Update Article: 174

Original Title

Sanitized Title

Clean Title

Source ID

Article Id01

Article Id02

Corpus ID

Dup

Dup ID

Url

Publication Url

Download Url

Original Abstract

Mestrado Bolonha em ManagementGiven the widespread agreement that volunteer work is fundamental in today’s society, growing numbers of individuals and organizations are engaging in volunteer activities. However, it has also been recognized that different motivations and different types of volunteer work may lead to significantly different results. This study analyzed the impact of motivations to volunteer work for individuals and organizations. More specifically, we analyzed the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to volunteer work on a measure of individual well-being – flourishing - and a measure of extra-role performance in organizations – organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
Through an online survey, a sample of 270 respondents was gathered, of which 197 had undertaken volunteer work, and 73 had not undertaken volunteer work. Significant differences were found between the two groups, with volunteers having significantly lower means of altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and courtesy in an organizational context.
When analyzing the volunteer group, the motivations with the higher means were the intrinsic motivations (values, understanding, and enhancement), while those with the lower means were the extrinsic motivations, namely career, social and protective motivations. When conducting structural equations analysis with the volunteer group, the results revealed that intrinsic motivations to volunteer work tend to be positively associated with flourishing and dimensions of OCB, while extrinsic motivations tend to be negatively associated with the same variables/ dimensions. The exception is extrinsic motivation, social, which is positively associated with flourishing.
In sum, the study indicates that volunteer work itself may not be associated with individual well-being and organizational performance. Motivations to volunteer work are relevant predictors of these variables.Dado o consenso generalizado de que o voluntariado é fundamental na sociedade atual, o número de indivíduos e organizações envolvidas em atividades de voluntariado é cada vez maior. No entanto, também foi reconhecido que diferentes motivações e diferentes tipos de voluntariado podem conduzir a resultados significativamente diferentes. Este estudo analisou o impacto que as diferentes motivações para o voluntariado têm quer para os indivíduos, quer para as organizações. Mais especificamente, foi analisado o impacto que as motivações intrínsecas e extrínsecas para o voluntariado têm a nível do bem-estar individual – flourishing – e ao nível do desempenho extrafuncional nas organizações – comportamento de cidadania organizacional (CCO).
Através de um inquérito online, foi recolhida uma amostra de 270 indivíduos, dos quais 197 já tinham feito voluntariado e 73 nunca tinham realizado voluntariado. Foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre os dois grupos, sendo que os voluntários mostraram ter médias significativamente mais baixas de altruísmo, conscienciosidade, desportivismo e cortesia, num contexto organizacional.
A análise ao grupo de voluntários demonstrou que as motivações com médias mais elevadas foram as motivações intrínsecas (valores, experiência e crescimento) enquanto aquelas com médias mais baixas foram as motivações extrínsecas, nomeadamente as motivações carreira, social e protetora. Relativamente à análise das equações estruturais do grupo de voluntários, os resultados revelaram que as motivações intrínsecas para o voluntariado tendem as estar positivamente associadas ao flourishing e às dimensões do CCO, enquanto as motivações extrínsecas tendem a estar negativamente associadas às mesmas variáveis/ dimensões. A exceção é a motivação extrínseca, social, que está positivamente associada ao flourishing.
Em resumo, o estudo indicou que o voluntariado por si só pode não estar associado ao bem-estar individual e ao desempenho organizacional. As motivações para o voluntariado são preditores mais relevantes dessas variáveis.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Clean Abstract

