indispensable for the
development of local evidence-based social work practices.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
References
Amato, P. (1990). Personality and social network involvement as
predictors of helping behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 53, 31–43.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
socio-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bar–Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs: A conception for analyzing group
structures, processes, and behavior. New York, NY: SpringerVerlag.
Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of
prosocial behaviors of late adolescents. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 31, 31–44.
Catalano, R. F., Fagen, A. A., Gavin, L. E., Greenberg, M. T., Irwin,
C. E., Jr., Ross, D. A., & Shek, D. T. L. (2012). Worldwide application of prevention science in adolescent health. Lancet,Lancet,
379, 1653–1664.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. New York,
NY: Plenum.
Chan, D. K. S., Ng, T. T. T., & Hui, C. M. (2010). Interpersonal
relationships in rapidly changing Chinese societies. In M. H. Bond
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 515–532).
New York, NY: Oxford.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A.,
Haugen, J. A., & Miene, P. K. (1998). Understanding and assessing
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
Law et al.
465
the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of
Social and Personality Psychology, 74, 1516–1530.
Chou, C., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural
equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37–55). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 4, 227–268.
Dworkin, J. B., Larson, R., & Hansen, D. (2003). Adolescents’
accounts of growth experiences in youth activities. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 32, 17–26.
Finn, J. L., & Checkoway, B. (1998). Young people as competent
community builders: A challenge to social work. Social Work,
43, 335–345.
Flanagan, C., Jonsson, B., & Botchera, L. (1999). Adolescents and the
‘‘social contract’’: Developmental roots of citizenship in seven
countries. In M. Yates & J. Youniss (Eds.), Roots of civic identity:
International perspectives on community service and activism in
youth (pp. 135–155). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental influences on adolescent involvement in community activities. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 10, 29–48.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.
Greene, D., Sternberg, B., & Lepper, M. R. (1976). Overjustification
in a token economy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
34, 1219–1234.
Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their
developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13.
Heckhausen, J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Introduction. In J. Heckhausen
& C. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life
span (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hodgkinson, V. A. (1995). Key factors influencing care, involvement,
and community. In P. G. Schervish, V. A. Hodgkinson & M. Gates
(Eds.), Care and community in modern society: Passing on the tradition of service to future generations (pp. 21–50). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Independent Sector. (2013). Engaging youth in lifelong service:
Findings and recommendations for encouraging a tradition of
voluntary action among America’s youth. Retrieved January 5,
2013, from http://www.independentsector.org/giving_volunteer
ing_engaging_youth?s¼youth
Institute for Volunteering Research. (2013). Measuring the impossible—Scoping study for longitudinal research on the impact of
youth volunteering. Retrieved January 5, 2013, from http://
www.ivr.org.uk/youngresearch.htm
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39,
31–36.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
Larson, R., & Richards, M. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early
adolescence: Changing developmental context. Child Development,
62, 284–300.
Law, B. M. F., & Shek, D. T. L. (2011). Validation of the beliefs
against volunteering scale among Chinese adolescents in Hong
Kong. Social Indicators Research, 100, 287–298.
Law, M. F. B. (2008). Volunteer service participation among secondary school students in Hong Kong. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69, UMI No.3326201.
Ma, H. K., Cheung, P. C., & Shek, D. T. L. (2007). The relation of prosocial orientation to peer interactions, family social environment
and personality of Chinese adolescents. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 31, 12–18.
Midgley, J., & Livermore, M. (1998). Social capital and local economic development: Implications for community social work practice. Journal of Community Practice, 5, 29–40.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (2002). Considerations of community:
The context and process of volunteerism. American Behavioral
Scientist, 45, 846–867.
Planty, M., Bozick, R., & Regnier, M. (2006). Helping because you
have to or helping because you want to? Sustaining participation
in service work from adolescence through young adulthood. Youth
& Society, 38, 177–202.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: The
Free Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of
human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, selfdetermination and will? Journal of Personality, 74, 1557–1585.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to
structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Oxford, England:
Macmillan.
Snyder, M., Clary, E. G., & Stukas, A. A. (2000). The functional
approach to volunteerism. In G. R. Maio & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Why
we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 365–393). Mahwah, NJ:
Laurence Erlbaum.
Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110.
Sun, R. C. F., & Shek, D. T. L. (2010). Life satisfaction, positive youth
development, and problem behavior among Chinese adolescents in
Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 95, 133–160.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Takahashi, K., & Hatano, G. (1999). Recent trends in civic engagement among Japanese Youth. In M. Yates & J. Youniss (Eds.),
Roots of civic identity: International perspectives on community
service and activism in youth (pp. 225–244). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Tolan, P. H., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. B. (2003). The developmental ecology of urban males’ youth violence. Developmental
Psychology, 39, 274–291.
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
466
Research on Social Work Practice 23(4)
Viner, R. M., Ozer, E. M., Denny, S., Marmot, M., Resinick, M.,
Fatusi, A., & Currie, C. (2012). Adolescence and the social determinants of health. Lancet, 379, 1641–52.
Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26,
215–240.
Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 176–212.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Mazer, B. (2001). Voluntary service,
peer group orientation, and civic engagement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 456–468.
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015