∆ιερεύνηση των χαρακτηριστικών της προσωπικότητας των

∆ιεπιστηµονική Φροντίδα Υγείας(2012) Τόµος 4,Τεύχος 1, 34-42
ISSN 1791 - 9649
∆ιερεύνηση των χαρακτηριστικών της προσωπικότητας των
εθελοντών στην παροχή πρωτοβάθµιων νοσηλευτικών υπηρεσιών
σε ανθρωπιστικές µη κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις
Κούλιου Φ.,1 ∆ραγκιώτη Ε.,2 Κοτρώτσιου Ε.3 & Γκούβα Μ.4
1
Νοσηλεύτρια, MSc, ΝΝΘΑ «Η Σωτηρία»
Ψυχολόγος, MSc, ΝΝΘΑ «Η Σωτηρία»
3
Καθηγήτρια, Τµήµα Νοσηλευτικής Τ.Ε.Ι. Λάρισας
4
Επίκουρος Καθηγήτρια, Τµήµα Νοσηλευτικής Τ.Ε.Ι. Ηπείρου
1
ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ
Εισαγωγή: Στο κέντρο του εθελοντισµού, όπως προκύπτει από την ανασκόπηση της βιβλιογραφίας, εντοπίζεται η
προστασία της αξιοπρέπειας του ανθρώπου καθώς µέσα από τον εθελοντισµό φαίνεται να αντανακλάται η εικόνα του
εαυτού µας. Λίγα µας είναι γνωστά µέχρι σήµερα για τα χαρακτηριστικά της προσωπικότητας των εθελοντών σε
ποσοτικό επίπεδο. Οι περισσότερες έρευνες γύρω από τον εθελοντισµό εστιάζονται κυρίως σε µια πιο ποιοτική και
θεωρητική προσέγγιση του εθελοντισµού. Σκοπός: Η παρούσα εργασία σχεδιάστηκε µε σκοπό να διερευνήσει
ορισµένα ψυχολογικά χαρακτηριστικά της προσωπικότητας (αλτρουισµός, ευτυχία, ναρκισσισµός, θρησκευτικότητα
και γενικότερο οικογενειακό περιβάλλον) που σχετίζονται µε τον εθελοντισµό στην παροχή πρωτοβάθµιων
νοσηλευτικών υπηρεσιών. Πιο συγκεκριµένα, επιχειρήθηκε: α) η σύγκριση της οµάδας των εθελοντών και µη
εθελοντών ως προς τα συγκεκριµένα χαρακτηριστικά, β) η συσχέτιση των επιµέρους υποκλιµάκων κάθε µεταβλητής
τόσο για το σύνολο του δείγµατος όσο και για κάθε οµάδα ξεχωριστά. Yλικό και µέθοδος: Tο δείγµα της µελέτης
καθορίστηκε να αποτελέσουν 121 άτοµα τα οποία προήλθαν από δύο κύριες δεξαµενές: α) εθελοντές στην
νοσηλευτική της ΜΚΟ του Ελληνικού Ερυθρού Σταυρού και β) µη –εθελοντές, µέλη υγιούς πληθυσµού του ευρύτερου
χώρου της υγείας. Η οµάδα των εθελοντών αποτελούνταν από 63 άτοµα (ποσοστό 52,1%), ενώ η οµάδα ελέγχου
αποτελούνταν από 58 άτοµα (ποσοστό 47,9%) που ανέφεραν ότι δεν έχουν ασχοληθεί ποτέ µε τον εθελοντισµό. Η
συγκέντρωση των δεδοµένων έγινε µε συµπλήρωση γραπτού ερωτηµατολογίου σε πλαίσιο και ώρα επιλογής των
συµµετεχόντων.Τα εργαλεία που χρησιµοποιήθηκαν ήταν: α) Ερωτηµατολόγιο κοινωνικο-δηµογραφικών
χαρακτηριστικών, β) Η υπο-κλίµακα του Αλτρουισµού, γ) Η κλίµακα υποκειµενικής ευτυχίας, δ) Η κλίµακα της
ναρκισσιστικής προσωπικότητας και ε) Η κλίµακα µέτρησης του οικογενειακού περιβάλλοντος. Αποτέλεσµατα: Από
την στατιστική ανάλυση προέκυψε ότι οι δύο οµάδες διέφεραν πάρα πολύ σηµαντικά ως προς τον αλτρουισµό
(P=0,000). Επίσης, διέφεραν σηµαντικά ως προς τον ναρκισσισµό (P=0,012) και ως προς την ηθική και θρησκευτική
έµφαση του οικογενειακού περιβάλλοντος (P=0,027). Τέλος, ως προς την διάσταση της ευτυχίας δεν παρατηρήθηκε
καµία στατιστικά σηµαντική διαφορά ανάµεσα στους εθελοντές και µη εθελοντές (P=0,517). Συµπεράσµατα: Από τα
αποτελέσµατα της παρούσας µελέτης αναδεικνύεται η σχέση των συγκεκριµένων χαρακτηριστικών της
προσωπικότητας µε τον εθελοντισµό. Θεωρούµε δε την προβληµατική γύρω από το ρόλο των ψυχοκοινωνικών
χαρακτηριστικών των εθελοντών σαν έναν από τους πιο ενδιαφέροντες τοµείς, ιδιαίτερα για τις επιστήµες υγείας, του
οποίου η µελέτη θα συµβάλλει ουσιαστικά στην ανάδειξη του ρόλου της του Εθελοντισµού στην Πρωτοβάθµια
Φροντίδα Υγείας.
