Volunteerism and Perceived Control as Predictors ofSubjective Well-Being

ByLucy Beth Lake

DegreesBachelor of Applied Science (Health Sciences)

Degree for which Thesis is being completed(Post) Graduate Diploma of Psychology

Deakin UniversityFaculty of Health and Behavioral Sciences: School of Psychology

Burwood Campus

SupervisorDr Sue Chambers

DateOctober 2004

Word Count5, 579

“I, the undersigned, declare that this Empirical Report is less than the specified word limit, and that it comprises original work and writing by me, and that due

acknowledgement has been made to all other material used.

Signed_______________________Student No._______________Dated____________”

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would firstly like to acknowledge the support and encouragement of my family

and send a general thank you to all of my friends who have allowed me the space to

complete this project and provided me with the inspiration to reach my goals.

Mum, thanks for being you; all that I am, all that I do, and all that I shall become

I owe to you.

Luke, thank you for being my confidant, supporting me, and always taking the

time to listen.

Tess, you have been such a light for me the last two years, thanks for letting me

be me, and always pulling me through.

Michael, I could not have gotten through this project without your continued

motivation, support, technical advice, and brainstorming; thank you for being my

teammate for the largest component of my Graduate Diploma.

Thank you to Rob K, Rob W, Jess, and Megs for the amazing effort you gave to

my drafts, I really appreciate you giving up your time to help me.

This project could not have been undertaken and completed without the guidance

of my supervisor, Dr Sue Chambers. Thank you for your continuous effort with drafts,

editing, and feedback.

Finally, thank you to the Australian Unity longitudinal research project and the

participants who completed surveys for providing me with the opportunity to conduct

this research.

iii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ivList of Tables vList of Figures viAbstract 1Introduction 2

Homeostatic model of Subjective Well-being 2Perceived control 3Personal and Neighbourhood levels of SWB 3Volunteerism 4Volunteerism and Personal Well-being 4Volunteerism and Neighbourhood Well-being 4Volunteerism and perceived control 5Hypotheses 6

Method 7 Participants 7Measures 8Procedure 9

Results 9Preliminary data analysis 9Reliability 10Hypothesis 1: Volunteerism and Well-being 10Hypothesis 2: Volunteerism and Perceived Control Strategies 12Hypothesis 3: Volunteerism and the prediction of Personal and

Neighbourhood Well-being and Life Satisfaction 14Discussion 17

Volunteerism and Well-being 18Volunteerism and Perceived Control Strategies 19Volunteerism and the prediction of Personal and Neighbourhood Well-being and Life Satisfaction 20Limitations and future direction 21

Conclusion 22References 23Appendix A: Australian Unity Wellbeing Survey 27Appendix B: Plain Language Statement 31Appendix C: Letter to participants 32

List of Tables

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, ANOVA, and reliability

results for Personal Well-being (PWB) Items and Total

iv

Scale between Volunteers and Non-volunteers 11

Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, ANOVA, and reliability

results for Neighbourhood Well-being (NWB) Items and

Total Scale between Volunteers and Non-volunteers 12

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, ANOVA, and reliability

results for Perceived Control Items and Total scale between

Volunteers and Non-volunteers 13

Table 4: Sequential Regression of Perceived Control Type (Step 1) and

Volunteer Group (Step 2) on Personal Well-being (PWB) 14

Table 5: Sequential Regression of Perceived Control Type (Step 1) and

Volunteer Group (Step 2) on Neighbourhood Well-being (NWB) 15

Table 6: Sequential Regression of Perceived Control Type (Step 1),

Well-being level (step 2) Volunteer Group (Step 3) on

Life Satisfaction 16

List of Figures

Figure 1: Model of Relationships between Volunteerism,

Perceived Control, and the components of Personal and

Neighbourhood Well-being, and Life Satisfaction 7

v

Abstract

The importance of discovering what factors maintain and contribute to an individual’s

Subjective Well-being (SWB) is becoming recognised as an important development to

help prevent issues of depression and social isolation. Social integration activities such

as volunteering, and the use of effective control strategies in facing difficult situations

(perceived control) have been shown to contribute to high levels SWB. The current

study tested whether being active in volunteering and using effective control strategies

are positively related, and predict three aspects of SWB: Life Satisfaction, Personal

Well-being (PWB) and Neighbourhood Well-being (NWB). The participants were 556

representative Australians aged from 18 to 90 years who completed a questionnaire with

measures of PWB, NWB, perceived control strategies, and volunteer status. It was

predicted that (1) volunteers would have higher levels of Life Satisfaction, PWB, and

NWB than non-volunteers; (2) volunteers would report using more primary and

secondary control strategies, and less relinquished control strategies, than non-

volunteers; and (3) volunteer status and perceived control would both predict subjective

well-being, particularly NWB. The first hypothesis was supported: a one-way ANOVA

revealed significant group differences as predicted. The second hypothesis gained

support, as one-way ANOVA’s revealed group differences in the predicted direction, but

differences were not significant. A regression analyses for the third hypothesis found

volunteer group was a significant contributor to NWB but not PWB or Life Satisfaction.

Perceived control was an important contributor to Life Satisfaction, PWB, and NWB. It

was concluded that volunteering makes a positive difference to adults’ satisfaction about

their life in general, their personal life, and their neighbourhood. Individuals’ use of

more primary and secondary control strategies, and less relinquished control strategies

benefits their Subjective Well-being. Strategies that encourage active volunteering may

help to improve individuals’ satisfaction with the level of social connectedness, trust,

and safety in their community, and perhaps reduce depression and a sense of isolation.

1

Subjective Well-being (SWB) has been extensively researched, and is an

important construct as low levels can lead to depression or social isolation (Aneshensel

& Sucoff, 1996; East, 1998). Given this, the identification of factors that maintain high

levels of SWB, such as community connectedness, are important for developing

strategies to prevent problems associated with low levels of SWB. Participation in

voluntary activities and strategies individuals use to gain control over their life, are

possibly related to how satisfied individuals feel about their personal life and living in

their neighbourhood (Lachman & Weaver, 1998; Penner, 2002; Sampson, 2003;

Thompson & Spacapan, 1991; Wilson & Musick, 1997).

Diener, Oishi and Lucas (2003) define SWB as a reflection of how people

perceive and evaluate their lives and the environment around them. Ratings of Life

Satisfaction are used to measure the construct of SWB, and the two terms are often used

interchangeably in the literature.

