Health Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association

2012, Vol. 31, No. 1, 87–96 0278-6133/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025226

Motives for Volunteering Are Associated With Mortality Risk in

Older Adults

Sara Konrath Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis and Alina Lou

University of Michigan and University of Rochester Medical University of Michigan
Center

Stephanie Brown
University of Michigan and Stony Brook University Medical Center
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of motives for volunteering on respondents’
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

mortality risk 4 years later. Methods: Logistic regression analysis was used to examine whether motives
for volunteering predicted later mortality risk, above and beyond volunteering itself, in older adults from
the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. Covariates included age, gender, socioeconomic variables, physical,
mental, and cognitive health, health risk behaviors, personality traits, received social support, and actual
volunteering behavior. Results: Replicating prior work, respondents who volunteered were at lower risk
for mortality 4 years later, especially those who volunteered more regularly and frequently. However,
volunteering behavior was not always beneficially related to mortality risk: Those who volunteered for
self-oriented reasons had a mortality risk similar to nonvolunteers. Those who volunteered for other-
oriented reasons had a decreased mortality risk, even in adjusted models. Conclusions: This study adds
to the existing literature on the powerful effects of social interactions on health and is the first study to
our knowledge to examine the effect of motives on volunteers’ subsequent mortality. Volunteers live
longer than nonvolunteers, but this is only true if they volunteer for other-oriented reasons.

Keywords: volunteering, mortality risk, motives, altruism, social interaction, health, older adults

The average life expectancy in the United States has recently specifically examining the effects of volunteering find that helping
reached an all-time high, increasing from 76.6 in 1998 to 78.4 behavior is beneficial for volunteers’ psychological and physical
years in 2008 (United Nations Population Division, 2009). Yet, health. Regular volunteers have lower rates of depression (Lum &
this number represents an average, and many Americans die Lightfoot, 2005), better everyday physical functioning and psy-
earlier than expected from preventable diseases such as cardio- chological well-being (Greenfield & Marks, 2004; Piliavin &
vascular disease and cancer (Cohen, Janicki-Deverts, & Miller, Siegl, 2007; Thoits & Hewitt, 2001), and lower mortality risk
2007). These two diseases together accounted for nearly half (Luoh & Herzog, 2002; Oman, Thoresen, & McMahon, 1999),
(48.6%) of all deaths in the United States in 2007 (Centers for even when controlling for a number of potential confounds (e.g.,
Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). Given the high propor- gender, social integration, socioeconomic status; Morrow-Howell,
tion of such preventable causes of death, it is important to Hinterlong, Rozario, & Tang, 2003; Musick, Herzog, & House,
understand factors that might help to reduce unnecessarily early 1999), and even when the number of self-reported physician-
mortality in older adults. diagnosed health conditions do not differ between volunteers and
Established health benefits of social interaction, and specifi- nonvolunteers (Lum & Lightfoot, 2005).
cally, giving to others, may offer a promising avenue for increas- As can be expected, most studies examining the relationship
ing longevity, especially among more vulnerable groups such as between volunteering and mortality do so among older adult
older adults (e.g., Brown, Brown, House, & Smith, 2008; Brown, populations because of methodological and logistic challenges of
Nesse, Vinokur, & Smith, 2003; Brown et al., 2009). Studies examining mortality among younger persons (e.g., longitudinal
studies of younger persons would need to wait decades for poten-
tial group differences in mortality to surface). Despite this trend in
This article was published Online First August 15, 2011. the literature toward older adults, studies of volunteering in
Sara Konrath, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, and younger persons generally find that volunteering is associated with
University of Rochester Medical Center; Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis, Center for health benefits and well-being (e.g., adolescent volunteers, Ben-
Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, Department of Internal Medi- son, Clary, & Scales, 2007; midlife volunteers, Pillemer, Fuller-
cine, University of Michigan; Alina Lou, Institute for Social Research, Rowell, Reid, & Wells, 2010). Multiple recent reviews of the
University of Michigan; Stephanie Brown, Institute for Social Research,
literature on volunteering in older adults have concluded that
University of Michigan, and Stony Brook University Medical Center.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sara volunteering is a predictor of decreased mortality (Grimm, Spring,
Konrath, Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Re- & Dietz, 2007; Harris & Thoresen, 2005; Oman, 2007). In addi-
search, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI tion, a recent meta-analysis of studies examining the impact of
48106. E-mail: [email protected] volunteering on mortality in older adults also concludes that vol-

87
 88 KONRATH, FUHREL-FORBIS, LOU, AND BROWN

unteering is consistently associated with decreased mortality proaches acknowledge the important dual roles of needs for au-
(Okun & Brown, in preparation). tonomy and needs for relatedness in humans (Deci & Ryan, 2002).
Why should volunteering have such positive effects? To date, On the surface, volunteering appears to be a selfless behavior,
the mechanisms of the volunteering-health relationship have been and as such, it seems to be best captured by the other-oriented
understudied, but there are a number of potential theories. One dimension. However, people volunteer for a variety of reasons,
such explanation is that volunteering boosts social resources, beyond concern for others in need (Table 1). In some cases,
which in turn has health implications (Wilson & Musick, 1999). volunteering emerges from more self-oriented, or individual, mo-
However, other theorists provide evidence that volunteering has tives (e.g., self-protection, self-enhancement, and/or career promo-
additive benefits above and beyond the benefits of other everyday tion; see Clary & Snyder, 1999). We hypothesize that underlying
social activities. Volunteering contributes to a sense of deeper motives for volunteerism may determine whether volunteering is
meaning (i.e., eudaimonic well-being) compared with other types beneficial, with benefits being limited to the case of volunteering
of social activities, although other social activities may contribute for more other-oriented, or relational motives, as opposed to more
to temporary and less meaningful aspects of happiness (i.e., hedo- self-oriented, or individual motives (Table 1).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

nic well-being; see Piliavin & Siegl, 2007). Other researchers have By “other-oriented,” we are referring to motives that include the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