Λέξεις-Κλειδιά: εθελοντισµός, αλτρουισµός, ευτυχία, θρησκευτικότητα, οικογενειακό περιβάλλον, ανθρωπιστικές µη
κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις.
34
Υπεύθ. Αλ/φίας: Γκούβα M. Επ. Καθηγήτρια, Τµ Νοσηλευτικής, ΤΕΙ Ηπείρου,4o Klm Ε.Ο. Ιωαν.-Αθ., 45500, Ιωάννινα,. email: gouva@ioa.teiep.gr
Interscientific Health Care (2012) Vol 4, Issue 1, 34-42
ISSN 1791 - 9649
Α quantitative investigation of personality and psychological
characteristics on volunteers in the humanitarian non government
organizations
Kouliou F.,1 Dragioti E.,2 Kotrotsiou E.3 and Gouva M.4
1
Nurse, MSc“Sotiria” Hospital of Chest Diseases, Athens, Greece
Psychologist, MSc“Sotiria” Hospital of Chest Diseases, Athens, Greece
3
Professor, Nursing Department TEI of Larissa
4
Assistant Professor, Nursing Department TEI of Epirus
2
ABSTRACT
Background: In the heart of volunteerism, as derived from the literature review, the protection of human dignity is
identified, since through volunteerism the image of the self is reflected. However, little is known today about the
personality characteristics of volunteers at a quantitative level. Most studies around volunteerism focus mostly on a
more qualitative and theoretical approach of volunteerism. Aim: The present study was designed to investigate
specific psychological characteristics of the personality (altruism, happiness, narcissism, religiousness and the overall
family environment) which are associated with volunteerism in primary nursing services. More specifically, it was
attempted to: a) compare the volunteers and non volunteers groups as far as the specific characteristics are
concerned, b) correlate the individual subscale of each variable both for the whole sample and for each group
separately. Methods: The study sample was decided to consist of 121 people who came from two main sources: a)
volunteers in the nursing section of the Humanitarian NGO of the Hellenic Red Cross and b) non- volunteers,
members of the healthy population of the wider area of health. The volunteers group consisted of 63 people (52.1%),
while the control group consisted of 58 people (47.9%) who reported that they had never been involved in
volunteerism. The data collection was conducted through a written questionnaire filled at a place and time chosen by
the participants. The tools used were: a) A questionnaire of sociodemographic characteristics, b) The Altruism
subscale, c) The Subjective Happiness Scale, d) The Narcissistic Personality Scale and e) The Scale for measuring
the Family Environment. Results: From the statistical analysis it was shown that the two groups differentiated quite
significantly concerning altruism (P=0.000). Also, they were significantly differentiated concerning narcissism
(P=0.012) and moral and religious emphasis of the family environment (P=0.027). Finally, concerning the happiness
dimension no statistically significant differentiation between volunteers and non-volunteers was observed.
Conclusions: From the results of the present study the association between specific personality characteristics and
volunteerism was shown. We regard the difficulties around the role of the psychosocial characteristics of volunteers
as one of the most intriguing fields, particularly for the health sciences, the study of which will essentially contribute to
highlight its role in Volunteerism in Primary Health Care.
Keywords: Volunteerism, Altruism, Happiness, Religiousness, Family environment, Humanitarian Non Government
Organizations
ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΗ
Volunteerism constitutes a social and economical
capital offering significant benefits to the volunteers
themselves, since they are given the opportunity of
acquiring new skills and experiences in the work field
(Ross, et al, 1999). Many volunteers operate within the
framework of Humanitarian Non Government
Organizations (HNGOs). The main motives for
volunteerism are the impulsivity, the challenge and the
desire to experience the adventure of the “hero”
(Hudson & Inson, 2006; Yeung, 2004). Furthermore,
many are driven to the selfless labour by the need of
personal transformation and by emotions of happiness
(Dávila de León & Fuertes, 2007).
Voluntary
labour
is
about
personal
satisfaction/compensation, the labour for experience
and the need to do something worthwhile (Peloza,
Hudson & Hassay, 2009). In all cases, however, the
volunteer is defined by agreeableness, consciousness,
emotional stability (Dolnicar & Randle, 2007; Zappala,
Cor. Author: Gouva M., As. Prof. Dep. of Nursing, TEI of Epirus, 4th Klm Nat. Str. Ioan. – Ath.– 45500 - Ioannina, Greece. Email: gouva@ioa.teiep.g
35
2000; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007),
understanding,
self-esteem
and
extroversion
(Fritschie, 2009; Elshaug & Metzer, 2001). The
volunteers in the Humanitarian Non Government
Organizations (HNGOs) are characterized by altruism
(Einolf, 2009), charity and religiousness (Johnson,
2006; Lodi & Brent, 2007).