Tags

Original Full Text

MASTER MASTER IN MANAGEMENT (MIM)    MASTER´S FINAL WORK DISSERTATION     INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATIONS TO VOLUNTEER WORK: EXPLORING THE EFFECTS FOR FLOURISHING AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR     MARIA MARGARIDA CORREIA DE JESUS        MARCH - 2024     MASTER MASTER IN MANAGEMENT (MIM)    MASTER´S FINAL WORK DISSERTATION     INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATIONS TO VOLUNTEER WORK: EXPLORING THE EFFECTS FOR FLOURISHING AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR    MARIA MARGARIDA CORREIA DE JESUS    SUPERVISION: PROFESSOR MARIA EDUARDA SOARES      MARCH - 2024  0                  To all my master’s students that started a dissertation under my supervision, but were abducted by extra-terrestrials or crossed to another dimension i  GLOSSARY AVE - Average Variance Extracted CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility OCB - Organizational Citizenship Behavior PLS - Partial Least Squares SDGs - Sustainable Development Goals SDT - Self- Determination Theory SEM - Structural Equations Modeling SPSS - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences VFI – Volunteer Functions Inventory  VIF - Variance Inflation Factor     ii  ABSTRACT Given the widespread agreement that volunteer work is fundamental in today’s society, growing numbers of individuals and organizations are engaging in volunteer activities. However, it has also been recognized that different motivations and different types of volunteer work may lead to significantly different results. This study analyzed the impact of motivations to volunteer work for individuals and organizations. More specifically, we analyzed the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to volunteer work on a measure of individual well-being – flourishing - and a measure of extra-role performance in organizations – organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Through an online survey, a sample of 270 respondents was gathered, of which 197 had undertaken volunteer work, and 73 had not undertaken volunteer work. Significant differences were found between the two groups, with volunteers having significantly lower means of altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and courtesy in an organizational context. When analyzing the volunteer group, the motivations with the higher means were the intrinsic motivations (values, understanding, and enhancement), while those with the lower means were the extrinsic motivations, namely career, social and protective motivations. When conducting structural equations analysis with the volunteer group, the results revealed that intrinsic motivations to volunteer work tend to be positively associated with flourishing and dimensions of OCB, while extrinsic motivations tend to be negatively associated with the same variables/ dimensions. The exception is extrinsic motivation, social, which is positively associated with flourishing. In sum, the study indicates that volunteer work itself may not be associated with individual well-being and organizational performance. Motivations to volunteer work are relevant predictors of these variables.  KEYWORDS: Volunteer Work; Organizational Citizenship Behavior; Flourishing; Intrinsic Motivation; Extrinsic Motivation.   iii  RESUMO Dado o consenso generalizado de que o voluntariado é fundamental na sociedade atual, o número de indivíduos e organizações envolvidas em atividades de voluntariado é cada vez maior. No entanto, também foi reconhecido que diferentes motivações e diferentes tipos de voluntariado podem conduzir a resultados significativamente diferentes. Este estudo analisou o impacto que as diferentes motivações para o voluntariado têm quer para os indivíduos, quer para as organizações. Mais especificamente, foi analisado o impacto que as motivações intrínsecas e extrínsecas para o voluntariado têm a nível do bem-estar individual – flourishing – e ao nível do desempenho extrafuncional nas organizações – comportamento de cidadania organizacional (CCO). Através de um inquérito online, foi recolhida uma amostra de 270 indivíduos, dos quais 197 já tinham feito voluntariado e 73 nunca tinham realizado voluntariado. Foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre os dois grupos, sendo que os voluntários mostraram ter médias significativamente mais baixas de altruísmo, conscienciosidade, desportivismo e cortesia, num contexto organizacional. A análise ao grupo de voluntários demonstrou que as motivações com médias mais elevadas foram as motivações intrínsecas (valores, experiência e crescimento) enquanto aquelas com médias mais baixas foram as motivações extrínsecas, nomeadamente as motivações carreira, social e protetora. Relativamente à análise das equações estruturais do grupo de voluntários, os resultados revelaram que as motivações intrínsecas para o voluntariado tendem as estar positivamente associadas ao flourishing e às dimensões do CCO, enquanto as motivações extrínsecas tendem a estar negativamente associadas às mesmas variáveis/ dimensões. A exceção é a motivação extrínseca, social, que está positivamente associada ao flourishing. Em resumo, o estudo indicou que o voluntariado por si só pode não estar associado ao bem-estar individual e ao desempenho organizacional. As motivações para o voluntariado são preditores mais relevantes dessas variáveis.  Palavras-chave: Voluntariado; Comportamento de Cidadania Organizacional; Flourishing; Motivação Intrínseca; Motivação Extrínseca.  iv    v  TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 2. Literature review ..................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Volunteer Work ............................................................................................... 4 2.1.1. Concept ..................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2. Motives for volunteer work ...................................................................... 5 2.1.3. Types of volunteer work ........................................................................... 6 2.2. Flourishing ....................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1. Concept ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2. Flourishing conceptual frameworks ......................................................... 9 2.2.3. Consequences of flourishing .................................................................. 10 2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior............................................................. 10 2.3.1. Concept ................................................................................................... 10 2.3.2. Organizational citizenship behavior dimensions .................................... 11 2.3.3. Consequences of organizational citizenship behavior ............................ 12 2.4.  Conceptual Model and Hypotheses .............................................................. 13 2.4.1. Motivations to volunteer work and flourishing ...................................... 14 2.4.2. Motivations to volunteer work and OCB ............................................... 14 3. Empirical study ..................................................................................................... 17 3.1.  Method .......................................................................................................... 17 3.1.1. Participants ......................................................................................... 17 3.1.2. Instruments ......................................................................................... 20 3.2. Results ........................................................................................................... 22 3.2.1. Mean and standard deviation in the total sample ................................... 22 3.2.2. Analysis of significant differences in sample subgroups ....................... 22  vi  3.2.3. Analysis of relationships among variables ............................................. 25 3.2.3.1.    Measurement Validity and Reliability .......................................... 26 3.2.3.2.   Model Estimation Results .............................................................. 26 3.3. Discussion of results ...................................................................................... 29 4.  Conclusions and limitations................................................................................. 29 4.1. Contributions of the study ............................................................................. 31 4.2. Limitations and Future Research ................................................................... 32 References ................................................................................................................ 34 Appendices ............................................................................................................... 39 Appendices I – Questionnaire............................................................................... 39 Appendices II – Statistical Tables ........................................................................ 45     vii  TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Conceptual Model .................................................................................... 16 Figure 2 - Structural Model ...................................................................................... 27  TABLES Table I – Descriptive Statistics and Total and Factor Reliability Analysis .............. 45 Table II – Student’s t-test: Differences by gender .................................................... 45 Table III – ANOVA test: Differences by age ........................................................... 46 Table IV – Student’s t-test: Differences by marital status ........................................ 47 Table V – Student’s t-test: Differences by if participants have children or not ....... 47 Table VI – Student’s t-test: Differences by occupation ........................................... 48 Table VII – Student’s t-test: Differences by position in the organization ................ 49 Table VIII – ANOVA test: Differences by current religious position ..................... 49 Table IX – Student’s t-test: Differences by volunteer and non-volunteers .............. 50 Table X – Student’s t-test: Differences by type of volunteer work: direct contact .. 50 Table XI – Student’s t-test: Differences by type of volunteer work: in a team ........ 51 Table XII – ANOVA test: Differences by volunteer work frequency ..................... 51 Table XIII – Means, standard deviations and standardized loadings of indicators .. 51 Table XIV – Reliability and validity measures ........................................................ 52 Table XV – Fornell and Larcker Criterion ............................................................... 53 Table XVI – Significant Direct Effects and Effect Sizes ......................................... 53  viii  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As I approach the conclusion of another significant milestone in my life, I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have played a part in its success.  Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Maria Eduarda Soares, for their unwavering guidance, invaluable insights, and continuous support throughout this dissertation. I am also profoundly grateful to my family, particularly my parents, for their patience, encouragement, and support throughout these academic years. Their unwavering belief in me has been a constant source of strength and motivation. To my friends, thank you for all the moments we spent together, for your support, motivation, and constant joy. Without you, this journey would not have been so remarkable. Lastly, thank you to ISEG for welcoming me so warmly. It has been a period of great learning and growth.1  1. INTRODUCTION Throughout the years, volunteer work has gained much importance in European countries, namely in Portugal. According to the International Labor Organization, in 2018, around 694,5 thousand Portuguese were involved in volunteering activities, meaning that around 7,8% of the Portuguese population volunteered. Compared with other developed European countries, Portugal is one of the countries where the least amount of volunteering occurs. Denmark is one of the European countries where most people participate in voluntary activities, with 33% of the population volunteering (Statistics on Volunteer Work, 2018). Indeed, volunteering occurs in every society worldwide, all guided by the same values despite possible differences in societal values or cultures (United Nations Volunteers, 2011). It is also worth highlighting the growth of volunteer activities in organizations. Leaders have been implementing corporate volunteering activities in their organizations in the scope of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs (Caligiuri et al., 2013). Corporate volunteering programs are the most widely adopted form of CSR activities deployed (Sekar & Dyaram, 2017).  Volunteer work presents several benefits for society, for organizations, and for individuals. As far as societies are concerned, volunteer work represents a fundamental form of community engagement, which yields physical and mental benefits for volunteers, delivering positive outcomes for the community (Stukas et al., 2016). In fact, volunteers stand out as key contributors to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) due to their active involvement in communities, dedication to fostering inclusivity and cohesion, and their role in facilitating the exchange of knowledge and skills among stakeholders (Haddock & Devereux, 2016). For organizations, volunteer work has significant impacts on employee engagement (Caligiuri et al., 2013) and the competitiveness, reputation and firm’s financial performance (Seara et al., 2023). Employee volunteering results in cost-savings due to increased retention and lowered absenteeism, improving the bottom line by enhancing productivity and innovation through skill development and team-building (Tschirhart, 2005).  2  People who volunteer frequently have the opportunity to learn more about other people, the world, and their own strengths, being more likely to report higher levels of well-being, particularly self-esteem, self-efficacy, social connectedness, trust and greater life satisfaction than non-volunteers (Meier & Stutzer, 2008; Stukas et al., 2016). Considering the relevance of this topic, this investigation will be focused on volunteer work, its motivations, and its consequences. In fact, different motivations lead individuals to volunteer (Clary et al., 1998), and consequently, their benefits will differ. It is, namely, analyzing the importance of volunteer work for both individuals and organizations. To study its impact on the individual’s well-being, we considered the flourishing variable,  corresponding to an all-encompassing concept that goes beyond mere happiness and that includes elements of personal growth and a more profound sense of life satisfaction (Redelinghuys et al., 2019). In fact, flourishing is synonymous with a high level of mental well-being (Huppert & So, 2013; Keyes, 2002; Ryff & Singer, 1998). At an organizational level, the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) variable was identified, since these are essential behaviors to the success of organizations and their employees (Podsakoff et al., 2014). OCB corresponds to a behavior that exceed the individual functions, contributes positively to the organization’s success, and it is not directly associated with the formal reward system (Organ, 1988). According to Podsakoff et al. (2009), the OCB positively impacts organizations, namely in terms of productivity, efficiency, profitability and customer satisfaction.  Given the framework presented, the present study aims to analyze, in the Portuguese context, (i) the main motivations that lead individuals to volunteer, (ii) if there are significant different in flourishing and OCBs between individuals who undertake volunteer activities and individuals who do not (iii) if the different motivations to volunteer have different impacts on the variables under this investigation. Thus, the main objectives are defined as follows: • Analyzing the primary motivations for volunteering and the levels of perception of flourishing and OCB in a sample of Portuguese people who have already had some work experience; • Analyzing if there are significant differences in the variables in the study among different groups of the sample (e.g., gender, age, marital status);  3  • Analyzing if there are significant differences in the variables flourishing, OCB, and its dimensions among different types of volunteer work; • Analyzing the relationships between the three variables in the study, motivations to volunteer work, flourishing and OCB. This dissertation is structured into four chapters in line with the defined objectives. The first one corresponds to this introduction, and the second is the literature review, where the concepts under study are developed, as well as the relationships established between them. Additionally, in the third chapter, the empirical study is presented, including a presentation of the method, the characterization of the sample, the instruments used, and the analysis and discussion of the results. Finally, the fourth chapter is dedicated to the study's contributions, the limitations encountered, and suggestions for future research.                