suggested that volunteering behavior might prevent feelings of desire to help another person and the consideration of close others’
meaninglessness (i.e., anomie), with resulting health implications behavior and desires in making decisions to volunteer. In this way,
(Musick et al., 1999). volunteer motives are perhaps a more sensitive way to measure
helping behavior because those who cite other-oriented motives
Do Motives for Volunteering Matter? for volunteering are explicitly considering other people as their
There is a long history of intellectual discourse on what are primary justification for helping. By “self-oriented,” we are refer-
essentially two fundamental psychological spheres: self-focus and ring to motives for volunteering that explicitly consider some
other-focus. These concepts have parallels in Fromm’s (1941) personal reward such as improving one’s mood or self-esteem,
separate identity versus oneness with the world, Erikson’s (1950) escaping one’s problems, or learning a new skill. These are all
autonomy versus basic trust, and Bakan’s (1966) agency versus legitimate reasons to volunteer that are not good or bad in them-
communion distinction (see Wiggins, 1991, for a review). Other selves; however, what they have in common is that they typify
constructs that capture similar dimensions include instrumental more individual dimensions rather than more relational ones.
versus expressive roles (Bem, 1974; Parsons & Bales, 1955), More other-oriented motives for volunteering may be linked to
individualistic versus collectivist cultures (Triandis, 1995), and improved health because these motives may help to promote a
independent versus interdependent self-construals (Markus & Ki- sense of deep and lasting well-being originating from service to
tayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994). Not surprisingly, these two dimen- something bigger than the self. This has been found to be one
sions are also central to an understanding of human motivation, mechanism of health effects for volunteering in general (Piliavin &
and several theorists have made the important distinction between Siegl, 2007). In addition, other-oriented motives may buffer vol-
self-oriented and other-oriented motives in driving human behav- unteers against potential stressors that occur in daily life, or even
ior. For example, McAdams (1985) distinguishes between power that may result from the volunteering experience itself. Such
versus intimacy motivations, and more recent theoretical ap- stressors may include having fewer resources for the self (e.g., less

Table 1
Other-Oriented Versus Self-Oriented Motives for Volunteering and Subscale Intercorrelations

Correlation with

Motive M (SD) Motive Index Questionnaire items SOC VAL PROT ENHAN UND

Social connection (␣ ⫽ .76) 3.47 (1.67) Other-oriented Volunteering is an important activity to the — .47 .49 .53 .56
(␣ ⫽ .79) people I know best.
Others with whom I am close place a high
value on community service.
Altruistic values (␣ ⫽ .86) 5.05 (1.55) I feel it is important to help others. .47 — .33 .67 .59
I feel compassion toward people in need.
Self-protection (␣ ⫽ .79) 2.44 (1.53) Self-oriented Volunteering is a good escape from my .49 .33 — .52 .58
(␣ ⫽ .88) own troubles.
Volunteering helps me work through my
own personal problems
Self-enhancement (␣ ⫽ .90) 4.17 (1.82) Volunteering makes me feel needed. .53 .67 .52 — .70
Volunteering makes me feel better about
myself.
Learning/understanding (␣ ⫽ .74) 3.70 (1.67) I can learn how to deal with a variety of .56 .59 .58 .70 —
people.
I can explore my own strengths.

Note. Respondents were asked “How important or accurate, for you, is the following reason for why people engage in volunteer activities” (1 ⫽ not at
all important/accurate; 7 ⫽ extremely important/accurate).
 VOLUNTEERING MOTIVES AND MORTALITY RISK 89

time), but also might be directly caused by the volunteering situ- Research Questions and Hypotheses
ation itself. In many cases, volunteers interact with individuals
who are needy, ill, or less fortunate, and these interactions can be We will address three main research questions in this article.
emotionally distressing and physically taxing for volunteers (Cap- Part A: Replicating past research on health benefits of
ner & Caltabiano, 1993; Lewig, Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Dollard, & volunteering. Using data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal
Metzer, 2007). In other words, volunteering can be stressful and Study (WLS), we will first attempt to replicate prior research
lead to burnout, but perhaps having other-oriented motives can demonstrating that volunteering behavior is associated with a
help to regulate this stress. reduced mortality risk at later time points. We hypothesize that
volunteering behavior will be associated with a lower mortality
Prior research has found that increased social support can help
risk, especially for regular and frequent volunteers (see Piliavin &
to buffer volunteer-related stress (Capner & Caltabiano, 1993;
Siegl, 2007). Although this first analysis may appear redundant
Lewig et al., 2007). However, the consequences to volunteers of
given past research demonstrating mortality benefits associated
other-oriented motives for volunteering have received only a min-
with volunteering, we include it to demonstrate the validity of the
ute amount of empirical attention, having been examined only in
current data set, and also in the interest of supplementing prior
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

two studies that we are aware of, and with mixed results (Ferrari,
research.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Luhrs, & Lyman, 2007; Gillath et al., 2005).