Homeostatic Model of Subjective Well-being (SWB)

Cummins’ (1997) homeostatic model of SWB assumes personality and cognitive

factors combine to maintain a high and stable set-point of subjective well-being.

Consistent evidence supporting this model demonstrate an average rating of Life

Satisfaction is 75+2.5%SM, within a normative range of 70 – 80% across many studies

of adults from Western cultures (Cummins, Gullone, & Lau, 2002). Longitudinal

research by Lu (1999) also supports the theory of a stable set-point, by demonstrating

that SWB is moderately stable even with fluctuating life circumstances. This evidence

suggests Cummins’ (1997) homeostatic model provides a robust framework for studying

SWB.

It is proposed that three cognitive buffers of perceived control, self-esteem, and

optimism, are important factors in maintaining the homeostatic set-point as they absorb

the impacts of change (Cummins, et al., 2002). Perceived control is of particular

relevance to personal SWB as there is extensive literature directly linking high levels of

perceived control with high levels of SWB (Bollini, Walker, Hamann, & Kestler, 2003;

Lang & Heckhausen, 2001; Petito & Cummins, 2000).

2

Perceived Control

Perceptions of control are important in coping with situations and are defined as

individual judgments of the extent desired outcomes can be achieved, and potential

misfortunes can be guarded against (Endler, Kocovski, & Macrodimitris, 2000;

Heckhausen, 1999; Thompson, et al., 1998). A highly regarded model of perceived

control proposed by Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder (1982) divides perceived control into

two processes of primary and secondary. Primary control involves actively changing the

environment to fit the self, and secondary control involves changing one’s own thoughts

and feelings to fit with the world. Researchers agree primary and secondary strategies

are equally important to maintaining SWB as they involve taking positive action toward

a situation (Klein & Helweg-Larson, 2002; Skinner, 1996). For instance, Thompson and

Spacapan (1991) found positive perceived control to be a major contributor to

psychological well-being across the lifespan with higher levels leading to greater

happiness, reduced stress, successful coping, better health, and higher self-efficacy.

In addition, Rothbaum, et al. (1982) suggest a third level of control, relinquished

control, occurs when a person feels they cannot influence a situation, so they give up.

Thompson and Spacapan (1991) suggest these feelings of helplessness can lead to a

sense of apathy about social issues, which may relate to a lack of volunteering or caring

about neighbourhood and community connectedness.

Personal and Neighbourhood levels of SWB

There are three levels of Cummins’ (1997) SWB model; personal,

neighbourhood, and national. Numerous studies examine personal and national well-

being, with national studies too often reflecting economic indicators, while ignoring

issues of safety and trust in a local setting (Hollway, 2003). Thus, researchers have

suggested these issues should be examined in a neighbourhood context of overall Life

Satisfaction. Bramston, Bruggerman, and Pretty (2002) found people are happier if they

feel they belong to a reliable structure, such as a close and functioning neighbourhood,

yet there is limited research on the components of neighbourhood well-being (NWB)

(Sampson, 2003).

3

Volunteerism

Volunteering has become a relevant focus of SWB research, and a positive

relationship between the two has been established (Batson, Ahmad, & Tsang, 2002;

Dore, 1995). The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) define a volunteer as someone

who willingly gives unpaid help in the form of time, service, or skills through an

organisation or group. Previous studies of volunteerism have investigated the role of

personality, motivations, values, and satisfaction gained through volunteer work (Wilson

& Musick, 1997). However, Thoits and Hewit (2001) concluded the relationship of

volunteerism to Life Satisfaction had not been thoroughly researched. Therefore,

exploration of whether active volunteerism and effective control strategies influence

overall Life Satisfaction, PWB, and NWB will address some of these gaps in the

literature.

Volunteerism and Personal Well-being (PWB)

Many studies suggest people who have higher levels of PWB may volunteer more

often (Penner, 2002). Research also indicates volunteers may have greater life

satisfaction, self-esteem, sense of purpose in life, activity level, physical and mental

health (Kiviniemi, Snyder, & Omoto, 2002; Stukas & Dunlap, 2002). In an Australian

study, Warburton, Terry, Rosenman, and Shapiro (2001) found older volunteers were

significantly more likely than non-volunteers to indicate feeling useful, helping those in

need, gaining pleasure and satisfaction, and meeting people were benefits of

volunteering. Such findings suggest a difference between PWB of older volunteers and

non-volunteers. Considerable volunteer research has studied older participants and

Penner (2002) suggests this could be because they are less likely to have as many other

social roles as younger adults. The current study examines effects of volunteering across

the adult age range from 18 years to 90 years.

Volunteerism and Neighbourhood Well-being (NWB)

The notion of neighbourhood can be paralleled with the notion of community as

often the two terms are used interchangeably (Cattell, 2001). Examining the influence of

neighbourhood and volunteerism is important as most volunteer activities involve

participation within a neighbourhood setting. Neighbourhood can encompass a

geographical component, but feelings of social trust and connectedness are important.

4

Sampson (2003) suggests more research is needed to understand the social mechanisms

at the community level, in particular the factors influencing social integration. Studies

have found maintaining social relationships and social trust significantly influences

health and well-being (Cohen, Mason, Bedimo, & Scribner, 2003), and volunteering

provides a mechanism for social connectedness (Iwasaki, Zuzanek, & Mannell, 2001;

McDowell, 2002).

The direct impact of volunteering on NWB is an area not extensively researched.

However, the finding that satisfaction with community leads to a greater sense of SWB

(Christakopoulou, Dawson, & Gari, 2001), and volunteering provides a way for

individuals to increase feelings of connectedness and belonging to a community (Curtis

& Van Nouhuys, 1999), suggests a link between the two. A study by Warburton, et al.

(2001) found differences between volunteers and non-volunteers on perceptions of

broader community support; with volunteers feeling more positive with the doctor,

charitable organisations, and people generally.