4  2. LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter explores the main concepts that support this research while offering a succinct summary of pertinent literature. Specifically, it explores the concept of volunteer work, flourishing, and OCB. In the end, we will present studies that illustrate the relationships established between these concepts, serving as justification for the hypotheses formulated and the theoretical model developed. 2.1. Volunteer Work This section focuses on the concept of volunteer work. It will present the underlying motives that drive individuals to engage and participate in volunteer activities as well as the distinction between different types of volunteer work since different motivations/types of volunteer work could have different outcomes on individuals.   2.1.1. Concept  Although it is a complex concept to describe, the United Nations defines volunteer work as a range of activities, including traditional forms of mutual aid and self-help, formal service delivery and other forms of civic participation, undertaken with free will for the general public good and where monetary reward is not the principal motivating factor (United Nations Volunteers, 2011). In this way, volunteerism is a contribution to society in one form or another with no monetary compensation (Farmer & Fedor, 1999). In fact, gratuitousness and planned helpfulness are the hallmarks of volunteer work. Volunteers contribute responsibly to an institution without expecting any financial benefit or reward. Although it is unpaid, volunteer work comprises the same type of responsibilities as paid employment, namely the awareness that one volunteer's absence can invalidate an entire team's effort (Gonçalves, 2011). Additionally, volunteerism can be distinguished from spontaneous helping situations. In spontaneous help, the individual is called upon to act and help their neighbor without thinking deeply about who, where, and when to help. Instead, planned helpfulness involves processes that encourage individuals to introspectively examine their motivations as a guiding factor in determining whether they should engage in aiding, choosing opportunities for helping that align with their motivations, and sustaining their commitment to helping over extended periods (Snyder et al., 2000).   5  2.1.2. Motives for volunteer work Some researchers sought to explain the reason why people volunteered and what are their motivations to engage in volunteer work. In essence, the central interests of motivational research revolve around grasping the mechanisms that drive individuals to take action: the mechanisms that initiate, guide and sustain action (Snyder et al., 2000). According to Silverberg et al. (1999), altruistic motives are characteristic of volunteers. Basically, altruism is a contribution in time, energy, and resources to an organization with the sole intention of helping others (Gage & Thapa, 2012). While altruism is often reported as a primary motivation to volunteer, the relationship between altruism and the individuals’ motivations to volunteer remains unclear. It was observed that although individuals may give altruistic reasons for volunteering activities, it is also clear that individuals often receive extensive benefits from their volunteering activities, namely the development of business connections, as well as the building of new skills that may prove to be valuable to one’s self  (Burns et al., 2006; Bussell & Forbes, 2002). According to Johnson‐Coffey (1997), these situations correspond to “involuntary volunteering”, meaning that volunteering is seen as a legal obligation, such as citizenship requirements promoted by the governments or the participation in volunteer programs imposed by the companies where individuals work (Burns et al., 2006). To answer the question, “Why do significant numbers of people engage in the unpaid helping activities known as volunteerism?” Clary et al. (1998) developed a functional approach to volunteering, which led to considering a wide selection of personal and social motivations that promote volunteer work. According to this volunteering theory, acts of volunteering that appear to be quite similar on the surface can reflect remarkably different underlying motivational processes. Moreover, these motivations influence the dynamics of their help, influencing relevant events associated with initiating and maintaining voluntary helping behavior. Thus, these authors divide the different motivations according to their social and psychological functions potentially served by involvement in volunteer work: values function, social function, career function, understanding function, protective function, and enhancement function. This theory has been developed, and it is possible to present the following description for each function (Clary et al., 1998; Clary & Snyder, 1999; Snyder et al., 2000):  6  - The values function underlies that individuals volunteer in order to express or act on essential values, such as humanitarianism or altruism, trying to help those in need.  - The understanding function occurs when volunteers seek new learning experiences about different people, places, skills, or themselves. Thus, individuals volunteer to satisfy an intellectual curiosity about the world in general, the social world, and the self.  - The social function refers to people being thought to help not only because they want to fit in with existing social groups, but also because they want to expand their social circles. Therefore, volunteering allows individuals to strengthen their social relationships.  - The career function sustains that volunteer activity is often seen as a way to acquire and develop new skills, make professional contacts, and prepare for a future career. In this case, the volunteer aims to gain career-related experience through volunteer activities.  - In the scope of the protective function, the individual uses volunteering to reduce negative feelings or to address personal problems. Through volunteering, people may better cope with inner conflicts, anxieties, and uncertainties concerning their worth and competence.  - Finally, the enhancement function is related to the fact that volunteering allows individuals to enhance their self-esteem, focusing on personal growth and development. Through volunteer activities, individuals can grow, and develop psychologically, feeling better about themselves, either because of the excellent work that they are doing or because they need to improve themselves. Güntert et al. (2016) grouped these functions into intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivation represents the prototype of self-determined motivation since no external rewards are necessary to sustain the effort, and individuals are genuinely interested in the activities that they carry out (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Güntert et al., 2016). Thus, the values function and the understanding function are considered as intrinsic motivations. In contrast, extrinsic motivation, also known as self-regulation motivation, refers to the performance of an activity in order to attain some outcome, the activity being instrumental to some external goal (Güntert et al., 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Therefore,  7  social, career and protective functions are categorized as extrinsic motivations. While Güntert et al. (2016) consider the enhancement function as an extrinsic motivation, general motivation theories consider personal development and the possibility of growth an intrinsic motivation (e.g., Herzberg, 1968). Thus, as the enhancement function is focused on personal growth and development, it may be considered as an intrinsic motivation to volunteer work.  2.1.3. Types of volunteer work Examples of volunteer activities are evident in all sectors of society. Volunteers offer a range of services, including offering friendship to those who are isolated, teaching basic skills to those who cannot read, providing guidance to individuals facing difficulties, and delivering medical assistance to those in need (Snyder et al., 2000). Thus, it is possible to distinguish different types of volunteer work. The first distinction concerns the presence or absence of contact with those in need. According to Delicado (2002) we can distinguish between direction volunteering and execution volunteering. The first corresponds to volunteer work related to the management and control of the tasks. In contrast, the execution volunteering guarantees technical tasks, with more direct contact with the public, which in turn is more visible (Delicado, 2002).  The second distinction concerns the time dedicated to volunteer work. Marques (2016) made the distinguish between regular, occasional, and one-off volunteering. Regular volunteers carry out the activity at least once a month for at least one year, corresponding to long-term activities which are repeated regularly. Occasional volunteers carry out voluntary activities less regularly than once a month. On the other hand, one-off volunteering corresponds to volunteer work that occurs once a year, like some fundraising campaigns (Marques, 2016). The third distinction concerns the degree of formality. Parboteeah et al. (2004) state that volunteer work can be classified as formal or informal. Formal volunteer, also known as planned volunteer, is more structured, corresponding to activities that are often realized through an organization. In contrast, informal volunteer tends to be more spontaneous, as help our neighbors or family (Parboteeah et al., 2004).    8  As referred before, volunteer activities can be pursued through different institutions, namely institutions that are related to the religion, and institutions that do not have any relationship to the religion, even though many of its volunteers may follow a particular religion. Be a church membership, frequently church going, or participating in religious groups are “gateways” to volunteer activities (Rotolo & Wilson, 2012). In fact, evidence from various surveys conducted at different times and places suggests that religious individuals are more active volunteers and community participants than non-religious volunteers (Lim & MacGregor, 2012). However, this does not mean that religious volunteers only volunteer in church-related organizations.  2.2. Flourishing This section explores the concept of flourishing. In addition, it will mention the flourishing conceptual frameworks and their consequences on the day-to-day life of each individual and organization. 2.2.1. Concept  Flourishing may be defined as a comprehensive and holistic perspective on an individual’s overall quality of life. Flourishing is synonymous with a high level of mental well-being, and it epitomizes mental health (Huppert & So, 2013; Keyes, 2002; Ryff & Singer, 1998). In fact, this concept is often equated with human well-being, which undoubtedly includes mental and physical health, but also extends to embracing happiness and life satisfaction, meaning and purpose, character, and virtue, as well as social relationships (VanderWeele, 2017).  According to Keyes (2002), to be flourishing is to be filled with positive emotion and to be functioning well psychologically and socially. It is a crucial condition that any community, organization, or government would benefit from preserving and encouraging thriving among its citizens (Hone et al., 2014). The opposite is languishing, corresponding to individuals with incomplete mental health, and consequently low well-being (Keyes, 2002).  Flourishers are those individuals with both levels of hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being (Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). On the one hand, hedonic well-being incorporates subjective and emotional well-being, which, in turn, contains these three components: happiness, life satisfaction and positive-negative affect balance  9  (Diener, 1984). On the other hand, eudaimonic well-being corresponds to psychological well-being, which equates to positive functioning, emphasizing a life of purpose, meaning, and fulfilment (Ryff & Singer, 1998). This perspective was popularized by Aristotle, who states that eudaimonia is the highest human good and is achieved through developing and exercising one’s virtues and capacities (Disabato et al., 2016; Ryff & Singer, 2008). In this way, we can conclude that flourishing is an all-encompassing concept that includes elements of personal growth and a more profound sense of life satisfaction, namely in terms of personal and family life, as well as in professional life.  In this context arises the concept of flourishing in work (Redelinghuys et al., 2019). Flourishing at work refers to the desired well-being state of an employee, attained through positive experiences and the efficient management of all factors that are related to work (Rautenbach, 2015). On a global scale, governments are progressively acknowledging the importance of assessing flourishing as a metric of progress (Huppert & So, 2013). According to Huppert and So (2013), identifying the characteristics of individuals, groups and populations that contribute to high levels of flourishing can provide a basis for health promoters and policymakers to increase people’s ability to flourish. 2.2.2. Flourishing conceptual frameworks The first contemporary use of flourishing was by Corey Keys, who categorized flourish individuals as being free of mental disorders, moderately mentally healthy and not languishing (Keyes, 2002). Huppert and So of the University of Cambridge took this definition a step further by refining it and constructing a framework for understanding flourishing, alongside their contributions to the development of the European Social Survey, to conduct the first cross-national epidemiological studies of flourishing (Huppert & So, 2013). They have done a definition of flourishing, in parallel to the well-being theory. Thus, to flourish, an individual must have all the core features, which are positive emotions, engagement, and purpose, as well as three of the six additional features, corresponding to self-esteem, optimism, resilience, vitality, self-determination, and positive relationships (Huppert & So, 2013).  10  Later, Diener et al. (2010) developed the Flourishing Scale, which corresponds to a measure of psychological functioning designed to complement other measures of subjective well-being. Firstly, the scale was called Psychological Well-being. However, the name was changed to more accurately reflect this scale's content. In fact, this scale measures the respondent's perceived success in essential areas, namely relationships, self-esteem, purpose, and optimism (Diener et al., 2010). 2.2.3. Consequences of flourishing Flourishing people are more motivated and healthier, producing better and more effective business results (Seligman, 2011). On one hand, when employees flourish, their desire to give up work decreases while their performance increases (Redelinghuys et al., 2019). On the other hand, their commitment will be higher, lowering the risk of turnover (McHugh, 2001).  In fact, flourishing stimulates creativity and contextual performance at work, developing an intrinsic motivation in employees to contribute to the workplace and community by being actively engaged at work (Demerouti et al., 2015).  Redelinghuys et al. (2019) identified a significant relationship between three critical concepts: the intention to leave, in-role performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, when individuals flourish at work, they should be less likely to think about leaving the organization and perform better both inside and outside the job description (Redelinghuys et al., 2019). Additionally, flourishers are characterized by higher levels of conscientiousness and extraversion, setting challenging goals for themselves, and maintaining the necessary discipline to achieve their goals (Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). 