434554

guchiNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

NVSXXX10.1177/0899764011434554Tani

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

The Influence of Generalized XX(X) 1­–21

© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
Trust on Volunteering in Japan sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0899764011434554
http://nvsq.sagepub.com

Hiromi Taniguchi1

Abstract
There is limited understanding of how attitudinal variables such as generalized trust
influence formal volunteering compared with demographic and socioeconomic
variables. Using data from the 2005 Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS), this study
examines the effects of generalized trust on regular and irregular formal volunteering
in Japan. As the majority of studies on formal volunteering are based in Western
countries, focusing on a non-Western society extends our knowledge of volunteering
decisions. Japan is known for its normative emphasis on group affiliation and in-group
cooperation, and its citizens are often said to be distrustful of strangers. In such
a society, how does generalized trust affect formal volunteering? A bivariate probit
analysis of the JGSS data suggests that generalized trust is significantly and positively
associated with the probability of irregular formal volunteering, but not with regular
formal volunteering. Implications of these findings are discussed for future research
linking generalized trust to formal volunteering.

Keywords
generalized trust, volunteering, Japan

Previous research has suggested that demographic, socioeconomic, and social network
variables are significant predictors of formal volunteer participation (see Wilson
[2000] for an extensive review). However, evidence is more limited on effects of atti-
tudinal variables such as generalized trust, the belief that people and institutions are
generally trustworthy (Wilson, 2000). To the extent that volunteer work challenges us
to leave our comfort zones and relate to strangers, the inclination to trust generalized
others may facilitate volunteering. This argument is supported by some (Jennings &

1
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Hiromi Taniguchi, Department of Sociology, University of Louisville, 103 Lutz Hall, Louisville,
KY 40292, USA
Email: hiromi.taniguchi@louisville.edu

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

2 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X)

Stoker, 2004; Kwak, Shah, & Holbert, 2004; Uslaner, 2002; Wang & Graddy, 2008),
but not all (Bekkers, 2009) researchers.
Whether generalized trust facilitates formal volunteering may depend on the level
of time commitment that individuals must make to participate in volunteer work.
Compared with the type of volunteering that requires regular, recurring time commit-
ment, irregular volunteering is more likely to be considered as an option by those who
are uncertain about the extent of their involvement in the long run. Generalized trust
may turn this sense of uncertainty into a positive course of action (e.g., gather informa-
tion, contact volunteer groups) leading to participation. Meanwhile, by the time indi-
viduals consider volunteering on a more regular basis, they may be past the point of
having to believe in the goodness of generalized others.
Using data from Japan, this study explores the possibility that the effect of general-
ized trust may be documented more clearly if we distinguish irregular from regular
volunteering. As the majority of volunteering research is based in Western countries,
focusing on a non-Western society may expand our knowledge of predictors of volun-
teering including generalized trust. Japan is known for its normative emphasis on
group affiliation and cooperation among in-group members, and its citizens are said to
be distrustful of strangers, or out-group members. In a collectivist society, how does
generalized trust affect volunteering decisions? Moreover, many nonprofit organiza-
tions in Japan have close ties to the government and are often considered as quasi
public. Focusing on formal volunteering in Japan thus motivates us to look at general-
ized trust not only in people but also in institutions.

Background
Volunteering in Japan

Although the rate of formal volunteering in Japan is low—only 22% of the 2005
Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS) respondents volunteered—there is a growing
interest among Japanese to participate in formal volunteer work.1 (The number is up
from 15% in 2002.) Volunteering as “voluntary” commitment of time to help or co-
operate with others, strangers in particular, is a relatively new notion in Japan. No
original Japanese term exists for volunteer besides the Japanized borantia (Nakano,
2000). Unlike in the West, where volunteering tends to be seen as an opportunity for
personal development or fulfillment (Wilson & Musick, 2000; Yeung, 2008), in Japan,
people may volunteer to restore or maintain harmony in their communities (Uchida,
Norasakkunkit, & Kitayama, 2004; cf. Nakano, 2000).
Japanese have a long history of mutual help through neighborhood associations
(jichikai). These local associations, although legally independent, work closely with
governmental bodies (Schmid, 2001). In theory, membership to these associations is
voluntary, but the large majority of Japanese join them by default. Members take
turns—not totally voluntarily but in the order arranged by the association council—in
cleaning public spaces and organizing a variety of activities mainly for the youth and

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Taniguchi 3

elderly. Since the Great Hanshin (Kobe) Earthquake of 1995 that killed over 6,000
people, neighborhood associations have also been increasingly recognized for their
roles in emergency response (Anheier & Salamon, 1999; Shaw & Goda, 2004).
Generally, participation in wider social networks facilitates formal volunteering.
“Because I was asked by someone” is a common self-reported reason for volunteer-
ing (Freeman, 1997).2 The more extensive one’s social network is the greater the
chance of his or her being asked to volunteer. Consistent with evidence found in the
United States (Wilson, 2000), social networks are also important facilitators of for-
mal volunteering in Japan. Matsunaga’s (2007) analysis of data from the JGSS shows
that affiliations with consumers’ cooperatives, citizens’ movement groups, religious
groups, and sports clubs significantly promote regular formal volunteering. Along
with demographic (e.g., age, marital status) and socioeconomic characteristics (e.g.,
education, employment status), informal connections (e.g., face-to-face contact with
friends, interaction with foreigners at the workplace) also significantly promote vol-
unteering in Japan (Taniguchi, 2010).