Volunteerism and Perceived Control

Studies examining the direct relationship between volunteerism and perceived

control are uncommon in the literature. It is important to establish an understanding of

how the constructs interact, since both have been shown to predict SWB but the nature

of this relationship is unclear. Despite the lack of direct research, there are studies

indicating links as many volunteer activities require careful thought and consideration

(Davis, Hall, & Meyer, 2003), which is an integral part of using primary and secondary

control strategies (Rothbaum, et al., 1982). Stukas and Dunlap (2002) support this

interpretation by stating that volunteers take a functional approach as they actively

choose situations that allow them to meet needs and goals, suggesting individuals may

volunteer as a mechanism of obtaining control over their life. Iwasaki, et al. (2001)

suggest volunteering may facilitate coping as the belief that leisure behaviour is freely

chosen and under personal control acts as a buffer against stress and maintains good

health. Individuals with a high sense of control believe what they are doing makes a

difference (Lachman & Weaver, 1998), and these choices may help individuals develop

feelings of empowerment and contribute to coping (Iwasaki, et al., 2001). Such findings

suggest the choice to volunteer is an important component of feeling in control, and

when positively successful, volunteering, and perceived control are likely to contribute

5

jointly to SWB. In relation to relinquished control, it could be expected that as

volunteers tend to be higher than non-volunteers in the personality traits of empathy and

helpfulness (Penner, 2002), and they are motivated to make a difference (Batson, et al.,

1999), volunteers may use less relinquished control strategies when coping with a

situation.

Developing a greater understanding of control strategies used by volunteers may

lead to potential strategies for recruiting volunteers and provides the addition of

knowledge in an otherwise under-researched area.

Hypotheses

In light of the above findings, it appears volunteerism may contribute to

individuals’ PWB and NWB; there may be differences in the use of the three types of

perceived control strategies between volunteers and non-volunteers; and there appears to

be a link between volunteerism, perceived control, and Life Satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1: Volunteerism and Well-being

The first aim of the study was to examine if volunteers are more satisfied with

their lives than non-volunteers. It was hypothesized that volunteers would report higher

levels of Life Satisfaction, PWB, and NWB than non-volunteers.

Hypothesis 2: Volunteerism and Perceived Control strategies

The second aim of the study was to assess if volunteers use different control

strategies than non-volunteers. It was hypothesized that relative to non-volunteers,

volunteers would report more use of primary and secondary control strategies, and less

use of relinquished control strategies.

Hypothesis 3: Volunteerism and the prediction of Personal and Neighbourhood Well-

being and Life Satisfaction

The third aim was to explore the unique contributions of volunteerism and the

perceived control strategies to the prediction of PWB, NWB, and Life Satisfaction. It

was hypothesized volunteerism and perceived control would be significant predictors of

PWB and NWB. Further, it was predicted volunteerism would have a higher

6

contribution to NWB than to PWB or Life Satisfaction given the neighbourhood context

of most volunteering activity. Figure 1 illustrates the above relationships.

Figure 1. Model of Relationships between Volunteerism, Perceived Control, and the

components of Personal and Neighbourhood Well-being, and Life Satisfaction

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 556 Australians aged from 18 to 90 years (M = 53.01,

SD= 15.63), consisting of 331 females (59.53%), 218 males (39.21%), and 7 with

unspecified gender (1.26%). The participants were a representative sample of adult

Neighbourhood Well-being

(NWB)

Perceived Control

Life Satisfaction/ Subjective Well-being

(SWB)

Volunteerism

Personal Well-being

(PWB)

7

Australians, who had previously completed surveys for the Australian Unity Well-being

longitudinal study, and indicated they were willing to complete future surveys. Of the

1620 surveys distributed, 556 were returned, resulting in a response rate of 34.32%.

Measures

Participants completed a 97-item questionnaire (Appendix A) comprising part of

the longitudinal Australian Unity Well-being Project, which included measures of

Personal Well-being (PWB), Neighbourhood Well-being (NWB), Perceived Control,

and Volunteerism.

Life Satisfaction was measured with a single item: “how satisfied are you with

your life as a whole?”

PWB was assessed with seven items (2-8), each measuring satisfaction with a

domain of personal life: standard of living, health, achievements, personal relationships,

safety, community connectedness, and future security. An item example is: “how

satisfied are you with your health?” This scale has been developed by Cummins, et al.,

(2001) and shows high reliability of .82 across many samples.

Neighbourhood Well-being (NWB) was assessed with six items (36-41), each

measuring a broad domain: trust, social participation, common goals and values, state of

the natural environment, availability of public resources, and sharing and borrowing. An

item example is: “how satisfied are you with the level of trust in your neighbourhood?”

Items for the scale were developed by Holloway (2003), who reports high Cronbach’s

alpha of .89.

Life Satisfaction, PWB, and NWB items required respondents to indicate their

satisfaction levels with each of the items on an eleven point Likert scale ranging from

zero (very dissatisfied) to ten (very satisfied).

The three types of perceived control were measured with items developed by

Holloway (2003). Primary control was measured with three items (60-62), for example,

“when something bad happens to me – I ask others for help or advice.” Secondary

control was measured with three items (63-65), for example, “when something bad

happens to me – I remind myself something good may come of it.” Relinquished control

was measured with three items (66-68) for example, “when something bad happens to

me – I spend time by myself.”

8

Participants are asked whether they make use of the strategy to control the

situation and to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with each statement on an

eleven point Likert scale ranging from zero (strongly disagree) to ten (strongly agree).

Chambers, et al., 2003 reported Cronbach’s alpha’s of .88 for primary, .90 for

secondary, and .70 for relinquished.

Two volunteer groups were obtained with a single item asking participants “Do

you work as a volunteer outside your home?” The respondents who ticked “yes” were

considered a volunteer, and respondents who ticked “no” were considered a non-

volunteer.

Procedure

Ethics approval was granted by the Deakin University Ethics Committee. Surveys

were sent to the participants in a package including a plain language statement

(Appendix B), a letter to the participant (Appendix C), and a reply paid envelope. The

plain language statement explained the purpose of the survey, that it was voluntary, and

that the completion and returning of the questionnaire indicated consent. The

instructions to participants on the front of the questionnaire assured confidentiality. The

questionnaires were designed to take approximately 20 minutes to complete.

Results

Preliminary data analysis

Data were checked for data entry problems using minimum and maximum

frequencies for all items. Missing data were assessed with SPSS Descriptives, revealing

that less than 5% of the data was missing, with no pattern. Consequently, missing values

were replaced with the mean in accordance with Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). Data for

11 participants were deleted from the analyses due to incomplete responses.

Univariate outliers were assessed by examining box plots, revealing 11 outliers,

which were deleted as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). Multivariate

outliers were assessed using Mahalanobis distance using a cut-off criterion of p <.001. A

cut-off point of 16.266 as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) revealed 9

multivariate outliers, which were deleted.

9

SPSS Descriptives revealed a mild negative skew on all PWB and NWB items.