2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior This section explores the concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). It will mention the OCB conceptual dimensions, as well as the OCB consequences on individual and organizational outcomes. 2.3.1. Concept  The concept of OCB was originated by Organ (1988) who defined it as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward  11  system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”. Organ based this concept on earlier distinctions made by Katz (1964), in the scope of in-role and extra-role behaviors of the employees in the organizations (Katz, 1964 cit in De Geus et al., 2020). In essence, OCB represents an individual behavior that is beneficial to the organization but not directly recognized by the formal reward system (Emami et al., 2012).  Since their introduction into the literature, the interest in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) has grown substantially. However, a significant portion of the first empirical studies conducted in this domain were aimed at the individual level of analysis. More recently, researchers have focused on identifying the results of group-level or unit-level OCBs, since OCBs are important to the success of organizations, and the people that work in them (Podsakoff et al., 2014). Consequently, Organ revises the first OCB definition, stating that OCB is “performance that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place” (Organ, 1997, p. 95 cit in Podsakoff et al., 2009). This revised definition has the advantage of avoids some of the difficulty with viewing OCBs as discretionary behavior for which an individual might not receive formal rewards (Podsakoff et al., 2009).  Therefore, OCB represents the informal modes of collaboration and contributions, such as helping coworkers, volunteering for projects, taking on nonrequired duties or staying late (Organ et al., 2006 cit in Bolino et al., 2023; Organ, 2018).  2.3.2. Organizational citizenship behavior dimensions Over the years, there are several ways in which OCBs have been conceptualized. Organ (1988) proposed a five-factor OCB model, which includes the following factors: altruism, which refers to discretionary behaviors that have the effect of helping other person with an organizational task/problem; conscientiousness, referring to discretionary behaviors on the part of the employee which goes beyond the minimum requirements of their job, namely in areas of attendance, obeying rules, and taking breaks; sportsmanship, corresponding to the willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining; courtesy, which refers to discretionary behavior on the part of the employee aimed at preventing work-related problems with other from occurring; and finally, civic virtue, which corresponds to a behavior on the part of an individual who  12  shows concern and involvement in the running of the company. Subsequently, the author expanded this model including two more dimensions, which are peacekeeping and cheerleading (Organ, 1988 cit in Podsakoff et al., 2009). Podsakoff and colleagues (1990) were among the first to operationalize Organ's proposed five dimensions (LePine et al., 2002).  Williams and Anderson (1991) organized OCBs into two categories: behaviors directed toward the benefit of other individuals (OCBI) and behaviors directed toward the benefit of the organization (OCBO). The first dimension mentioned immediately benefits specific individuals and consequently positively impacts the organization, such as helping absent individuals. In contrast, the OCBO directly benefits the organization by, for example, giving advance notice when unable to come to work (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Relating these two conceptualizations presented by Organ (1988), and Williams and Anderson (1991), the most common forms of citizenship behavior identified as OCBI are altruism and courtesy, while the most common types of OCBO are civic virtue, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness (Podsakoff et al., 2014). 2.3.3. Consequences of organizational citizenship behavior OCB is expected to have effects on individual-level outcomes as well as on organizational outcomes. At the individual level, Podsakoff et al. (2009) concluded that OCB positively affects employee performance ratings and reward allocation decisions. In contrast, OCB is negatively related to turnover intentions and absenteeism. At the organizational level, OCB is positively associated with various organizational effectiveness measures and customer satisfaction, meaning that organizations with citizenship behaviors are more productive, efficient, and profitable, reducing turnover levels. These conclusions show us the importance that citizenship behaviors should have to scholars and organizational managers (Podsakoff et al., 2009). According to Ma et al. (2016), OCB impacts continuance commitment, perceived workplace social inclusion, and positive emotions, representing employees’ disposition and affectivity. Additionally, extra-role performance enhances work group attractiveness and cohesiveness, decreasing the voluntary turnover (George & Bettenhausen, 1990). An example of it are the employees who exhibit high levels of sportsmanship or civic virtue  13  are likely to develop closer relationships with their supervisors and consequently be less likely to leave the organization voluntarily (MacKenzie et al., 1998).  Indeed, promoting OCBs could result in a win-win scenario for both employees and the organization. Encouraging employees to “go above and beyond” their job requirements could improve the organization’s service quality, since employees are happier at work with higher levels of emotional and social well-being (Ma et al., 2016). However, Bolino and Turnley (2005) studied the possibility that engaging in citizenship behavior could negatively affect the well-being of employees. Being an excellent organizational citizen could increase employee stress and overload, and have other personal costs, such as work-family conflict. Therefore, managers may need to find ways to motivate their employees to perform OCBs and simultaneously take actions that reduce the stresses and strains associated with being a good organizational citizen (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). 2.4.  Conceptual Model and Hypotheses This section will present the hypotheses developed in this study. These hypotheses are related to the relationship between motivations to volunteer work, flourishing and OCB, resulting in the conceptual model used in the empirical study. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) developed by Deci and Ryan (1985) explains why some motives are more strongly related to favorable outcomes than others. This theory also distinguishes distinct dimensions of motivation regarding the distinct goals or reasons giving rise to an action. The most fundamental difference is between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).  Taking this into account, SDT offers a framework to categorize the motivations to volunteer work proposed in this study, into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Four motivations are categorized as intrinsic motivations, which are values, understanding, enhancement, and religious motives. The remaining three volunteer functions are categorized as extrinsic motives, corresponding to social, career, and protective motivations.  Thus, throughout this study, we will consider the above motives’ classification in order to understand their relationship with flourishing and OCB.  14  2.4.1. Motivations to volunteer work and flourishing Previous investigations have shown that people oriented toward intrinsic goals have been associated with greater well-being, when compared to extrinsically oriented people. Indeed, intrinsically oriented individuals that engage in such behaviors for autonomous reasons, showing conviction and interest, obtain more experiences satisfying their psychological needs, demonstrating greater adjustment and satisfaction. In contrast, extrinsically oriented people have unsatisfying experiences characterized by pressure, tension, and irritation (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Sheldon & Kasser, 1998). Thus, it demonstrates that self-determined and intrinsic motives influence the impact of life attainments on well-being (Sheldon & Kasser, 1998). As the concept of flourishing is often equated with human well-being, including mental and physical health, the following hypotheses can be presented: H1: Intrinsic motives for volunteer work are positively associated with flourishing. H1a: Values motives for volunteer work are positively associated with flourishing. H1b: Understanding motives for volunteer work are positively associated with flourishing. H1c: Religious motives for volunteer work are positively associated with flourishing. H1d: Enhancement motives for volunteer work are positively associated with flourishing. H2: Extrinsic motives for volunteer work are negatively associated with flourishing. H2a: Career motives for volunteer work are negatively associated with flourishing. H2b: Protective motives for volunteer work are negatively associated with flourishing. H2c: Social motives for volunteer work are negatively associated with flourishing. 2.4.2. Motivations to volunteer work and OCB Volunteer work and OCB are similar concepts relating to their defining characteristics. Essentially, both involve discretionary and intentional actions, requiring a conscious decision to support other individuals and organizations (Lavelle, 2010).   15  Finkelstein (2011) suggests that OCB types and motives partly derive from individual differences in motivational orientation. Indeed, intrinsically motivated individuals demonstrate other-oriented motives for OCB, while those with extrinsic orientations were driven by external and self-focused objectives (Finkelstein, 2011). Extrinsically motivated workers seek to satisfy career advancement objectives, considering all the rewards that may accrue from OCBs' performance. In contrast, intrinsically oriented individuals engage in an activity, including OCB, because they find reward in the behavior itself (Finkelstein, 2011). In this sense, the following hypotheses can be presented: H3: Intrinsic motives for volunteer work are positively associated with each of the five dimensions of OCB. H3a: Values motives for volunteer work are positively associated with each of the five dimensions of OCB. H3b: Understanding motives for volunteer work are positively associated with each of the five dimensions of OCB. H3c: Religious motives for volunteer work are positively associated with each of the five dimensions of OCB. H3d: Enhancement motives for volunteer work are positively associated with each of the five dimensions of OCB. H4: Extrinsic motives for volunteer work are negatively associated with each of the five dimensions of OCB. H4a: Career motives for volunteer work are negatively associated with each of the five dimensions of OCB. H4b: Protective motives for volunteer work are negatively associated with each of the five dimensions of OCB. H4c: Social motives for volunteer work are negatively associated with each of the five dimensions of OCB. In summary, considering the literature review presented and the formulated hypotheses, the following conceptual model is presented (Figure 1).  16         Figure 1 - Conceptual Model                17  3. EMPIRICAL STUDY 3.1. Method This study used a questionnaire survey developed and made available for online completion on the Qualtrics platform, with an approximate response duration of 10 minutes. Its dissemination was carried out using social media, namely WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, during the months of December 2023 and January 2024. The target audience for this questionnaire was all people who are currently in the labor market, as well as all those who have been in it, namely retired and unemployed people. The sample is characterized as convenient and non-probabilistic. To analyze the collected data, a statistical treatment was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software and SmartPLS (Smart Least Squares). 3.1.1. Participants The sample of this study consists of 270 valid answers. However, 3 of those surveyed preferred not to answer the section regarding sociodemographic data (1,1%). In terms of gender, 175 individuals are female, representing the majority of the participants, around 64,8%, and 91 participants are male (33,7%). One of the participants selected the option “I prefer not to answer” (0,4%). Regarding age, the most representative age group is 18 to 25 years with 98 answers (35,6%), followed by 41 to 50 years with a total of 66 answers (24,4%), then those with age between 51 and 60 years, constituting 52 answers (19,8%), then those aged 31 to 40 years, corresponding to 27 individuals (10%), followed by those with age between 26 and 30 years, with 14 answers (5,2%), and finally, those over 60 years old, corresponding to 12 individuals (4,4%). Thus, the average age of the sample is 39 years old. In terms of marital status, 127 individuals are single (47%), and 140 are non-single (53%), including married, cohabiting, divorced and widow individuals. Additionally, 123 individuals said they have children (45,6%), and the remaining 144 have not children (53,3%). Of the 123 people who have children, the majority said that their youngest son's age is over 18 years old, corresponding to 54 answers (20%). The youngest son of 20  18  participants is less than 6 years old (7,4%) and 39 individuals answered that his/her youngest son is between 7 and 18 years old (18,2%).  Relating the academic qualifications, 133 participants hold a bachelor's or undergraduate degree (49,3%), 76 have a master´s degree or completed postgraduate studies (28,1%), and 9 individuals have obtained a PhD (3,3%). The qualifications equivalent to high school education (12th grade) or lower correspond to a 17,4% of the sample, with 40 individuals having completed high school education (14,8%) and 7 people having completed basic education (9th grade) (2,6%). In terms of occupation, full time employed individuals held the most representative category, with 185 answers (around 68,5%), followed by working students with 48 answers (17,8%). Additionally, those who are not working (unemployed individuals) and those who are retired represented 1,5% (4 participants) and 2,2% (6 participants) of the sample, respectively. There were 24 individuals that had selected the option "other" (8,9%). Regarding the individuals that are working, and about the hierarchical level occupied in the organization, 112 individuals represent skilled professionals (41,5%), followed by 24 highly skilled professionals (8,9%) and 5 nonskilled professionals (1,9%). 30 participants are trainees, representing 11,1% of the sample. Furthermore, 54 individuals (20%) hold a management/ responsibility role for others, being top managers (5,6%), middle managers (7,4%) or teem supervisor (7%). Relating to the district of residence, most of the respondents live in Braga, corresponding to 91 individuals (33,7%), followed by 69 participants who live in Porto (25,6%) and 66 who live in Lisboa (24,4%). The remaining live in other Portuguese districts since only one participant lives abroad (0,4%) and one at Região Autónoma dos Açores (0,4%). Finally, in terms of current religious position, 191 participants answered by being catholic (70,7%), corresponding to the most significative part of the sample. Additionally, 21 individuals are atheist (7,8%), 16 answered that they are believers but do not have a religion (5,9%), 14 participants are agnostic (5,2%), and only 1participant is evangelist (0,4%). The remaining participants are either indifferent (5,2%) or have another Christian (0,7%) or non- Christian religion (0,7%).  