Motivations to Volunteer (MTV)

Abstract

The Motivations to Volunteer (MTV) scale, developed by Ram A. Cnaan and Robin S. Goldberg-Glen in 1991, represents a seminal psychometric instrument designed to capture the diverse psychological, social, and functional drivers underpinning voluntary human service participation. Synthesizing over two decades of theoretical and empirical inquiries across voluntary action research, social psychology, and organizational sociology, Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen consolidated 28 discrete motivation statements that had historically appeared in disparate research literatures. The instrument asks respondents to indicate their level of endorsement using a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Historically, scholar perspectives had bifurcated volunteer motives into strict dichotomies—most notably altruism versus egoism—or splintered them into triadic categories encompassing material, solidary, and purposive incentives. Through extensive exploratory factor analysis, principal components analysis, and reliability testing on a large cross-sectional sample of human service volunteers and non-volunteers, Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen arrived at the controversial and groundbreaking unidimensional / holistic composite model of volunteer motivation. Their empirical findings revealed that rather than compartmentalizing their drives into isolated functional siloes, practicing volunteers routinely act on a dynamic, unified constellation of overlapping personal growth, social affiliation, vocational enhancement, and prosocial commitments. Across subsequent international replications and psychometric re-evaluations, the MTV scale has exhibited high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients frequently exceeding .85 to .90), robust convergent validity with measures of organizational citizenship, volunteer satisfaction, and sustained commitment, and divergent validity against unrelated social desirability markers. This article provides a comprehensive psychometric review of the MTV scale, delineating its historical origin, latent psychological architecture, theoretical underpinnings, empirical validity, structural factor debates, administration guidelines, and research applications in contemporary non-profit management and behavioral sciences.

Keywords

Motivations to Volunteer, MTV, Ram A. Cnaan, volunteer motivation, prosocial behavior, altruism, egoism, human service organizations, non-profit management, psychometrics, scale validation, social exchange theory, functional approach to volunteerism

Authors

The Motivations to Volunteer scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by two prominent scholars in social welfare policy, non-profit leadership, and applied behavioral science:

• Ram A. Cnaan, Ph.D.: Professor and Chair of the Program for Religion and Social Policy Research at the School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA). Dr. Cnaan is widely recognized as one of the world’s foremost authorities on voluntary action, faith-based social services, and the organization of voluntary human resources. He has served as the president of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) and has authored pioneering books and monographs on civil society, episodic volunteering, and social capital.
• Robin S. Goldberg-Glen, Ph.D., MSW: Associate Professor Emerita of Social Work at the School of Social Work, College of Public Health, Temple University (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA). Dr. Goldberg-Glen has focused her scholarly career on gerontology, intergenerational relations, volunteer retention, and human service administration, contributing extensively to empirical methodologies evaluating volunteer labor, caregiver well-being, and social support networks.

Correspondence regarding the original developmental study was conducted through the School of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania, with continued dissemination occurring across non-profit management and sociological research centers worldwide.

Purpose

The primary objective of the Motivations to Volunteer (MTV) scale is to provide researchers, social service administrators, and behavioral scientists with a standardized, empirically validated instrument to assess the underlying reasons why individuals initiate, sustain, and invest unpaid personal effort into human service organizations. Historically, the voluntary sector suffered from a pronounced disconnect between practitioner intuitions and empirical psychometrics. Administrators frequently presumed that individuals volunteered out of pure, unadulterated altruism or religious duty; conversely, economic theorists often reduced volunteer labor to covert rational self-interest, such as resume building or social capital accumulation. The MTV scale was systematically constructed to resolve this theoretical impasse by operationalizing the full universe of recognized motivational drivers into a unified measurement battery.

From a clinical and applied social services perspective, the instrument fulfills critical organizational functions. First, it enables volunteer resource managers to conduct diagnostic needs assessments during the volunteer intake and onboarding phases. By identifying the specific motivational profiles of prospective volunteers, organizations can optimize person-environment fit (P-E fit), matching volunteers with tasks that directly fulfill their psychological and developmental expectations. For example, an individual scoring high on items reflecting career advancement and skill development can be matched with administrative, fundraising, or coordination responsibilities, whereas an individual motivated by social connection and loneliness mitigation can be placed into direct-service, relational, or team-based roles.