Volunteers present a desire to publicly show their
generosity and altruism driven by the social motive
deriving by the codes of honour which prevail in each
society. The aforementioned characteristics stem from
the volunteers’ self-esteem as well as from the various
degrees of altruism or greediness which characterize
them, making these people want to show to the public
the fact that they are generous, fair, brave, etc., a
desire which is the result and an integral part of the
person’s quest for social self-esteem (Benabou &
Tirole, 2004).
However, there are also people who offer voluntary
labour with the main aim to satisfy their own
psychological and social needs (Clary, et al, 1992).
This, in itself, makes them experience situations which
enhance their self-esteem and personal satisfaction
(Gildron, 1983), but also preserve their self-image
which they want others to see, showing the selfish
aspect of the volunteers’ personality (Benabou &
Tirole, 2004). This is supplemented by the fact that
voluntary work promotes personal satisfaction and
gives the sense that the person does something
worthwhile (Peloza, et al, 2009). Moreover, in the case
of offering due to the presence of bystanders, people
in order to absolve the discomforting sense they have
offer their help, which elevates the altruistic behavior
to a service of personal advisability (Piliavin & Callero,
1991).
A person’s life stages which define their personality
also define the existence of volunteerism (Okun &
Schultz, 2003). The accumulation of experiences over
time in combination with the changes of the perceived
social conditions contributes to the expression of
volunteerism (Funes, 1999).
However, little is known today about the personality
characteristics of volunteers at a quantitative level.
Most studies around volunteerism focus mostly on a
more qualitative and theoretical approach of
volunteerism. Therefore the present study was
designed to investigate specific psychological
characteristics of the personality (e.g altruism,
happiness, narcissism, religiousness and the overall
family environment) which are associated with
volunteerism in primary nursing services. More
specifically, it was attempted to: a) compare the
volunteers and non volunteers groups as far as the
specific characteristics are concerned, b) correlate the
individual subscale of each variable both for the whole
sample and for each group separately.
MATERIALS and METHODS
Sample and Procedure
For this purpose the study sample was decided to
consist of 121 individuals who came from two main
sources: a) volunteers in the nursing section of the
Humanitarian NGO of the Hellenic Red Cross and b)
non- volunteers, members of the healthy population of
the wider area of health. The mean age of the whole
sample of participants was 45 years (SD=14) ranging
36
from 20 to 78 years. The volunteers group consisted of
63 people (52.1%, x=52yrs ± SD=15), while the control
group consisted of 58 people (47.9%, x=38yrs ±
SD=7.5) who reported that they had never been
involved in volunteerism.
All the participants who fulfilled the study’s
requirements and accepted to participate in it were
informed about the procedure of the study. The data
collection was conducted through a written
questionnaire filled at a place and time chosen by the
participants. Participants responded to a demographic
questionnaire (e.g. age, gender, family status, etc) and
four self-report psychometric measures and sealed
their responses in unmarked envelopes before
returning them, so responses were both anonymous
and confidential.
Measures
Participants completed four instruments. Altruism was
measured by using the Altruism subscale of the
Acceptance of welfare scale (ΑWS, Ahmed & Jackson,
1979), that measures five factors of welfare like
independence from government, morality of welfare,
nurturance, work ethic and altruism. This subscale
evaluate altruism using participants’ responses on a
five-point Likert-scale (disagree strongly to agree
strongly) to statements such as “Most of the charities
are
dishonest”
(Ahmed
&
Jackson,
1979;
Papageorgiou, 2009). Papageorgiou (2009) have
demonstrated reliability (a=.79) and validity for this
measure in Greek population
The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS, Lyubomirsky
& Lepper, 1999) has only four seven-point Likert-scale
items related to the participants’ perception of their
own level of happiness. An example item asks
participants to complete the statement, “In general, I
consider myself”, where responses vary from “not a
very happy person” to “a very happy person”. This
instrument
demonstrates
adequate
reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha = .86) and validity (Lyubomirsky &
Lepper, 1999).
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin
& Hall, 1979) was using for evaluate non clinicalnarcissism (Emmons, 1981; Raskin & Terry, 1988;
Coccosis, Vaslamatzis, Anagnostopoulos, Markidis,
1998). For each paired statement, the one represents
narcissistic traits and the other non-narcissistic ones.
The scale used in the present study was the Greek
adaptation of the NPI (Coccosis et al., 1998). This
version includes 30 forced-choice items pairs that
compose a valid and promising measurement for the
construction of narcissism (alpha coefficient: .85). High
scores indicate strong narcissistic tendencies. A total
score (range: 0-30) on the NPI is calculated by
summing only the narcissistic choice (Coccosis et al.,
1998).
