Task Significance and Prosocial Behavior among Rescue Volunteers: The Mediating Role of Pressure-Based Prosocial Motivation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background/problem: Rescue volunteers work under risk, strain, and strong social expectations. Although perceived task significance is usually treated as a positive work-design resource, socially significant volunteer work may also make helping feel expected or difficult to refuse.
Objective/purpose: This study tested pressure-based prosocial motivation as a mediator and impression management motive as a moderator of the task significance–motivation association.
Design and methodology: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 572 rescue volunteers from 64 charitable emergency service organizations in southern Thailand. Data were analyzed using latent structural equation modeling in Mplus, with robust standard errors adjusted for
organizational clustering.
Results: Task significance was positively associated with pressure-based prosocial motivation (b = .46, SE = .12, p < .001) and prosocial behavior (b = .58, SE = .14, p < .001). The indirect association was significant (b = .13, SE = .05, p = .02, 95% CI [.03, .24]). Impression management motive strengthened the task significance–pressure-based motivation association (b = .12, SE = .05, p = .03), but the index of moderated mediation was nonsignificant (b = .03, SE = .02, p = .13, 95% CI [−.01, .08]).
Conclusion and implications: Task significance may carry an obligation-based motivational component in morally salient volunteer work. Rescue organizations should communicate task importance without making refusal or recovery socially costly. Cross-sectional data do not establish causality, and the study did not compare controlled and autonomous pathways.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Allan, B. A. (2017). Task significance and meaningful work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocation-al Behavior, 102, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.011
Bangkok Post. (2017, May 7). Four rescue volunteers killed on duty. Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1245355/four-rescue-volunteers-killed-on-duty
Bangkok Post. (2023, July 5). Rescue teams run out of cash. Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2605446/rescue-teams-run-out-of-cash
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/259038
Breen, K., Meyer, M. A., Becker, S., Purdum, J. C., & Nolan, S. (2024). Volunteer motivations in civil-ian volunteer search and rescue organizations. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 111, 104688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104688
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725. https://doi.org/10.2307/258391
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psycholo-gy, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation. (2024, December 27). Disaster situation report (News No. 740/2567). Ministry of Interior. https://backofficeminisite.disaster.go.th/apiv1/apps/minisite_directing/194/content/8728/download?filename=c262222092ac2de460cc1327a41b492b.pdf
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Gebauer, J. E., Riketta, M., Broemer, P., & Maio, G. R. (2008). Pleasure- and pressure-based prosocial motivation: Divergent relations to subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(2), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.07.002
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351328
Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mecha-nisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression man-agement motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013770
Grant, A. M., & Shandell, M. S. (2022). Social motivation at work: The organizational psychology of effort for, against, and with others. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 301–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-060321-033406
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Or-ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Re-search, 50(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Jour-nal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and con-textual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work de-sign literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(4), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296338
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Knight, C., & Parker, S. K. (2021). How work redesign interventions affect performance: An evidence-based model from a systematic review. Human Relations, 74(1), 69–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719865604
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34
Liao, H., Su, R., Ptashnik, T., & Nielsen, J. (2022). Feeling good, doing good, and getting ahead: A me-ta-analytic investigation of the outcomes of prosocial motivation at work. Psychological Bulletin, 148(3–4), 158–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000362
McFarland, L. A., Hendricks, J. L., & Ward, W. B. (2023). A contextual framework for understanding impression management. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1), 100912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100912
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire: Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Parker, S. K., & Knight, C. (2024). The SMART model of work design: A higher order structure to help see the wood from the trees. Human Resource Management, 63(2), 265–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22200
Peetz, J., & Milyavskaya, M. (2021). A self-determination theory approach to predicting daily prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 45(5), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09902-5
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1976, April 19–23). On the use of content specialists in the as-sessment of criterion-referenced test item validity [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, United States. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED121845
Stapleton, L. M. (2006). An assessment of practical solutions for structural equation modeling with complex sample data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(1), 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1301_2
Tongsongsom, K., & Potipiroon, W. (2026). Volunteer motivation in emergency services: Joint effects of leader public service motivation and citizen gratitude on volunteer prosocial behavior. Non-profit Management and Leadership 37(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.70019
Wangwan, J. (2014). A model of relationship between gratitude and prosocial motivation of Thai high school and undergraduate students. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 9(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.14456/ijbs.2014.8