These satisfaction items are naturally negatively skewed variables as the average rating

for Life Satisfaction is 75+2.5 SM% (Cummins, 1997). Due to the high number of cases,

and the mildness of the skew, data was not transformed, as this would alter the natural

shape of the distribution and reduce accuracy (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The sample

size criteria outlined by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) was satisfied, and no suppressor

variables were found. Further assumptions for ANOVA’s and regression of linearity,

homoscedasticity, homogeneity of variance, independence of error, multicollineraity,

and singularity were assessed via techniques outlined in Tabachnick and Fidell (2001)

and no violations were found.

In light of these processes, 525 surveys were used in the analyses and the original

Likert scale data were converted to produce Percentage Scale Maximum (%SM) units on

a 0 to 100 scale as recommended by Cummins (2003).

Reliability

Reliability for each of the scales was assessed using SPSS Scale Reliability

Analysis. Cronbach’s alphas were .84 (PWB), .87 (NWB) .56 (primary control) .80

(secondary control), and .22 (relinquished control). These results indicate the PWB,

NWB, and Secondary Control Scales had satisfactory reliabilities. The Primary Control

Scale had moderate reliability, and the Relinquished Control Scale had poor reliability.

Comparable reliabilities for similar items reported by Chambers, et al. (2003) for

another sample were .82 (PWB), .88 (NWB), .88 (primary control), .90 (secondary

control) and .70 (relinquished control). The perceived control items in the Chambers, et

al. (2003) study were based on 9 item scales, with the exception of relinquished control

where 3 of the 9 items were omitted to achieve a satisfactory alpha level. Given the

different results of relationships between factors for relinquished control scale compared

with performance on the primary and secondary scales in the Chambers, et al. (2003)

study, it was decided to keep the relinquished control items in the subsequent analyses;

however results based on this variable should be considered in light of low reliability.

Hypothesis 1: Volunteerism and Well-being

A one-way ANOVA revealed group differences for the single item measuring Life

Satisfaction were significant, F(1, 523) = 6.67, p <.05, with volunteers (M = 79.17, SD =

10

14.88) demonstrating a significantly higher level of Life Satisfaction than non-

volunteers (M = 75.23, SD = 18.23).

Tables 1 and 2 display descriptive statistics, together with the F-statistic from

one-way ANOVA’s conducted, for each of the items, and the overall scale used to

measure PWB and NWB.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, ANOVA, and reliability results for Personal Well-being

(PWB) Items and Total Scale between Volunteers and Non-volunteers

Volunteer Non-volunteer ANOVA

Item M SD M SD F r

Standard of living 78.72 15.32 76.23 17.44 2.77 .36

Health 72.18 19.53 71.25 21.21 0.25 .29

Achievement 75.49 16.94 71.75 19.04 5.23* .47

Personal Relationships 76.72 19.89 74.30 22.62 1.56 .35

Safety 81.01 16.20 77.26 17.16 6.24** .44

Part of Community 79.02 15.63 68.20 18.25 48.90*** .31

Future Security 72.84 20.55 69.09 20.53 4.15* .52

PWB scale 76.57 12.51 72.58 14.17 10.79**

Note: n = 204 (Volunteer group); 321 (Non-volunteer group). Cronbach’s alpha = .94.

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

Volunteers scored higher than non-volunteers on all questions of the PWB scale,

with the difference being significant on the items measuring achievement, safety, part of

community and future security. The total PWB scale based on the 7 items, revealed

volunteers were significantly higher than non-volunteers. The results for NWB are

presented in Table 2.

11

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, ANOVA, and reliability results for Neighbourhood Well-

being (NWB) Items and Total Scale between Volunteers and Non-volunteers

Volunteer Non-volunteer ANOVA

Item M SD M SD F r

Trust 77.17 18.61 68.88 21.76 20.19*** .48

Social Participation 68.25 21.92 53.38 23.75 22.87*** .66

Common goals and values 65.15 20.88 58.32 22.27 12.31*** .70

Natural environments 68.97 21.55 64.04 23.34 5.91** .40

Public resources 63.82 24.92 62.88 23.80 0.18 .33

Sharing and borrowing 65.83 22.19 58.66 23.57 12.08** .54

NWB Scale 68.19 16.26 61.86 18.22 16.39***

Note: n = 204 (Volunteer group); 321 (Non-volunteer group). Cronbach’s alpha = .87.

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

Table 2 shows volunteers’ satisfaction on NWB items were consistently higher

than for non-volunteers’. These differences were highly significant for all items with the

exception of satisfaction with public resources. The volunteer group effect for the total

NWB scale was highly significant, with volunteers having distinctly higher scores than

non-volunteers, thus supporting Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2: Volunteerism and Perceived Control Strategies

The next analyses tested Volunteer Group differences for Perceived Control

Strategies. The results of one-way ANOVAs are shown in Table 3.

12

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, ANOVA, and reliability results for Perceived Control

Items and Total scale between Volunteers and Non-volunteers

Volunteer Non-volunteer ANOVA

Item M SD M SD F r

Primary Control

Ask for help or advice 55.59 29.14 56.82 27.12 0.24 .07

Look for ways to improve situation 78.27 17.00 75.17 17.48 3.99* .58

Use my skills to overcome problem 79.12 16.34 74.91 17.80 7.41** .56

Total Primary scale 71.00 15.57 68.97 15.72 2.08

Secondary Control

Remind myself something good

may come of it

70.93 24.57 67.57 23.75 2.43 .42

Remind myself I am better off than

others

79.31 21.20 76.88 19.91 1.36 .43

Remember situation will improve if

I am patient

70.49 23.80 67.60 22.70 1.95 .43

Total Secondary scale 73.58 19.81 70.68 18.68 2.85

Relinquished Control

Don’t do anything as nothing can

help

16.13 21.25 19.53 22.76 2.94 .07

Spend time by myself 45.00 30.11 50.96 28.79 5.15* .06

Letting my feelings out so others

know how I feel

41.04 26.73 41.93 28.36 0.13 .01

Total relinquished scale 34.05 16.53 37.47 16.64 5.29*

Note: n = 204 (Volunteer group); 321 (Non-volunteer group). Cronbach’s alphas = .56

(Primary); .55 (Secondary); .22 (Relinquished). * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Table 3 demonstrates that for most items, as expected, volunteers responded with

higher use of primary and secondary control, and lower use of relinquished control.

