PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 13 (2): 199-209 (2005)ISSN: 0128-7702

Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

To Volunteer or Not to Volunteer:The Case of Malaysian Public Service Retirees l

SURJIT SI GH S/O TTAM SI GH, RAHIM M. SAIL, BAHAMAN ABU SAMAH,RAJA AHMAD TAJUDIN SHAH & LI DA A. LUMAYAG

Institute for Community and Peace StudiesUniversiti Putra Malaysia

43400 UPM Serdan{;> Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Keywords: Volunteerism, altruism, retirees, ageing; volunteers, non-volunteers, psychosocialfactors

ABSTRAKTerdapat ribuan pesara peringkat atasan, pengurusan dan profesional (PMP) sektor perkhidmatanawam Malaysia, di mana, selepas persaraan mandatori pada umur 55 atau 56 tahun, dapatmenyumbang kepada komuniti dengan meningkatkan indeks kelanjutan usia bagi lelaki danwanita di Malaysia. Kertas kerja ini cuba untuk menjelaskan perbezaan antara pesara sukarelawandan bukan sukarelawan dengan mengambil kira peranan faktor psikososial dan altruistik, danapakah perbezaan ini dapat membantu dalam memotivasikan pesara untuk terlibat dalam kerjasukarela untuk pembangunan masyarakat Malaysia. Dimensi psikososial termasuk persekitaran,gaya hidup, personaliti dan sumber manakala altruistik pula melibatkan pemahaman yangmendalam, timbal balas dan spiritual. Independent sample t-test telah digunakan untuk mengenalpasti sarna ada terdapat perbezaan yang signifikan bagi pemboleh ubah psikososial dan altruistikdengan sukarelawan dan bukan sukarelawan. Hasil kajian mendapati terdapat perbezaan yangsignifikan antara sukarelawan dan bukan sukarelawan dengan melihat kesan psikososial danaltruistik. Iajuga mendapati sukarelawan adalah lebih altruistik dan faktor psikososialnya banyakmempengaruhi kecenderungan sukarelawan untuk memberi perkhidmatan sukarela kepadakomuniti.

ABSTRACTThere are thousands of retirees from the Premier and Managerial and Professional (PMP) groupof the Malaysian Public Service who, after the mandatory retirement at the age of fifty-five orfifty-six, could contribute to the community gleaning from an improved longevity index for bothmale and female Malaysians in the recent years. This article attempted to decipher the differencebetween volunteer and non-volunteer retirees as far as the role of psychosocial and altruisticfactors are concerned and what this difference would imply as far as motivating other retirees toengage in the voluntary work for the development of the Malaysian society. The psychosocialdimension includes the environment, lifestyle, personality and resources while altruism includesempathy, reciprocity and spirituality. Independent sample t-test was used to determine whetherthere was a significant difference for the psychosocial variables and altruism between the volunteersand non-volunteers. Findings of the study revealed that there was a significant difference betweenthe volunteers and non-volunteers by looking at the effects of both psychosocial and altruismfurther indicating that these volunteers were more altruistic and whose psychosocial factors greatlyinfluenced the volunteers' propensity to render voluntary service to the community.

1 This research was funded by IRPA, 8 th Malaysia Plan, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, under Project0.: 07-02"()4-0540-EAOOl.

Surjit Singh et al.

INTRODUCTIONRetirees playa significant role in volunteerism.Various studies have been carried out on thedifferent aspects of volunteerism among theolder people and the common feature thatarises is that volunteerism is an indicator of ahealthy lifestyle (Hart 2002). Gillette (1998)also argues that volun teering enriches life andbecause life is enriched, the ageing process ismore successful. The common belief is thatretirement is marked by the drastic changesin lifestyle and productivity. However, studieshave also shown that the elderly who maintaintheir activity levels similar to their middle yearsis called the "successful ageing" and one wayto do that is to render socially useful services(Gillette 1998). In fact, Gillette adds thatvolunteers are motivated to render usefulservices because of the empowerment andpersonal affirmation that people receive. Itis believed that volunteerism helps develop amore positive attitude and healthier outlook.As Hart Research Associates (2002) furthersuggests:

Volunteers are more likely to say that theyfeel optimistic about their future,productive, supported by friends,empowered to improve their community,and motivated to help others (Hart 2002).