Part B: The health benefits of volunteering depend on the
One of these studies finds that motives matter in predicting
motives. We hypothesize that health outcomes are driven by
interpersonal outcomes, however, the results with respect to other-
one’s motives for volunteering, above and beyond volunteering
oriented motives are inconsistent. Gillath and colleagues (2005)
behavior itself. Thus, our second research question examines the
examined 6 motives for volunteering—altruistic values, social
role of motives for volunteering on mortality risk. We specifically
connection, self-enhancement, self-protection, career promotion, predict that other-oriented motives for volunteering (i.e., social
and learning/understanding. They found that college undergradu- connection, altruistic values) will be associated with reduced mor-
ates who volunteer because they have compassion for needy peo- tality risk, and that individuals with more self-oriented motives for
ple (i.e., altruistic values) do indeed derive the most interpersonal volunteering will experience either attenuated benefits, or perhaps
benefits from volunteering; they are less likely to show patterns of even an increased risk of mortality. Because of prior work dem-
avoidant attachment, are less lonely, and have fewer interpersonal onstrating the role of motives in stress regulation (Ferrari et al.,
problems. However, this study demonstrated that individuals who 2007), we posit that this occurs via a stress regulation process.
volunteer because it is important to others they care about (i.e., However, we cannot speak to the mechanism of our finding
social connection, an other-oriented motive) were more likely to without further research, and limit this study to a direct examina-
show patterns of anxious attachment, contrary to what one might tion of the effects of motives on mortality itself.
expect. Finally, as one might expect, people who volunteer for Prior work with this same dataset (i.e., the WLS) has examined
certain self-oriented reasons (i.e., self-enhancement, self- the potential beneficial health outcomes of volunteering (Piliavin
protection) are more likely to have anxious attachment patterns. & Siegl, 2007), which is an important contribution, but our study
In another relevant study, researchers examined the relationship adds a unique contribution because we examine the impact of
between motives for working with elderly clients and caregiver motives for volunteering. In addition, given the updated WLS data
stress and satisfaction (Ferrari, Luhrs, & Lyman, 2007). Partici- that we use (the most recent mortality data is from 2008), the
pants were either unpaid volunteers or paid staff. Among unpaid current study can examine the relationship between volunteering
volunteers, stronger self-oriented motives (i.e., self-enhancement, and mortality risk, rather than only psychological well-being and
self-protection, or career promotion) for volunteering were asso- self-rated health, as prior work has done (Piliavin & Siegl, 2007).
ciated with increased caregiver stress, but there was no relation- Finally, given these past health and well-being outcomes (Piliavin
ship between motives of any kind and caregiver satisfaction. & Siegl, 2007), in the current study we control for any possible
Among paid caregivers, stronger self-oriented motives (specifi- effects of psychological well-being and self-rated health.
cally, self-protection) were also associated with increased stress, Part C: Is it better to volunteer for self-oriented reasons or
while stronger other-oriented motives (i.e., social connection, al- not to volunteer at all? In our final analysis, we examine
truistic values) were associated with increased caregiver satisfac- whether it is better to volunteer for self-oriented reasons, or not to
tion. The results of this study suggest that self-oriented motives for volunteer at all, in terms of one’s mortality risk. We hypothesize
caregiving may ultimately result in increased caregiver stress. that those who volunteer for self-oriented reasons will have a
Given the inconsistency between paid and unpaid caregivers in this similar mortality as nonvolunteers. In other words, we expect that
study, however, the role of other-oriented motives needs further only respondents who volunteer for other-oriented reasons will
empirical attention. In addition, this study cannot adequately com- reap the associated mortality benefits.
ment on the causal relationship between motives, stress, and sat-
isfaction, given that the data were collected at a single point in Method
time.
The current study contributes to this literature by (1) providing
Sample
an additional test case for the role of motives in predicting impor-
tant outcomes among volunteers, and (2) extending prior work by We used data from the 1992, 2004, and 2008 time points of the
examining these questions among (a) a large longitudinal cohort WLS, a study that has followed a random sample of 10,317 male
sample, (b) with a number of potential confounds addressed, and and female Wisconsin high school graduates since their graduation
(c) on an important new health outcome measure (i.e., mortality). in 1957 until the present. The WLS primarily includes Caucasian,
 90 KONRATH, FUHREL-FORBIS, LOU, AND BROWN

non-Hispanic respondents, thus ethnic minorities are not well- or once per week), both assessed in 2004. Socioeconomic status
represented. The sample is 51.6% female, and the mean age of all variables included the number of years of education, respondents’
respondents was 69.16 years (SD ⫽ 0.51) in 2008 (range ⫽ net worth, and their employment status in 2004 (0 ⫽ not working,
68 –71). 1 ⫽ working for pay). Physical health was assessed with three
variables reported in 1992. The total number of diagnosed illnesses
Mortality Status was a continuous variable based on 17 items. Respondents re-
ported whether a medical professional had ever told them they had:
Mortality status in 2008 was indicated with a dichotomous anemia, asthma, arthritis/rheumatism, bronchitis/emphysema, can-
variable (0 ⫽ alive, 1 ⫽ deceased). cer, chronic liver trouble, diabetes, serious back trouble, heart
trouble, high blood pressure, circulation problems, kidney or blad-
der problems, ulcers, allergies, multiple sclerosis, colitis, or some
Baseline Measures
other illness or condition. Self-rated health was assessed on a
Volunteering behavior and motives. In 2004, respondents five-point scale (1 ⫽ poor, 2 ⫽ fair, 3 ⫽ good, 4 ⫽ very good, 5 ⫽
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

were asked whether they had volunteered within the past 10 years excellent; Ware et al., 1993). Functional status was assessed by
(0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes) and how regularly they had volunteered in this
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