These differences were significant for the relinquished control scale, two of the primary

13

control items (“…look for ways to improve things” and “…use my skills to overcome

the problem”), and one relinquished control item (“…spend time by myself”). These

results provide some support for Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3: Volunteerism and the prediction of Personal and Neighbourhood Well-

being and Life Satisfaction

Two sequential regression analyses were conducted, using SPSS Regression, to

determine if the addition of being a volunteer or not (testing unique contribution), is a

predictor for the dependent variables of PWB and then NWB, after the contribution of

perceived control has been considered.

Tables 4, 5, and 6 display the results, with the standardized coefficients (),

significance tests (t), the semi-partial correlations (sr2), R, R2, and R2 change (ΔR2) after

entry of all independent variables. Results from the first regression with PWB as the

dependent variable are presented in Table 4.

Table 4

Sequential Regression of Perceived Control Type (Step 1) and Volunteer Group (Step 2)

on Personal Well-being (PWB)

Predictor β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2

Step 1

Primary .27 6.44*** .25 .50 .25

Secondary .26 6.26*** .24

Relinquished -.21 -5.45*** -.21

Step 2

Primary .26 6.40*** .24 .51 .25 .01*

Secondary .25 6.16*** .23

Relinquished -.20 -5.23*** -.20

Volunteer Group .09 2.28* .09

Note: N = 525. * p <.05; *** p <.001

The first regression analysis revealed R was significantly different from zero at

the end of each step. After Step 1, with the three perceived control strategies in the

equation, R2= .25, with F(3, 521) = 57.73, p <.001, indicating perceived control

14

strategies account for a significant amount of variance on PWB. All three types of

control made a unique contribution to the prediction of PWB, with primary and

secondary control, as expected, making a positive contribution, and relinquished control

making a negative contribution. At Step 2, the addition of volunteer group to the

equation, made a small, but significant contribution to the prediction of PWB (p < .05).

Table 5 presents the results from the second regression with NWB as the

dependent measure.

Table 5Sequential Regression of Perceived Control Type (Step 1) and Volunteer Group (Step 2) on

Neighbourhood Well-being (NWB)

Predictor β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2

Step 1

Primary .26 5.99*** .24 .41 .17

Secondary .20 4.50*** .18

Relinquished -.12 -3.07** .12

Step 2

Primary .26 5.88*** .23 .43 .19 .02***

Secondary .19 4.37*** .17

Relinquished -.11 -2.76** -.11

Volunteer Group .13 3.34*** .13

Note: N = 525. * p<.05; **p<.01; *** p<.001

Table 5 demonstrates that Volunteer Group also made a significant contribution to

NWB. The regression revealed that R was significantly different form zero at the end of

each step. After Step 1, with the three perceived control strategies in the equation, R2

= .168, with F(3, 521) = 35.09, p <.05, indicating perceived control strategies account

for a significant amount of variance on NWB, with primary and secondary control

having a positive contribution and relinquished control having a negative effect. After

Step 2, R = .43, R2 =.26, R2 = .02, F(4, 520) = 29.62, p <.001. At Step 2, the addition of

Volunteer Group to the equation, made a significant contribution to the prediction of

NWB (p < .001).

15

The final sequential regression tested whether Volunteer Group was a significant

predictor of Life Satisfaction once the effects of perceived control strategies, PWB, and

NWB were controlled for (see Table 6).

Table 6

Sequential Regression of Perceived Control Type (Step 1), Well-being level (step 2) Volunteer

Group (Step 3) on Life Satisfaction

Predictor β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2

Step 1

Primary .21 4.98*** .20 .44 .19

Secondary .24 5.49*** .22

Relinquished -.21 -5.23*** -.21

Step 2

Primary .05 1.54 .05 .72 .52 .33***

Secondary .07 2.14* .07

Relinquished -.07 -2.33* -.07

PWB .71 17.90*** .54

NWB .12 3.04** .09

Step 3

Primary .05 1.55 .05 .72 .52 .00

Secondary .07 2.13* .07

Relinquished -.07 -2.29* -.07

PWB .71 17.86*** .54

NWB .12 3.08** .09

Volunteer Group .02 .50 .02

Note: N = 525. * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001

The third regression provides an overall summary of the contribution of the

variables to Life Satisfaction. The regression revealed that R was significantly different

form zero at the end of each step. After Step 1, with the three perceived control

strategies in the equation, R = .44, R2 = .19, with F(3, 521) = 41.94, p <.001, indicating

all perceived control strategies accounted for a significant amount of variance on Life

16

Satisfaction, with primary and secondary control having a positive contribution and

relinquished control having a negative effect.

After Step 2, with the addition of PWB and NWB to the equation, R = .72, R2

=.52, R2 = .33, F(5, 519) = 114.30, p <.001, indicating that both PWB and NWB

significantly contributed to the prediction of Life Satisfaction, and the addition of the

two variables demonstrated a significant ΔR2 suggesting an improvement in the

prediction of Life Satisfaction. The t-tests reveal that primary control no longer had a

significant influence on Life Satisfaction when the PWB and NWB variables are added

to the equation.

After Step 3, with the addition of Volunteer Group to the equation, R = .72, R2

=.52, R2 = .0, F(6, 518) = 95.16, p <.001, indicating that the overall model still

predicted Life Satisfaction, but the addition of Volunteer Group did not make a

significant contribution to the model.

This series of regressions demonstrate perceived control and Volunteer Group

are significant predictors of PWB and NWB. Primary control was not a significant

predictor of Life Satisfaction when PWB and NWB were added to the equation, and

Volunteer Group made no significant prediction of Life Satisfaction. As expected,

volunteerism had a higher contribution to NWB than the other measures of well-being,

supporting the third hypothesis.

Discussion

The current study aimed to establish whether being active in volunteering and

using effective control strategies were positively related, and predicted three aspects of

SWB: Life Satisfaction, Personal Well-being (PWB) and Neighbourhood Well-being

(NWB). The results supported the prediction that volunteers would have significantly

higher levels of Life Satisfaction, PWB, and NWB than non-volunteers. There was also

some support for the prediction that volunteers would report more use of primary and

secondary control, and less use of relinquished control, although the group difference

reached significance only for relinquished control. The results of the regression

analyses also supported the prediction that volunteer group would be a significant

predictor of PWB, NWB, when perceived control variables were accounted for, and that

17

volunteerism would contribute mostly to NWB. These findings provide important new

evidence for the relationship of volunteerism and well-being.