Volunteerism is as old as humancivilization itself and it exists in various formsand dimensions. As observed in othercountries, it seems that the level ofvolunteerism is viewed in relation to which acertain society achieves a higher sense of civicconsciousness. As studies would have shown,volunteerism is a socially defined action thatbears the society's basic sense ofvalue towardsother human beings, as most motivation forvolunteering points to a strong "desire to helpothers" and it can be formal, informal or adhoc. Formal volunteering comes in the formofformal "enlistment" to an organized groupor institution with a well-defined socialstructure, role and function. In contrast,informal volunteering is engaging in voluntaryaction outside the domain of organized groupor charitable organizations. This includes

extending help to an extended family orneighbourhood such as child-eare, care to adependent member of the family, etc. Fischeret al. (1991), as cited in Michel (2003), providea tripartite conceptualisation, suggesting thatvolunteering includes unpaid work fororganizations (formal volunteering), unpaidassistance in one's neighbourhood (informalvolunteering) and helping kin (personalvolunteering). Models of the characteristic anddeterminants for volunteerism among thevolunteers and non-volunteers have beendeveloped by researchers such as Chambre'(1987) and Herzog and Morgan (1993).

In this particular study, a limited definitionofvolunteerism is adopted, as follows:

Volunteerism is an act ofproviding un paidservice or help regularly or occasionallyin the form of time, service or skill to anon-government, non-profit formalorganization (e.g. societies, community,welfare, educational, political party,service clubs) by retirees from the publicservice who mayor may not be engagedin paid jobs for other organizations,during their retirement life. The termdoes not include informal voluntary workof care-giving or helping of individuals onthe one-to-one basis, in the form ofserviceor charity, among friends and relatives ona long term or temporary period of time.

In this article, the involvement ofvolunteers is measured in terms of timecontributed, the responsibility held and thenumber of organization served for voluntaryservice rendered by the volunteers. A lot ofpeople view volun tary work as a source of bothsatisfaction and benefits, just as in any workorganization. People volunteer because of thepsychological benefits, the attainment of self­esteem, higher energy, and healthier attitudesto ageing and lower levels of depression.Fischer and Schaffer (1993) revealed thatpertinent reasons for volunteering includedthe gesture of helping others, contribution tocommunity, feeling useful, a worthwhilecourse, religious concern, self-development,using free time, meaningful work and goodfeeling. The 1991 Commonwealth Fund survey

200 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005

To Volunteer or Not to Volunteer: The Case of Malaysian Public Service Retirees

also provided some cues to the potential foractivating volunteerism by identifying somemajor barriers such as employment and familyobligations, health and lack of knowledge ofgood volunteer opportunities while, personalexpenses incurred, lack of skills, lack oftransportation and the belief that peopleshould be paid for their work were consideredminor barriers. These factors are supportedin studies by Chambre' (1987), Okun (1993),Smith (1994), and Hergoz and Morgan(1993).

PSYCHOSOCIAL ATIRIBUTES

AND ALTRUISMStudies have shown that personal attributes inthe form of beliefs and attitudes, needs andmotives, and personality characteristics areconsistent and relatively strong predictors ofvolunteering and related behaviours (such asorganizational citizenship behaviour-voluntaryprosocial behaviour performed by employeesor large businesses and organizations (seeBorman and Penner 2001).

Altruism has been a bone of contentionamong many researchers and continues to beto this day. Altruism has been variouslyconceptualised overtime as hard-core altruism,helping behaviour, emphatic concern,reciprocity or exchange behaviour, extrinsicreward expectation, or intrinsic desire (Batson1991). This is supported by the above findingsthat the attributes can fall into three differentcomponents or nuances of altruism. Thismulti-dimensional concept has beencontradicted by Cnaan et al. (1991) whoseresearch directed towards a uni-dimensionalmodel. Sorokin (1948) suggests that theintensity of altruism ranges from a minor actof sympathy, perhaps motivated by the"expectation of pleasure or profit, to theboundless, all-giving, and all-forgiving loveformulated in the Sermon of the Mount.Between these poles, specific forms ofintensityshow friendliness, kindness, benevolence,compassion, loyalty, devotion, respect,admiration, reverence, adoration andinfatuation (p. 61). At the top of the in tensityscale of altruists are the persons the scope of

whose love is widest, being coterminous withthe whole universe and God; the intensity ofwhose love is highest; whose love is wisest andmost creative, and whose acts are motivatedonly by love itself, continuous and durable (p.61). In a U.S. study on the predictors ofvolunteerism among older persons (Peters­Davis et al. 2001 as cited in Lewis 2000), itindicated that personality traits alone couldnot determine their propensity to volunteeringwork; it proposed that a rather relevant factorcould be the role of altruism in studyingvolunteerism.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Sample