The Nonprofit/Voluntary Sector in Japan

The 1995 Earthquake is often seen as a catalyst leading to the restructuring of Japan’s
nonprofit sector, although the decentralization of social service provision certainly did
not happen overnight and was a long process that started in the 1990s and continued
throughout the next decade (e.g., Haddad, 2011; Ogawa, 2009). The government
response in the wake of the 1995 disaster was slow and inefficient in contrast with the
response of volunteer organizations of various sizes that was perceived to be much
more efficient (Haddad, 2011; Ogawa, 2009). This situation gave volunteer organiza-
tions an opportunity to gain public acknowledgment of their roles, and effectively
push for the legislation that would facilitate their incorporation: the 1998 Nonprofit
Organization (NPO) Law (Haddad, 2011; Ogawa, 2004, 2009).
Haddad (2011), through her case study of two nonprofit volunteer organizations,
argues that the decentralization of social service delivery reinforced, and not weak-
ened, the state’s role in the area, and at the same time also energized the nonprofit
sector. Haddad (2011) gives credit to the 1998 NPO Law for having transformed the
provision of social welfare service in ways that “simultaneously empowered both the
nonprofit sector and the state” (p. 37). Yet Ogawa (2004, 2009), in his ethnographic
study of one NPO, offers a different take on the effect of the NPO Law on the nonprofit
sector. He argues that instead of actively addressing social problems, the state, with its
authority to assign NPO designations, co-opted nonprofit organizations and used their
resources (e.g., manpower, knowledge, skills) for social service delivery, thus achiev-
ing the main goal of cutting costs. In Ogawa’s view, the state is the key beneficiary of
the NPO Law, whereas the nonprofit sector gained little leverage vis-à-vis the state.
Although researchers differ in their views of whether the NPO Law empowered the
nonprofit sector, there is little doubt that the state plays an important role in promoting
volunteerism among Japanese (Nakano, 2000; Ogawa, 2004, 2009). Volunteers are

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

4 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X)

primary supporters of the ongoing “NPO phenomenon” (Ogawa, 2009). The state has
run a series of campaigns through the media and schools to introduce and disseminate
the notion of volunteerism as “a new way of life” (Ogawa, 2009, p. 71; see also
Nakano, 2000). In this context, it may be hypothesized that individuals with a higher
level of generalized trust in institutions, public sector institutions in particular, are
more likely to engage in formal volunteering.

Linking Generalized Trust to Volunteering

Although the causal relationship between generalized trust and civic engagement
could go both ways (Brehm & Rahn, 1997), the influence of generalized trust on
participation in civic life has been stressed by some authors (Brown & Uslaner, 2002;
Jennings & Stoker, 2004; Sønderskov, 2008, Uslaner, 2002). Unlike particularized
trust (i.e., trust between people who know and interact with each other) that is experi-
ence based and can be fragile or short lived, generalized trust generates a sense of “a
shared fate with [collective] others” (Uslaner, 2002, p. 2) that is stable and long-lasting
(Uslaner, 2002, 2008), and thus can be especially important in promoting the type of
civic activities that involves helping or cooperating with strangers.3 No one wants to
be taken advantage of when contributing precious time to do unpaid work. The belief
that on the whole people are good and can be trusted may allow us to let our guard
down and engage in the act of generosity to help or cooperate with anonymous
others.4
In Japan, a collectivist society that emphasizes group affiliation and mutual help,
people tend to score lower on generalized trust, when compared with countries such as
the United States (Miller & Mitamura, 2003; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994; cf.
Fukuyama, 1995). Irwin (2009) argues that in collectivist societies, generalized trust
in social institutions, rather than people, that is, “belief that a system [of monitoring
and sanctioning] will induce others to cooperate” (p. 167), facilitates prosocial behav-
ior. In collectivist societies with the systems of locally monitoring group members’
action, people are inclined to cooperate with their in-group members lest they be sanc-
tioned. These localized systems do not govern interactions involving out-group mem-
bers, Irwin’s argument goes, but institutions that exist outside the local network—for
example, government, the police, the media—are expected to monitor interactions
between in- and out-group members and sanction uncooperative behaviors.
Irwin’s (2009) argument suggests that it is necessary to consider generalized trust
not only in people but also in institutions as an attitudinal predictor of volunteering in
Japan. Although generalized trust in institutions is likely to be correlated with general-
ized trust in people—after all, institutions are run by people—individuals’ willingness
to rely on institutions and experts may reduce the uncertainty involved in volunteering
through organizations, above and beyond the effect of trusting people.5 In recent
decades, citizens of developed countries, including Japan, became more distrustful of
their government, political institutions, and politicians (Pharr, Putnam, & Dalton,
2000). In the meantime, those who have higher trust in the government and related
institutions may be more likely to participate in volunteering.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Taniguchi 5

Similar to generalized trust in people (or social trust), generalized trust in institutions
(or institutional trust) tends to be stable and long lasting. Institutional trust, once estab-
lished, can be “difficult to dislodge” (Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 44). When people who
trust or distrust government officials in general meet some officials whose actions
contradict their general beliefs, they are most likely to dismiss their encounter as an
exception (Cohen & Prusak, 2001). Individuals with higher institutional trust are more
likely to overlook occasional lapses in organizational oversight. Conversely, individu-
als with lower institutional trust are more likely to ignore examples of trustworthiness
exhibited by particular officials as manipulation (Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 45).
Despite this study’s focus on volunteering in a collectivist society such as Japan, we
still cannot rule out the possible influence of generalized trust in people. Certainly, this
possibility should not be ruled out by the fact that generalized trust in people is low in
collectivist societies. To the contrary, the inclination to trust generalized others may
rather more distinctly promote formal volunteering in a low-trust than high-trust soci-
ety. (For an analogy see Ruiter & De Graaf [2006] showing that religiosity promotes
volunteer participation more in a secular than religious society.) Some evidence sug-
gests that generalized trust in people promotes volunteering in Japan. Pekkanen and
Tsujinaka (2008), for example, find a positive association between generalized trust in
people and participation in neighborhood association activities. This study thus exam-
ines the effects of generalized trust in both people and institutions while distinguishing
irregular from regular volunteering.