Volunteerism and Well-being

The finding that volunteers had higher levels of Life Satisfaction, PWB, and NWB

than non-volunteers, support the findings of Warburton, et al. (2001), who reported older

volunteers as having higher levels of Life Satisfaction than older non-volunteers. The

current findings extend knowledge about the relationship of volunteerism and well-being

to a broader age range. These findings relate to the suggestion from Keys and Waterman

(2003) that volunteering buffers the influence of stress from other demanding life roles,

thus resulting in the higher well-being in volunteers. This result is also consistent with

research suggesting a positive reciprocal relationship between volunteering and SWB,

which suggests people with higher levels of PWB volunteer more often (Thoits &

Hewitt, 2001; Van Willigen, 2000).

Examining the individual PWB and NWB items allowed further investigation into

which components of PWB and NWB revealed the most significant group differences

between volunteers and non-volunteers. Individual PWB items revealed that volunteers

were significantly more satisfied with personal issues than non-volunteers in their

feeling part of a community, feeling safe, life achievements, and future security. The

very high score on the ‘feeling part of the community’ PWB item is of particular

relevance as it directly relates to NWB and volunteerism. Individual NWB items

revealed volunteers are significantly more satisfied in their neighbourhood than non-

volunteers in their satisfaction with the level of trust, the amount of social participation,

the common goals and values, the state of the natural environment, and the amount of

people’s sharing and borrowing. The high differences on the PWB community item, and

the NWB items is consistent with the results and conclusions from a study by Warburton

et al. (2001) that volunteering provides opportunities for individuals to become involved

with their community, resulting in greater perceived community support than non-

volunteers.

Safety, security, and trust were domains on the PWB and NWB scales which

volunteers reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction. These two areas are of

relevant importance as to how individuals live and act in a community. These results

support findings that people who are involved within their community have high levels

18

of trust and safety in their area (Christensen, Fierst, Jodocy, & Lorenz, 1998; Stukas &

Dunlap, 2002). Implications of such findings lead to the suggestion that if individuals

become involved in volunteer activities with fellow neighbours their satisfaction with

safety may increase, potentially leading to less fear and isolation in the community

(Cattell, 2001).

An overall implication of these findings suggests that volunteerism is an important

component of an individual’s satisfaction with their personal life and neighbourhood.

The promotion of volunteering, and increased opportunities, may be employed to

encourage and improve Life Satisfaction.

Volunteerism and Perceived Control Strategies

Results demonstrated that relative to non-volunteers, volunteers reported more

use of primary and secondary control strategies, and fewer relinquished control

strategies. However, only the relinquished scale, two primary control items, and one

relinquished item were statistically significant.

The items on primary control that revealed significant differences suggest that

volunteers use their skills to overcome problems, and look for ways to improve the

situation more often than non-volunteers. These two findings support Stukas and

Dunlap’s (2002) statement that individuals who volunteer have taken a functional

approach by actively choosing situations that allow them to meet their goals and develop

skills to improve their situation.

Volunteers reported a greater use of all secondary control strategies than non-

volunteers did, however the lack of significance provides only weak support for the view

that, by engaging in volunteering, volunteers are using their leisure time in a productive

way and are likely to perceive they have more control over their everyday decisions

(Iwasaki, et al., 2001; Lachman & Weaver, 1998).

A single significant relinquished item revealed that non-volunteers spend more

time by themselves when something bad happens to them compared to volunteers. This

finding supports findings that people who use relinquished control strategies are not as

likely to believe they can make a difference (Lachman & Weaver, 1998) or become

involved in their community (Thompson & Spacapan, 1991). Another explanation of the

differences on this item could be that volunteering is a social activity (Keyes &

Waterman, 2003), thus personality characteristics, such as extroversion, may influence

19

decisions to volunteer, and spending time alone may be more common in introverted

people who do not volunteer (Cummins, et al., 2002).

Examining individual personality differences and motivations for volunteering, in

relation to the use of control strategies, is recommended to develop a more detailed

understanding how control strategies influence volunteerism.

Volunteerism and the prediction of Personal and Neighbourhood Well-being and Life

Satisfaction

The third analysis revealed volunteerism made an important positive contribution

to an individual’s NWB, and to a lesser extent PWB, but did not contribute to the

prediction of overall Life Satisfaction. The higher contribution of volunteering to NWB

supports findings that as volunteers have more contact with other volunteers, and the

broader community, they feel more satisfied that other people have common goals and

values to them (McDowell, 2002). The addition of Volunteer Group at the second step of

the first two regressions made a significant contribution to the prediction of PWB and

NWB, suggesting that even when the influence of perceived control is accounted for,

volunteerism is an important variable in maintaining individual’s high levels of personal

and neighbourhood well-being. As expected, Volunteer Group contributed more unique

variance to NWB (13%) than to PWB (9%), which supports claims that volunteering is

an activity conducted within a community, involving participation and motivation to

make a difference (McDowell, 2002).

All three types of control; primary, secondary, and relinquished, contributed a

significant amount of variance on PWB and NWB, indicating perceived control is an

important component of PWB (25% of the variance) and NWB (17% of the variance).

The high contributions to PWB and NWB support the suggestion by Cummins and

Nistico (2002) that perceived control is an important function of maintaining high levels

of SWB. The findings also support previous assumptions that high levels of primary and

secondary control, and low levels of relinquished control relate to higher levels of well-

being (Larson, 1989; Thompson & Spacapan, 1991).

The third regression was an exploratory analysis to provide information about the

unique contributions of control strategies, PWB, NWB, and Volunteer Group to Life

Satisfaction. Results indicated when all variables were in the equation, secondary

control, relinquished control, PWB, and NWB were significant predictors of Life

20

Satisfaction, but primary control and volunteer group were not. Although volunteerism

did not contribute to the model, this supports the third hypothesis that volunteerism will

contribute more to NWB than the other measures of well-being. The fact that

volunteering contributed small, but significant variance to PWB and NWB also suggests

that when those two items are accounted for in Life Satisfaction, volunteering would not

be as influential. However, the finding that primary control is not a significant

contributor to Life Satisfaction when PWB and NWB were accounted for was

surprising, and contradicts assumptions in Cummins’ (1997) SWB homeostatic model

that primary control is a crucial buffer. However, in a regression analysis predicting Life

Satisfaction, Chambers, et al. (2003) also found primary control was not a significant

predictor. Further research on the role of primary control in predicting Life Satisfaction

is needed to clarify these discrepancies.