The sample consisted of261 Malaysian retireeswho had retired between 1989 and 2000 andrepresented the various states in the country.The study was restricted to the experiencedand educated members of the Public Serviceof Malaysia, and this particular group wouldhave been involved in the implementation ofthe Five-Year Malaysia Development Plansduring their working life in the establishment.With their broad view of the socio-economicdevelopment, they would have great potentialfor volunteerism during the retirement years.

Data Collection

As the study was spread throughout thecountry, the mailed survey approach was usedfor collecting data. A 215 item-instrument wasdeveloped and pre-tested before it was mailedto 576 subjects with 261 (45.3%) completedquestionnaires returned. The variables for theresearch were selected from the literaturereview and from the preliminary interviewconducted in the earlier part of the researchprocess. A Cronbach Alpha test was carried outto test the reliability of the instrument.

Data Analysis

The data analyses were carried out usingdescriptive and inferential statistics.Independent sample t-test was also used todetermine whether there was a significantdifference between the volunteers and non-

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005 201

Surjit Singh et al.

volunteers for both psychosocial and altruismdimensions.

TABLE 1Socio-demographic characteristics of the

retirees

that women may not have to occupy higherpositions in the organization as they primarilyperform feminine roles in the society. Thepredominance of the Malay retirees isexplained by the fact that a greater majorityof the past and present civil service are Malays.A majority of the retirees, both volunteers andnon-volunteers, had finished their bachelor's

GenderMale 82.4 91.2Female 17.6 8.8

RaceMalay 66.8 50.4Chinese 17.8 35.2Indian 8.8 11.2Kadazan 1.5 .8Iban .7 .8Others 4.4 1.6

Educational QualificationHSC/Diploma 12.5 20.2Bachelor's Degree 55.9 49.2Master's Degree 16.1 16.1Doctorate or equiv. 3.7 .8Professional/Technical 5.9 3.2Others 5.9 10.5

Residence/LocationPeninsular M'sia 70.6 68.8Sabah 5.9 7.2Sarawak 6.6 6.4Federal Territories 16.9 17.6

Marital StatusMarried (with children) 89.0 91.2Married (no children) 2.2 3.2Single (widowed,

Divorced, separated) 4.4 3.2Never married 4.4 1.6

ReligionIslam 68.4 50.4Buddhism 8.1 15.2Christianity 15.4 13.6Hinduism 5.2 8.0Non-believer .7 6.4Other 2.2 6.4

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONThe findings were based on the analysis of anation-wide mail survey of the retirees fromthe Malaysian Public Service. It should benoted that due to the paucity of the localresearch studies done on retirees andvolunteerism, most of the comparison willreflect those situation in advanced countrieslike the United States, Australia and Canada.The comparative literature was selected mostlyfrom the sources outside the country wherethe profile of retirees was generally differentin age, culture, context and environment fromthat of the Malaysian retirees. The discussionwould therefore be substantiated whereverpossible with the findings from the exploratoryinterviews held with some local retireesselected from the sample frame; newspaperarticles and comments shared by therespondents in the survey questionnaires.Pertinent aspects of the findings are discussedwith reference to relevant data.

Socia-demographic Profile o/Volunteer and Non­

Volunteer RetireesThe findings provided a snapshot of thecharacteristic profile of the population understudy. From the 261 respondents 52.1 % (136)were found to be involved in voluntary workduring 2003; with the remaining 47.9% (125)were non- volunteers as shown in Table l.