Second, the MTV scale serves as a predictive assessment tool for volunteer longevity, organizational commitment, and burnout prevention. Discrepancies between a volunteer’s baseline motivations and their actual organizational experiences routinely predict premature turnover, interpersonal friction, and psychological fatigue. Longitudinal administration of the MTV scale allows human service coordinators to monitor changes in volunteer motivation over time, adjusting organizational rewards, recognition ceremonies, and task allocations to maintain sustained engagement.

Third, within academic and sociological research, the MTV scale serves as a foundational baseline instrument for investigating the structural dynamics of civic participation, prosocial behavior, cross-cultural volunteer norms, and intergenerational shifts in volunteerism. It enables researchers to evaluate how demographic factors—such as retirement status, age cohorts, socioeconomic privilege, and institutional mandates (e.g., corporate social responsibility or educational service-learning requirements)—shape the underlying motivational mosaic of community participants.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the MTV scale is volunteer motivation: the multifaceted psychological forces, internal drives, contextual expectations, and anticipated social-emotional payoffs that impel an individual to expend personal time, knowledge, and physical effort without monetary remuneration on behalf of an organized group, cause, or human service agency. In their foundational work, Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen (1991) examined whether this construct is fundamentally multi-dimensional—composed of strictly segregated, independent cognitive drivers—or whether it constitutes a holistic, composite psychological gestalt.

While the authors’ seminal conclusion emphasized that active volunteers experience these motivations as an overarching, unified phenomenon (often referred to as the holistic / composite construct of volunteer motivation), the 28 constituent items rigorously tap into several well-defined psychological domains that interact dynamically within the individual’s cognitive appraisal process:

1. Altruistic and Value-Driven Orientation

This dimension encompasses the internalized ethical, moral, and social ideals that urge individuals to improve community welfare, redress structural inequalities, and support vulnerable groups. It reflects an ideological identification with organizational missions and broader societal health. Exemplar items reflecting this domain include Item 2 (“I agree with this organization’s specific goals and want to assist”), Item 14 (“Volunteering creates a better society”), Item 16 (“Volunteering is opportunity to right social [change] injustices”), and Item 19 (“Volunteering is an opportunity to do worthwhile”).

2. Egoistic, Self-Enhancement, and Emotional Well-Being

Rooted in emotional self-regulation and psychological coping, this facet captures the psychological benefits accrued to the self through prosocial action. It addresses the mitigation of negative affective states (such as loneliness, emptiness, or existential boredom) and the elevation of self-concept, self-worth, and self-esteem. Exemplar items include Item 5 (“I was lonely”), Item 10 (“Volunteering for others makes me feel better about myself”), and Item 13 (“Helping people in need improves my regard of my own situation”), wherein downward social comparison can serve as a cognitive buffer against personal distress.

3. Vocational and Career Development

This component reflects instrumental, future-oriented motivations directed toward acquiring practical competencies, professional networking, exploring new occupational fields, and bolstering employability. Driven by human capital acquisition, this domain is particularly salient among young adults, university students, and career-transitioning individuals. Exemplar items include Item 1 (“This is an [excellent] educational experience”), Item 7 (“I wanted to gain practical experience toward paid employment or new career”), and Item 11 (“Volunteering in this agency provides challenging activities”).

4. Social Affiliation and Interpersonal Connection

Humans possess a fundamental need to belong, and voluntary associations serve as vital conduits for building social capital, forming reciprocal friendships, and bridging demographic divides. This domain captures the drive to interact with diverse populations, expand one’s relational circle, and vary daily routines. Exemplar items include Item 17 (“Volunteering is opportunity to develop relationships with others”), Item 18 (“Volunteering is an opportunity to work with different age groups”), and Item 24 (“This volunteering gave me an opportunity to vary my weekly activities”).

5. Normative, Cultural, and Spiritual Obligations

Voluntary action is deeply embedded within cultural expectations, family heritage, religious mandates, and institutional pressures. This facet measures external and internalized social norms that prompt service delivery as a duty to God, family tradition, or institutional requirements. Exemplar items include Item 15 (“My employer/school expects their employees/students to provide volunteer community service”), Item 27 (“It’s a way of following a family tradition of helping those in need”), and Item 28 (“It is God’s expectation that people will help each other”).

6. Experiential Affinity and Situational Reciprocity

A distinctive contribution of Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen’s framework was acknowledging experiential affinity: instances where the volunteer’s own lived history—or that of their relatives—directly intersects with the agency’s client population. This dimension encapsulates empathy born of shared vulnerability, gratitude, or the desire to reciprocate past benefits received. Exemplar items include Item 20 (“Volunteering is an opportunity to return good fortune”), Item 21 (“A relative or friend is/was a client of this organization”), and Item 23 (“I am able to relate to the patients/ situation because of my own similar experience”).