The finding that PWB was by far the greatest contributor to Life Satisfaction, may

be explained by the proximal-distal regulation of Cummins’ (2003) homeostatic model,

which suggests that as aspects of life move away from personal control, there is less

personal concern so satisfaction level decreases. This approach could also be applied to

the lack of contribution of volunteerism to Life Satisfaction, because if an individual

does not perceive volunteering to be an important need or goal, then it would have a

weaker influence on overall Life Satisfaction than something immediate, such as feeling

safe.

These findings lead to knowledge that volunteering contributes to the prediction of

neighborhood well-being more so than to PWB and Life Satisfaction. Such information

may be used to develop strategies to encourage individuals to volunteer by appealing to,

and perhaps, increasing individual’s satisfaction with their neighbourhood.

Limitations and Future Recommendations

A number of factors associated with the sampling technique require caution

when inferring generalisations from present study to other adult populations. Although

the study intended to avoid being specifically on older participants, their mean age was

53-years, limiting generalisations to the experience of younger adults. Future research

could allow for age influences by placing age as a variable in an early step of a

regression.

21

Participants in the study were obtained from a pre-existing database and had

previously completed similar surveys, and had agreed to complete future ones. These

factors may influence the generalisations of findings in relation to willingness to

volunteer, or ratings of Life Satisfaction, as there is likely to be greater volunteerism in

this group than in the general population.

Supplementary research could be conducted to clarify aspects of the present

study. These include a broader examination of Cummins’ (1997) homeostatic model in

relation to volunteerism. This study focused on two of the three components of the

model (personal and neighbourhood well-being), as national well-being is less relevant

to the study of volunteerism. However, future research may benefit by including it to

create a more complete picture of volunteering on SWB. Similarly, the effect of

perceived control is only one of three important cognitive buffers that maintain high

levels of SWB (Cummins & Nistico, 2002). Thus examining the relationships between

self-esteem and optimism to volunteerism may have further implications for volunteers’

satisfaction levels. Further research could be conducted on the interpretations

participants have on the items. For example, the perceived control item “spend time by

myself” may be an important method of successful coping for people who need that time

to re-charge and reflect, rather than feeling unable to spend time with others in the

community.

Taking account of these limitations and possible future directions, this study

achieved its goal of testing several important theoretical ideas relating volunteerism and

perceived control to the prediction of personal and neighbourhood well-being, and Life

Satisfaction, and adding substantial new empirical evidence to ongoing research in the

area.

Conclusion

It is clear from the literature and the findings of this study, that volunteerism and

perceived control are important processes influencing Subjective Well-being. In general,

this study has demonstrated that volunteering in the community is positively related to

Life Satisfaction, and well-being at the Personal and Neighbourhood levels. Developing

strategies that encourage active volunteering may help to improve social connectedness,

trust, and safety in the community, and perhaps reduce the level of depression and social

isolation within communities.

22

References

Aneshensel, C. S., & Sucoff, C. A. (1996). The neighborhood context of adolescent mental

health. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 37, 293 - 311.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001, 13/02/2003). Australian Bureau of Statistics; Main

feature: Voluntary work, Australia. Retrieved 09/03/2004, 2004, from

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/124E5675AD3AED8CCA256A71000

019C5?Open

Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). Four motives for community

involvement. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 429 - 445.

Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N. A., Yin, J., Bedwell, S. J., Johnson, J. W., Templin, C. M., &

Whiteside, A. (1999). Two threats to the common good: self-interested egoism and

empathy-induced altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 3 - 16.

Bollini, A. m., Walker, E. F., Hamann, S., & Kestler, L. (2003). The influence of perceived

control and locus of control on the cortisol and subjective responses to stress.

Emory University.

Bramston, P., Bruggerman, K., & Pretty, G. (2002). Community perspectives and

subjective quality of life. International Journal of Disability, Development and

Education, 49, 385 - 396.

Cattell, V. (2001). Poor people, poor places, and poor health: the mediating role of social

networks and social capital. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 1501 - 1516.

Christakopoulou, S., Dawson, J., & Gari, A. (2001). The community well-being

questionnaire: theoretical context and initial assessment of its reliability and

validity. Social Indicators Research, 56, 321.

Christensen, C., Fierst, D., Jodocy, A., & Lorenz, D. N. (1998). Answering the call for

prosocial behaviour. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 564 - 572.

Cohen, D. A., Mason, K., Bedimo, A., & Scribner, R. (2003). Neighbourhood physical

conditions and health. Journal of Public Health, 93, 467 - 472.

Cummins, R. A. (1997). Assessing quality of life. In R. J. Brown (Ed.), Assessing Quality

Of Life For People With Psychiatric Disabilities (pp. 116-150). Cheltenham,

England: Stanley Thornes.

23

Cummins, R. A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a

homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research, 64, 225 - 256.

Cummins, R. A., Gullone, E., & Lau, A. L. D. (2002). A model of subjective well-being

homeostasis: the role of personality. The Universality of Subjective Wellbeing

Indicators. 7 - 46.

Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: the role of positive

cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 37 - 69.

Curtis, A., & Van Nouhuys, M. (1999). Landcare participation in Australia: the volunteer

perspective. Sustainable Development, 7, 89 - 111.

Davis, M. H., Hall, J. A., & Meyer, M. (2003). The first year: influences on the

satisfaction, involvement, and persistence of new community volunteers.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 248 - 260.

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-

being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology,

54, 403 - 426.

Dore, M. M., Harnett, J.M. (1995). The role of the volunteer in family preservation

services. Families in Society, 76, 67 - 82.

East, L. (1998). The quality of social relationships as a public health issue: exploring the

relationship between health and community in a disadvantaged neighbourhood.

Health and Social Care in the Community, 6, 189 - 195.

Endler, N. S., Kocovski, N. L., & Macrodimitris, S. D. (2000). Coping, efficacy, and

perceived control in acute vs. chronic illness. York University, Canada.

Heckhausen, J. (1999). A model of developmental regulation across the life span. In

Developmental Regulation in Adulthood (pp. 85 - 101): Cambridge University

press.

Hollway, J. (2003). The relationship of perceived control to neighbourhood wellbeing.

Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.

Iwasaki, Y., Zuzanek, J., & Mannell, R. C. (2001). The effects of physically active leisure

on stress-health relationships. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92, 214 - 219.

