Does Volunteering Improve Well-being?

A.V.  Whillans; S.C.  Seider; R.  Dwyer; L.  Chen; S.  Novick; K.J.  Graminga; B.A.  Mitchell; V.  Savalei; S.S.  Dickerson; E.W.  Dunn

Article | Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology | 2016

Does Volunteering Improve Well-being?

by A.V. Whillans, S.C. Seider, R. Dwyer, L. Chen, S. Novick, K.J. Graminga, B.A. Mitchell, V. Savalei, S.S. Dickerson and E.W. Dunn

Abstract

Does volunteering causally improve well-being? To empirically test this question, we examined one instantiation of volunteering that is common at post-secondary institutions across North America: community service learning (CSL). CSL is a form of experiential learning that combines volunteer work with intentional learning goals and active reflection. We partnered with an academic program that randomly assigns interested students to participate in a CSL program or to a wait-list. As part of this CSL program, students are required to engage in 10–12 h of formal volunteering each week in addition to completing related coursework. To assess the well-being benefits of formal volunteering through CSL participation, we examined the subjective wellbeing (SWB) of students from both groups over a six-month period. Using Bayesian statistics, and comparing a null model to a model specifying a small to moderate benefit of CSL participation, we found conclusive evidence in support of the null model. These findings diverge from previous correlational research in this area by providing no evidence for the causal benefits of volunteering on SWB. These findings highlight the critical importance of using experimental methodology to establish the causal benefits of volunteer work, such as the experiences provided by CSL programs, on SWB.

Keywords: prosocial behavior; education; well-being; college students; Bayesian statistics; Welfare or Wellbeing;

Format: Print

Citation:

Whillans, A.V., S.C. Seider, R. Dwyer, L. Chen, S. Novick, K.J. Graminga, B.A. Mitchell, V. Savalei, S.S. Dickerson, and E.W. Dunn. "Does Volunteering Improve Well-being?" Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 1, nos. 1-3 (2016): 35–50.

When it comes to our to-do lists, many of us prioritize checking off tasks that are easiest to complete or are due first, regardless of importance – a phenomenon that scholars describe as the “mere urgency” effect. This tendency becomes stronger the busier we are. But constantly prioritizing urgent tasks means that important tasks that have no urgent deadline (such as updating your resume or doing creative work) get pushed aside for later and later. Some just never get done. When we fail to do what’s important, often what matters most to us, we feel stressed, overwhelmed, and unmotivated— and firms are less productive. Research suggests managers can help employees combat the tendency to put off for tomorrow what isn’t due today: have employees set aside proactive time for work that is important but not urgent.

Over the last two decades, global wealth has risen. Yet, material affluence has not translated into time affluence. Instead, most people today report feeling persistently “time poor”—like they have too many things to do and not enough time to do them. This is critical because time poverty is linked to lower well-being, physical health, and productivity. For example, in our analysis of 2.5 million Americans, subjective feelings of time poverty had a stronger negative effect on well-being than being unemployed. However, individuals, organisations, and policymakers often overlook the pernicious effects of time poverty. Billions of dollars are spent each year to alleviate material poverty, while time poverty is often ignored or exacerbated. In this Perspective, we discuss the organisational, institutional, and psychological factors that explain why time poverty is often under appreciated. We argue that scientists, policymakers, and organisational leaders need to devote more attention and resources toward understanding and reducing time poverty to promote psychological and economic well-being.

Conventional wisdom says you should ask your colleagues for feedback. However, research suggests that feedback often has no (or even a negative) impact on our performance. This is because the feedback we receive is often too vague—it fails to highlight what we can improve on or how to improve. New research suggests a better approach. Across four experiments—including a field experiment conducted in an executive education classroom—researchers found that people received more effective input when they asked for advice rather than feedback.

Faculty & Research

Does Volunteering Improve Well-being?

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author