The non-volunteer female retirees onlyaccounted for 8.8% across the races. Thedistribution of the respondents based on theirgender indicated a highly disproportionatenumber of the male professional andmanagerial civil servants in Malaysia alludingto the observation that women occupied anegligible or insignifican t n urnber inMalaysian public service thereby reinforcingthe fact that only a few women could advancetheir career and professional interests broughtabout by institutionalised constraints (see forexample, ]amilah 1996; Maimunah 2003;Aminah 2003) to their professional growth. Itreflects the legitimisation of social processes

Characteristics Volunteer(n=136)

%

Non­Volunteer(n=125)

%

202 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 No.2 2005

To Volunteer or ot to Volunteer: The Case of Malaysian Public Service Retirees

TABLE 2Percentage distribution of respondents according to year of retirement

Year of Volunteer Non-volunteer OverallRetirement (n=136) (n=125) (n=261)

Earlier Retirees (n=44) (n=39)1989 3.7 3.2 2.71990 5.1 .8 2.31991 2.9 10.4 6.51992 5.1 2.4 3.81993 7.4 4.0 5.71994 8.1 10.4 10.0Total 32.3 31.2 31.0

Later Retirees (n=92) (n=86)1995 8.1 8.0 8.81996 2.9 8.8 5.71997 6.6 8.8 7.71998 10.3 8.8 9.61999 13.2 17.6 15.32000 26.4 16.8 21.8Total 67.5 68.8 69.0

degree (55.9% and 49.2%, respectively) witha few volun teers finished their doctoratestudies. On the average, 90% of the retireesare married with children with the non­volunteers have more number of marriedretirees (91.2%).

In terms of the number of dependentchildren, the volunteer-retirees have moredependent children (50.7%) compared to thenon-volunteer-retirees (39.2%). In relation tohaving dependent parents, these volunteer­retirees have to combine parenthood withtaking care of dependent parents (27.2%)while the non-volunteers account for about21.6%.

It is noted that both the volunteer andnon-volunteer retirees did not considerfinance as a problem as reflected in the waythey viewed their own financial standingduring their retirement. More than one-halfof the respondents have satisfactory financialstatus, 56.6% and 69.9% for volunteers andnon-volunteers, respectively. This can beexplained by the fact that more than one-halfof the respondents are also engaged in eitherfull-time, part-time or self-employment. It isalso interesting to note that in as much as halfof the retirees are working to generate income,

another half is also spending their time freely.When this is analysed in relation to thefinancial status of the two groups ofrespondents, it can be inferred that both haveparticularly prepared their retirement lifeconsidering the resources they have at theirdisposal i.e. time and money, which is alsocontrary to what the mainstream media havesuggested that retirees are facing somefinancial and health problems during theirretirement, although this contention needs tobe supported by hard facts on the status ofother retirees from the rank-and-file of theMalaysian public service. The health status ofvolunteer and non-volunteer respondents wasalso commendable considering that more than90% have either excellent, good or satisfactoryhealth condition with as low as 5% claimingthat their health was not satisfactory with theonset ofage-related diseases like arthritis, highblood pressure, heart disease, etc. In Foner'sopinion the "most important correlates ofsatisfaction with retirement are health andmoney" (1983:74).

Still within the domain of socio­demographic characteristics of the retirees,Table 2 shows the distribution of these retireesover a twelve-year period classified in to "earlier

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005 203

Surjit Singh et al.

Psychosocial VariablesIndependent sample t-test was carried out todetermine the significant difference betweenthe volunteers and non-volunteers for the fourmajor components ofpsychosocial dimension,namely, environment, life style, personality andresources. The results are shown in Table 3where there were significan t differencesbetween the volunteers and non-volunteers forlifestyle (t = 1.964, p~0.05) and resources (t =5.532, p~0.05). When we look at the individualitems oflifestyle, only one item i.e. contact withfriends (t = 2.768, p~0.05) was found to differsignificantly for volunteers and non­volunteers. In the case of resources, there wasa significant difference between the volunteersand non-volunteers for generative concern (t=

retirees" i.e. before 1995 and "later retirees"i.e. after 1995. It was found that among thevolunteer group there were 32.3% 'earlierretirees' and 67.5% 'later retirees'. As for thenon-volunteers the ratio was 31.2% and 68.8%respectively. Overall, there were 31.0% (82)'earlier retirees' and 69.0% (179) "laterretirees' within the two groups.