Keyes, C. L. M., & Waterman, M. B. (2003). Dimensions of well-being and mental health

in adulthood. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, K. A. Moore & T.

c. f. c. well-being. (Eds.), Well-being: Positive Development Across the Life Course

(pp. 478 - 497): Laurence Erlbaum associates.

24

Kiviniemi, M. T., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2002). Too many of a good thing? The

effects of multiple motivations on stress, cost, fulfillment, and satisfaction.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 732 - 743.

Klein, C. T. F., & Helweg-Larson, M. (2002). Perceived control and the optimistic bias: a

meta-analytic review. Psychology and Health, 17, 437 - 446.

Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social

class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 763 - 773.

Lang, F. R., & Heckhausen, J. (2001). Perceived control over development and subjective

well-being: differential benefits across adulthood. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 81, 509 - 523.

Larson, R. (1989). Is feeling in control related to happiness in daily life? Psychological

Reports, 64, 775 - 784.

Lu, L. (1999). Personal or environmental causes of happiness: a longitudinal analysis. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 79 - 90.

McDowell, B. M. (2002). Volunteering- a community partnership. The Advocate, 7, 121 -

122.

Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional ad organizational influences on sustained volunteerism:

an interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447 - 467.

Petito, F., & Cummins, R. A. (2000). Quality of life in adolescence: The role of perceived

control parenting style and social support. Behaviour Change, 17, 196 - 208.

Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the

self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 42, 5-37.

Sampson, R. J. (2003). The neighborhood context of well-being. Perspectives in Biology

and Medicine, 46, 53 - 70.

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to the constructs of control. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 71, 549 - 570.

Stukas, A. A., & Dunlap, M. A. (2002). Community involvement: theoretical approaches

and educational initiatives. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 411 - 427.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Sydney:

Allyn & Bacon.

25

Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health

and Social Behaviour, 42, 115 - 130.

Thompson, S. C., & Spacapan, S. (1991). Perceptions of control in vulnerable populations.

Journal of Social Issues, 47, 1 - 21.

Thompson, S. C., Thomas, C., Rickabaugh, C., Tantamjarik, P., Otsuki, T., Pan, D.,

Garcia, B., & Sinar, E. (1998). Primary and secondary control over age-related

changes in physical appearance. Journal of Personality, 66, 583 - 605.

Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering across the life course. The

Journals of Gerontology, 55, 308 - 318.

Warburton, J., Terry, D. J., Rosenman, L. S., & Shapiro, M. (2001). Differences between

older volunteers and non-volunteers. Research on Aging, 23, 586 - 605.

Wilson, J., & Musick, M. A. (1997). Work and volunteering: the long arm of the job.

Social Forces, 76, 251 - 273.

26

Appendix A

27

28

29

30

Appendix B

PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT

This research project is being conducted by Kimberly Dobrzynski who is completing an Honours degree and also Jung Ching, Belinda Davey, Lucy Lake, Bridget Monro, and Michael Staples who are completing Graduate Diploma in Psychology degrees at the School of Psychology, Deakin University. The research is under the supervision of Dr. Sue Chambers, a Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology at Deakin University.

The project aims to investigate the factors that relate to how satisfied people feel about their lives (their subjective wellbeing). The factors being studied are perceived control (i.e. strategies you use to feel in control of situations), self-esteem, optimism, social values, depression, anxiety and stress. The study also aims to examine how neighbourhood wellbeing (people's sense of wellbeing about their neighbourhood) relates to people's subjective wellbeing, and the role voluntary participation in local communities may play. These factors are measured by participants' responses to items on the enclosed questionnaire.

You are invited to participate in this research project. If you agree to participate, you will be required to complete the enclosed questionnaire which will take approximately twenty minutes of your time to complete. Questionnaires will be anonymous to the researchers; therefore, if you decide to withdraw from the study you can do so by not returning your questionnaire. Returning your completed questionnaire signifies your consent for your responses to be used in the research study.

The questionnaire has a range of items to measure the factors being studied. One question on the personal wellbeing scale is “How satisfied are you with your standard of living?” A question on the neighbourhood wellbeing scale is “How satisfied are you with security in your neighbourhood?” A question about your voluntary participation in your neighbourhood is “I am satisfied with the amount of time I have invested in unpaid community participation.” A perceived control item is “When something bad happens to me I use my skills to overcome the problem.” Other items ask about your feelings. For instance, based on your experiences in the last week, your level of agreement with the statement “I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything.” Other questions ask you to play a simple game in which you choose the allocation of points between players. Other questions ask for general information about you, such as “Which age group are you in?”

Returned questionnaires are stored in a locked cabinet in the School of Psychology at Deakin University for a period of six years and are then destroyed. You will not be identified in any published findings of this questionnaire. It is not expected that participating in this study will cause you any emotional discomfort, stress or harm. However, if this does occur a contact phone number is provided at the end of this statement.

If you have any further questions regarding the study, or would like information about the findings of this study please contact Dr Sue Chambers on (03) 9244 6262.

Should you have any concerns about the conduct of the research project please contact the Chair, Dr Mark Stokes, Deakin University Human Research Ethics Subcommittee – Health and Behavioural Sciences. Telephone (03) 9244 6865.

31

Appendix C

1st July, 2004

Dear Friend of The Australian Centre on Quality of Life

Some time ago now, you were kind enough to complete a telephone interview in respect of the research being conducted as a joint venture by our Centre and our industry partner, Australian Unity. Your interview data contributed to one of the quarterly surveys we conduct across the Australian population, which measure how good we feel about ourselves as Australians, and how good we feel about Australia. These data are used to create Reports, one for each survey, and these Reports are available from our web-site acqol.deakin.edu.au. Enclosed with this letter you will find a copy of the Executive Summary from our last report.

At the end of your telephone interview you indicated that you would be willing for us to contact you again with a view to completing another survey. This is the purpose of our renewed contact. The new questionnaire and other documents are enclosed.

The purpose of this continuing research is to track the wellbeing of Australians across time. If you are willing to join us in this venture, you can expect to receive one survey from us each year. I wish we could offer you some form of tangible reward for your continuing involvement, but we are struggling to financially support the project at a very basic level. Consequently, we have to call once again on your good will, and hope that you will be able to find the time to remain as an active voluntary contributor to this remarkable project.

Please feel free to contact me with any queries concerning this project.

Kind regards

Robert A. Cummins Professor of Psychology.

32