respondents’ self-report of whether they ever had any long-term

time period (0 ⫽ did not volunteer, 1 ⫽ volunteered occasionally, physical or mental conditions, illnesses or disabilities that limited
when opportunities arose, 2 ⫽ volunteered regularly across some what they were able to do, either on or off the job (0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽
periods, less other times, 3 ⫽ volunteered regularly the whole yes). Risk factors were also assessed in 1992 and included respon-
time). Respondents were also asked to report the number of hours dents’ body mass index (BMI) and whether respondents had a
per month that they had volunteered in the past year. In addition, history of smoking (0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes) or drinking alcohol (0 ⫽ no,
respondents were asked to report the reasons that they volunteered 1 ⫽ yes). Mental and cognitive health included whether respon-
(or would volunteer, for those who had not volunteered) using 10 dents had a history of depression (0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes), which was
questions from the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI; Clary et assessed in 1992. Cognitive health was only measured in 2004, and
al., 1998). Respondents answered two questions for each of five of was represented by respondents’ score on a word recall task to test
the six VFI subscales (the Career subscale was not assessed in the their short-term memory (0 to 10 words correct), and on a cogni-
WLS.) Responses were assessed on a seven-point scale from 1 ⫽ tive fluency task in which they are given 60 seconds to think of as
“not at all important/accurate for you,” to 7 ⫽ “extremely impor- many words as possible beginning with a specific letter. Person-
tant/accurate for you.” The subscales reflect different motives for ality traits were assessed in 2004 using the Big Five Inventory
volunteering, some more other-oriented and some more self- (version 4a and 5a: John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), a 30-item
oriented. Because of our a priori hypotheses with regards to the scale (6 items per trait; 1 ⫽ agree strongly, 6 ⫽ disagree strongly)
importance of different types of motives in predicting health that measures extraversion (␣ ⫽ .75), agreeableness (␣ ⫽ .69),
outcomes, we created indices of other-oriented motives (4 items; conscientiousness (␣ ⫽ .69), neuroticism (␣ ⫽ .74), and openness
␣ ⫽ .79) and self-oriented motives (6 items; ␣ ⫽ .88) from these (␣ ⫽ .62). Social support was assessed in 2004 by asking respon-
subscales for the purpose of this study (Table 1). However, results dents if anyone in his or her life was available to lend respondents
are similar whether these motives are analyzed separately, or in the money, give advice and encouragement, help with house and yard
self- versus other-oriented category (See Footnote 1). Subscales work, provide help with transportation and errands, and give
included in the other-oriented index were: Altruistic Values (e.g., physical care if they needed it. Each question was scored 0 ⫽ no
“I feel compassion toward people in need”) and Social Connection and 1 ⫽ yes, and the five questions were summed to create a total
(e.g., “Others with whom I am close place a high value on social support variable.
community service”). Subscales included in the self-oriented index
were: Learning /Understanding (e.g., “I can explore my own Results
strengths”), Self-Enhancement (e.g., “Volunteering makes me feel
better about myself”), and Self-Protection (e.g., “Volunteering is a Part A: Replicating Past Research on Health Benefits
good escape from my own troubles”).
of Volunteering
Control variables. To control for the possibility that any
beneficial effects of volunteering are because of a type of mental In Part A, Binary logistic regressions were used to predict
or physical robustness that underlies both tendencies toward altru- mortality status (0 ⫽ alive, 1 ⫽ deceased) in 2008 from
ism and mortality risk, we included a variety of demographic, volunteering-related variables in 2004 to test our hypothesis that
health, and individual difference variables in our analyses. Al- volunteering behavior will be associated with lower mortality risk,
though respondent age varied little because of the study’s popu- especially for regular and frequent volunteers, and that these
lation, we controlled for both age and gender (0 ⫽ female, 1 ⫽ results will remain statistically significant even when controlling
male) to take into account the possibilities that (a) older people for plausible explanatory variables. We found support for this
may be less likely to volunteer, and may also be more likely to die hypothesis.
than younger people, and (b) females may be more likely to As can be seen from Figure 1, respondents who volunteered in
volunteer and tend to live longer than males. Other Demographic the past 10 years had a significantly reduced mortality risk 4 years
variables included marital status (1 ⫽ married, 0 ⫽ not married, later, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.66, p ⬍ .001, odds ratio ⫽ 0.52, 95% confidence
i.e., separated, divorced, widowed, or never married) and fre- interval (CI) ⫽ [.38, .71]. In addition, the regularity of volunteer-
quency of religious attendance in the past year (0 ⫽ never, or less ing had an effect on mortality risk. The more regularly respondents
than once per year, 11 ⫽ approximately once per day; Mode ⫽7, had volunteered within the past decade of being questioned, the
 VOLUNTEERING MOTIVES AND MORTALITY RISK 91

1998). A Fischer’s Least Significant Difference post hoc test

confirmed that each of these motives was significantly different
from each other (p ⬍ .001). In addition, a paired samples t test
found that respondents reported higher other-oriented motives for
volunteering (M ⫽ 4.27, SD ⫽ 1.39) compared with self-oriented
motives (M ⫽ 3.44, SD ⫽ 1.44), t(6211) ⫽ ⫺61.53, p ⬍ .001.
Effect of motives for volunteering. A total of 3376 respon-
dents reported answers to all covariates, and of these, 98 (2.9%)
were deceased in 2008. We predicted that self-oriented and other-
oriented volunteering motives would influence mortality status
(0 ⫽ alive, 1 ⫽ deceased).1 We expected that our predicted effects
should remain even when controlling for all covariates mentioned
above, and also when controlling for actual volunteering behavior
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

within the past 10 years. Actual volunteering behavior is important

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

to consider because while some respondents actually volunteered,

and thus described their actual motives for volunteering, nonvol-
unteers could still respond to the motives question using their
hypothetical or imagined motives for volunteering.
We conducted a stepwise logistic regression examining the
Figure 1. Examining overall effects of volunteering on mortality status in effect of motives on mortality risk, and testing whether our effects
Part A. Note: All models were run separately. would remain statistically significant when controlling for the
influence of all covariates, and also controlling for actual volun-
teering behavior. Step 1 included self- versus other-oriented mo-
lower their risk of mortality 4 years later, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.30, p ⬍ .001, tives for volunteering; Step 2 included demographic variables and
odds ratio ⫽ 0.74, 95% CI ⫽ [.64, .86]. Finally, the number of socioeconomic status variables; Step 3 added the effect of mental,
hours per month that respondents had volunteered within the past cognitive, and physical health variables; Step 4 added the effect of
year also predicted mortality. The more hours respondents had the big five personality traits, and social support. In Step 5 we
volunteered within the past year, the lower their risk of mortality included volunteering behavior in the past 10 years as an addi-
4 years later, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.04, p ⫽ .003, odds ratio ⫽ 0.96, 95% CI ⫽ tional covariate (0 ⫽ did not volunteer, 1 ⫽ volunteered).2
[.93, .99]. Step 1. When both types of motives were simultaneously
We next examined whether these effects would remain similar entered into the regression model, both of them predicted mortality
when controlling for the influence of demographic, health, and risk (Table 2). Respondents who reported other-oriented motives
personality variables on mortality status using a stepwise logistic for volunteering, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.35, p ⬍ .001, odds ratio ⫽ 0.70, 95%
regression (Step 1: volunteering; Step 2: demographic and socio- CI ⫽ [.56, .88] had significantly reduced risks of mortality 4 years
economic status variables; Step 3: mental, cognitive, and physical later. In addition, respondents who reported self-oriented motives
health; Step 4: big five personality traits and social support). for volunteering had significantly increased risks of mortality 4
The number of hours volunteering in the past 12 months was years later, ␤ ⫽ 0.22, p ⫽ .04, odds ratio ⫽ 1.25, 95% CI ⫽ [1.01,
still associated with a reduced mortality risk, however, this effect 1.54].
became marginally significant, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.03, p ⫽ .09. odds ratio ⫽ Step 2. After including demographic and socioeconomic sta-
0.97, 95% CI ⫽ [.94, 1.00]. Similarly, the presence of volunteering tus variables, self-oriented motives for volunteering were margin-
behavior within the past 10 years was also reduced to marginally ally significant, ␤ ⫽ 0.21, p ⫽ .06, odds ratio ⫽ 1.23, 95% CI ⫽
significance with the inclusion of the covariates, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.35, p ⫽ [0.99, 1.53], but other-oriented motives remained significant, ␤ ⫽
.12, odds ratio ⫽ 0.71, 95% CI ⫽ [.46, 1.10]. Regularity of
volunteering was no longer significantly associated with mortality
after all covariates were included in the model, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.12, p ⫽ 1
Note that when motives were entered separately into regression mod-
.23, odds ratio ⫽ 0.88, 95% CI ⫽ [.72, 1.08]. els, both other-oriented motives for volunteering emerge as predictors.
Motives related to social connection (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.12, p ⫽ .008, odds ratio ⫽
0.89, 95% CI ⫽ [.81, .97] and altruistic values are both associated with
Part B: The Health Benefits of Volunteering Depend
reduced mortality risk 4 years later although the relationship for altruistic
on the Motives values is only marginally significant, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.08, p ⫽ .08, odds ratio ⫽
Descriptive statistics. A repeated measures analysis of vari- 0.92, 95% CI ⫽ [.84, 1.01]. None of the self-oriented motives for volun-
teering emerge as predictors: self-protection: ␤ ⫽ 0.01, p ⫽ .79, odds
ance (ANOVA) found that respondents were most likely to vol-
ratio ⫽ 0.99, 95% CI ⫽ [.90, 1.09]; learning/understanding: ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.05,
unteer for reasons related to altruistic values (M ⫽ 5.05, SD ⫽
p ⫽ .24, odds ratio ⫽ 0.95, 95% CI ⫽ [.87, 1.04]; self-enhancement: ␤ ⫽
1.55), followed by self-enhancement (M ⫽ 4.17, SD ⫽ 1.82), then ⫺0.02, p ⫽ .70, odds ratio ⫽ 0.98, 95% CI ⫽ [.91, 1.07].
learning/understanding (M ⫽ 3.70, SD ⫽ 1.67). The least impor- 2
Patterns remain nearly identical regardless of which volunteering be-
tant reasons for volunteering were social connection (M ⫽ 3.47, havior variable is entered into the regression model. All significant results
SD ⫽ 1.67) and self-protection (M ⫽ 2.44, SD ⫽ 1.53), F(4, remain significant when either the number of hours volunteering in the past
6139) ⫽ 4529.92, p ⬍ .001 (Table 1). This replicates prior re- year, or the presence of volunteering in the past 10 years, is entered into the
search on the relative importance of each motive (Clary et al., model in Step 5.
 92 KONRATH, FUHREL-FORBIS, LOU, AND BROWN