19  Through this questionnaire, we found that 197 participants have already volunteered (73%) and 73 have never volunteered (27%). Relating to the ones that have already participate in volunteer activities, 44 have done this at ReFood (22,3%), 32 at Jornadas Mundiais da Juventude (16,3%) and 152 have done volunteer in other institutions, such as Banco Alimentar Contra a Fome, Corpo Nacional de Escutas or Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. Additionally, only 25 participants answered that their volunteer activity was integrated into a company’s project (9,3%), so 172 individuals answered no (63,7%). Considering the five options given related to volunteer work characteristics, 105 participants selected the option “I have direct contact with people who benefit from volunteer work” (52,3%); 74 individuals answered that the volunteer activity they carried out is done without contact with the beneficiaries (37,6%); 66 said that they had contact with people who make donations to volunteer activities (33,5%); 158 state that they did volunteer activities in a team, with other volunteers (80,20%); and, lastly, 25 selected the option “My volunteer work is/was carried out individually” (12,7%). In terms of frequency that volunteers carry out volunteer activities actually, 6 do volunteer work daily (3,0%), 33 weekly (16,8%), 14 monthly (7,1%), 50 occasionally (25,4%), and the majority said that they do not do volunteer work, but they did in the past, corresponding to 94 answers (47,7%). Relating to the question about how long volunteers have been doing this activity, 36 participants stated that they started over ten years ago (18,3%), 25 started 3 to 5 years ago (12,7%), 18 have been doing it for 1 to 2 years (9,1%), 13 started 5 to 10 years ago (6,6%), and only 8 participants have been doing it less than one year (4,1%). Related to the ones that did volunteer activities in the past, the majority of participants had done it weekly, corresponding to 59 answers (29,9%), followed by 57 individuals that had done it occasionally (28,9%), then the 47 participants that did volunteer work only for a specific period of time (23,9%). 23 participants had done volunteer work monthly (11,7%) and only 7 individuals had done it daily (3,6%). Four participants selected the option “other” (2%). Lastly, in terms of the area/s that the participants have done volunteer work, 155 of them selected the option “social action” (78,68%), corresponding to the area that most participants have done volunteer activities, followed by the “education” area, with 63  20  answers (31,98%), then option “elderly”, with 40 selections (20,30%), and “environment” area, with 30 answers (15,23%). 29 participants selected the option “health” (14,72%), 20 individuals the option “science and culture" (10,15%), 11 “ethnic minorities/immigration”, and only 3 the “justice” area (1,52%). 23 participants selected the option “other” (11,67%). 3.1.2. Instruments The questionnaire used (Appendix I) starts with a question which aims to determine if the participant has already done volunteer work or not. For the ones who have already done volunteer work, the questionnaire includes five groups, corresponding to a first group about the characteristics of the volunteer work they did, followed by three groups related to the variables under the study (motivations to volunteer work, flourishing, and OCB), and a final group of ten questions related to sociodemographic data. The ones that have not yet done volunteer work, the questionnaire includes three groups. The first two groups related to two variables in study (flourishing, and OCB), and the final one about the sociodemographic data. For all scales, a 7-point Likert Scale was used, where 1 corresponded to “strongly disagree”/ “not all important” and 7 means “strongly agree”/ “extremely important”. To verify the internal consistency of the scales used, the reliability analysis was conducted using Cronbach’s Alpha (α), which ranges from 0 to 1. Reliability is considered adequate when α ≥ 0,70 (Field, 2013).  With the aim to understand and assessing the motivations of volunteers , we used the Volunteer Functions Inventory developed by Clary et al. (1998), and translated to Portuguese by Gonçalves (2011). This questionnaire is constituted by 30 items, divided into six motivational dimensions, which are values (items 3, 9, 17, 20, and 24), understanding (items 13, 15, 19, 27 and 33), social (items 2, 4, 7, 18, and 25), career (items 1, 11, 16, 22, and 31), enhancement (items 5, 14, 28, 30, and 32), and protective (items 8, 10, 12, 21, and 26). In order to complete this analysis, one more motivational dimension, religion, with four more items (items 6, 23, 29, and 34), was added by the author of this study. Relating to the reliability analysis (Table I), the Cronbach’s Alpha is α = 0,924, and all items exhibit a correlation with the scale greater than 0,2. The factor religion is the one that has the highest Cronbach’s Alpha (α = 0,891), followed by the  21  career (α = 0,864), understanding (α = 0,857), social (α = 0,807), protective (α = 0,806), values (α = 0,750), and finally, enhancement (α = 0,715). Regarding to the variable flourishing, the Flourishing Scale by Diener and colleagues (2010) was adopted, translated to Portuguese by Silva and Caetano (2013) (cit in Ferreira, 2019). This scale is constituted by eight items, and it was found a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = 0,877 (Table I). Any item shows a correlation with the scale of less than 0,2. To evaluate the variable OCB, we used the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale developed by  Podsakoff and colleagues (1990), translated to Portuguese by Henriques et al. (2014) (cit in Barradas, 2013). This scale evaluates altruism (items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), conscientiousness (items 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12), civic virtue (items 10, 16, 17, and 18), courtesy (11, 12, 13, 14, and 15), and sportsmanship (items 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24). Relating to the reliability analysis (Table I), the Cronbach’s Alpha is α = 0,870, and all items exhibit a correlation with the scale greater than 0,2. The dimension with the highest value of the Cronbach’s Alpha is sportsmanship, with an α = 0,850, followed by altruism (α = 0,833), courtesy (α = 0,762), consciousness (α = 0,692), and civic virtue (α = 0,609). The section focused on the volunteer work characterization is constituted by seven questions related to the type of volunteer work the participants had done, the institutions where they volunteered, the frequency that they did this activity, and the areas in which they carried out volunteer activities. The last part of the questionnaire was dedicated to questions related to participants characterization, namely in terms of gender, age, district of residence, marital status, if they have children or not, and the age of the youngest’s son, academic qualifications, occupation, hierarchical level in the organization, and religion.     22  3.2. Results 3.2.1. Mean and standard deviation in the total sample After verifying the reliability of the scales, the mean of each variable in the total sample was calculated. As a seven-point Likert scale was used for all variables, the theoretical midpoint is 4. The results can be observed in Table I. Firstly, it is essential to note that all study variables exhibit a mean value in the total sample higher than the theoretical midpoint, particularly emphasizing the flourishing variable (5,691). Secondly, the variable OCB emerges (5,673), verifying that all the dimensions, except sportsmanship (2,649), exhibit a mean higher than the theoretical midpoint in the total sample. Among the dimensions that have a mean in the total sample higher than the theoretical midpoint, altruism has the highest value (5,922), followed by courtesy (5,907), then civic virtue (5,741), and lastly, conscientiousness (5,458). As far as motivations to volunteer work are concerned, the dimension values is the one that exhibit the highest total sample mean value (5,835), followed by understanding (5,346) and enhancement (4,578). The remaining four dimensions have a mean value in the total value lower than the theoretical midpoint, specifically the dimensions social (3,793), career (2,808), protective (3,128), and religion (3,775). 3.2.2. Analysis of significant differences in sample subgroups To analyze the significant differences in the subgroups of the sample, we realized the ANOVA variance test, which is suitable for comparing three or more groups, namely age, academic qualifications, and occupation, and the student’s t-test, applied to compare the mean of two groups, such as marital status and gender. Differences between groups are considered significant when the significance value (ρ) is lower than 0,05 (ρ ≤ 0,05). Given that there is 95% certainty of significant differences between subgroups of the sample (Marôco, 2018). Firstly, related to the sociodemographic variable gender (Table II), there are significative differences in these five motivations to volunteer work: values (ρ=0,003), protective (ρ=0,012), enhancement (ρ=0,008), understanding (ρ=0,008), and religion (ρ=0,021), in which female participants have a higher mean than male individuals. There  23  are significative differences in the variable OCB (ρ=0,031), specifically in the dimensions of conscientiousness (ρ=0,027), and courtesy (ρ=0,005), with the dimensions’ means higher in female participants than in male individuals. Related to the age variable (Table III), there are significant differences in these dimensions of volunteer work: career (ρ<0,001), social (ρ=0,004), protective (ρ=0,045) and understanding (ρ=0,001). On average, these motivations to volunteer are higher in the individuals between 18 and 25 years old, followed by the individuals aged 26 to 50. The lowest mean was the participants over 50 years old. Additionally, there are significant differences in the OCB variable (ρ<0,001), namely in the dimensions of conscientiousness (ρ<0,001), civic virtue (ρ<0,001), and courtesy (ρ=0,004). We verified that the individuals over 50 years old have a higher OCB mean (5,874), as well as in its referred dimensions, compared to the participants aged between 18 and 25 with the lowest OCB mean (5,493).  Considering the marital status (Table IV), there are significant differences in the dimensions: career (ρ<0,001), social (ρ=0,009), protective (ρ=0,005), and understanding (ρ=0,014), in which the mean of each dimension is higher in the single participants when compared to the non-single participants. There are significant differences in the variable OCB (ρ<0,001), in which the non-single individuals registered a higher OCB mean (5,836), than the single participants (5,507). All the dimensions of the OCB variable registered significant differences between single and non-single individuals, except the dimension sportsmanship: altruism (ρ=0,006), conscientiousness (ρ<0,001), civic virtue (ρ<0,001), and courtesy (ρ=0,001). In all of them, mean is higher in non-single participants than in single individuals. About whether or not the participants have children (Table V), there are significant differences in the variables flourishing (ρ=0,017) and OCB (ρ<0,001). The individuals who have children have a higher mean of flourishing (5,820) and OCB (5,875) when compared to the participants who have not children, who have the lowest mean of flourishing (5,601) and OCB (5,512). Once again, it was verified that all the dimensions of the OCB variable registered significant differences between people who have children and the people who have not children, except the dimension sportsmanship: altruism (ρ=0,008), conscientiousness (ρ<0,001), civic virtue (ρ<0,001), and courtesy (ρ<0,001).  24  In these dimensions, the mean is higher in the people who have children than in the people who have not children. Additionally, there are significant differences in these two dimensions of motivations to volunteer work: career (ρ<0,001), and protective (ρ=0,049). People who have not children registered a higher mean in both dimensions. Regarding the variable occupation (Table VI), significant differences exist in the following motivations to volunteer work: career (ρ=0,049), protective (ρ=0,017), understanding (ρ=0,021), and religion (ρ=0,025). In all of them, people who are not working have a higher mean than the people who are working. There are significant differences in the OCB (ρ=0,026) variable, demonstrating that individuals who are working have a higher OCB mean (5,709) that the individuals who are not working (5,476). Only the dimension sportsmanship (ρ=0,018) had significant differences in the variable OCB, with the people who are not working registering the highest mean. Related to the position in the organization variable (Table VII), all the dimensions of the motivations to volunteer variable registered significant differences between people in a managerial position and people in a non-managerial position, except the dimension values: career (ρ<0,001), social (ρ=0,004), protective (ρ=0,005), enhancement (ρ=0,002), understanding (ρ=0,004), and religion (ρ=0,042), in which the mean is highest in the participants who are not in a managerial position. The variable OCB also registered significant differences (ρ=0,006), in which participants who are not in a managerial position have a higher mean (5,650) than individuals in a managerial position (5,597). Only the OCB variable’s dimensions of conscientiousness (ρ=0,008) and civic virtue (ρ=0,003) verified significant differences, with the participants in a managerial position registering the highest mean. Considering the current religious position of the participants (Table VIII), significant differences were identified in the dimensions: values (ρ<0,037) and religion (ρ<0,001) of the motivations to volunteer work. Catholic individuals have the highest mean in the dimension of religion (4,290), contrasting to the non-Catholics (1,805), who have the lowest mean in this dimension. The dimension values registered the highest mean in non-Catholics (6,078), followed by Catholics (5,901), and then non-believers (5,508). Additionally, there are significant differences in the other two variables in the study: flourishing (ρ=0,024) and OCB (ρ=0,017). We can observe the highest mean in the  25  participants that are not catholic to flourishing (5,817) and OCB (5,777) variables, followed by the catholic individuals to flourishing (5,765) and OCB (5,765). The category with the lowest mean is non-believers for the two referred variables: flourishing (5,411) and OCB (5,442). Only the OCB’s dimension of conscientiousness has significant differences (ρ=0,004), in which individuals who are not Catholic have the highest mean (5,654), compared to the non-believers participants who registered the lowest mean (5,065). Regarding the remaining sociodemographic variables, district of residence, and academic qualifications, no significant differences were identified in any of the variables and dimensions under this study. Taking into account the differences between volunteers and non-volunteers (Table IX), there are significant differences in the following dimensions of the variable OCB: altruism (ρ=0,018), conscientiousness (ρ<0,001), sportsmanship (ρ=0,012), and courtesy (ρ=0,003). Non-volunteers registered the highest mean in all the dimensions referred, when compared to volunteers. In order to better understand the significant differences among the volunteers, we consider the ones who have direct contact with those in need, those who do volunteer work in a team, and the frequency that they volunteer. Thus, considering the direct volunteer (Table X), we verified significant differences in these two dimensions of OCB: conscientiousness (ρ=0,004) and courtesy (ρ=0,037). In both, the volunteers who do not have contact with those in need registered a higher mean than those with direct contact.  Relating to the case that volunteer work is done in a team (Table XI), there are significant differences in the dimension sportsmanship of OCB (ρ=0,015), in which the ones that do not volunteer in a team registered the highest mean (2,980). In terms of the frequency that individuals volunteer (Table XII), we verified significant differences in the dimension conscientiousness (ρ=0,018), in which the ones that volunteer daily registered the highest mean (6,333), followed by the ones that volunteer occasionally (5,420), weekly (5,1697), and then monthly (4,871). 3.2.3. Analysis of relationships among variables  We chose Structural Equations Modelling (SEM) to test the hypotheses under study and conducted data analysis with SmartPLS (Partial Least Squares), version 3.0. Items  26  that presented poor reliability (loadings below 0,6) were excluded from the analysis. Table XIII shows the final items that will be used for each construct, as well as their means, standard deviations, and loadings. 3.2.3.1.    