The Family Environment was measured by using the
Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos & Moos, 1986;
Moos, 1990). FES is a parent-rated scale that consists
of 10 nine-item subscales evaluating various aspects
of family functioning in three general domains: (a)
interpersonal relationships (cohesion, expressiveness,
conflict),
(b)
personal
growth
orientations
(independence, achievement, intellectual orientation,
moral-religious
emphasis),
and
(c)
system
maintenance dimensions (organization, control)
(Moos, 1990; Holahan, Moos, Holahan & Brennan,
1995; Holahan,Moos, Holahan, Brennan, 1997). The
Greek version of the instrument demonstrates
satisfactory psychometric features (Matsa, 1977).
Data Analysis
Distribution frequencies, means and standard
deviations were applied for the description of sample’s
social, demographic and psychological characteristics.
The parametric independent student T test was
adopted to compare volunteers group and no
volunteers’ scores on the quantitative variables, since
their distribution was symmetric. The criteria for testing
normality was:≥ ± 2,00 for the Skewness and ≥ ± 5,00
for the Kyrtosis (Skordilis & Stavrou, 2005). Pearson x2
(chi-square) tests was performed for the comparison of
categorical variables (Ioannidis, 2000), while
correlations coefficients were examine by Pearson r
(Dafermos, 2005). The statistical analyses concerning
the descriptive characteristics of the variables
examined were performed by both Excel and SPSS14,
while those concerning comparisons and correlations
of quantitative and categorical variables were
performed by the statistical parcel of SPSS14 (SPSS
Inc., 2005) only. For all statistical analyses p<0.05 was
considered as statistically significant.
RESULTS
Demographics
Fullness means, standard deviations and distribution
frequencies of demographic characteristics of the total
sample and the two groups are represented in Table 1,
as well as their comparisons.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics and their differences between volunteers and non volunteers
Volunteers
N=63 (100.0%)
AGE*
Voluntarism
Non Volunteers
N=58 (100.0%)
Total
Differences
N=121 (100.0%)
p-value
51.83 ± 15.23
37.69 ± 7.50
45.05 ± 14.03
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
fréquences
fréquences
fréquences
t =6.554
p=.000
2
X p=15.584
GENDER
Men
Women
p=.000
2 (3.2)
61 (96.8)
17 (29.3)
41 (70.7)
19(15.7)
102 (84.3)
Fisher's Exact
Test=17.304
p=.000
FAMILY STATUS
Single
Marital
Divorced
Widowed
17 (27.0)
35 (60.3)
32 (50.8)
21(36.2)
10 (15.9)
2 (3.4)
12 (9.9)
4 (6.3)
0 (0.0)
4 (3.3)
52 (43.0)
53(43.8)
Fisher's Exact
Test=33.684
p=.000
EMPLOYMENT
Unemployed/Student
2 (3.2)
0(0.0)
2 (1.7)
Housekeeping
10(15.9)
0(0.0)
10 (8.3)
Self-Employed
8 (12.7)
2(3.4)
10 (8.3)
Private Sectors
14 (22.2)
19(32.8)
33 (27.3)
Public Sectors
19 (30.2)
37(63.8)
56 (46.3)
Retired
10 (15.9)
0(0.0)
10 (8.3)
Fisher's Exact Test
=10.356
p=.064
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Primary Education
2(3.2)
1(1.7)
3 (2.5)
Secondary Education (3 Years)
2 (3.2)
0(0.0)
2 (1.7)
Secondary Education (6 Years)
29 (46.0)
15 (25.9)
44 (36.4)
Higher Education (Graduate)
25 (39.7)
31 (53.4)
56 (46.3)
Postgraduate (Μaster Degree)
4 (6.3)
5 (8.6)
9 (7.4)
Postgraduate (P.h.D Degree)
0 (0.0)
2 (3.4)
2 (1.7)
Undergraduate Student
1 (1.6)
4 (6.9)
5 (4.1)
*AGE is expressed as Mean ± Standard deviation
37
Comparisons between volunteers and no
volunteers
The next step to our analysis was to compare the two
groups on the quantitative variables by Fisher Exact
Test, Pearson’s x2 (Table 2) and means of t tests
(Table 3).
Altruism
The results of the present study demonstrated
significantly higher levels of altruism for volunteers,
when compared to non volunteers. Significant
differences were observed when applying Fisher Exact
Test (p=.006) while Pearson’s x2 did not provide
statistically
significant
differentiation
between
volunteers and non-volunteers (p= .594) (Table 2).
Significant differences (p=.000) were also observed
when the two groups were compared with the
independent t- test (Table 3).
Happiness
The results did not indicate significantly higher levels
of subjective happiness (p=.542) for those who not
involved with voluntarism, when applying both Fisher
Exact Test (p=.542) and Pearson’s x2 (p=.574) (Table
2). Moreover, as shown in table 3, independent t- test
did not provide statistically significant differentiation for
happiness among the two groups (p=.517).