Table 2
Hierarchical Logistic Regression Model Used to Predict Mortality Risk in Part B

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

␤ Odds ratio ␤ Odds ratio ␤ Odds ratio ␤ Odds ratio ␤ Odds ratio

Volunteer motives
Self-oriented 0.22ⴱ 1.25 0.21⬃ 1.23 0.20⬃ 1.23 0.20⬃ 1.22 0.21⬃ 1.23
Other-oriented ⫺0.35ⴱⴱ 0.70 ⫺0.28ⴱ 0.76 ⫺0.26ⴱ 0.77 ⫺0.27ⴱ 0.76 ⫺0.26ⴱ 0.77
Demographic variables
Age 0.11 1.12 0.11 1.11 0.09 1.09 0.09 1.09
Gender 0.16 1.18 ⫺0.06 0.94 ⫺0.02 0.98 ⫺0.03 0.97
Marital status ⫺0.50ⴱ 0.61 ⫺0.51ⴱ 0.60 ⫺0.47ⴱ 0.62 ⫺0.46ⴱ 0.63
Religious attendance ⫺0.09ⴱ 0.91 ⫺0.08ⴱ 0.93 ⫺0.07ⴱ 0.93 ⫺0.05 0.95
Socioeconomic status
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Education ⫺0.06 0.95 ⫺0.02 0.98 ⫺0.05 0.95 ⫺0.04 0.96

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Net worth 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Employment status ⫺0.42ⴱ 0.66 ⫺0.35 0.71 ⫺0.34 0.71 ⫺0.33 0.72
Health
Number of illnesses 0.00 1.00 ⫺0.02 0.98 ⫺0.01 0.99
Self-rated health ⫺0.25 0.78 ⫺0.27 0.76 ⫺0.24 0.79
Functional status 0.13 1.14 0.13 1.14 0.13 1.14
Risk factors
Smoking 0.36 1.43 0.37 1.44 0.36 1.43
Drinking 0.82 2.27 0.79 2.21 0.80 2.23
Body mass index 0.05ⴱⴱ 1.05 0.05ⴱⴱ 1.06 0.05ⴱⴱ 1.06
Mental and cognitive health
Depression ⫺0.39 0.68 ⫺0.43 0.65 ⫺0.43 0.65
Short-term memory ⫺0.07 0.93 ⫺0.07 0.93 ⫺0.07 0.93
Cognitive fluency ⫺0.01 0.99 ⫺0.01 0.99 ⫺0.01 0.99
Personality traits
Extraversion ⫺0.02 0.98 ⫺0.02 0.98
Agreeableness 0.01 1.01 0.01 1.01
Conscientiousness 0.02 1.02 0.02 1.02
Neuroticism 0.04 1.04 0.03 1.03
Openness 0.06ⴱ 1.06 0.06ⴱ 1.06
Social Support 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Behavior ⫺0.40⬃ 0.67

Note. N ⫽ 3,376.
⬃p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.

