others than were women (difference of means t-test, p = .045). Men who reported volunteering in support of their spouse or significant other (61.11%) were more likely to do so than women at the senior center (51.14%) who volunteered to support of their spouse or significant other. A correlation matrix of the reasons for volunteering was constructed (please see Table 4). The of thumb” suggested by Field (2005; pp.174-175) in his discussion of co-linearity “rule applied to multiple regression models, namely correlations of .9 and higher should be suspect and correlations of .8 should be examined to determine if the indicators are tapping the same information, was applied. No r-values exceeded .8 in this matrix. Three large correlation coefficients figured in a similar matrix constructed for each volunteer venue. (Please refer to Figure 2) Making respondents’ of the volunteer activity appeared prominently in friends proud both specialty venues. It is likely that friends were included both among the friends to be made Table 4. Correlation Coefficients for Senior Center (only) and Community (only) Volunteers Reasons for Volunteering* Feel Good Frds Prod Example PubRec UseTIme DemoHlth PersGoal Feel Good 1.000 FrdsProd .533 1.000 Example .452 .723 1.000 PubRec .440 .771 .682 1.000 UseTime .377 .348 .433 .333 1.000 Demohlth .466 .700 .699 .751 .433 1.000 PersGoal .420 .608 .615 .587 .481 .667 1.000 Altuist .329 .357 .354 .318 .501 .401 .514 1.000 Support .423 .558 .473 .563 .309 .592 .526 .338
others than were women (difference of means t-test, p = .045). Men who reported volunteering in support of their spouse or significant other (61.11%) were more likely to do so than women at the senior center (51.14%) who volunteered to support of their spouse or significant other. A correlation matrix of the reasons for volunteering was constructed (please see Table 4). The “rule of thumb” suggested by Field (2005; pp.174-175) in his discussion of co-linearity applied to multiple regression models, namely correlations of .9 and higher should be suspect and correlations of .8 should be examined to determine if the indicators are tapping the same information, was applied. No r-values exceeded .8 in this matrix. Three large correlation coefficients figured in a similar matrix constructed for each volunteer venue. (Please refer to Figure 2) Making respondents’ friends proud of the volunteer activity appeared prominently in both specialty venues. It is likely that friends were included both among the friends to be made Table 4. Correlation Coefficients for Senior Center (only) and Community (only) Volunteers Reasons for Volunteering* Feel Good Frds Prod Example PubRec UseTIme DemoHlth PersGoal Feel Good 1.000 FrdsProd .533 1.000 Example .452 .723 1.000 PubRec .440 .771 .682 1.000 UseTime .377 .348 .433 .333 1.000 Demohlth .466 .700 .699 .751 .433 1.000 PersGoal .420 .608 .615 .587 .481 .667 1.000 Altuist .329 .357 .354 .318 .501 .401 .514 1.000 Support .423 .558 .473 .563 .309 .592 .526 .338
Participants%20as%20Volunteers%20.docx