Table 2.Group Comparisons among Volunteers and Non Volunteers concerning Altruism and Happiness
by both Fisher Exact Test and Pearson’s x2
Voluntarism
Volunteers
N=63 (100.0%)
Non Volunteers
Differences
N=58 (100.0%)
p-value
Distribution
Distribution
fréquences
fréquences
Fisher's Exact Test =9.185
Altruism (3 groups)
p=.006
>=1-<=15
3 (4.7)
3 (5.1)
>=16-<=25
10(15.9)
23 (39.7)
>=26-<=35
50 (79.4)
32 (55.2)
X2P=0.284,
Altruism (2groups)
>=1-<15
>=16-<=35
3(4.8)
3 (5.2)
60 (95.2)
55 (94.8)
p=594
Fisher's Exact Test =12.135
Happiness (3 groups)
>=4-<=12
>=13-<=22
>=23-<=32
p=.542
3 (4.8)
1 (1.7)
52(82.5)
52 (89.7)
8 (12.7)
5 (8.6)
2
Happiness (2 groups)
>=4-<12
>=13-<=35
X P=0.384, p=0.574
3(4.8)
1 (1.7)
60 (95.2)
57(98.3)
Narcissism
Significant differences between the two groups were
observed for narcissistic personality traits (p=.012)
when compared using the independent t- test, as
presented in table 3.
38
Family environment
The results of the present study did not provide
dysfunctional family environment of volunteers in
general. Significant differences between the two
groups were observed only for Moral-Religious
Emphasis (p=.027), when compared using the
independent t- test (Table 3).
Table 3. Comparison of psychometric variables between volunteers and non volunteers.
Voluntarism
Non Volunteers
Volunteers
N=63 (100.0%) N=58 (100.0%)
Mean (S.D.)
Scores of variables
Mean (S.D.)
Total
Differences*
N=121 (100.0%)
Mean (S.D.)
p-value
29.02 ± 4.90
25.38 ± 5.80
27.26 ± 5.64
P =.000
17.76 ± 3.80
18.17 ± 3.06
17.96 ± 3.46
P =.517
5.94 ± 4.32
8.38 ± 6.15
7.11 ± 5.39
P =.012
Cohesion
6.83 ± 2.12
6.16 ± 2.41
6.50 ± 2.28
P =.107
Expressiveness
5.16 ± 1.65
5.22 ± 2.11
5.19 ± 1.88
P =.849
Conflict
2.33 ± 2.18
2.67 ± 2.26
2.50 ± 2.22
P =.404
Independence
5.73 ± 1.69
5.78 ± 2.15
5.75 ± 1.92
P =.897
Achievement Orientation
6.05 ± 1.57
6.03 ± 1.73
6.04 ± 1.64
P =.965
Intellectual - Cultural Orientation
6.08 ± 2.30
5.43 ± 2.28
5.77 ± 2.30
P =.123
Active-Recreational Orientation
5.08 ± 2.39
4.93 ± 2.38
5.01 ± 2.37
P =.733
Moral-Religious Emphasis
4.62 ± 2.12
3.74 ± 2.18
4.20 ± 2.19
P =.027
Organization
5.78 ± 1.93
5.22 ± 1.75
5.51 ± 1.86
P = .103
Control
4.65 ± 1.55
4.57 ± 1.69
4.61 ± 1.62
P =.783
Family Incongruence Score
52.30 ± 10.22
49.76 ± 9.99
51.08 ± 10.15
P =.170
Altruism
SHS**
N.P.I***
*Means and standard deviations with t tests differences
**SHS= Subjective Happiness Scale
***NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory
Correlations with all variables tested for both groups
Furthermore we examine zero order correlations for all
variables for the two groups and the total sample. As
shown in table 4 altruism was found to be significantly
related to age (p<.05), while narcissism, moral
religious emphasis and total FES were found to be
significantly correlated with altruism (p<.05, p<.01,
p≤001), as tested by Pearson r for two groups (see
table 4, 5).
Table 4. Correlations among variables in volunteers group
VOLUNTEERS (N=63)
VARIABLES
Gender
Altruism
Happines
s
Narcissis
m
Moral
Religious
Emphasis
Variables
Age
Age
1
Gender
.138
1
Altruism
.283*
.132
1
Happiness
-.122
-.035
.123
Narcissism
-.273*
-.129
-.367**
Moral Religious
Emphasis
Family Incongruence
Score
.168
-.161
.410***
.088
-.201
1
.246ms
.059
.468***
.223ms
-.231ms
.639***
Family
Incongruenc
e Score
1
.055
1
1
* p<0,05, **p<0,01,***p≤0,001, MS (Mat.b.ginally significant)(0,05<P<0,10)
39
Table 5. Correlations among variables in non-volunteers group
VARIABLES
NON VOLUNTEERS (N=58)
Variables
Age
Gender
Age
1
Gender
.138
1
Altruism
-.322*
.148
Happiness
-.069
-.250ms
Narcissism
-.261*
-.295*
Moral Religious
Emphasis
Family Incongruence
Score
-448***
168
-.198
-.085
Altruism
Happines
s
Narcissis
m
Moral
Religious
Emphasis
Family
Incongruenc
e Score
1
.009
-.149
1
.206
1
.289*
.111
-.218
1
.276*
.340**
-.077
.414***
1
* p<0,05,**p<0,01, ***p≤0,001, MS (Mat.b.ginally significant)(0,05<P<0,10)
DISCUSSION
The correlations of both altruism and narcissism with
the variables of the other questionnaires presented
strong associations (statistically significant and very
significant) both for the whole sample and the two
groups. In the volunteers group, altruism, narcissism,
happiness and religiousness are correlated with
demographic factors, without being dependant
features of this group regarding age, sex, educational
level and so on.