It is noted that in America, every secondadult serves as a volunteer (The IndependentSector 2001) but that does not seem to be thesituation in Malaysia. It is observed that theparticipation among the seniors is 32.3% halfof that seen among the later retirees. This canbe related to the increase in the number ofPremier and Managerial and Professional(PMP) retirees over the period (i.e. 1989-2000)with 1004 in 1989 to 2122 in 2000 and also thedecrease in mortality rate in the later period(4.6/1000 in 1995 and 4.4/100 in 2000). Thistrend can be associated with disengagementtheory of successful adjustment and gradualwithdrawal from the active life in society withthe advancement in age. It operates on thebasis of the functional premise that theindividual and society seek to maintainequilibrium (Cumming and Henry 1961 ascited in Lo and Brown 1999).

4.154, p~0.05), spirituality (t= 4.293, p~0.05),family upbringing (t = 3.666, p~0.05) andpsychological well being (t =4.054, p~0.05).

The ETA square (1]2) was calculated andinterpreted, as recommended by Cohen(1998), to describe the effect size of theselected variables and its components.

Among the variables, 'resources' has amoderate effect size (1]2= .10). Generativeconcern explained 8%, followed bypsychological well-being (5.6%) andspirituality (5.4%). The rest of the variableshave small contribution towards the variance.There is a glaring difference between thevariables 'resources' and the other threevariables in their effects on volunteerism onvolunteers and non-volunteers. This could beattributed to the personal experiences of thevolunteers as manifested by the high scores forall the components. It could also indicate lesserconcern for the components of resources bythe non-volunteer retirees.

ALTRUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS

AMONG THE RETIREESSeventeen items describing the attributes ofaltruistic persons were selected to describe thedimension of altruism as shown in Table 6.Both the volunteer and non-volunteer retireeswere asked to assess the accuracy of eachattribute/characteristic as it applied to them.The volunteer and the non-volunteer retireeswere agreeable on the first five of the sameattributes as shown below, the sixth (f) andseventh (g) are for volunteers and non­volunteers, respectively:a. To you helping act is a sense of social

responsibility.b. You believe that helping is serving Godc. You have an internal desire to help without

expectations of any reward or reciprocity.d. You feel that you have a moral obligation

to render help to those in difficulty orneed.

e. You have concern for welfare of others.f. You are spiritually motivated to help other

humans.g. You are inclined to feel the events of

happiness or pain experienced by anotherperson.

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005

DIFFERENCES IN THE MEANS OF

lWO GROUPS (VOLUNTEERS

AND NON-VOLUNTEERS)

204

To Volunteer or Not to Volunteer: The Case of Malaysian Public Service Retirees

TABLE 3Mean difference between volunteer and non-volunteer respondents towards

psychosocial variables and their components

Mean

Variables Volunteer(n=136)

Non-Volunteer(n=125)

p

EnvironmentCommunity integration

eighbourhood affiliationNeighbourhood qualityOverall

LifestyleContact with familyContact with friendsOverall

PersonalityAgreeablenessConscien tiousness

euroticism/emotionExtraversionOpenness to experienceOverall

ResourcesGenerative concernSpiritualityFamily upbringingPsychological well-beingOverall

4.073.754.083.97

3.843.043.44

3.693.913.703.743.573.72

3.804.274.284.004.07

4.11 -.622 .535 .0013.69 .944 .346 .0033.96 1.681 .094 .0113.92 .897 .371 .003

3.78 .736 .462 .0022.85 2.768 .006 .0293.31 1.964 .051 .015

3.68 .276 .782 .0003.88 .351 .726 .0013.64 1.070 .286 .0043.57 2.489 .013 .0263.54 .496 .620 .0013.67 1.134 .258 .007

3.50 4.514 .000 .0803.91 4.239 .000 .0544.03 3.666 .000 .0423.74 4.054 .000 .0563.77 5.532 .000 .107

Itwas also 0 bserved that all the percentagescores for the volunteers were higher thanthose for non-volunteers. The attributesconsidered 'not at all accurate' to thevolunteers and non-volunteers were the sameas shown below:a. To giving is receiving (33.1 % and 29.6%)b. Helping others enhances you self-esteem

(30.9% and 24.0%)c. You would help if the value of outcome of

the consequence of the service renderedwill be positive (35.3% and 33.6%).

d. Helping others makes you look good inthe eyes of others (44.9% and 39.2%).

e. To you doing good is an investment forreturn of good from others (50.0% and48.0%).

f. Your priority to help depends on thecloseness of the relationship or

acquain tance of the person needing yourservice (50.0% and 36.0%).