The Differential Effects of Generalized Trust on Regular

Versus Irregular Volunteering
The distinction between regular and irregular volunteering is typically made in terms
of consistency in time commitment, although this distinction correlates with whether
individuals volunteer formally, that is, in a more structured way in terms of time and
activity and through an organization (Jalandoni & Hume, 2001; Reed & Selbee,
2000), or informally. The report by Jalandoni and Hume (2001) suggests that formal
volunteers tend to volunteer more regularly, on a weekly or monthly basis, than infor-
mal volunteers. Given the greater time commitment made by those who volunteer in
a structured manner, it is no wonder that many studies of volunteer work focus on
formal volunteering. Certainly, not all formal volunteers participate on a regular basis.
However, even those who only volunteer sporadically can gain confidence and skills
to work in a structured setting and may be turned into regular volunteers at some point
in future. It is thus important to examine the facilitators of irregular as well as regular
volunteering.
Compared with regular volunteering, irregular volunteering is likely to reflect vol-
unteers’ greater uncertainty about their long-term involvement due to commitment to
other activities (e.g., employment and child care) or limited prior experience. In a
society where the idea of volunteering as “voluntary” commitment of time to help or
work with others is yet to take roots, the large majority of the public, although

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

6 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X)

increasingly aware of those who volunteer through personal contact or the media, may
feel highly uncertain about becoming a full-fledged volunteer. Japanese are noted for
their tendencies to avoid uncertainty (Cook et al., 2005; Hofstede, 2001). Hofstede
(2001) finds that of 50 countries, Japan is ranked among the highest on his uncertainty
avoidance index. For these reasons, irregular volunteering can be quite appealing to
people in Japan.
Does generalized trust, be it in out-groups or in institutions, affect the chance of regu-
lar and irregular volunteering differently? Generalized trust may help turn individuals
undecided or uncertain of future involvement into ad hoc volunteers. Meanwhile, by the
time individuals contemplate on volunteering on a regular basis, they are probably past
the point of letting their guard down. That is, generalized trust may not matter as much
in individuals’ decisions to volunteer regularly. Rather, the concerns of potential regular
volunteers may lie elsewhere: in the extent of rewards such as appreciation, recognition,
and friendships for their participation (Drollinger, 2010). Thus, this study hypothesizes
that the level of generalized trust is significantly and positively associated with the prob-
ability of irregular volunteering, whereas the association between generalized trust and
regular volunteering may be weaker or even absent.

Method
Data

The data for this study are drawn from the 2005 JGSS, an omnibus survey of Japanese
aged 20 and above were selected for a national random sample. The JGSS began in
2000 modeled on the U.S. General Social Survey. This study uses data from the 2005
JGSS because it is the most recent survey with information on volunteering that was
available when this study began. The 2005 JGSS also contains information on gener-
alized trust in people, and generalized trust in various types of institutions, contact
with friends, and group affiliations, along with demographic and socioeconomic char-
acteristics. The response rate was 50.5%, and 2,023 valid responses were obtained
(Tanioka, Nitta, Iwai, & Yasuda, 2005, p. 1). Deleting cases from the initial sample
due to missing data leaves us with a sample of 1,850 respondents.

Variables
For the regression analysis (see model section), two binary dependent variables are
considered. They concern whether in the previous year the respondent volunteer regu-
larly (1 = yes, 0 = no) or irregularly (1 = yes, 0 = no). It should be noted that decisions
to participate in regular and irregular volunteering are not mutually exclusive. (It is
possible for the respondent to volunteer regularly in one area and irregularly in
another area.) Although the JGSS contains no information that could be used to
clearly distinguish between formal and informal volunteering, the questionnaire uses
the term borantia (volunteer) with a connotation of organizational activities. Japanese

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Taniguchi 7

are unlikely to use the term to refer to unpaid work provided to family and friends.
Meanwhile, the JGSS asked whether the respondents participated in specific types
of volunteer activities, for example, environmental protection/cleaning, caregiving/
welfare, and education/technical guidance. Based on the responses to this question, the
most common type of volunteering is environmental protection/cleanup. The number
of the respondents who did each type of volunteer work is too small to construct a
dependent variable based on the type of volunteering for regression analysis, however.
As key independent variables, this study considers two types of generalized trust:
generalized trust in people and generalized trust in various types of institutions/
experts. The measure of trust in people is based on the widely used question, “Generally
speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted?” with possible responses:
1 = yes, 2 = no, and 3 = depends. These codes were recoded so that the higher value
indicates the higher trust (see Uslaner [2002] for the validity of this standard measure
of generalized trust).6
Trust in institutions is an index variable based on statements about the extent (1 =
very much, 2 = some, 3 = not very much, and 4 = don’t know) to which the respondents
trust the following seven types of organizations/experts: Diet members, schools, min-
istries and government agencies, hospitals, courts, members of municipal councils,
and the police. For four out of these seven types of categories, at least 20% of the
respondents selected the “don’t know” option. To avoid too many missing values, the
“4 = don’t know” is recoded as “3 = not very much.” The codes are then reversed so
that the higher score indicates the higher institutional trust. Internal consistency alpha
coefficient is .81. Scores are averaged across the items and rounded to the closest
whole number. In addition, a broader measure of institutional trust is constructed by
further including the following: major companies, religious organizations, labor
unions, newspapers, TV, scholars, and financial institutions. The alpha coefficient for
this measure is .86.
As close correlates of generalized trust (i.e., both social and institutional trust), two
social network variables, that is, the frequency of face-to-face contact with friends and
the number of group affiliations, are considered. The frequency of contact with friends
is measured on a 7-point scale: 1 = almost every day, 2 = several times a week, 3 =
about once a week, 4 = about once a month, 5 = several times a year, 6 = about once
a year, and 7 = never. The original codes are reversed so the higher score indicates the
more frequent contact. The variable on group affiliations is a count of whether the
respondents are members of the following types of organizations: (a) political associa-
tion, (b) trade association, (c) social service group, (d) citizens’ movement group,
(e) religious group, (f) sports group, and (g) hobby group or club.
Several demographic and socioeconomic variables are included because of their
expected links, based on research in the West as well as Japan, to formal volunteer-
ing, and to at least one of the key variables. These controls are age, marital status
(1 = divorced or widowed, 2 = never married, 3 = married [referent]), the number of
children in three age groups (<6 years old, 6-12, and 13-19), education (1 = less than
senior high school, 2 = at least some college, or 3 = senior high school graduate

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

8 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X)