⫺0.28, p ⫽ .02, odds ratio ⫽ 0.76, 95% CI ⫽ [.60, .95]. In Step 5. When including volunteering behavior in the model,
addition, married respondents had a lower mortality risk than similar patterns to Step 4 remained for both self-oriented and
unmarried ones, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.50, p ⫽ .03, odds ratio ⫽ 0.61, 95% CI ⫽ other-oriented motives. In addition, volunteering behavior had a
[.39, .96], and increased religious attendance was associated with marginal effect such that respondents who had volunteered over
decreased mortality risk, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.09, p ⫽ .01, odds ratio ⫽ 0.91, the past 10 years had a lower mortality risk, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.40, p ⫽ .08,
95% CI ⫽ [.85, .98]. Finally, employment status had an associa- odds ratio ⫽ 0.67, 95% CI ⫽ [.42, 1.05].
tion with mortality risk such that employed respondents had a
lower risk of mortality 4 years later, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.42, p ⫽ .05, odds Part C: Is It Better to Volunteer for Self-Oriented
ratio ⫽ 0.66, 95% CI ⫽ [.43, 1.01]. Reasons or to Not Volunteer at All?
Step 3. Both types of motives were still associated with
mortality risk at the same levels of statistical significance as Step For our final analysis, we considered whether there would be
2 after including mental, cognitive, and physical health variables any benefit to volunteering for self-oriented motives compared
into the model, with self-oriented motives still emerging as a with not volunteering at all. We ran two analyses in order to
marginally significant predictor (Table 2). In addition, having a address this question. We hypothesized that mortality risk would
higher BMI, ␤ ⫽ 0.05, p ⫽ .02, odds ratio ⫽ 1.05, 95% CI ⫽ be similar for those who volunteer for self-oriented reasons com-
[1.01, 1.09], was associated with an increased mortality risk 4 pared with nonvolunteers.
years later. Nonvolunteers compared with those with other-oriented
Step 4. Similar patterns to Step 3 emerged for the motives for versus self-oriented motives. We created a variable that rep-
volunteering after including mental, cognitive, and physical health resented the extent to which people volunteered for relatively
variables into the model. In addition, respondents who scored more other-oriented versus self-oriented reasons. To do so, the
higher in openness to experience had a significantly increased average of self-oriented motives was subtracted from the
mortality risk 4 years later, ␤ ⫽ 0.06, p ⫽ .03, odds ratio ⫽ 1.06, average of other-oriented motives, such that numbers above
95% CI ⫽ [1.01, 1.12]. zero represented more other-oriented motives, and numbers be-
 VOLUNTEERING MOTIVES AND MORTALITY RISK 93

low zero represented more self-oriented motives. On the basis of Respondents who reported predominantly other-oriented mo-
this information, respondents were then classified into three tives for volunteering, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.46, p ⫽ .001, odds ratio ⫽ 0.63,
groups: (a) Nonvolunteers: those who had not volunteered in the 95% CI ⫽ [.48, .82] had significantly reduced risk of mortality 4
past 10 years (N ⫽ 2,384), (b) Self-oriented volunteers: those who years later relative to those who reported predominantly self-
had volunteered, but for predominantly self-oriented reasons (N ⫽ oriented motives for volunteering. This effect remained significant
452), and (c) Other-oriented volunteers: those who had volun- even when including all covariates, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.33, p ⫽ .03, odds
teered, but for predominantly other-oriented reasons (N ⫽ 2,053). ratio ⫽ 0.72, 95% CI ⫽ [.53, .96].
We then examined differences among these 3 groups in the Nonvolunteers compared with volunteers with each predom-
proportion of participants who were deceased 4 years later by inant motive. We next compared the mortality risk of nonvol-
conducting a ␹2 analysis. Overall, 4.3% of nonvolunteers were unteers (past 10 years) to volunteers who predominantly had one
deceased 4 years later, which was similar to the proportion of type of motive relative to the others. The predominant motive of
deceased respondents among self-oriented volunteers (4.0%). each volunteer was the one that he or she rated as most important/
However, only 1.6% of other-oriented volunteers were deceased 4 accurate relative to the other motives. Some respondents rated two
years later. The significant ␹2 analysis indicated that volunteering
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

or more motives equally as their highest motive—those respon-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

was not beneficial in terms of mortality risk if the volunteering was dents were not included in this analysis. Only respondents who
motivated by predominantly self-oriented reasons, ␹2(2, N ⫽ rated one motive higher than all of the other motives were in-
4889) ⫽ 23.35, p ⬍ .001. A follow-up analysis comparing self- cluded. The final sample consisted of 2,384 nonvolunteers and
oriented volunteers to nonvolunteers found that they did not sta- 2714 volunteers (social connection, N ⫽ 200; altruistic values,
tistically differ from each other, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 2836) ⫽ .08, p ⫽ .77. N ⫽ 1950; learning/understanding, N ⫽ 123; self-enhancement,
Next, we used a stepwise logistic regression to examine whether N ⫽ 428; self-protection, N ⫽ 13).
the difference score (other-oriented motives minus self-oriented An ANOVA found that there were significant differences in
motives) would predict mortality risk even when including all mortality rates across these six groups overall, F(4, 5092) ⫽ 4.51,
covariates described in the methods section. Step 1 included the p ⬍ .001 (Figure 2). A post hoc test found that respondents who
difference score (positive numbers ⫽ predominantly other- listed social connection (0.5%) or altruistic values (2.1%) as their
oriented motives, negative numbers ⫽ predominantly self-oriented predominant motives were significantly less likely to be deceased
motives); Step 2 included demographic and socioeconomic status compared with nonvolunteers (4.3%; ps ⬍ .01). There was no
variables; Step 3 added the effect of mental, cognitive, and phys- reduction in mortality risk for respondents with predominantly
ical health variables; Step 4 added the effect of the big five self-oriented motives: those rating learning/understanding (2.4%),
personality traits, and social support; and Step 5 included volun- self-enhancement (3.3%), or self-protection (7.7%) motives as
teering behavior in the past 10 years. their predominant motives were just as likely as nonvolunteers to

Figure 2. Percentage of respondents who were deceased in 2008, categorized by highest motive for volun-
teering, compared with nonvolunteers (Part C). Note: Capped bars denote SEs.
 94 KONRATH, FUHREL-FORBIS, LOU, AND BROWN

be deceased (ps ⬎ .25). In addition, respondents with predomi- 1999) or an increased sense of meaning (Piliavin & Siegl, 2007)
nantly social connection motives were marginally less likely to be when people volunteer for other-oriented reasons. These ideas are
deceased compared with those with self-protection motives (p ⫽ purely speculative, and our data cannot allow for an examination
.07). No other significant differences emerged (ps ⬎ .15). of respondents’ volunteering behavior in such fine-grained detail,
When including all covariates into the analysis, the number of but our results suggest that future researchers should attend to the
participants is substantially reduced (N ⫽ 2767). Despite this, motives for volunteering behavior.
patterns are similar. Respondents who listed social connection
(0.4%) or altruistic values (2.3%) as their predominant motive Implications
were marginally less likely to be deceased compared with nonvol-
unteers (3.6%; ps ⬍ .10). There was no reduction in mortality risk One important theoretical implication of this article is that it
for respondents with predominantly self-oriented motives: those helps to reconcile the apparently contradictory findings within the
rating learning/understanding (1.7%) or self-enhancement (4.2%) prosocial behavior literature. For example, volunteering has a
motives as their predominant motives were just as likely as non- number of health benefits overall (Greenfield & Marks, 2004; Lum
volunteers to be deceased (ps ⬎ .40). (Only 4 respondents listed
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