Theoretical Framework

The Motivations to Volunteer scale is grounded at the theoretical nexus of three major conceptual frameworks in the behavioral sciences: Social Exchange Theory, the Functionalist Approach to Personality and Social Behavior, and the Unified / Composite Model of Prosocial Action.

Social Exchange Theory

Social Exchange Theory, originally formulated by George Homans (1958) and Peter Blau (1964), posits that human interactions are transactional processes wherein individuals seek to maximize perceived psychological, social, and material rewards while minimizing perceived energetic, temporal, and emotional costs. In their theoretical exposition, Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen (1991) utilized social exchange theory to dismantle the romanticized notion that volunteers act strictly from unselfish self-abnegation. Instead, they argued that voluntary action represents an exchange where volunteers provide valuable, unpaid human labor to an organization in direct exchange for non-monetary, socio-emotional compensations: feelings of belonging, reduction of social isolation, enhanced community status, alignment with moral identities, intellectual stimulation, and professional resume building. If the perceived subjective costs (e.g., emotional fatigue, bureaucratic frustration, unsupportive supervision) outweigh these intrinsic rewards, the exchange equilibrium collapses, leading to disengagement and withdrawal.

The Functionalist Approach

The scale intersects directly with the functional approach to attitudes and social behavior, rooted in the foundational work of Daniel Katz (1960) and M. Brewster Smith (1956), later adapted to voluntary action by E. Gil Clary and Mark Snyder (1991, 1998). The functionalist premise asserts that individuals may engage in outwardly identical behaviors (e.g., distributing food at a shelter, mentoring youth, organizing community events) to serve profoundly different internal psychological functions. These functions include value-expressive functions (living out core personal beliefs), ego-defensive functions (defending against feelings of unworthiness or guilt), knowledge functions (learning about the world and human condition), and social adjustment functions (fitting into valued peer groups). The 28 items of the MTV operationalize these distinct psychological functions, providing empirical visibility into the internal cognitive mechanisms guiding voluntary choices.

The Unified vs. Multidimensional Debate: The Composite Model

Prior to Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen’s 1991 investigation, the prevailing scholarly paradigm held that volunteer motivation must be partitioned into mutually exclusive categories—such as pure altruism versus calculated egoism. Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen radically challenged this dualistic assumption. Drawing upon holistic motivation theories, they proposed that human service volunteers do not perceive themselves as operating under binary or strictly segmented functional categories. Instead, practicing volunteers operate from a composite motivation model: a complex, integrated tapestry where altruistic desires to help others blend seamlessly with legitimate personal needs for social affiliation, emotional satisfaction, and personal growth. In this view, self-benefit does not negate prosocial concern; rather, mutual benefit reinforces long-term volunteer dedication.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the MTV scale has been extensively investigated through rigorous assessments of construct validity, content validity, convergent validity, and criterion-related validity across diverse organizational settings.

Content and Face Validity

The content validity of the 28-item MTV battery was established through a comprehensive, systematic literature synthesis conducted by Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen. The authors scrutinized 27 empirical and theoretical studies published across sociology, social work, and psychology over a twenty-year window. From an initial pool of over 300 discrete motivational statements, redundant formulations were collapsed, idiosyncratic phrasings were harmonized, and the items were vetted by expert panels comprising voluntary sector executives, non-profit scholars, and volunteer coordinators. This rigorous process guaranteed that the final 28 items comprehensively sampled the conceptual domain of volunteer incentives without leaving significant theoretical blind spots.

Construct and Known-Groups Validity

In their seminal 1991 study, Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen evaluated the MTV scale across a sample of 258 active human service volunteers representing multiple agencies in Philadelphia, alongside a comparison cohort of non-volunteers. Construct validity was powerfully confirmed via known-groups comparisons: active volunteers exhibited statistically significant, substantially higher scores across the total composite motivation battery compared to non-volunteers (t-test analyses demonstrated differences significant at the p < .001 level). Active volunteers consistently endorsed both community-focused (altruistic) items and self-enhancement (egoistic) items at significantly elevated levels, confirming that individuals engaged in actual community service possess higher overall motivational investment across the entire matrix.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

Subsequent psychometric investigations have established robust convergent validity between the MTV scale and related behavioral and psychological constructs. The MTV total and subscale scores correlate moderately to strongly with:

• Measures of organizational commitment and institutional loyalty (r values ranging between .42 and .61, p < .01), demonstrating that higher composite motivation corresponds to deeper institutional ties.
• Volunteer satisfaction measures, such as the Volunteer Information Form (VIF) satisfaction indices (r = .48 to .58).
• Hours of service delivered and tenure length, wherein individuals displaying higher composite motivation profiles demonstrate significantly lower rates of unplanned attrition over 12- and 24-month monitoring periods.
• The Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) developed by Clary et al. (1998), with cross-scale correlation coefficients among parallel dimensions (such as career development, values expression, and social enhancement) routinely ranging from .54 to .72.