[referent]),7 and employment status (1 = out of labor force (OLF), 2 = employed

regularly, 3 = employed contingently [referent]). Older people are more likely to
trust others (Pew Research Center, 2007) and to volunteer (e.g., Gallagher, 1994;
Taniguchi, 2010). Likewise, married persons volunteer more (Taniguchi, 2010), and
have higher generalized trust (Pew Research Center, 2007). Having children, espe-
cially school-aged children, promotes volunteering (Caputo, 1997; Park & Smith,
2000; Rossi, 2001; Smith, 1975) because it draws adults into community networks.
Education is positively linked not only to volunteering (Hodgkinson, 1995; Staub,
1995; Wilson, 2000, Wilson & Musick, 1997) but also to social trust and social net-
works (Huang, van den Brink, & Groot, 2009; McPherson & Rotolo, 1996; Pew
Research Center, 2007). Previous research (Taniguchi, 2010) suggests that those
who are out of the labor force, including retirees, volunteer more, compared with
those who are under/unemployed. These individuals may also exhibit higher gener-
alized trust (Ivarsflaten & Strømsnes, 2010). I make no predictions about whether
these controls affect regular and irregular volunteering differently given the paucity
of research that makes this comparison.

Models
Bivariate probit models are estimated to examine how generalized trust is associated
with individuals’ decisions to volunteer regularly and irregularly. A probit model is
used to model a binary dependent variable on whether to engage in a certain type of
behavior. However, estimating two probit models separately for regular and irregular
volunteering will be problematic, if decisions to volunteer regularly and irregularly
are correlated to each other. The bivariate probit model allows for a simultaneous
estimation of both forms of volunteering decisions while incorporating a parameter
(ρ) for the correlation between unobservable variables that are associated with each
form of volunteering (Greene, 2012). These unobservable variables include altruism,
perceived social pressure, generativity, and feel good desires. A significant positive
(negative) correlation parameter suggests that the two forms of volunteering decisions
are likely to be complements (substitutes). One example that uses bivariate probit
models is found in Lee and Moon’s (2011) study examining Korean immigrants’ deci-
sions to volunteer for mainstream versus ethnic organizations (see Hank & Stuck,
2008, for their use of a similar, but extended model).

Findings
Descriptive Analysis

Of 1,850 respondents, 228 (12.3%) did regular volunteering and 293 (15.8%) did
irregular volunteering. 110 (5.9% of all respondents) did both regular and irregular
volunteering. Thus, 411 (228 + 293 – 110) respondents (22.2%) did regular volunteer
work, irregular volunteer work, or both.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016


Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Study Variables by Volunteering Status

Regular Formal Volunteering Irregular Formal Volunteering

  Yes (1) No (0) Yes (1) No (0)

  n = 228 n = 1,622 n = 293 n = 1,557  

Variable M (SD) M (SD) Difference M (SD) M (SD) Difference

Regular formal volunteering 1.00 0.00 — 0.352 0.068 ***
[0, 1]
Irregular formal volunteering 0.470 0.106 *** 1.00 0.00 —
[0, 1]
Generalized trust in people 2.105 (0.660) 2.116 (0.551) 2.226 (0.635) 2.095 (0.548) **
[1, 3]
Generalized trust in 1.742 (0.550) 1.680 (0.532) 1.784 (0.502) 1.670 (0.537) **
institutions [1, 3] (public
institutions only)
Generalized trust in 1.722 (0.539) 1.664 (0.498) 1.772 (0.482) 1.653 (0.503) ***
institutions [1, 3] (private &
public institutions)
Generalized trust, combined 3.827 (0.869) 3.780 (0.792) 3.998 (0.821) 3.748 (0.791) ***
measure [2, 6]

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Contact with friends [1, 7] 2.775 (1.321) 2.502 (1.332) ** 2.713 (1.202) 2.501 (1.352) *
No. of group affiliations [0, 6] 1.406 (1.217) 0.461 (0.753) *** 1.057 (1.183) 0.480 (0.770) ***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

9
10 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X)

Table 1 shows the ranges and means or frequencies of the key independent vari-
ables by volunteer status (1 = volunteer, 0 = nonvolunteer) for each form of volunteer-
ing. Standard deviations (for continuous variables) and the statistical significance of
differences in means based on t tests (for continuous variables) and proportions based
on chi-square tests (for categorical variables) by volunteering status are also reported.
Some significant differences exist in the means of the key independent variables by
volunteering status. Only with respect to irregular volunteering, the level of general-
ized trust, regardless of how it is measured, is significantly higher for volunteers. The
difference between volunteers and nonvolunteers is significant at the .01 level when
social trust or trust in public institutions is used as a measure of generalized trust. The
volunteer versus nonvolunteer difference becomes significant at a higher threshold
when trust in a broader range of institutions or the combined measure of generalized
trust is used. There is no comparable difference in the level of generalized trust
between volunteers and nonvolunteers when regular volunteering is considered.
With respect to both forms of volunteering, compared with nonvolunteers, volun-
teers have significantly more frequent contact with friends. The difference between
volunteers and nonvolunteers is significant at the .01 and .05 level, respectively, for
regular volunteering and for irregular volunteering. Similarly, volunteers have signifi-
cantly more group affiliations than nonvolunteers, regardless of the form of volunteer-
ing. The volunteer versus nonvolunteer difference is larger and more significant for
regular than irregular volunteering (t = 11.4, p = .000 vs. t = 7.92, p = .000, not tabled).
With some exceptions, the differences in means of the controls between volunteers
and nonvolunteers are consistent with prior research (not tabled). For both forms of
volunteering, volunteers are significantly older, more likely to be married, and less
likely to be never married than nonvolunteers. Volunteers have fewer preschool-aged
children and more school-aged/teenage children. (Some volunteer vs. nonvolunteer
differences in the number of children are statistically insignificant.) Only for regular
volunteering, volunteers are out of the labor force in a significantly higher proportion.
Interestingly, only for irregular volunteering do we see that a significantly higher pro-
portion of volunteers than nonvolunteers are college educated, and a significantly
higher proportion of nonvolunteers than volunteers are without a high school diploma.
By comparison, education does not significantly differentiate regular volunteers from
others.