& Lightfoot, 2005; Piliavin & Siegl, 2007; Thoits & Hewitt, 2001);
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

self-protection motives as predominant; thus, they were excluded however, volunteering can also be stressful, and some volunteers
from this analysis.) In addition, respondents with predominant experience burnout (Capner & Caltabiano, 1993; Lewig et al.,
social connection motives were marginally less likely to be de- 2007). The current study points to the possibility that motives for
ceased compared with those with self-enhancement motives, p ⫽ volunteering might be an important moderator of whether volun-
.07. No other significant differences emerged (ps ⬎ .14). teers experience health benefits versus burnout. In doing so, this
work can potentially help to clarify the debate on potential benefits
Discussion (e.g., Brown et al., 2003; Brown et al., 2009) versus costs (e.g.,
Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003) of helping others by suggesting that
In this study, we replicated past research by finding that volun- motives, a heretofore relatively unexplored variable, may be quite
teers had reduced mortality risks compared with nonvolunteers. powerful determinants of whether helping others will also help the
This was especially true for those who volunteered more regularly self. Thus future researchers, including those seeking to meta-
and frequently, with some attenuation of the effects when covari- analytically integrate these two literatures, should consider exam-
ates were added to the predictive model (Part A). It is important to ining the role of motives in potential outcomes associated with
note, however, that this study found that other-oriented motives for other types of helping behaviors.
volunteering were associated with a significantly reduced mortal- A practical implication of this research is that it paves the way
ity risk, and self-oriented motives were associated with a signifi- for potential interventions that would maximize the health benefits
cantly increased mortality risk, 4 years later (Part B). Our findings of prosocial behavior. There are practical difficulties involved with
were relatively robust to a number of potential confounds; how- manipulating volunteering behavior itself and also in manipulating
ever, the self-oriented effects were attenuated slightly when cova- people’s motives for volunteering. However, future researchers
riates were entered into the model. In the most novel part of this might attempt to create interventions that steer people toward more
analysis, we compared nonvolunteers to respondents with different other-oriented motives for volunteering in order to examine
motives for volunteering (Part C). We found that respondents who whether such motives are malleable, and if so, whether manipu-
volunteered for other-oriented reasons experienced reduced mor- lated motives have parallel health implications.
tality risk relative to nonvolunteers, but respondents who volun-
teered for more self-oriented reasons had a similar risk of mortality Limitations
as nonvolunteers. This analysis clearly demonstrates the impor-
tance of motives in determining health outcomes with respect to The current study is not without its limitations in that it relies on
volunteering. what is ultimately a nonrandomized cohort design, with its inev-
Although we cannot speak to the mechanism of our results itable problems in inferring causality. Although direction of cau-
without further research, we hypothesize that people who volun- sality can be accounted for because of the longitudinal nature of
teer for more other-oriented reasons may be buffered from poten- the study, there may be underlying factors for which we have not
tial stressors associated with volunteering, which explains the accounted that could explain the relationship between volunteering
finding of increased longevity. In future work, we hope to address for other-oriented reasons and decreased mortality. We acknowl-
the specific mechanisms of our effects. We hypothesize that other- edge these limitations and have addressed them as much as pos-
oriented motives for helping engage a caregiving behavioral sys- sible by including a host of covariates; nevertheless, we recom-
tem, a suite of cognitions, emotions, and underlying neurological mend caution in interpreting our results until more research is
and psychophysiological circuitry that motivates various forms of conducted. An additional limitation of this study is that the sample
helping behavior (Brown & Brown, 2006). When this system is is not representative of minority populations, those who have not
engaged, it deactivates helpers’ stress responses and activates graduated high school, or populations from other parts of the
hormones, such as oxytocin, that are restorative in terms of phys- United States or the world. It is difficult to know whether these
iological function (Brown, Brown, & Preston, in press). Our future effects would apply to other populations and we recommend that
studies will attempt to examine such processes in detail in the future research extend these findings to more diverse groups of
hopes of further contributing to the debate on the benefits versus participants. Our study was also limited by the relatively short time
costs of prosocial behavior. Other possible mechanisms of our period (4 years) between the collection of baseline measures about
findings include increased social resources (Wilson & Musick, volunteering and mortality status. Although theoretically that short
 VOLUNTEERING MOTIVES AND MORTALITY RISK 95

time period would have made it even less probable that we would towards burnout: A comparison of professional and volunteer counsel-
find the predicted results, we still recommend follow up analyses ing. Psychological Reports, 73, 555–561.
as WLS updates become available in the future. Finally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Deaths and mortality.
measures of volunteering behavior rely on participant self-report. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
However, given that these are generally considered to be socially CharityGuide.org. (2010). Why volunteer? Retrieved from http://
desirable behaviors or traits, we would expect that self-report items charityguide.org/volunteer/motivation/why-volunteer.htm
Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theo-
may make it less likely to find significant effects because of people
retical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological
overstating whether they volunteer.
Science, 8, 156 –159. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00037
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A.,
Concluding Thoughts Haugen, J., & Mience, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the
motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality
Volunteering is increasingly being encouraged in schools and and Social Psychology, 74, 1516 –1530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74
organizations, via the media (e.g., Oprah Winfrey’s “Angel Net- .6.1516
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