Measurement Validity and Reliability As far as reliability is concerned, all composite reliabilities for latent variables are above the acceptable internal consistency level of 0,7 (Hair et al., 2021) (Table XIV). The standardized loadings of indicators are all larger than 0,6, which also confirms indicator reliability (Table XIII) (Hair et al., 2021). Subsequently, we analyzed the convergent and discriminant validity. The average variance extracted (AVE) by each latent variable exceeds the threshold of 0,5 (Table XIV) indicating a high convergent validity and that the constructs are unidimensional (Hair et al., 2021). To complement the analysis of convergent validity, the bootstrap t-statistics was calculated (Table XIV) of the indicator’s standardized loadings (Hair et al., 2021). They were significant at the 1 percent significance level, suggesting a high convergent validity of the measurement model. To check the discriminant validity, the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion was used, which consist in compare the square root of the AVE with the correlations for each pair of latent variables. As Table XV shows, the square roots of the AVE for all pairs are higher than the correlations. Thus, we can conclude that each latent variable shares more variance with its own measurement than with other constructs, which is evidence of discriminant validity. Additionally, we tested the possibility of common method bias since it may affect the study validity. For that, the full collinearity assessment approach of Kock was used (Kock, 2015). All the variance inflation factor (VIF) values were lower than 5,0 threshold, suggesting that the model is free from common method bias. 3.2.3.2.   Model Estimation Results In order to test the research hypotheses, we proceeded with the analysis of the structural model (Henseler et al., 2009). As some of the path coefficients presented a t-value below 1,96 (ρ>0,05), they were, thus, deleted. Figure 2 depicts the final structural model.  27  Table XVI shows all significant direct effects in the model and the effect sizes, resulting from performing the bootstrapping technique. Of all the relationships previously established between variables and/or dimensions, fifteen proved to be significant. Thus, the enhancement motive for volunteer work has a positive effect on each dimension of OCB, except in sportsmanship, as proposed by the hypothesis H3d. Results also show that the protective motive for volunteer work has a negative effect on flourishing and on four dimensions of OCB (altruism, civic virtue, courtesy, and sportsmanship), validating hypothesis H2b, and part of hypothesis H4b, respectively. Furthermore, the values motive for volunteer work has a positive effect on all the dimensions of OCB, except on the dimension of civic virtue and on flourishing, corroborating hypotheses H3a and H1a, respectively. Finally, the social motive for volunteer work has a positive effect on flourishing, which is not supported by the hypothesis H2c. According to Cohen (1985), effect sizes are weak for 𝑓𝑓2 = 0,02,  moderate for 𝑓𝑓2 =0,15, and strong for 𝑓𝑓2 = 0,35. Thus, a weak effect was verified in all the hypotheses, except in the relationship between the protective motivation and the sportsmanship dimension, which has a moderate effect. Additionally, it was analyzed the coefficient of determination (𝑅𝑅2) of the endogenous constructs in order to evaluate the explanatory power of the model (Hair et al., 2021). The model explains 26,6% of variance for flourishing, 16,8% of variance for altruism, 22% of variance for courtesy, 11,7% of variance for conscientiousness, 32,8% of variance for sportsmanship, and, finally, 11,8% of variance for civic virtue.          28                 Figure 2 - Structural Model           29   3.3. Discussion of results The results indicate that intrinsic motivations, namely values, understanding, and enhancement motivations, are the ones that present the highest means, indicating that they are the most important reasons why people volunteer. This result is in accordance with the authors' proposal that volunteers' primary motivation is the intention of helping others and less to obtain personal benefit (e.g., Gage & Thapa, 2012; Silverberg et al., 1999). The analysis of differences between volunteers and non-volunteers yielded results that are at odds with the literature. While several authors propose that volunteer work may lead to higher well-being of volunteers (e.g., Meier & Stutzer, 2008; Stukas et al., 2016) no significant differences were found between volunteers and non-volunteers for flourishing. Moreover, while previous research indicates that volunteer work may lead to higher performance and other organizational benefits (e.g., Caligiuri et al., 2013; Tschirhart, 2005), the results show that, when compared with non-volunteers, volunteers present lower means in four dimensions of OCB, namely altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and courtesy. The structural equations analysis indicates that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to volunteer work have different consequences, as proposed in the conceptual model. However, only some of the hypotheses developed in the conceptual model proved significant, so some relationships were not proven. Intrinsic motivations, namely enhancement and values motivations to volunteer work, tend to be positively associated with the different dimensions of OCB, as Finkelstein (2011) proposed. In addition, as previous investigations have shown that people oriented toward intrinsic goals have greater well-being (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Sheldon & Kasser, 1998), this study also shows that values motivations are positively associated with flourishing. Social motivation is also positively associated with flourishing, which contradicts predictions for extrinsic motivations. However, some authors have recognized that social relationships developed through volunteer work provide enrichment and vitality that helps individuals grow, thrive, and flourish, even though the developed conceptual model does not foresee it (Dutton & Ragins, 2007).  30  By contrast, extrinsic motivations, such as protective motivations, are negatively associated with flourishing and OCB dimensions.  It is therefore possible that when people carry out volunteer activities to reduce negative feelings or address personal problems, they will have unsatisfying experiences characterized by pressure and irritation (Sheldon & Kasser, 1998), resulting in lower levels of flourishing. In parallel, these extrinsically orientated people will be more focused on their own objectives, which is negatively associated with the performance of OCBs (Finkelstein, 2011).  Finally, some volunteer work motivations - career, religious, understanding - do not present significant associations with flourishing and OCB. It may be due to the specific characteristics of the sample. For example, it includes young participants whose career motivations are relevant and older participants whose career motivations do not make sense. Thus, a multigroup analysis may reveal a significant association for younger participants but not older ones. Unfortunately, the sample size did not allow for this multigroup analysis. In addition, it would be interesting to conduct interviews to analyze why these three volunteer work motivations do not significantly correlate with well-being and extra-role performance.              31  4.  CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 4.1. Contributions of the study Regarding the study’s contributions, it is feasible to differentiate between theoretical and practical contributions. Relating to the first ones, it is noteworthy that no studies analyze the proposed variables for investigation, as presented in the developed conceptual model. Although Mellor and colleagues (2009) have investigated the relationship between volunteering and personal well-being, each volunteer work function’s impact on flourishing had never been studied before, knowing that flourishing goes beyond mere happiness and includes a more profound sense of life satisfaction. The association between the functions of volunteer work and OCB started to be studied by Lavelle (2010), who identified five relevant motives (values, career, understanding, social, and enhancement)  in the volunteerism literature related to OCB. However, only a parallelism between the different dimensions was identified when categorizing these behaviors as similar to volunteer work. Therefore, the author suggested the investigation of the relationships identified for future research. In fact, this is what this dissertation added to the literature since it has studied the relationship that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to volunteer work established with the OCB’s dimensions, understanding their impact on both organizations and employees. In terms of practical contributions, the present study highlighted the importance of studying the different motivations that lead individuals to volunteer instead of studying volunteer work as a whole. Therefore, this research allowed us to conclude that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to volunteer work have different consequences for individuals. Firstly, people who volunteer to enhance their self-esteem, focusing on their personal growth and development, will have altruistic, conscientiousness, courtesy, and civic virtue behaviors at an organizational level. These individuals will be more prone to helping colleagues with a task, going beyond the minimum requirements of their job, and showing concern and involvement in the company's running while aiming to prevent work-related problems. Secondly, people who see volunteering as a way to reduce negative feelings or address personal problems are less sensitive to implementing OCBs, reflecting lower levels of life satisfaction and happiness. Thirdly, the ones who volunteer to express or act  32  on essential values, trying to help those in need, demonstrate, as expected, higher levels of flourishing directly related to superior physical and mental health. In turn, these individuals exhibit altruistic, conscientious, courteous, and sportsmanship behaviors, leading them to tolerate less-than-ideal circumstances without complaining. Lastly, the individuals who participate in volunteer activities with the extrinsic motivation of creating new friendships and expanding their social circles demonstrate higher levels of flourishing. In fact, volunteer work relationships are expected to be a source of enrichment and vitality that helps individuals grow, thrive and flourish, even though the developed conceptual model does not foresee it (Dutton & Ragins, 2007). This study provides essential guidance to all the leaders and managers who frequently think about increasing employees' performance and satisfaction, consequently leading to a stronger connection with the organization. Encouraging employees to "go above and beyond" their job requirements could be seen as a problematic purpose to achieve; however, this study has shown that different activities can be implemented by all companies, from small to large. Indeed, promoting and carrying out volunteer work activities is a way of achieving specific strategic objectives for a company, as long as employees do so for intrinsic reasons. Therefore, it is suggested that organizations start implementing corporate volunteerism practices, in the scope of their corporate social responsibility programs, since only 9,3% of this study’s participants stated that they had volunteered as a part of a company project. Additionally, promoting and participating in social and volunteering activities is one of the ways for companies to have a more enriched sustainable development agenda with more easily attainable goals. Volunteer work can undoubtedly be seen as a win-win situation, with mutual benefits for those who engage in it and, of course, for those who directly benefit from it. 4.2. Limitations and Future Research During this research, several limitations were identified. On the one hand, the convenience sampling method creates restrictions regarding its representativeness. The results only relate to Portuguese people, making the sample insufficiently representative. Furthermore, there is a notable imbalance in the number of responses from male and female participants, as well as in the number of participants per district of residence. Thus, in future research, it will be essential to have a higher number of answers in each response  33  category so that there is no need to regroup categories, making the number of answers more homogeneous.  On the other hand, as it was only a quantitative study, there is an absence of an explanation for the nonsignificant relationships (i.e. H1c and H4a). Therefore, through conducting interviews, a qualitative study will be relevant for clarifying this aspect and for enabling more detailed interpretations of the collected information. Thirdly, it will be interesting to analyze the model developed considering different generations, namely generations X, Y and Z. In fact, the way the different generations see volunteer work is entirely different, as well as the motivations that lead each generation to volunteer. Additionally, now these generations share the same workplace, so it may be relevant to identify significant differences, especially in terms of OCB. As another limitation, we can highlight the imbalance of responses between those who have already volunteered and those who have never volunteered, so we should have had a more homogenous sample to draw better conclusions from this study. In a future investigation, I suggest focusing only on individuals who have already volunteered, allowing a more detailed characterization of their volunteer activities. In future research, it will be interesting to investigate the sub-effects of flourishing on OCB, concluding that if the flourishers put into practice more organizational citizenship behaviors compared to those with lower levels of flourishing.      34  REFERENCES Barradas, C. S. G. (2013). Preditores da virtuosidade organizacional. Um estudo no 3o setor [Master Thesis, Universidade de Lisboa]. https://www.repository.utl.pt/bitstream/10400.5/5894/1/DM-CSGB-2013.pdf Bolino, M. C., Flores, M. L., Kelemen, T. K., & Bisel, R. S. (2023). May I Please Go the Extra Mile? Citizenship Communication Strategies and Their Effect on Individual Initiative OCB, Work–Family Conflict, and Partner Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 66(3), 894–925. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.0581 Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The Personal Costs of Citizenship Behavior: The Relationship Between Individual Initiative and Role Overload, Job Stress, and Work-Family Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.740 Burns, D. J., Reid, J. S., Toncar, M., Fawcett, J., & Anderson, C. (2006). Motivations to volunteer: The role of altruism. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 3(2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02893621 Bussell, H., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.183 Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win–Win–Win: The Influence of Company‐Sponsored Volunteerism Programs on Employees, NGOs, and Business Units. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 825–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12019 Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The Motivations to Volunteer: Theoretical and Practical Considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00037 Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516–1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516 Cohen, J. (1985). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Revised ed). Academic Press. De Geus, C. J. C., Ingrams, A., Tummers, L., & Pandey, S. K. (2020). Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Public Sector: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Public Administration Review, 80(2), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13141 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Gevers, J. M. P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001 Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New Well-being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive and Negative Feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000209 Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.). (2007). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  35  Emami, M., Alizadeh, Z., Nazari, K., & Darvishi, S. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9). Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1999). Volunteer Participation and Withdrawal. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(4), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.9402 Ferreira, A. S. (2019). Florescimento, Satisfação com a Vida e seus correlatos em Idosos [Master Thesis, Universidade Fernando Pessoa]. https://bdigital.ufp.pt/bitstream/10284/8162/1/DM_Anabela%20Ferreira.pdf Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (4th edition). Sage. Finkelstein, M. A. (2011). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and organizational citizenship behavior: A functional approach to organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 2(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpoc.20054 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 Gage, R. L., & Thapa, B. (2012). Volunteer Motivations and Constraints Among College Students: Analysis of the Volunteer Function Inventory and Leisure Constraints Models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011406738 George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 698–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.698 Gonçalves, E. C. (2011). Caracterização do voluntariado hospitalar em contexto oncológico: Relação com as funções motivacionais, o bem-estar psicológico e a qualidade de vida [Master Thesis, Universidade de Aveiro]. https://ria.ua.pt/handle/10773/7583 Güntert, S. T., Strubel, I. T., Kals, E., & Wehner, T. (2016). The quality of volunteers’ motives: Integrating the functional approach and self-determination theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156(3), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1135864 Haddock, M., & Devereux, P. (2016). Measuring the Contribution of Volunteering to the Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges and Opportunities. Voluntaris, 4(1), 68–100. https://doi.org/10.5771/2196-3886-2016-1-68 Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. E. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of Market Research (pp. 1–47). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-2 Henriques, P., Werbel, J., & Curado, C. (2014). Leader’s Human Capital as an Alternative for Relational Leadership. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 10, 560–574. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in International Marketing (Vol. 20, pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014 Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees (Vol. 65). Harvard Business Review 46, 53-62. Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1), 62–90. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v4i1.4 Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. C. (2013). Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7  36  Johnson‐Coffey, G. C. (1997). Trends in volunteerism. The Bottom Line, 10(2), 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/08880459710162984 Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further Examining the American Dream: Differential Correlates of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223006 Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The Mental Health Continuum: From Languishing to Flourishing in Life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197 Kock, N. (2015). Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101 Lavelle, J. J. (2010). What motivates OCB? Insights from the volunteerism literature. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 918–923. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.644 LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52 Lim, C., & MacGregor, C. A. (2012). Religion and Volunteering in Context: Disentangling the Contextual Effects of Religion on Voluntary Behavior. American Sociological Review, 77(5), 747–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412457875 Ma, E., Qu, H., & Wilson, M. (2016). The Affective and Dispositional Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 40(4), 399–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348013503991 MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some Possible Antecedents and Consequences of In-Role and Extra-Role Salesperson Performance. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200306 Marôco, J. (2018). Análise Estatística com o SPSS Statistics.: 7a edição. ReportNumber, Lda. Marques, Maria. (2016). As motivações para o voluntariado. Estudo exploratório numa amostra de estudantes do ensino superior politécnico [Master Thesis, Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra]. https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/14831/1/MARIA_MARQUES.pdf McHugh, M. (2001). Employee absence: An impediment to organisational health in local government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550110387066 Meier, S., & Stutzer, A. (2008). Is Volunteering Rewarding in Itself? Economica, 75(297), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2007.00597.x Mellor, D., Hayashi, Y., Stokes, M., Firth, L., Lake, L., Staples, M., Chambers, S., & Cummins, R. (2009). Volunteering and Its Relationship With Personal and Neighborhood Well-Being. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1), 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008317971 Oliveira Delicado, A. I. (2002). Caracterização do voluntariado social em Portugal. https://doi.org/10.34628/VDB0-D730 Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington books/DC heath and com. Organ, D. W. (2018). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Recent Trends and Developments. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104536 Parboteeah, K. P., Cullen, J. B., & Lim, L. (2004). Formal volunteering: A cross-national test. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2004.08.007 Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T. M. (2014). Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research: CONSEQUENCES OF UNIT-LEVEL OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S87–S119. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1911  37  Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 Rautenbach, C.-L. (2015). Flourishing of employees in a fast moving consumable goods environment [PhD Thesis, Vanderbijlpark Campus of the North-West University]. https://dspace.nwu.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10394/17030/Rautenbach_C-L.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1 Redelinghuys, K., Rothmann, S., & Botha, E. (2019). Flourishing-at-Work: The Role of Positive Organizational Practices. Psychological Reports, 122(2), 609–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118757935 Rotolo, T., & Wilson, J. (2012). State-Level Differences in Volunteerism in the United States: Research Based on Demographic, Institutional, and Cultural Macrolevel Theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 452–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011412383 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The Contours of Positive Human Health. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0901_1 Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know Thyself and Become What You Are: A Eudaimonic Approach to Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0 Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Pieterse, M. E., Drossaert, C. H. C., Westerhof, G. J., De Graaf, R., Ten Have, M., Walburg, J. A., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2016). What Factors are Associated with Flourishing? Results from a Large Representative National Sample. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(4), 1351–1370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9647-3 Seara, M., Proença, T., & Ferreira, M. R. (2023). Do corporate social responsibility practices have an impact on employer attractiveness – an approach to corporate volunteering programs. European Journal of Management and Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-02-2022-0041 Sekar, S., & Dyaram, L. (2017). What drives employees to participate in corporate volunteering programs? Social Responsibility Journal, 13(4), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2017-0097 Seligman, M. (2010). Flourish: Positive psychology and positive interventions. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 31(4), 1–56. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being (1. Free Press hardcover ed). Free Press. Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing Personal Goals: Skills Enable Progress, but Not all Progress is Beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1319–1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982412006 Silva, A. J., & Caetano, A. (2013). Validation of the Flourishing Scale and Scale of Positive and Negative Experience in Portugal. Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9938-y Silverberg, K., Ellis, G., Backman, K., & Backman, S. (1999). An identification and explication of a typology of public parks and recreation volunteers. World Leisure & Recreation, 41(2), 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10261133.1999.9674148 Snyder, M., E. Gil Clary, & Stukas, A. (2000). The functional approach to volunteerism. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2008.6083  38  Statistics on volunteer work. (2018). ILOSTAT. https://ilostat.ilo.org/topics/volunteer-work/ Stukas, A. A., Hoye, R., Nicholson, M., Brown, K. M., & Aisbett, L. (2016). Motivations to Volunteer and Their Associations With Volunteers’ Well-Being. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014561122 Tschirhart, M. (2005). Employee Volunteers Programs. In Brudney, Jeffrey L. (Ed.), Emerging areas of volunteering (Vol. 1, pp. 13–30). Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA). https://ellisarchive.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/ARNOVA-Occasional-Paper-Series-Emerging-Areas-of-Volunteering.pdf United Nations Volunteers. (2011). State of the World’s Volunteerism Report. Universal Values for Global Well-Being. United Nations Development Programme. https://www.unv.org/sites/default/files/2011%20State%20of%20the%20World%27s%20Volunteerism%20Report%20-%20Universal%20Values%20for%20Global%20Well-being.pdf VanderWeele, T. J. (2017). On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(31), 8148–8156. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702996114 Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305 39  APPENDICES Appendices I – Questionnaire     The present study is part of a master’s dissertation that I am conducting at ISEG – Lisbon School of Economics & Management, University of Lisbon. I appreciate your collaboration, which is essential for the completion of this work. Study Objective: The main objective is to analyze the motivations behind volunteering and their respective personal and professional consequences. If you have never engaged in any volunteering activity, you can still respond to this questionnaire. Procedures: The questionnaire consists of various statements, to which you will need to indicate your agreement on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means "Strongly Disagree" and 7 means "Strongly Agree". At the end, you will be asked to provide some sociodemographic data, such as age and level of education. Estimated Duration: The completion of the questionnaire is expected to take approximately 10 minutes. Confidentiality: The information you provide during this study will be treated with confidentiality. The study does not disclose any data that could identify the participant. There will be no questions asking for identification, or any element that compromises anonymity. Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Please note that you are free to not participate or to stop participating at any time before submitting your responses. Right to Withdraw from the Study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, without penalties. How to Withdraw from the Study: If you wish to withdraw from the study, simply click on the "Close" button on Qualtrics. If you have any questions about the study or need to report a problem related to it, please contact: Margarida Jesus, l58339@aln.iseg.ulisboa.pt       40  Introduction Have you ever done any volunteer work? o Yes o No Part I – Volunteer Work 1. Which institution/s do/did you volunteer at? o ReFood o Jornadas Mundiais da Juventude o Other. Which? 2. Is the volunteering you have done part of a company project? o Yes o No 3. Of the following options, please indicate the one/s that apply to the volunteer work you do/have done: o I have direct contact with people who benefit from volunteer work (e.g. people who receive food from ReFood; JMJ pilgrims) o My volunteer work is/was preparation, organization or support work, without contact with the beneficiaries. o I have/had contact with people who make donations to volunteer activities (e.g. partners of the volunteer work). o My volunteer work is/was carried out in a team, with other volunteers. o My volunteer work is/was carried out individually. 4. How often do you currently volunteer? o Daily o Weekly (1-6 times per week) o Monthly (1-3 times per month) o Occasionally (1-11 times per year) o I don’t currently volunteer, but I did in the past 5. If you currently volunteer, how long have been doing this activity? o Less than 1 year o 1 to 2 years o 3 to 5 years  o 5 to 10 years o More than 10 years o I don’t currently volunteer 6. If you volunteered in the past, how often did you do it? o Daily o Weekly (1-6 times per week) o Monthly (1-3 times per month) o Occasionally (1-11 times per year) o It wasn’t regular, it was for a specific period of time (e.g. summer activity; international volunteering for a few months) o Other 7. In which areas do/did you carry out volunteer activities?  41  o Education o Social Action o Environment o Science and Culture o Health o Justice/Peace o Ethnic Minorities/Immigration o Elderly o Other. Which? Part II – Volunteer Work Motivations The following statements express possible reasons why individuals decide to volunteer. Using the 1-7 scale below, in which 1 means “not at all important” and 7 means “extremely important”.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Volunteering can help me to get my foot in the door at a place where I would like to work.               2. My friends volunteer.               3. I am concerned about those less fortunate than myself.               4. People I'm close to want me to volunteer.               5. Volunteering makes me feel important.               6. Volunteering is in accordance with the principles of my religion.        7. People I know share an interest in community service.               8. No matter how bad I've been feeling volunteering helps me to forget about it.               9. I am genuinely concerned about the particular group I am serving.               10. By volunteering I feel less lonely.               11. I can make new contacts that might help my business or career.               12. Doing volunteer work relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than others.               13. I can learn more about the cause for which I am working.               14. Volunteering increases my self-esteem.               15. Volunteering allows me to gain a new perspective on things.               16. Volunteering allows me to explore different career options.               17. I feel compassion toward people in need.               18. Others with whom I am close place a high value on community service.               19. Volunteering lets me learn things through direct, hands on experience.               20. I feel it is important to help others.               21. Volunteering helps me work through by own personal problems.               22. Volunteering will help me to succeed in my chosen profession.               23. Volunteering makes me feel like I’m acting in accordance with the teachings of my religion.        24. I can do something for a cause that is important to me.               25. Volunteering is an important activity to the people I know best.               26. Volunteering is a good escape from my own troubles.               27. I can learn to deal with a variety of people.               28. Volunteering makes me feel needed.               29. Volunteering helps me create new friendship with people who share the same religion as me.        30. Volunteering makes me feel better about myself.               31. Volunteering experience will look good on my résumé.                42  Part III – Flourishing The following statements aim to analyze your perception of your personal life. Using the 1-7 scale below, in which 1 means “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree”. Part IV – Organizational Citizenship Behavior The following statements aim to analyze your perception of your professional life. Using the 1-7 scale below, in which 1 means “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree”.   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Helps orient new people even though it is not required.               2. Is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/ her.               3. Willingly helps others who have work related problems.               4. Helps others who have heavy work loads.               5. Helps others who have been absent.               6. Is one of the most conscientious employees               7. Believes in giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.               8. Does not take extra breaks.               9. Attendance at work is above the norm.               10. Attends functions that are not required but help the company image.               