The percentage scores indicated that theseattributes would be less applicable to the PMPgroup of Malaysian retirees. It meant that theretirees were not motivated by expectation ofrewards, increasing self-esteem or reciprocityfor service given. From the comparison of thehigh scores and low scores, the third categoryof the characteristics is observed withmoderate scores. This category ranges from41.9% to 77.2% for volunteers and 37.6 to65.6% for non-volunteers. In this study, thesethree categories make up the threecomponents of the continuum of altruismrelated to empathy, reciprocity and spirituality.

The scores on the level ofaltruism in Table5 suggest that among the three components,empathy has the highest mean of 3.93 with

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005 205

Surjit Singh et ai.

TABLE 4Percentage distribution by dimensions of altruism items

Altruism Items Volunteer on-Volunteer

NA%

SA%

VA%

NA%

SA%

VA%

EmpathyYou have concern for welfare of others 0 18.4 81.6 0 31.2 68.8You have an internal desire to help without

expectations of any reward or reciprocity. 0 13.2 86.7 .8 27.2 72.0You are inclined to feel the events of happiness or

pain experienced by another person. 0.7 22.1 77.2 1.6 32.8 65.6You have the capacity to empathize the emotions of

suffering experienced by another person. 0.7 27.9 71.3 2.4 40.0 57.6You have a yearning to contribute to the community. 2.2 25.7 72.1 6.4 40.0 53.6To you the helping act is a sense of social responsibility. 0 8.8 91.1 2.4 25.6 72.0You feel that you have the moral obligation to render

help to those in difficulty or need. 2.2 13.2 84.5 4.0 28.0 68.0ReciprocityHelping others makes you look good in the

eyes of others. 44.9 28.7 26.5 39.2 40.0 20.8To you doing good is an investment

for return of good from others. 50.0 27.2 22.8 48.0 32.8 19.2Helping others enhances your self-esteem. 30.9 29.4 39.8 24.0 43.2 32.8The act of helping others will depend on the situation. 19.1 39.0 41.9 13.6 48.8 37.6You would help if the value or outcome of the

consequence of the service rendered will be positive. 35.3 33.8 30.8 33.6 42.4 24.0Your priority to help depend on the closeness of the

relationship or acquaintance of the personneeding your service. 50.0 34.6 15.4 36.0 38.4 25.6

SpiritualityYou believe that helping is serving God. 3.0 7.4 89.7 12.8 18.4 68.8You are spiritually motivated to help other humans. 1.4 16.2 82.3 10.4 29.6 60.0To you service is a preparation for the hereafter. 8.1 23.5 68.4 6.4 40.0 53.6To you 'giving is receiving'. 33.1 25.0 41.9 29.6 33.6 36.8

A= ot at all accurate SA=Some what accurate VA=Very accurate

spirituality as a second highest 3.72.Reciprocity has the lowest mean score of2.88.Empathy also had the highest rate (72.8%) ofthe respondents at the high-level followed byspirituality. Reciprocity had the highest rate(62.1 %) of respondents at the moderate-level.Overall rating suggested a mean of 3.51 and ahigher moderate-level response 64.8%. Thefindings suggest that empathy and spiritualitywere more favoured by the PMP group ofretirees. They had high regard for these valuesthan reciprocity. This is consistent withMerriam and Mazanah's (2000) qualitative

study of the older adults in Malaysia whoemphasized spirituality as an importantcomponent.

The findings seem to agree with thepostulate that there is no absolute altruism(Horton-Smith 1981; Pinker 1981; Titmus1971). This is more aligned to Cnaan andGoldberg-Glen 's uni~imensional theory as therespondents seem to be motivated not by anysingle aspect ofmotivation but by a meaningfulwhole that comprise all the three componentsof altruism or anyone or two of them

206 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 0.22005

To Volunteer or Not to Volunteer: The Case of MaJaysian Public Service Retirees

TABLE 5Percentage distribution of respondents by level of altruism

Level Freq. % Mean SD

Empathy 3.93 .53LowModerate 71 27.2High 190 72.8

Reciprocity 2.88 .76Low 68 26.1Moderate 162 62.1High 31 11.9

Spirituality 3.72 .73Low 12 4.6Moderate 91 34.9High 158 60.5

Overall Altruism 3.51 .48Low 2 .8Moderate 169 64.8High 90 4.5

TABLE 6Mean differences between volunteer and non-volunteer respondents towards components of altruism

Mean

Variables

AltruismEmpathyReciprocitySpiritualityOverall

Volunteer(n=136)

4.052.873.903.60

Non-Volunteer(n=125)

3.792.893.533.41

4.141-.2744.1933.166

p

.000

.785

.000

.002

.061

.000

.063

.032

commensurate to their 'rewardingexperience' .