work”), and even by the President (e.g., President Obama’s “Or- Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., & Miller, G. (2007). Psychological stress
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ganizing for America” volunteerism movement), possibly in part and disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 1685–
because of an increased awareness of its potential benefits for the 1687. doi:10.1001/jama.298.14.1685
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (Eds.), (2002). Handbook of self-determination
helper. In fact, some volunteering-promoting organizations di-
research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
rectly advocate this viewpoint. For example, CharityGuide.org
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
(2010), a popular online portal that directs potential volunteers to
Ferrari, J., Luhrs, T., & Lyman, V. (2007). Eldercare volunteers and
volunteering opportunities, notes that it is “OK to want some employees: Predicting caregiver experiences from service motives and
benefits for yourself from volunteering.” They recommend that sense of community. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 28, 467– 479.
“instead of considering volunteering as something you do for doi:10.1007/s10935-007-0108-6
people who are not as fortunate as yourself, begin to think of it as Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. New York, NY: Avon Books.
an exchange.” This type of advice may aim to increase the likeli- Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Nitzberg, R. E., Erez, A., & van
hood that potential volunteers will actually volunteer and that Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and volunteering:
current volunteers will maintain their behavior. It is reasonable for Placing volunteerism in an attachment-theoretical framework. Personal
volunteers to volunteer in part because of benefits to the self, Relationships, 12, 425– 446. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00124.x
however, our research implies that, ironically, should these bene- Greenfield, E. A., & Marks, N. F. (2004). Formal volunteering as a
fits to the self become the predominant motive for volunteering, protective factor for older adults’ psychological well-being. The Jour-
potential health benefits of volunteering may be attenuated. nals of Gerontology, Series B, 59, S258 –S264. doi:10.1093/geronb/
59.5.S258
Grimm, R., Spring, K., & Dietz, N. (2007). The health benefits of volun-
References teering: A review of recent research. New York, NY: Corporation for
National & Community Service.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and commu- Harris, A. H., & Thoresen, C. E. (2005). Volunteering is associated with
nion in Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon. delayed mortality in older people: Analysis of the Longitudinal Study
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Aging. Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 739 –752. doi:10.1177/
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/ 1359105305057310
h0036215 John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The “Big Five”
Benson, P. L., Clary, E. G., & Scales, P. (2007). Altruism and health: Is inventory: Version 4a and 5a. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality and
there a link during adolescence? In S. G. Post (Ed.), Altruism and health:
Social Research, University of California, Berkeley.
Perspectives from empirical research (pp. 97–115). New York, NY:
Lewig, K. A., Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Dollard, M. F., & Metzer,
Oxford University.
J. C. (2007). Burnout and connectedness among Australian volunteers: A
Brown, S. L., & Brown, R. M. (2006). Selective Investment Theory:
test of the job demands-resources model. Journal of Vocational Behav-
Recasting the functional significance of close relationships. Psycholog-
ior, 71, 429 – 445. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.07.003
ical Inquiry (Target Article), 17, 1–29. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli
Lum, T. Y., & Lightfoot, E. (2005). The effects of volunteering on the
1701_01
physical and mental health of older people. Research on Aging, 27,
Brown, S. L., Brown, R. M., House, J. S., & Smith, D. M. (2008). Coping
with spousal loss: The potential buffering effects of self-reported helping 31–55. doi:10.1177/0164027504271349
behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 849 – 861. doi: Luoh, M-C., & Herzog, A. R. (2002). Individual consequences of volunteer
10.1177/0146167208314972 and paid work in old age: Health and mortality. Journal of Health and
Brown, S. L., Brown, R. M., & Preston, S. (in press). Advancing a Social Behavior, 43, 490 –509. doi:10.2307/3090239
neuroscientific model of human caregiving motivation and behavior. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications
Brown, S. L., Nesse, R., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. (2003). Providing for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 –
support may be more beneficial than receiving it: Results from a pro- 253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
spective study of mortality. Psychological Science, 14, 320 –327. doi: McAdams, D. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological
10.1111/1467-9280.14461 inquiries into identity, Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Brown, S. L. Smith, D. M., Schulz, R. Kabeto, M., Ubel, P., Yee, J., . . . Morrow-Howell, N., Hinterlong, J., Rozario, P. A., & Tang, F. (2003).
Langa, K. (2009). Caregiving and decreased mortality in a national Effects of volunteering on the well-being of older adults. The Journals
sample of older adults. Psychological Science, 20, 488 – 494. doi: of Gerontology, Series B, 58, S137–145. doi:10.1093/geronb/58.3.S137
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02323.x Musick, M., Herzog, A. R., & House, J. S. (1999). Volunteering and
Capner, M., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1993). Factors affecting the progression mortality among older adults: Findings from a national sample. Journals
 96 KONRATH, FUHREL-FORBIS, LOU, AND BROWN

of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, dent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
54, S173–S180. doi:10.1093/geronb/54B.3.S173 580 –591. doi:10.1177/0146167294205014
Okun, M. & Brown, S. (in preparation). Do older volunteers live longer? Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being.
A research synthesis and a conceptual framework. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 115–131. doi:10.2307/
Oman, D. (2007). Does volunteering foster physical health and longevity? 3090173
In S. G. Post (Ed.), Altruism and health: Perspectives from empirical Triandis. H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
research (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Oxford University. Westview Press.
Oman, D., Thoresen, C. E., & McMahon, K. (1999). Volunteerism and United Nations Population Division. (2009). Derived from male and female
mortality among the community dwelling elderly. Journal of Health life expectancy at birth. World Population Prospects: New York, NY:
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Psychology, 4, 301–316. doi:10.1177/135910539900400301
Ware, J. E., Snow, K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 Health
Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction
Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: New England
process. New York, NY: Free Press.
Medical Center, The Health Institute.
Piliavin, J. A., & Siegl, E. (2007). Health benefits of volunteering in the
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates
Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

48, 450 – 464. doi:10.1177/002214650704800408 W. M. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Pillemer, K., Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Reid, M. C., & Wells, N. M. (2010). Vol 2: Personality and psychopathology. Minneapolis, MN: University
Environmental volunteering and health outcomes over a 20-year period. of Minnesota.
The Gerontologist, 50, 594 – 602. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1999). The effects of volunteering on the
Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2003). Differences between caregivers and volunteer. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 141–168.
noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: A meta- Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) [graduates, siblings, and spouses].
analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18, 250 –267. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.18 (1957–2005). Version 12.23. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–
.2.250 Madison, WLS. Retrieved from http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/wlsresearch/
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdepen- documentation/