11. Tries to avoid creating problems for coworkers.               12. Obeys company rules and regulations even when no one is watching.               13. Considers the impact of his/her actions on coworkers.               14. Takes steps to try prevent problems with other workers.               15. Does not abuse the rights of others.               16. Keeps abreast of changes in the organization.               17. Attends meetings that are not mandatory but are considered important.               18. Reads and keeps up with organization announcements, memos and so on.               19. Is mindful of how his/her behavior affects other people's job.               20. Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.        21. Always finds fault with what the organization is doing.               22. Is the classic "squeaky wheel" that always needs greasing.                1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Volunteering is a way to make new friends.               33. I can explore my own strengths.        34. Volunteering makes me feel integrated into a group of people who share my religion.          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. I lead a purposeful and meaningful life.               2. My social relationships are supportive and rewarding.               3. I am engaged and interested in my daily activities.               4. I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others.               5. I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me.               6. I am a good person and live a good life.               7. I am optimistic about the future.               8. People respect me.                43   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Tends to make "mountains out of molehills".               24. Always focuses on what's wrong, rather than the positive side.               Part V – Sociodemographic data 1. Gender: o Female o Male o Other o I prefer not to answer 2. Age: o 18 to 25 years old o 26 to 30 years old o 31 to 40 years old o 41 to 50 years old o 51 to 60 years old o Over 60 years old 3. Marital Status: o Single o Married/ Cohabiting  o Divorced/ Separated o Widowed o Other 4. Do you have children? o Yes o No 5. If you answered “yes” to the previous question, how old is your youngest son? If not, go on to the next question. o Under 6 years old o 7 to 10 years old o 11 to 14 years old o 15 to 18 years old o Over 18 years old 6. Academic qualifications: o Basic Education (9th grade) o High School Education (12th grade) o Undergraduate degree o Master’s degree or postgraduate  o PhD 7. Occupation: o Working Student o Employed  o Unemployed o Retired o Other  44  8. If you are working, what position do you hold in your organization? o Top manager o Middle manager o Team supervisor o Highly skilled professional o Skilled professional o Non-skilled professional o Trainee o Other 9. District of residence: o Aveiro o Beja o Braga o Bragança o Castelo Branco o Coimbra o Évora o Faro o Guarda o Leiria o Lisboa o Portalegre o Porto o Santarém o Setúbal o Viana do Castelo o Vila Real o Viseu o Other 10. What is your current religion position? o I’m believer, but I don´t have a religion o I’m indifferent o I’m agnostic o I’m atheist o Catholic o Evangelist o Other Protestant o Orthodox o Muslim o Jehovah’s Witness o Universal Church of the Kingdom of God o Manna church o Other Christian religion o Other non-Christian religion     45  Appendices II – Statistical Tables Table I – Descriptive Statistics and Total and Factor Reliability Analysis     N Mean Standard Deviation Cronbach's Alpha Motivations Volunteer Work Values 197 5,835 0,942 0,750  Social 197 3,793 1,374 0,807  Understanding 197 5,346 1,220 0,857  Career 197 2,808 1,478 0,864  Protective 197 3,128 1,339 0,806  Enhancement 197 4,578 1,220 0,715  Religion  197 3,775 1,884 0,891   Total 197 4,192 0,937 0,924 Flourishing         Total 270 5,691 0,850 0,877             OCB Altruism 270 5,922 0,839 0,833  Conscientiousness 270 5,458 0,946 0,692  Sportsmanship 270 2,649 1,230 0,850  Civic Virtue 270 5,741 0,854 0,609  Courtesy 270 5,907 0,813 0,762   Total 270 5,673 0,653 0,870 Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)  Table II – Student’s t-test: Differences by gender     N Mean Z Sig. Motivations to volunteer work   Values Female 126 5,978 3,185 0,003  Male 69 5,594   Total 195   Protective Female 126 3,283 0,006 0,012  Male 69 2,835   Total 195   Enhancement Female 126 4,744 0,287 0,008  Male 69 4,316   Total 195   Understanding Female 126 5,510 0,011 0,008  Male 69 5,070   Total 195   Religion Female 126 3,986 0,000 0,021  Male 69 3,413   Total 195   OCB Female 175 5,739 9,143 0,031  Male 91 5,571   Total 266          46  Conscientiousness Female 175 5,550  3,919  0,027  Male 91 5,306   Total 266   Courtesy Female 175 6,007 9,507 0,005  Male 91 5,717   Total 266   Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)  Table III – ANOVA test: Differences by age     N Mean Z Sig.  Motivations to volunteer work      Career 18 to 25 years old 91 3,468 22,202 <0,001  26 to 50 years old 70 2,329  Over 50 years old 35 1,989   Total 196 2,797 Social  18 to 25 years old 91 4,103 5,81 0,004  26 to 50 years old 70 3,649  Over 50 years old 35 3,240   Total 196 3,787 Protective 18 to 25 years old 91 3,301 3,163 0,045  26 to 50 years old 70 3,120  Over 50 years old 35 2,640   Total 196 3,118 Understanding 18 to 25 years old 91 5,679 6,777 0,001  26 to 50 years old 70 5,011  Over 50 years old 35 5,160   Total 196 5,348 OCB 18 to 25 years old 96 5,493 7,423 <0,001  26 to 50 years old 107 5,730  Over 50 years old 64 5,874   Total 267 5,679 Conscientiousness 18 to 25 years old 96 5,123 12,229 <0,001  26 to 50 years old 107 5,544  Over 50 years old 64 5,822   Total 267 5,459 Civic Virtue 18 to 25 years old 96 5,490 7,345 <0,001  26 to 50 years old 107 5,811  Over 50 years old 64 5,977   Total 267 5,735 Courtesy 18 to 25 years old 96 5,704 5,523 0,004  26 to 50 years old 107 5,957  Over 50 years old 64 6,119   Total 267 5,905 Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)     47  Table IV – Student’s t-test: Differences by marital status   N Mean Z Sig. Motivations to volunteer work      Career Single 113 3,258 5,793 <0,001  Non-Single 83 2,169   Total 196  Social  Single 113 3,9841 0,059 0,009  Non-Single 83 3,518   Total 196  Protective Single 113 3,327 1,997 0,005  Non-Single 83 2,834   Total 196  Understanding Single 113 5,512 2,178 0,014  Non-Single 83 5,125   Total 196  OCB Single 127 5,507 0,926 <0,001  Non-Single 140 5,836   Total 267  Altruism Single 127 5,789 0,032 0,006  Non-Single 140 6,044   Total 267  Conscientiousness Single 127 5,189 1,852 <0,001  Non-Single 140 5,704   Total 267  Civic Virtue Single 127 5,514 1,683 <0,001  Non-Single 140 5,936  Total 267  Courtesy Single 127 5,745 0,268 0,001  Non-Single 140 6,050   Total 267   Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)   Table V – Student’s t-test: Differences by if participants have children or not    N Mean Z Sig. Motivations to volunteer work         Career They've children 72 2,189 2,853 <0,001  No children 124 3,150   Total 196  Protective They've children 72 2,911 2,143 0,049  No children 124 3,239   Total 196  Flourishing They've children 123 5,820 0,734 0,017  No children 144 5,601   Total 267         48  OCB They've children 123 5,875  1,332  <0,001  No children 144 5,512   Total 267  Altruism They've children 123 6,057 0,499 0,008  No children 144 5,808   Total 267  Conscientiousness They've children 123 5,790 6,964 <0,001  No children 144 5,176   Total 267  Civic Virtue They've children 123 5,963 0,741 <0,001  No children 144 5,540  Total 267  Courtesy They've children 123 6,142 2,349 <0,001  No children 144 5,703   Total 267   Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)   Table VI – Student’s t-test: Differences by occupation      N Mean Z Sig. Motivations to volunteer work       Career Working 166 2,723 1,198 0,049  Not Working 30 3,207   Total 196  Protective Working 166 3,033 2,162 0,017  Not Working 30 3,593   Total 196  Understanding Working 166 5,272 0,186 0,021  Not Working 30 5,767   Total 196  Religion Working 166 3,657 0,138 0,025  Not Working 30 4,392   Total 196  OCB Working 233 5,709 1,868 0,026  Not Working 34 5,476   Total 267  Sportsmanship Working 233 2,572 0,886 0,018  Not Working 34 2,912   Total 267   Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)       49  Table VII – Student’s t-test: Differences by position in the organization     N Mean Z Sig. Motivations to volunteer work       Career Managerial 38 1,947 4,566 <0,001  Non-Managerial  131 2,876   Total 169  Social  Managerial 38 3,2053 0,225 0,004  Non-Managerial  131 3,866   Total 169  Protective Managerial 38 2,558 0,004 0,005  Non-Managerial  131 3,168   Total 169  Enhancement Managerial 38 4,032 2,037 0,002  Non-Managerial  131 4,667   Total 169  Understanding Managerial 38 4,800 0,031 0,004  Non-Managerial  131 5,397   Total 169  Religion Managerial 38 3,178 1,277 0,042  Non-Managerial  131 3,771   Total 169  OCB Managerial 54 5,597 0,749 0,006  Non-Managerial  184 5,650   Total 238  Conscientiousness Managerial 54 5,763 0,371 0,008  Non-Managerial  184 5,102   Total 238  Civic Virtue Managerial 54 6,056 0,016 0,003  Non-Managerial  184 5,696   Total 238   Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)  Table VIII – ANOVA test: Differences by current religious position     N Mean Z Sig.  Motivations to volunteer work      Values Catholic  139 5,901 3,365 0,037  Non-Believer 39 5,508  Others 18 6,078   Total 196 5,839 Religion Catholic  139 4,290 30,156 <0,001  Non-Believer 39 1,962  Others 18 1,805   Total 196 3,769                    50  Flourishing Catholic  191 5,765   3,782   0,024  Non-Believer 49 5,411  Others 26 5,817   Total 266 5,705 OCB Catholic  191 5,728 4,138 0,017  Non-Believer 49 5,442  Others 26 5,777   Total 266 5,680 Conscientiousness Catholic  191 5,535 5,621 0,004  Non-Believer 49 5,065  Others 26 5,654   Total 266 5,460  Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)  Table IX – Student’s t-test: Differences by volunteer and non-volunteers     N Mean Z Sig. OCB           Altruism Volunteers 197 5,857 2,653 0,018  Non-Volunteers 73 6,099   Total 270   Conscientiousness Volunteers 197 5,340 0,881 <0,001  Non-Volunteers 73 5,775   Total 270   Sportmanship Volunteers 197 2,546 2,595 0,012  Non-Volunteers 73 2,926   Total 270   Courtesy Volunteers 197 5,837 10,106 0,003  Non-Volunteers 73 6,096   Total 270   Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)  Table X – Student’s t-test: Differences by type of volunteer work: direct contact     N Mean Z Sig. OCB      Conscientiousness Direct contact 105 5,175 2,422 0,004  No direct contact 92 5,528   Total 197   Courtesy Direct contact 105 5,733 0,878 0,037  No direct contact 92 5,954   Total 197   Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)      51  Table XI – Student’s t-test: Differences by type of volunteer work: in a team     N Mean Z Sig. OCB         Sportsmanship In a team 105 2,439 3,955 0,015  Not in a team 92 2,980   Total 197   Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)  Table XII – ANOVA test: Differences by volunteer work frequency     N Mean Z Sig. OCB           Conscientiousness Daily 6 6,333 3,040 0,018  Weekly  33 5,170  Monthly  14 4,871  Occasionally 50 5,420  Past 94 5,364   Total  197 5,340 Source: Own elaboration (SPSS)  Table XIII – Means, standard deviations and standardized loadings of indicators Construct Item Mean Stardard Deviation Loading t-test p-value Motivations to volunteer work Career V_Career2 2,462 1,690 0,858 27,325 0,00 V_Career3 2,858 1,768 0,796 17,590 0,00 V_Career4 2,756 1,825 0,812 18,605 0,00 V_Career5 3,315 2,008 0,863 31,179 0,00 Motivations to volunteer work Social V_Social1 3,223 1,713 0,691 5,217 0,00 V_Social3 4,401 1,697 0,789 8,707 0,00 V_Social4 3,995 1,859 0,873 8,619 0,00 V_Social5 3,797 1,890 0,816 11,452 0,00 Motivations to volunteer work Values V_Values1 6,071 1,215 0,807 18,163 0,00 V_Values2 5,518 1,490 0,734 13,095 0,00 V_Values4 6,426 0,972 0,832 21,307 0,00 V_Values5 5,726 1,398 0,744 13,784 0,00 Motivations to volunteer work Protective V_Protective3 2,416 1,567 0,81 16,720 0,00 V_Protective5 2,447 1,650 0,905 30,884 0,00 Motivations to volunteer work Understanding V_Understanding1 5,030 1,677 0,749 12,726 0,00 V_Understanding2 5,817 1,320 0,815 17,402 0,00 V_Understanding3 5,569 1,375 0,858 28,612 0,00 V_Understanding4 5,254 1,608 0,748 9,955 0,00 V_Understanding5 5,061 1,617 0,810 16,623 0,00              52  Motivations to volunteer work Enhancement V_Enhancement3 5,670 1,424 0,873 22,623 0,00 V_Enhancement4 5,330 1,494 0,877 24,348 0,00 Motivations to volunteer work Religion V_Religion1 4,234 2,225 0,848 12,283 0,00 V_Religion2 4,183 2,232 0,896 14,153 0,00 V_Religion3 3,117 2,065 0,877 11,600 0,00 V_Religion4 3,569 2,128 0,853 10,965 0,00 Flourishing F1 5,759 1,207 0,752 15,200 0,00 F2 5,641 1,183 0,671 12,289 0,00 F3 5,733 1,178 0,777 19,845 0,00 F4 5,693 1,091 0,724 16,462 0,00 F5 5,826 1,016 0,689 12,079 0,00 F6 5,822 1,050 0,739 15,026 0,00 F7 5,415 1,349 0,765 18,678 0,00 F8 5,644 1,148 0,716 16,238 0,00 OCB Altruism OCB_Altruism1 5,852 1,161 0,760 19,026 0,00 OCB_Altruism2 6,144 0,934 0,861 28,456 0,00 OCB_Altruism3 5,696 1,338 0,654 8,556 0,00 OCB_Altruism4 5,981 0,975 0,873 30,071 0,00 OCB_Altruism5 5,937 0,939 0,842 26,842 0,00 OCB Conscientiousness OCB_Conscient1 6,378 1,081 0,704 7,741  OCB_Conscient2 5,207 1,633 0,698 7,997 0,00 OCB_Conscient3 4,567 1,754 0,656 6,747 0,00 OCB_Conscient5 5,437 1,212 0,736 11,584 0,00 OCB Sportsmanship OCB_Sportsmanship1 5,930 1,409 0,814 21,591 0,00 OCB_Sportsmanship2 5,333 1,568 0,793 19,582 0,00 OCB_Sportsmanship3 5,033 1,679 0,855 45,520 0,00 OCB_Sportsmanship4 5,348 1,634 0,782 16,464 0,00 OCB_Sportsmanship5 5,111 1,454 0,718 12,271 0,00 OCB Civic Virtue OCB_CivicV1 5,922 1,150 0,777 13,502 0,00 OCB_CivicV3 5,715 1,335 0,727 8,781 0,00 OCB_CivicV4 6,007 0,954 0,864 25,166 0,00 OCB Courtesy OCB_Courtesy1 6,374 0,987 0,829 21,098 0,00 OCB_Courtesy2 5,385 1,333 0,649 8,176 0,00 OCB_Courtesy3 6,267 0,900 0,854 32,271 0,00 OCB_Courtesy4 5,726 1,167 0,765 10,995 0,00  Source: Own elaboration (SmartPLS) Table XIV – Reliability and validity measures  Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE) MVW - Career 0,900 0,693 MVW - Social 0,872 0,632 MVW - Values 0,861 0,609 MVW - Protective 0,848 0,737 MVW - Understanding 0,897 0,636 MVW - Enhancement 0,867 0,765 MVW - Religion 0,925 0,755  53  Source: Own elaboration (SmartPLS)  Table XV – Fornell and Larcker Criterion Source: Own elaboration (SmartPLS)  Table XVI – Significant Direct Effects and Effect Sizes Hypotheses β f2 p-value t-value Enhancement -> Altruism 0,151 0,019 0,069 1,820 Enhancement -> Civic Virtue 0,277 0,081 0,000 3,910 Enhancement -> Conscientiousness 0,304 0,090 0,001 3,469 Enhancement -> Courtesy 0,250 0,054 0,001 3,231 Protective -> Flourishing -0,317 0,122 0,000 4,772 Protective -> Altruism -0,214 0,048 0,005 2,826 Protective -> Civic Virtue -0,291 0,089 0,000 4,258 Protective -> Courtesy -0,242 0,065 0,002 3,144 Protective -> Sportsmanship -0,458 0,310 0,000 6,974 Social -> Flourishing 0,294 0,101 0,000 4,082 Values -> Flourishing 0,290 0,108 0,000 4,042 Values -> Altruism 0,266 0,062 0,001 3,419 Values -> Conscientiousness 0,223 0,049 0,006 2,742 Values -> Courtesy 0,247 0,057 0,004 2,915 Values -> Sportsmanship 0,310 0,142 0,001 3,384  Source: Own elaboration (SmartPLS)  Flourishing 0,901 0,533 OCB - Altruism 0,899 0,643 OCB - Conscientiousness 0,792 0,489 OCB - Sportsmanship 0,895 0,630 OCB - Civic Virtue 0,833 0,626 OCB - Courtesy 0,859 0,606 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)(1) Flourishing 0,730(2) OCB - Altruism 0,418 0,802(3) OCB - Civic Virtue 0,478 0,573 0,791(4) OCB - Conscientiousness 0,273 0,465 0,506 0,699(5) OCB - Courtesy 0,408 0,580 0,650 0,583 0,778(6) OCB - Sportsmanship 0,298 0,220 0,236 0,072 0,315 0,794(7) MVW - Career 0,062 -0,062 -0,081 0,027 -0,111 -0,296 0,833(8) MVW - Enhancement 0,201 0,222 0,199 0,407 0,302 0,076 0,196 0,875(9) MVW - Protective -0,251 -0,188 -0,216 0,077 -0,193 -0,480 0,523 0,270 0,859(10) MVW - Religion 0,229 0,025 0,022 0,095 0,026 -0,104 0,247 0,324 0,209 0,869(11) MVW - Social  0,250 -0,029 0,042 0,018 -0,035 -0,145 0,583 0,245 0,313 0,513 0,795(12) MVW - Understanding 0,264 0,153 0,151 0,184 0,231 0,123 0,340 0,581 0,150 0,341 0,413 0,797(13) MVW - Values 0,377 0,354 0,221 0,364 0,384 0,344 0,005 0,476 -0,073 0,244 0,187 0,550 0,780

Clean Full Text

Language

Doi

Arxiv

Mag

Acl

Pmid

Pmcid

Pub Date

Pub Year

Journal Name

Journal Volume

Journal Page

Publication Types

Tldr

Tldr Version

Generated Tldr

Search Term Used

Reference Count

Citation Count

Influential Citation Count

Last Update

Status

Aws Job

Last Checked

Modified

Created