The mean score of altruism (AS) for the volunteers
and non volunteers group was respectively 29.02 ±
4.90 and 25.38 ± 5.80. These results support our initial
hypothesis that volunteers would present high levels of
altruism and in relation with the non volunteers, higher.
Altruism is directly associated with voluntary behavior,
since it is consistent with the evolutionary theory as
well as with the tendency to help others, through the
adaptive value, contributing to the survival of our
genes, especially when it is likely that others will
reciprocate the help in the future (Einolf, 2009;
Sotiropoulos, 2004; Muller, 2000).
The mean score of subjective happiness (SHS) for the
group of individuals who engage in volunteerism and
the individuals, who do not, was respectively 17.76 ±
3.80 and 18.17 ± 3.06. The mean normal score of
subjective happiness in the Greek population is
17.85±4.98 (Lyrakos, Dragioti & Kostopanagiotou,
2010). From the results of the present study the high
levels of subjective happiness, as measured by the
questionnaire of subjective happiness of Lyubomirksy
& Leeper (1999), are not highlighted. The above
finding, consequently, is not in agreement with the
results of previous quantitative studies, which regard
that the value of a volunteer lies in the prerequisite of
the individual’s participation in citizenship (Voutsakis,
2004) and enjoy a psychological benefit, since they
can acquire self-esteem, more energy, less
40
possibilities of being depressed and less resistance
towards ageing, conditions which are consistent with a
happy and fulfilled life (Starnes & Wymer 2001;
Gidron, 1983; Cacioppo & Gardner 1993). It seems
that happiness is a phenomenon associated with many
parameters, beyond the expression of the internal
world and therefore being quite difficult to interpret.
The mean score of narcissism (NPI) for the volunteers
and non volunteers group was respectively 5.94 ± 4.32
and 8.38 ± 6.15. These results support our initial
hypothesis that volunteers would present low levels of
narcissism and less in relation with the non volunteers.
The above finding is consistent with the results of
previous studies, from which in narcissism the role of
aggression expressed as underestimation towards
others with the consequence of the disturbance of
relationships has been recognized (Kernberg, 2008;
Kernberg, 1975). Besides, voluntary activities contain
a lot of commitment and a significant personal cost
(Omoto & Snyder, 1995), which presupposes offering
of our narcissistic self to the others (Benabou & Tirole,
2004).
Finally, the mean of the total score of the Family
Environment Scale for the individuals in the volunteers
group was 52.30 ± 10.22, while for the non volunteers
group the mean score was 49.76 ± 9.99. These results
support our initial hypothesis that the volunteers would
not differ by much in the total score of the Family
Environment Scale from the non volunteers. From the
results of the present study, the high levels of morality
and religiousness emphasis in the family environment
subscale are highlighted, while there are no significant
differences in the other dimensions of the family
system, as measured with the corresponding scale
Form R-FES (by Moos, R. 1987; Moos, R. 1990) for
the volunteers. The above finding is consistent with the
ones of the study by Barnard and Corrales (1979), in
which the concept of the family boundaries is referred
to the procedures of “together” and “separately” which
interact. It is also referred to which members
participate in what and in which way this participation
is realized. The boundaries enclose the “spatial,
temporal and emotional area of the relationships”
(Bernard & Corrales, 1979), which through the
religious emphasis, combined with volunteerism,
promote the family, social cohesion and solidarity
(Apostolidis & Papaspyropoulos, 2002).On the other
hand, new research data show that religiousness is
enhanced by certain genes and also through habits or
prohibitions imposed by religions on certain members
of families. Thus, by developing the religious
dimension in its members, the family facilitates the
internalization of the moral rules and values through
the socialization mechanisms (Kokkinaki, 2006).
Besides, volunteerism is communicated and cultivated
to the members of a family through religious
behaviors, which the family itself develops as a
learning product (Johnson, 2006; Berger, 2006).
CONCLUSIONS
Regarding altruism, the levels in this group are high,
while higher scores in the happiness dimension were
not observed. Furthermore, for the volunteers we
observed low levels of narcissism. As for
religiousness, the individuals who engage in
volunteerism present high levels, while in the other
dimensions of family relationships they seem to
function without any differences from the non
volunteers.