Multivariate Analysis
Table 2 presents estimates from bivariate probit models predicting the probabilities of
regular and irregular volunteering. As expected, generalized trust in people (social
trust) has a positive effect on irregular, but not regular, volunteering (Models 1 & 2).
The effect of social trust on irregular volunteering, however, does not reach statistical
significance. Similarly, generalized trust in public institutions has a positive effect on
the probability of irregular, but not regular, volunteering (Model 1). The effect of trust
in public institutions on irregular volunteering is borderline significant, and so is the

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016


Table 2. Bivariate Probit Models Predicting Regular and Irregular Volunteering

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

  Regular Irregular Regular Irregular Regular Irregular

  β β β β β β
Key variables
  Generalized trust in people −.092 (0.085) .116c (0.072) −.092 (0.085) .117c (0.072)  
  Generalized trust in institutions −.012 (0.085) .143 (0.076)  
(public institutions only)
  Generalized trust in institutions −.013 (0.092) .181* (0.079)  
(private & public institutions)
  Generalized trust −.058 (0.055) .145**,a (0.049)
  Contact with friends .065 (0.036) .029 (0.032) .065 (0.036) .029 (0.031) .064 (0.036) .029 (0.032)
  No. of group affiliations .499*** (0.047) .323***,b (0.042) .499*** (0.047) .321***,b (0.042) .499*** (0.047) .321***,b (0.042)
Control variables
 Age .014** (0.004) .007 (0.004) .014** (0.004) .007 (0.004) .014** (0.004) .007 (0.004)
  Marital status
   Divorced/widowed −.440** (0.149) −.024c (0.138) −.439** (0.149) −.023c (0.137) −.441** (0.149) −.025c (0.137)
    Never married −.081 (0.173) −.185 (0.168) −.079 (0.172) −.186 (0.168) −.081 (0.172) −.187 (0.168)
   Married — — — — — —
    Children <6 years −.143 (0.158) −.003 (0.103) −.144 (0.158) .006 (0.103) −.146 (0.159) .004 (0.103)

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

    Children 6-12 .274** (0.093) .178* (0.078) .273** (0.093) .178* (0.078) .273** (0.093) .177* (0.078)
    Children 13-19 .228** (0.080) .128 (0.079) .229** (0.080) .129 (0.079) .226** (0.080) .127 (0.079)
 Education
    No high school degree −.135 (0.129) −.116 (0.122) −.134 (0.129) −.115 (0.123) −.137 (0.129) −.119 (0.123)
    Some college −.034 (0.099) .216*,c (0.089) −.033 (0.099) .211*,c (0.089) −.036 (0.099) .209*,c (0.089)
    High school grad — — — —  

11
(continued)
 12
Table 2. (continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

  Regular Irregular Regular Irregular Regular Irregular

  β β β β β β
  Employment status
   OLF .333** (0.115) .006c (0.110) .332**,c (0.115) .012 (0.110) .333** (0.115) .012c (0.110)
    Employed regularly .212 (0.112) .088 (0.099) .211 (0.112) .094 (0.099) .208 (0.112) .091 (0.099)
    Employed contingently — — — — — —
ρ .556*** .557*** .557***
F(28, 1,822) 10.14 10.04 10.64

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

a
Significant difference between regular and irregular volunteering at .001.
b
Significant difference between regular and irregular volunteering at .01.
c
Significant difference between regular and irregular volunteering at .05.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Taniguchi 13

difference in the effect by the form of volunteering. When trust in institutions is mea-
sured by considering a broader range of organizations including major corporations,
religious organizations, newspapers and TV, the effect of institutional trust becomes
significant at the .05 level (Model 2).
At the preliminary stage of this study, the effect of generalized trust in people was
examined without including generalized trust in institutions (and vice versa). The
effects of these two generalized trust variables under the preliminary models were
similar to those reported here. Finally, the measures of generalized trust in people
(social trust) and generalized trust in private and public institutions (institutional trust)
are combined into one variable and the model is re-estimated (Model 3). As one might
expect, the effect of this variable on irregular volunteering becomes more pronounced,
and is now significant at the .01 level. The difference in the effect of generalized trust
by the type of volunteering is significant at the .001 level.
Overall, social networks matter more in facilitating regular than irregular form of
volunteer work. This pattern is especially true of the effect of formal social network-
ing. Across the models, the size of associational membership positively and signifi-
cantly predicts the likelihoods of both regular and irregular volunteer work, and yet the
effect of membership on regular volunteering is significantly (p < .01) larger than the
effect of membership on irregular volunteering.
With the exception of the effect of education, the effects of the controls are largely
as predicted, especially where regular volunteering is concerned. Consistent with the
descriptive statistics, the regression analysis shows that education significantly pre-
dicts the likelihood of irregular volunteering, but not that of regular volunteering.
Specifically, relative to those with only a high school diploma or less, those with at
least some college education are significantly more likely to engage in irregular vol-
unteering. An additional test suggests that college-educated persons are also signifi-
cantly more likely to volunteer irregularly relative to those without a high school
diploma (not tabled). Although education is one most important facilitator of volun-
teering noted in the literature, the finding here suggests that formal education plays
only a limited role in promoting formal volunteering in Japan, consistent with
Taniguchi’s (2010) study of volunteering based on the 2002 JGSS. College-educated
Japanese may be more sought after as prospective volunteers, but higher education
does not appear to be quite sufficient enough to facilitate volunteering on a consistent
basis.
The size, direction, and significance of the rho (ρ; see the bottom of Table 2) indi-
cate that unobserved variables (e.g., altruism, perceived social pressure, generativity,
feel good desires) that affect the probabilities of regular and irregular volunteering are
significantly and positively correlated. In other words, the two forms of volunteering
appear to be complements as opposed to substitutes.
The probit coefficient measures a change in the latent dependent variable associ-
ated with a change in the independent variable. It is therefore difficult to interpret the
sizes of the effects of independent variables with probit coefficients. To facilitate the
interpretation of the effect sizes, Table 3 presents marginal coefficients of the key

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

14 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X)