Discriminant Validity

The MTV scale has demonstrated acceptable discriminant validity when contrasted with general social desirability scales, such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Correlations between MTV items and social desirability indices generally remain modest (r < .22), indicating that respondents’ high endorsement of altruistic or moral items does not merely reflect indiscriminate impression management or faking-good behavior.

Reliability

The reliability of the Motivations to Volunteer scale has been thoroughly established across initial scale development and multiple independent replications over the past three decades.

Internal Consistency

In the foundational validation study by Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen (1991), the internal consistency of the overall 28-item scale was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. The composite scale yielded an exceptional Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .86 among active volunteers, comfortably surpassing the standard .70 to .80 thresholds recommended for psychometric research instruments. When evaluating the items as a unified construct, item-total correlations across the majority of items fell between .35 and .68, reflecting strong shared variance among the items without excessive redundancy.

In subsequent international investigations—including cross-cultural studies of European, Israeli, Canadian, and East Asian volunteers—the overall alpha coefficient has remained remarkably stable, consistently ranging between .84 and .92. When researchers have clustered the items into specific multidimensional subscales (e.g., social rewards, career orientation, personal growth, altruistic commitment), the individual subscale alpha coefficients have generally ranged between .71 and .87, confirming robust internal consistency whether scored unidimensionally or multidimensionally.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability of the MTV scale has been documented in longitudinal studies utilizing test-retest designs across intervals ranging from four weeks to six months. In evaluations conducted with human service volunteers, test-retest reliability coefficients (Pearson’s r) have typically ranged from .78 to .85 over a 4-to-8-week window, indicating that core volunteer motivations represent enduring psychological orientations rather than transient situational moods. Long-term studies spanning over one year show slight, theoretically anticipated fluctuations—such as career motives declining once employment is secured, or social motives increasing as organizational friendships solidify—while maintaining solid rank-order stability.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the 28-item MTV scale has been the subject of extensive psychometric investigation, theoretical debate, and empirical scrutiny within non-profit research and psychometrics.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) in the Original Study

In their seminal 1991 investigation, Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen subjected the 28 items to principal components analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique rotations. Historically, earlier literature had postulated that factor analysis would reveal clear, distinct, mutually exclusive factors separating altruism, egoism, and social affiliation. However, the authors’ empirical data yielded an unexpected and profound psychometric finding:

• A dominant, robust first factor emerged, accounting for a substantial proportion of the total variance (eigenvalue > 6.5).
• The vast majority of the 28 items loaded heavily and positively onto this single primary factor, with factor loadings ranging from .38 to .74.
• Attempts to force multi-factor solutions (e.g., 3-factor or 4-factor extractions) resulted in high cross-loadings across factors, poor discriminant clarity, and substantial inter-factor correlations (often exceeding .50 to .65).

Based on these psychometric findings, Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen concluded that volunteer motivation is best operationalized as a unidimensional / omnibus construct. They argued that active human service volunteers do not cognitively compartmentalize their service into purely selfish or purely selfless buckets; rather, volunteering is perceived as a unified, holistic behavioral package where social, personal, and societal benefits are inextricably interwoven.

Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) and Alternative Structural Models

While Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen advocated for the unidimensional model, subsequent psychometricians and behavioral researchers have re-examined the 28-item matrix using modern Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). These subsequent studies (such as those by Michael W. Corrigan, 2001, and various European non-profit scholars) have evaluated alternative structural representations:

1. Unidimensional Model: All 28 items loading onto a single overarching “Motivation to Volunteer” latent factor. Fit indices in large diverse samples: RMSEA ≈ .068 to .082, CFI ≈ .86 to .89, SRMR ≈ .065.
2. Multi-Factor First-Order Models: Extracting 4 to 6 correlated first-order factors, typically labeled: Altruism / Community Benefit (items 2, 14, 16, 19, 20, 26), Career / Practical Training (items 1, 7, 8, 11), Social Integration / Affiliation (items 17, 18, 24), Ego-Defense / Alleviating Negative Affect (items 4, 5, 6, 13), Social Norms / Duty (items 9, 12, 15, 27, 28), and Personal Experience / Affinity (items 21, 22, 23, 25). These models frequently demonstrate improved absolute and incremental fit indices: RMSEA ≈ .048 to .056, CFI ≈ .92 to .95, TLI ≈ .91 to .94.
3. Hierarchical / Higher-Order Factor Model: A higher-order latent construct (“General Volunteer Motivation”) that directly drives the correlated first-order sub-dimensions. This hierarchical model reconciles Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen’s unidimensional holistic perspective with the practical utility of multidimensional subscale profiling.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The MTV scale is structured as a self-report psychometric questionnaire designed for rapid, standardized administration in research, academic, and organizational settings.

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale / inventory.
• Target Population: Prospective, active, or former volunteers in human service organizations, non-profit institutions, hospitals, social advocacy groups, civic associations, and community agencies. Suitable for adolescents (ages 14+) and adults.
• Administration Format: Available in pen-and-paper pencil format, self-administered computer forms, and web-based interactive survey environments. Can be completed individually or in group settings.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes to read and complete all 28 items.
• Number of Items: 28 structured psychometric statements.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert response scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree Somewhat
  • 3 = Undecided
  • 4 = Agree Somewhat
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Composite / Unidimensional Scoring: All 28 items are scored directly (no reverse-scored items are included in the standard battery). The total composite motivation score is calculated by summing the numerical responses across all 28 items (theoretical range: 28 to 140) or by calculating the grand mean (range: 1.00 to 5.00). Higher scores reflect greater overall motivational intensity and behavioral readiness to volunteer.
  • Subscale / Dimensional Scoring: Researchers adopting multidimensional frameworks compute mean scores for specific clusters (e.g., Career Enhancement, Altruism, Social Norms, Ego Protection), allowing the generation of individualized motivational radar profiles.
• Normative Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Composite Mean < 2.50: Low overall volunteer motivation; participation is likely nominal, transient, or externally coerced.
  • Composite Mean 2.50 – 3.75: Moderate volunteer motivation; participation is balanced across functional needs, requiring targeted organizational alignment.
  • Composite Mean > 3.75: High overall volunteer motivation; strong psychological investment across multiple personal and community dimensions, predictive of high role retention and proactive engagement.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Motivations to Volunteer (MTV) scale was formally developed and published in 1991 by Ram A. Cnaan and Robin S. Goldberg-Glen in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (Sage Publications). The instrument is widely accessible in the public academic domain for non-commercial scientific research, educational instruction, and organizational program evaluation, provided proper scholarly attribution is accorded to the original authors and journal publication. Standard institutional administration by non-profit and charitable agencies typically carries no licensing fees; however, proprietary, commercial, or consulting uses involving repackaged software or revenue-generating assessment platforms require formal permission from the copyright holders or authors. Researchers may reference the original instrument through university repositories or ResearchGate:

Permanent Academic Archive URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240966570

References

• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1991). A functional analysis of altruism and prosocial behavior: The case of volunteerism. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Prosocial behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 119–148). Sage Publications.
• 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
• Cnaan, R. A. (1990). Deployment of volunteers by governmental social services in Israel. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 17(3), 150–173. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol17/iss3/10/
• Cnaan, R. A., & Goldberg-Glen, R. S. (1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer in human services. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391273003
• Cnaan, R. A., & Handy, F. (2005). Towards understanding episodic volunteering. Vrijwillige Inzet Onderzocht, 2(1), 29–35.
• Corrigan, M. W. (2001). Social exchange theory, interpersonal communication motives, and volunteerism: Identifying motivation to volunteer and the rewards and costs associated (Master’s thesis). West Virginia University. https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.1070
• Handy, F., Brodeur, N., & Cnaan, R. A. (2006). Summer on the island: Episodic volunteering in Victoria, British Columbia. Voluntary Action, 7(3), 31–46.
• Handy, F., Cnaan, R. A., Brudney, J. L., Meijs, L. C., Ascoli, U., & Ranade, S. (2000). Public perception of “who is a volunteer”: An examination of the net-cost approach from a cross-cultural perspective. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 11(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008903032393
• Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355
• Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 163–204. https://doi.org/10.1086/266945

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)