CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Nonprofit Sector and VolunteeringAging and Gerontology ResearchAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues

Factors Affecting Volunteering Among Older Rural and City Dwelling Adults in Australia

Open access
Warburton, Jeni, Stirling (nee Fahey), Christine·2007·Educational Gerontology
DOI 10.1080/03601270600846824
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the absence of large scale Australian studies of volunteering among older adults, this study compared the relevance of two theoretical approaches—social capital theory and sociostructural resources theory—to predict voluntary activity in relation to a large national database. The paper explores volunteering by older people (aged 55+) in order to assess differences in volunteering in the Australian context. A model was developed that comprised social capital variables (organizational membership, religious affiliation, marital status, and migrant status) and sociostructural variables (education, work status, income, gender, and health status). Logistic regression analyses assessed the relationship between these variables and volunteering, and the interaction effects with two key factors relevant to the Australian context, age cohort and locality. Overall, these results suggest (a) that reliance on bivariate analysis for understanding volunteering may hide a more complex picture associated with older people volunteering, and (b) that neither social capital theory nor sociostructural resource theory adequately predicts volunteering by older Australians, but that generational theories may provide added strength to future analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03601270600846824

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of the 20 best studies on R/S and altruism, 15 (75%) reported positive relationships and two (10%) found negative associations.

    “of the 20 best studies, 15 (75%) reported positive relationships [108–113] and two (10%) found negative associations [114, 115] (both concerning organ donations, which some religions prohibit).”

    From Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications (2012) · cites this paper as [108]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Warburton, J., & Stirling (nee Fahey), C.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Warburton, Jeni
ORCID
Warburton, Jeni
Venue
Educational Gerontology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2007-01
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
23-43
ISSN
  • 0360-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-0472
DOI
10.1080/03601270600846824
OpenAlex
W2087272001
Cited by
110
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Educational Gerontology (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Aging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Keywords
volunteering, older adults, social capital theory, urban-rural differences, age cohorts, generational differences, organizational membership, religious affiliation, migrant status, health status, income, employment status, gender, Australia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review