Table 3. Marginal Effects of the Key Variables for Selected Outcomes

Marginal Probabilities Conditional Probabilities

  Regular Irregular Regular Irregular

  D1 = 1 D2 = 1 D1 = 1 | D2 = 1 D2 = 1 | D1 = 1

Variable dy/dx dy/dx dy/dx dy/dx

Generalized trust −.008 (.008) .030** (.010) −.041* (.019) .075*** (.021)
Contact with .009 (.005) .006 (.007) .019 (.012) .001 (.014)
friends
No. of group .071*** (.008) .067*** (.009) .130*** (.017) .048* (.020)
affiliations

Note: Standard errors in parentheses. D1 and D2 denote dependent variables on regular and irregular
volunteering.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

variables (that can be interpreted as if they were ordinary least squares (OLS) coeffi-
cients), based on Model 3 shown in Table 2, for selected four outcomes: doing regular
volunteer work (Column 1), irregular volunteer work (Column 2), regular volunteer
work given participation in irregular volunteer work (Column 3), and irregular volun-
teer work given participation in regular volunteer work (Column 4). (A complete set
of marginal effects based on Models 1, 2, and 3 in Table 2 are available on request.)
There is virtually no effect of generalized trust on regular volunteering (Column 1).
By comparison, one unit increase in trust raises the probability of irregular volunteer-
ing by 3% (Column 2). Given five points on the scale of the combined generalized
trust measure (i.e., ranging from 2 to 6, see Table 1), it means that the change from the
lowest to the highest level of generalized trust results in a 15% increase in the proba-
bility of irregular volunteering. The marginal conditional effects (Columns 3 & 4)
further indicate the different roles generalized trust plays in influencing regular versus
irregular volunteering. Interestingly, a unit increase in generalized trust reduces the
conditional probability of regular volunteering by 4%, suggesting that for individuals
who are already exposed to irregular volunteering, trust plays little role in promoting
regular volunteering, and if anything, it inhibits it (Column 3). By contrast, one-unit
increase in generalized trust is associated with a 7.5% increase in the probability of
irregular volunteering conditional on participation in regular volunteering, and this
conditional marginal effect becomes significant at a higher threshold (Column 4).
The importance of formal social networking in promoting regular volunteering
becomes particularly clear when its conditional probability (given participation in
irregular volunteering) is considered. An additional membership is significantly asso-
ciated with a 13% increase in the conditional probability of regular volunteering. This
effect implies an important role formal social networking may play in the transition
from irregular to regular volunteering.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Taniguchi 15

Discussion
Although acknowledging that generalized trust and participation in formal volunteer
work are mutually reinforcing, this study focuses on the roles of generalized trust in
facilitating volunteer activities in Japan using data from the 2005 JGSS. The main
contribution of this study is to highlight the importance of distinguishing irregular
from regular volunteering when assessing the influence of generalized trust.
Specifically, it finds that generalized trust is significantly and positively associated
with the probability of irregular, but not regular, volunteering. Had this study not
considered the regularity of volunteer work, no significant effect of generalized trust
would have been revealed.8 Japanese people may score relatively low on generalized
trust in people (Miller & Mitamura, 2003; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994), or they
may have lower generalized trust in institutions today than in the past. Yet those with
a higher level of generalized trust are more likely to volunteer, if only on an irregular
basis. This study shows that in the Japanese context, it is critical to distinguish irregu-
lar from regular volunteering to identify the effect of generalized trust.9 Distinguishing
the two forms of volunteering also reveals how certain other variables significantly
promote volunteering of one form but not the other. For instance, we found that in
Japan college education promotes irregular volunteering, but not regular volunteering.
In a country such as Japan where volunteering remains at a relatively low level,
even a sporadic form of participation can be important. In a Western context, Yeung
(2008) discusses the strength of sporadic volunteering in its high compatibility with
individual freedom. For Japanese, the appeal may be its compatibility with uncer-
tainty. More generally, irregular volunteering can provide novice volunteers with ini-
tial access to the world of volunteering. In this context, one limitation of this study is
that due to its cross-sectional design, it is unable to specify a causal process for the
observed patterns of individuals’ decisions to volunteer regularly and irregularly.
Although this study suggests that regular volunteering and irregular volunteering are
related as complements rather than substitutes, it is unclear exactly how the two forms
of volunteering complement each other. Certainly, these questions can only be answered
with longitudinal data. Indeed, longitudinal volunteering research is rare, no doubt due
to the difficulty of obtaining follow-up data on volunteering and its correlates, espe-
cially on a national scale (Rotolo, 2000). Longitudinal data would also allow research-
ers to explore the causal directions between generalized trust and volunteer work.
This study also contributes to the literature by highlighting the importance of gen-
eralized trust in institutions, as opposed to generalized trust in people, as a facilitator
of formal volunteering in Japan. The large majority of research on volunteering behav-
ior is based in the West, and studies that consider the role of generalized trust as a
facilitator of formal volunteering often focus on generalized trust in people. Focusing
on a non-Western society such as Japan where citizens tend to be cooperative among
in-group members and distrustful of out-group members motivates this study to exam-
ine the role of generalized trust in institutions. Institutions, especially those outside the
local network such as government and the media, monitor interactions between

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

16 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X)