Independent Sample t-test was carried outto determine whether there was a significantdifference between the volunteers and non­volunteers for the three components ofaltruism i.e. empathy, reciprocity andspirituality as well as the overall altruism. Theresult of this analysis is presented in Table 6.

From the results, it can be seen that thereis a significant difference between thevolunteers and non-volunteers for altruism asa composite index (t= 3.166, p:S; 0.05). When

we look at the individual component ofaltruism, we find that there is a significantdifference between the volunteers and non­volunteers for empathy (t= 4.141, p:S; 0.05).However, there is no spirituality (t=4.193, p:S;0.05). There was no significant differencebetween the volunteers and non-volunteers forreciprocity (t=-.274, p~0.05).This suggests thatboth the volunteer and non-volunteers did notdiffer in their expectations from the servicesrendered.

A study of the effects size of the variablesshows that spirituality has a moderate effectsize (112 =.0634) which is able to explain 6.3%

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 No.2 2005 207

Surjit Singh et ai.

of the variance in the difference in means.Empathy also shows moderate effects size (rt2

=.061), and is able to explain 6.1 % of thevariance in the difference in means.

CONCLUSIONDefinitely, there is a lot more to be done as faras creating an environment wherevolunteerism among the retirees comes to theforefront in the societal development withoutmuch coaxing from the government. For thisto happen, it is not just a matter of creating aprogram for the retirees and the elderlypopulation in the country. It is more ofinstilling a value on the primary importanceof humanity such that people and individualsare the overriding concern of everyone in thesociety, and not just the promotion ofeconomic development to make up thedevelopment of the nation. When nationaldevelopment ushers in a people-centreddevelopment - referring to the vitality of man'scontribution to the onward development ofthe nation - surely, other national issues willrevolve around the people's interests, and, nototherwise. For this to happen whatcircumstances do we need to shape and whatenabling factors do we have to create and needto have access to?

From the sociological point ofview and asa prefaced in this paper, volunteerism is asocially defined action and, as such, it requiresa community "ritual" to sustain it. Thepsychosocial dimension is but a reflection ofthe community'S extent upon whichvolunteerism is well-embedded in its localstructure. Both the psychosocial dimensionand the embeddedness of the spirit ofvolunteerism in the local community are notmutually exclusive, which means that for thepeople to participate in any voluntary work,their psychosocial components as well as theextent to which volunteerism is a commonritual in the social and cultural landscape formpart of the community life.

The same goes with altruism - expressedin people's empathy, reciprocity andspirituality. When people are the centre of thedevelopment process, thus, creating the spaceto helping others, volunteerism comes

naturally. This is based on the assumption thatwhen pro-people policies take the centre stagein the development agenda, the likelihood thatthe social consciousness is geared towardshelping others would be real.

Slightly more than halfof the total retireeswere engaged in voluntary work and theycould be said to be productive contrary to thepopular myth that retirees spent their time as'rocking chair relics'. There are about 48% ofretirees spending their time 'free and easy'.Now, if this group could be tapped notjust forthe economic productive function but also forthe non-economic type of service. They couldbe a suitable target group to be attracted intovolunteerism. There is an opportunity toattract them to provide their expertise bydevising a systematic strategy for attracting,recruiting and retaining volunteers.

There were four psychosocial variablesnamely, environment, life style, personality andresources. Out of the four variables, lifestyleand resources influenced whether or notretirees would become volunteers. In general,altruism (empathy, reciprocity and spirituality)is more prevalent among the volunteers thannon-volunteers.

Empathy and spirituality of the altruismcomponent have more influence on theretirees' willingness to do voluntary work whilereciprocity has the least influence. At theiradvancing ages, these retiree volunteers arenot expecting rewards for their effort and thatexplains why reciprocity has the least influenceon the retirees' propensity to volunteer.