The results from the correlation of the variables per
two of the present study come to enhance the results
of other studies. In particular, the high correlations of
the altruism subscale, as measured with the
Providence Acceptance Scale (AS) by Ahmed &
Jackson, and with the Narcissism Questionnaire (NPI)
by Raskin & Hall, along with the religiousness
emphasis subscale, as measured through the FES by
Moos & Moss, seem to enhance the belief that the
reasons why an individual engages in volunteerism
may be purely altruistic, dative and deeply
anthropocentric (Pearce, 1983) and that the from the
outset altruistic volunteers enjoy doing voluntary
labour, for they receive the benefits of this experience
(Starner & Wymer, 2001).
Finally, from the results of the present study, the
relationship of the above personality traits with
volunteerism are shown, a finding which enhances
results, which have stressed that the sense of
obligation towards a specific good cause, the feelings
of social responsibility that the individual experiences
or even the altruistic empathy towards the affected
(Armato, 1990) constitute the foundation of voluntary
behavior. Moreover, several individuals engage in
volunteerism so as to obtain social and psychological
benefits (Bennett & Kottasz 2000; Bussell & Forbes
2002). Certainly, there are reasons which derive from
egoistic motives that include the desire to acquire
experience and education, the possibility for one to
leave the family nest, to create new friendships along
with having the ability to experience high self-esteem
and a sense of belonging (Bennett & Kottasz, 2000).
Since the above conclusions come from the results of
the present research study and derive from a sample
of volunteers in the provision of nursing services, it is
understandable that there is a need to investigate the
personality traits associated with volunteerism in other
voluntary organizations of a different kind of social
capital provision. The traits of altruism and
religiousness constitute central issues in the frame of
voluntary offer and thus, the need for the social bodies
to wade more in impelling procedures for the moral
and social rules through socialization emerges. By
giving altruistic and religious motives to the future
citizens, we create the so called civil society. We
though regard the speculation for the volunteers’
psychosocial traits’ role as one of the most interesting
fields, particularly for the health sciences, the study of
which will essentially contribute to the emergence of
the role of Volunteerism in the Primary Health Care.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the people who participated in
this study, the Humanitarian NGO of the Hellenic Red
Cross and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful
and insightful comments.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Ahmed, S. A. & Jackson D. N. (1979). “Psychographics
for Social Policy Decisions: Welfare Assistance, Journal
of Consumer research, 5:229-239.
Allen, N.S. & Rushton, S.P. (1983). Personality
characteristics of community Mental Health volunteers:
A Review. Nonprofit and voluntary Sector Quarterly 12;
36.
Amato, P. (1990). Personality and social network
involvement as predictors of helping behaviour in
everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly 53(1): 31–34.
Apostolidis, L., and S. Papaspyropoulos. (2002). The
volunteering movement in Greece and the civil society.
Athens: Greek Letters.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007). Voluntary Work,
Australia (Catalogue no. 4441.0)
Barnard, C.P. & Corrales, R.G. (1979). The theory and
techniques of family therapy. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Benabou, R. & Tirole, J. (2004). Incentives and
Prosocial
Behavior.
Availiable
in:
ftp://ftp.iza.org/dps/dp1695.pdf
Bennett, R., and Kottasz, R. (2000). Advertisement style
and the recruitment of charity volunteers. Journal of
Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing 8(2):45–63.
Berger, I. E. (2006). The Influence of Relgion on
Philanthorpy in Canada. Voluntas: International Journal
of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(2):115132.
Bussell, H., and Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the
volunteer market: The what, where, who and why of
volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing 7(3):244–257.
Cacioppo, J.T., & Gardner, W.L. (1993). What underlies
medical donor attitudes and behavior? Health Psychol.
12(4):269-71.
Cantensen, LL. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory
of socioemotional selectivity. Current Direction in
Psychological Science, 4, 151-156
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Ridge, R. (1992). Volunteers'
Motivations: A Functional Strategy for the Recruitment,
Placement, and Retention of Volunteers. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 2(4), 333-350.
41
14. Coccosis, M., Vaslamatzis. G., Anagnostopoulos, Ph. &
Markidis, M. (1998) The Narcissistic Personality
Inventory: Psychometric properties of the Greek version.
Psychiatriki, 9:119-133.
15. Dafermos, B. (2005) Social Statistics with SPSS.
Thessaloniki: Ziti Publications.
16. Dávila de León, M.C. & Chacón Fuertes, F.
(2007).Prediction of Longevity of Volunteer Service: A
Basic Alternative Proposal. The Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 1, 115-121.
17. Dolnicar, S. & Randle, M. (2007). What motivates which
volunteers? Psychographic heterogeneity among
volunteers in Australia. Voluntas, 18:135-155.
18. Einolf C. (2009). Does extensivity form part of the
altruistic personality? An empirical test of Oliner and
Oliner’s theory. Social Science Research, 39:142–151.