in-group and out-group members and sanction uncooperative behaviors. Generalized

trust in institutions is thus likely to positively affect formal volunteering, above and
beyond the positive effect of social trust. The restructuring of Japan’s nonprofit sector
in the 1990s and onward that strengthened its relationship with the state sector makes
it particularly important to consider the role of institutional trust in promoting formal
volunteering in Japan. That is, institutional trust may promote endorsement of the
partnership between the nonprofit and state sectors, which may help mobilize citizens
for volunteer action.
The recent catastrophic Tohoku/Kanto Earthquake and Tsunami once again tested
the efficiency of the government emergency response. The former prime minister
Naoto Kan set up emergency headquarters at his office immediately after the devastat-
ing earthquake, mobilizing thousands of self-defense force and other personnel to the
disaster zones (Statement by Prime Minister Naoto Kan, 2011). Meanwhile, the num-
ber of volunteers of all sorts kept rising, often so overwhelmingly high that nonprofit
sector and/or government agencies had to turn down requests from prospective volun-
teers (Suzuki, Fujisaki, & Asakura, 2011). Generally, people’s interests in volunteer-
ing rise dramatically in the immediate aftermath of a disaster—this is certainly the
case in Japan—but the question is their sustainability. Future research may examine
how the Tohoku/Kanto Earthquake and Tsunami affected volunteering in Japan in the
long run with a focus on the role of institutional trust.
Future studies on formal volunteering in Japan can also focus on types of activities.
As noted earlier, the most common type of volunteer activities in Japan is environmen-
tal protection and cleaning. By comparison, caregiving activities are rare. This may be
because Japanese consider caregiving as the responsibility of the family. Yet whereas
43% of respondents in the 2005 JGSS think of child care as the responsibility of the
family, less than 10% of the respondents think of elderly care as the responsibility of
the family. Demand for nonfamily elderly care has been increasing rapidly due to
population aging, the decline of extended families, and the rise of female labor-force
participation. Given the declining public spending on the elderly in recent decades, a
sharp increase in demand for the nonprofit sector’s involvement in elderly care is
inevitable. Future research can focus on what factors facilitate the decision to volun-
teer in the area of social service settings compared to other more popular areas.
Generalized trust may matter to a varying extent depending on the type of volunteer-
ing. Alternatively, the effect of generalized trust may be more encompassing. Focusing
on these questions will enrich our understanding of generalized trust as it relates to
volunteering in Japan.

Acknowledgments
The Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS, ICPSR Study Number 4703) are designed and
carried out by the JGSS Research Center at Osaka University of Commerce (Joint Usage/
Research Center for Japanese General Social Surveys accredited by Minister of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), in collaboration with the Institute of Social Science
at the University of Tokyo.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Taniguchi 17

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Notes
  1. The overall volunteering rate in the 2006 Survey on time use and leisure activities is 26.2%.
The discrepancy exists because unlike the JGSS, this survey considered both formal and
informal volunteering.
  2. Tamura (2003) shows that this reason is often cited by Japanese volunteers, although the
frequency is higher in the United States. The 2005 JGSS did not ask reasons for volunteering.
  3. Uslaner (2002, 2008) stresses that particularized and generalized trust are independent of
each other. Although individuals’ early life experiences help shape both types of general-
ized trust, once formed, generalized trust is more stable over time (Uslaner, 2002).
  4. Individuals with higher trust may actually be no more, if not less, civically active if they
tend to leave it to others to act on charitable motives precisely because of the trust they
place in the goodness of others (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1996).
  5. The causal relationship between generalized trust in people and in institutions has been
debated (Rothstein, 2004, 2005; Uslaner, 2002; Uslaner & Badescu, 2004), but is outside
the scope of my study. For respondents in my sample, the correlation between the two is
significant but low at .15.
  6. See also Patrick Sturgis (2010) for a potential limitation of the measure.
  7. After World War II the Japanese school system was transformed under the U.S. occupation.
Adjustments are made for the respondents who completed their education before World
War II.
  8. I also ran models without distinguishing irregular from regular volunteering, and found no
significant effect of generalized trust in people or institutions.
  9. I also analyzed data from the 2004 U.S. General Social Survey with relevant but not strictly
comparable items and found that generalized trust promotes irregular but not regular vol-
unteering.

References
Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L. M. (1999). Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Initial
comparisons. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 43-65.
Suzuki, T., Fujisaki, M., & Asakura, T. (2011). Quake-hit districts cannot cope with influx of vol-
unteers. Asahi.com. Retrieved from http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201104300100.html
Bekkers, R. (2009). Trust and volunteering: Selection or causation? Evidence from a four year
panel study. Retrieved from www.fss.uu.nl/soc/homes/bekkers/trustandvolunteering.pdf
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of
social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

18 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X)

Brown, M., & Uslaner, E. (2002). Inequality, trust, and political engagement. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTECAREGTOPSOCDEV/Resources/Uslaner_
Inequality_trust_political_engagement.pdf
Caputo, R. K. (1997). Women as volunteers and activists. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar-
terly, 26(2), 156-174.
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: How social capital makes organizations
work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Cook, K. S., Yamagishi, T., Cheshire, C., Cooper, R., Matsuda, M., & Mashima, R. (2005). Trust
building via risk taking: A cross-societal experiment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(2),
121-142.
Drollinger, T. (2010). A theoretical examination of giving and volunteering utilizing resource
exchange theory. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 22(1), 55-66.
Freeman, R. (1997). Working for nothing: The supply of volunteer labor. Journal of Labor
Economics, 15(1), S140-S166.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Gallagher, S. (1994). Doing their share: Comparing patterns of help given by older and younger
adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 567-578.
Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Haddad, M. A. (2011). A state-in-society approach to the nonprofit sector: Welfare services in
Japan. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(1),
26-47.
Hank, K., & Stuck, S. (2008). Volunteer work, informal help, and care among the 50+ in Europe:
Further evidence for “linked” productive activities at older ages. Social Science Research,
37, 1280-1291.
Hodgkinson, V. A. (1995). Key factors influencing caring, involvement, and community. In
P. G. Schervish, V. A. Hodgkinson, M. Gates, & Associates (Eds.), Care and community in
modern society: Passing on the tradition of service to future generations (pp. 21-50). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Huang, J., van den Brink, H. M., & Groot, W. (2009). A meta-analysis of the effect of education
on social capital. Economics of Education Review, 28, 454-464.
Irwin, K. (2009). Prosocial behavior across cultures: The effects of institutional versus gener-
alized trust. In S. R. Thye & E. Lawler (Eds.), Altruism and prosocial behavior in groups
(Advances in Group Processes series, Vol. 26, pp. 165-198). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Ivarsflaten, E., & Strømsnes, K. (2010). Inequality, diversity and social trust in Norwegian
communities. Retrieved from http://istr.conference-services.net/resources/588/1799/pdf/
ISTR2010_0376.pdf
Jalandoni, N. T., & Hume, K. (2001). America’s family volunteers. Washington, DC: Indepen-
dent Sector. Retrieved from http://www.independentsector.org/publications
Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2004). Social trust and civic engagement across time and genera-
tions. Acta Politica, 39, 342-379.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Taniguchi 19

Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., & Hanna, B. A. (1996). Collective trust and collective action:
The decision to trust as a social decision. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in
organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 357-389). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kwak, N., Shah, D. V., & Holbert, R. L. (2004). Connecting, trusting, and participating: The direct
and interactive effects of social associations. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 643-652.
Lee, Y. J., & Moon, S. G. (2011). Mainstream and ethnic volunteering by Korean immigrants
in the United States. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organiza-
tions, 22, 811-830.
Matsunaga, Y. (2007). To give, or not to give; to volunteer, or not to volunteer, that is the
question: Evidence on Japanese philanthropic behavior revealed by the JGSS-2005 data set
(Japanese General Social Surveys monographs). Nihon-ban General Social Surveys Kenkyu
Ronbunshu, 6, 69-82.
McPherson, J. M., & Rotolo, T. (1996). Testing a dynamic model of social composition: Diver-
sity and change in voluntary groups. American Sociological Review, 61(2), 179-202.
Miller, A. S., & Mitamura, T. (2003). Are surveys on trust trustworthy? Social Psychology
Quarterly, 66(1), 62-70.
Nakano, L. Y. (2000). Volunteering as a lifestyle choice: Negotiating self-identities in Japan.
Ethnology, 39(2), 93-107.
Ogawa, A. (2004). Invited by the state: Institutionalizing volunteer subjectivity in contemporary
Japan. Asian Anthropology, 3, 71-96.
Ogawa, A. (2009). The failure of civil society? The third sector and the state in contemporary
Japan. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Park, J. Z., & Smith, C. (2000). To whom much has been given . . .: Religious capital and
community voluntarism among churchgoing Protestants. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 39, 272-286.
Pekkanen, R., & Tsujinaka, Y. (2008). Neighbourhood associations and the demographic chal-
lenge. In F. Coulmas, H. Conrad, A. Schad-Seifert, & G. Vogt (Eds.), The demographic
challenge: A handbook about Japan (pp. 707-720). Leiden, Netherlands: BRILL.
Pew Research Center. (2007). Americans and social trust: Who, where and why. A social trends
report. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/414/americans-and-social-trust-who-
where-and-why
Pharr, S. J., Putnam, R. D., & Dalton, R. J. (2000). A quarter-century of declining confidence.
Journal of Democracy, 11(2), 5-25.
Reed, P. B., & Selbee, L. K. (2000). Formal and informal volunteering and giving: Regional
and community patterns in Canada (Catalogue No. 75F0048MIE—No. 5). Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada: Statistics Canada.
Rossi, A. S. (2001). Domains and dimensions of social responsibility: A sociodemographic pro-
file. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Caring and doing for others: Social responsibility in the domains
of family, work, and community (pp. 97-134). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rothstein, B. (2004). Social trust and honesty in government: A causal mechanisms approach.
In J. Kornai, S. Rose-Ackerman, & B. Rothstein (Eds.), Creating social trust: Problems of
post-socialist transition (pp. 13-30). New York, NY: Palgrave.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

20 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X)

Rothstein, B. (2005). Social traps and the problem of trust. Theories of institutional design.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rotolo, T. (2000). A time to join, a time to quit: The influence of life cycle transitions on volun-
tary association membership. Social Forces, 78, 1133-1161.
Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results
from 53 Countries. American Sociological Review, 71, 191-210.
Schmid, H. (2001). Neighborhood self-management: experiments in civil society. New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Shaw, R., & Goda, K. (2004). From disaster to sustainable civil society: The Kobe experience.
Disasters, 28(1), 16-40.
Statement by Prime Minister Naoto Kan on Tohoku district-off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake.
(2001, March). Retrieved from http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/statement/201103/11ki
shahappyo_e.html
Smith, L. M. (1975). Women as volunteers: The double subsidy. Journal of Voluntary Action
Research, 4(3), 119-136.
Sønderskov, K. M. (2008). Does generalized social trust lead to associational membership?
Unraveling a bowl of well-tossed spaghetti. Unpublished manuscript.
Staub, E. (1995). How people learn to care. In P. G. Schervish, V. A. Hodgkinson, M. Gates,
& Associates (Eds.), Care and community in modern society: Passing on the tradition of
service to future generations (pp. 51-67). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Sturgis, P. (2010). Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: What kind of trust are
we measuring? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1), 74-92.
Tamura, S. (2003). The emergence of NPOs and the implications for local governance. In S.
Furkawaand & T. Menju (Eds.), Japan’s road to pluralism: Transforming local communities
in the global era (pp. 161-178). Tokyo, Japan: Japan Center for International Exchange.
Taniguchi, H. (2010). Who are volunteers in Japan? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
39(1), 161-179.
Tanioka, I., Nitta, M., Iwai, N., & Yasuda, T. (2005). Japanese General Social Survey, 2005
(ICPSR 4703). Osaka, Japan: Office of Japanese General Social Survey, Osaka University
of Commerce.
Uchida, Y, Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness: The-
ory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 223-239.
Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Uslaner, E. M. (2008). The foundations of trust: macro and micro. Cambridge Journal of Eco-
nomics, 32, 289-294.
Uslaner, E. M., & Badescu, G. (2004). Honesty, trust, and legal norms in the transition to
democracy: Why Bo Rothstein is better able to explain Sweden than Romania. In J. Kornai,
S. Rose-Ackerman, & B. Rothstein, (Eds.), Creating social trust: Problems of post-socialist
transition (pp. 31-52). New York, NY: Palgrave.
Wang, L., & Graddy, E. (2008). Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Voluntas:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 23-42.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

Taniguchi 21

Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215-240.

Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work.
American Sociological Review, 62, 694-713.
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (2000). The effects of volunteering on the volunteer. Law and Con-
temporary Problems, 62(4), 141-168.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan.
Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 129-166.
Yeung, A. B. (2008). Free to choose—So why choose volunteering? Exploring independence
and social action in the Finnish Church. Voluntary Action: The Journal of the Institute for
Volunteering Research, 9(1), 36-45.

Bio
Hiromi Taniguchi is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Louisville. Her
current research interests are civic engagement in Japan and the US, and intergenerational sup-
port in Japan.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016