Volunteers are more likely than non­volunteers to be members of an organizedreligious group and they hold strongerreligious beliefs. These differences remainedeven when we excluded those people whovolunteered at a religious organization(Penner 2002). This may seem true in thispresent study where the volunteer retirees aremore attuned to the altruistic attitudeespecially those who have higher spiritual andempathic tendencies.

REFERENCESAMINAH AHMAD. 2005. Work-family conflict: What

intervention options do we have? Paper

208 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 No.2 2005

To Volunteer or Not to Volunteer: The Case of Malaysian Public Service Retirees

presented at the Conference on Women and Peace:Issues, Challenges and Strategies, December 18,2003, Mines Beach Resort and Spa, SeriKembangan, Selangor, Malaysia.

BATSON, C.D. 1991. The altruism question: Towardsa social-psychological answer. In SocialPsychology, ed. E. Aronson and Wilson et al. NewYork: Harper Collins College.

BORMAN, W.C. and L.A. PEN ER. 2001. Citizenshipperformance: Its nature, antecedents, andmotives. In Personality Psychology in the Warkplace,ed. B. Roberts and R. Hogan, pp. 63-92.Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

CHAMBRE', S.M. 1987. Good Deeds in Old Age.Lexington MA: Lexington Books.

CNAAN, R.A. and R.S. GOLDBERG-GLE 1991.Measuring motivation to volunteer in humanservice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science27(3): 269-284.

COHE , l 1998. Statistical Power Analysis for theBehavioral Sciences. Hillside, J. Erlbaun.

MA1.A)SIA DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS. 2004. Key statistic.Malaysia (updated 1 April 2004), RetrievedMay 23, 2004 from http://www.statistic.gov.my/English/keystats.html.

FISCHER, L.C., and K.B. SCHAFFER. 1993. OlderVolunteer: A Guide to Research and Practice.California, USA: Sage Publications.

FISCHER, L.R, D.P. MUELLER and P.W. COOPER. 1991.Older volunteers: A discussion of theMinnesota senior study. The Gerontologist 31(2): 183-194.

Fo ER, ANNE. 1983. Work and retirement in achanging society. In Aging in Society, ed. K.Bond, B. Hess and M. Riley. Hillsdale:LaWTence Erlbaum Associates.

HART, P. RESEARCH ASSOCIATES. 2002. The new faceof retirement: an ongoing survey on ageing.

HERGOZ, A.R and IN. MORGAN. 1993. Formalvolunteer work among older Americans. In

Achieving a Productive Aging Society, ed. SA.Bass, F. Caro and G&Y-Pchen, pp. 119- 142.Westport, CT: Auburn House.

INDEPENDE T SECTOR. 2001. The New Non-profitAlmanac. Washington: Independent Sector.

JAMILAH ARIFFIN, SUSA HORTON and GUILHERMESEDLACEK. 1996. Women in the labour market.In Women and Industrialization in Asia, ed. S.Hurton. London: Routledge.

LEWIS, M. 2002. Service learning and older adults.Educational Gerontology 28(8): 655-667.

Lo, Rand R BROWN. 1999. Stress and adaptation:Preparation for successful retirement.Australian and New Zealand Journal of MentalHealth Nursing 8: 30-38.

MAJMUNAH ISMAJL. 2003. Conflicting understandingabout gender and development. Paperpresented at the Conference on Women and Peace:Issues, Challenges and Strategies, December 18,Mines Beach Resort and Spa, Seri Kembangan,Selangor, Malaysia.

MICHEL, J. 2003. The roles of agreeableness,generativity, and health limitations involunteering in older adults. UnpublishedMasters Thesis, Arizona State University.

PINKER, R. 1979. The Idea of Welfare. London:Heinemann.

OKUN, M.A. 1993. Predictors of volunteer status ina retirement community. In InternationalJournal ofAging and Human Development 36(1):57-74, 427(15) ed. RJ. and Jon Hendricks(assoc.ed.) .

SMITH, D.H. 1981. Altruism: Volunteers andvolunteerism. Journal of Voluntary ActionResearch 10: 21-36.

SMITH, D.H. 1994. Determinants of voluntaryassociation participation and volunteering: Aliterature review. Non-Profit and Voluntary SectorQuarterly 23(3): 243-246.

TITMUS, RM. 1971. The Gift of Relationship: FromHuman Blood to Social Policy. ew York: Vintage.

(Received: 29 August 2005)

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 13 No.2 2005 209