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.

Using a multi-method approach, we investigate whether income volatility is associated with financial impatience—the preference to receive a small sum of money immediately over a larger sum of money later. We find that experiencing more income volatility—including a higher frequency of either income dips or spikes – is associated with greater financial impatience. Using longitudinal data on biannual income, Study 1 demonstrates that this effect operates above and beyond individual differences in income risk preferences and wealth. Study 2 conceptually replicates these correlational findings with recent month-to-month income volatility and finds that this effect occurs primarily among people who report having little control over their finances. Using a longitudinal field experimental with low-income working women, Study 3 tests for a causal effect of an externally-induced spike in monthly income on changes in financial impatience. In a pre-post test experimental design, participants randomly assigned to receive cash transfers amounting to a median monthly income spike of 29% exhibit significantly greater financial impatience compared to a control condition in which participants receive no cash transfers. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for employers and policymakers.

It’s true: we have more time for leisure than we did fifty years ago. But leisure has never been less relaxing, mostly because of the disintermediating effects of our screens. Technology saves us time, but it also takes it away. This is known as the autonomy paradox. We adopt mobile technologies to gain autonomy over when and how long we work, yet, ironically, we end up working all the time. Long blocks of free time we used to enjoy are now interrupted constantly by our smart watches, phones, tablets, and laptops. This situation taxes us cognitively, and fragments our leisure time in a way that makes it hard to use this time for something that will relieve stress or make us happy. Researchers call this phenomenon time confetti, which amounts to little bits of seconds and minutes lost to unproductive multitasking. Each bit alone seems not very bad. Collectively, though, all that confetti adds up to something more pernicious than you might expect.

Autonomous products such as robotic vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, and playmates for our pets are meant to improve people’s lives—but do they actually make consumers happier? The authors share the results of recent research which found that owning autonomous products does in fact increase happiness, but with two important caveats: first, they found that consumers felt less comfortable using products with highly human-like features such as voices or names, and actually reported feeling guilty about relegating their dirty work to these products. Second, they found that if using a robotic product was associated with laziness, that could also decrease consumer happiness. Based on these findings, the authors offer several practical suggestions for how manufacturers can most effectively develop and market these time-saving products to the modern consumer.

Faculty & Research

Does Volunteering Improve Well-being?

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author