19. Elshaug, C. & Metzer J. (2001). Personality attributes of
volunteers and paid workers engaged in similar
occupational tasks. Journal of Social Psychology
14:752-763.
20. Emmons, R. A. (1981) Relationship between narcissism
and sensation seeking. Psychological Reports, 48:247–
250.
21. Fritschie, R. (2009). Personality Traits and Motives for
Volunteering of Volunteers vs Non-volunteers. Available
in:
http://www.dominican.edu/query/ncur/display_ncur.php?
id=759
22. Funes, M.J. (1999). Jovenes y accion voluntaria: la
edad como factor condicionante en la acion
participative. Est udios de jevuntud, 45(99):87-92
23. Gidron, B. (1983). Sources of job satisfaction among
service volunteers. Journal of Voluntary Action
Research 12(1): 20–35.
24. Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K. & Brennan,
P. L. (1997) Social context, coping strategies, and
depressive symptoms: an expanded model with cardiac
patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72:918-928.
25. Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K. & Brennan,
P. L.(1995) Social support, coping, and depressive
symptoms in a late-middle-aged sample of patients
reporting cardiac illness. Health Psychology, 14:152163.
26. Ioannidis, J. P. Α. (2000) Principles of Evidence-based
medicineEpidemiology-Public
Health-Statistical
Methods. Athens: Medical Publications Litsas.
27. Johnson, M.K. (2009). Religiosity and helping: do
religious individuals volunteer more help to religious
organizations than non-religious organizations? Baylor
Electronically
Accessible
Research
Documents
18(47):01Z.
28. Kernberg, O. (1975) Borderline conditions and
pathological narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson.
29. Kernberg, O. (2008) The destruction of time in
pathological narcissism. The Ιinternational Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 89:299-312.
30. Kokkinaki, F. (2006). Social Psychology. Dardanos:
Athens.
31. Lyrakos, G.N. & Dragioti E & Kostopanagiotou P
(2010). Translation and validation of the subjective
happiness scale in Greek population. Unpublished.
32. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of
subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and
construct validation, Social Indicators Research, 46:137155.
33. Matsa, K. (1997) Comparative study of life events and
42
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
psychological characteristics in family. Doctoral Thesis
(submitted to the Medical School of University of
Ioannina).
Moos, R. & Moos, B. (1986) Family environment Scale
Manual. Second Editions. Inc., CA: Consulting
Psychologists press.
Moos, R. (1990) Conceptual and empirical approaches
to developing family - based assessment procedures:
Resolving the case of the family environment scale.
Family Process, 29:199-208.
Muller P. (2000). «L’ analyse cognitive des politiques,
vers une sociologie politique de l’ action publique»,
Revue Française de Science Politique, 50: 210-213.
Omoto, A., and Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping
without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and
perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
68(4):671–686.
Papageorgiou, D. (2009). Investigation of the attitudes
of Greek Citizens against the Welfare State. Master
Thesis (submitted to the Βiciness Administration of
University of Macedonia).
Raskin, R. & Terry, H. (1988) A principal-components
analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and
further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54:890-902.
Raskin, R. N. & Hall, C. S. (1979) A narcissistic
personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45:590.
Skordilis, E. K. & Stavrou, N. A. (2005) Sport orientation
model for wheelchair basketball athletes. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 100:1081-1096.
Sotiropoulos D. (2004) Unknown Citizens Welfare State
. Potamos: Athens.
SPSS Inc. (2005) SPSS Base 14.0 User’s Guide. SPSS
Inc.,: USA. http://www.spss.com
Starnes, B., and Wymer, W. (2001). Demographics,
personality traits, roles, motivations, and attrition rates of
hospice volunteers. Journal of Nonprofit and Public
Sector Marketing 7(2):61–76.
Voutsakis (2004). Volunteers and the State. In
Sotiropoulos D. (2004). Unknown Citizens Welfare
State . Potamos: Athens.
Lewig KA., Xantopoulou D., Bakker AB., Dollard MF.,
Metzer JC. (2007). Burnout and connectedness among
Australian volunteers: A test of the Job DemandsResources model. Journal Vocational Behaviour,
71:429-445.
Lodi-Smith J., & Roberts B.W. (2007). Social investment
and personality: a meta-analysis of the relationship of
personality traits to investment in work, family, religion
and volunteerism. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 11; 68-86.
Okun, M.A., & Schultz, A. (2003). Age and motives for
volunteering: Testing hypotheses derived from
socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and
Aging, 18(2):231-239.
Peloza, J., Hudson S., & Hassay D. (2009) The
Marketing of Employee Volunteerism. Journal of
Business Ethics, 85:371-386.
Piliavin, J.A. & Callero, P. (1991). Giving blood: The
development of an altruistic identity. Baltimore, Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Ross M W., Greenfield SA., Bennett L. (1999).
Predictors of dropout in AIDS volunteers. A longitudinal
study. AIDS Care 11:723-732.
Zappala, G. (2000). How many people volunteer in
Australia and why do they do it? The Smith Family
Briefing Paper.

Download Report