See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259423868

Volunteer Tourism: Powerful Programs or Predisposed Participants?

Article · August 2012

DOI: 10.1017/jht.2012.14

CITATIONS READS
13 201

2 authors:

Andrew W. Bailey Keith Russell

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Western Washington University
32 PUBLICATIONS   133 CITATIONS    67 PUBLICATIONS   1,408 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

UTC Tourism Center View project

Promoting Resilience and Well-Being for Indigenous Adolescents in Canada View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew W. Bailey on 24 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Tourism Management
Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number:

Title: Volunteer Tourism: Powerful Programs or Predisposed Participants?

Article Type: Research Paper

Keywords: Voluntourism, motivation, personality, wisdom, outcomes, program design, marketing

Corresponding Author: Dr. Andrew W. Bailey, Ph,D,

Corresponding Author's Institution: Calvin College

First Author: Andrew W. Bailey, Ph,D,

Order of Authors: Andrew W. Bailey, Ph,D,; Keith C Russell, Ph.D.

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore the relative motivations and subsequent effects of a
ten-day volunteer tourism opportunity for college students during spring break. A key objective of the
study was to explore the backgrounds of the participants, comparing them to similar non-
voluntourists, to better understand what compelled and motivated them to want to spend their spring
break engaged in community service in a distant location. The participants consisted of 617 students
at a university in the Midwestern United States, half of whom participated in a voluntour.
Voluntourists reported higher levels of yearly civic engagement, civic attitude, openness, compassion,
cognitive drive, and reflectivity. The developmental disparities evident before the tour continued to
grow over the course of five weeks. Implications for marketing, program design, and education are
discussed within the context of the burgeoning voluntourism industry.
Title page with author details

Volunteer Tourism: Powerful Programs or Predisposed Participants?

Corresponding Author:
Andrew W. Bailey, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Recreation
Calvin College
2347 Jefferson Dr SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49507 USA
Andrew@calvin.edu
Phone: 423-290-6142
Fax: (616) 526-6060

Secondary Author:
Keith C. Russell, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Recreation
Western Washington University
516 High St, Old Carver Gym 6
Bellingham, WA 98225-9067
Email: Keith.Russell@wwu.edu
Phone: 360-650-3529

Abstract:

The purpose of this study was to explore the relative motivations and subsequent effects of a ten-
day volunteer tourism opportunity for college students during spring break. A key objective of
the study was to explore the backgrounds of the participants, comparing them to similar non-
voluntourists, to better understand what compelled and motivated them to want to spend their
spring break engaged in community service in a distant location. The participants consisted of
617 students at a university in the Midwestern United States, half of whom participated in a
voluntour. Voluntourists reported higher levels of yearly civic engagement, civic attitude,
openness, compassion, cognitive drive, and reflectivity. The developmental disparities evident
before the tour continued to grow over the course of five weeks. Implications for marketing,
program design, and education are discussed within the context of the burgeoning voluntourism
industry.
*Highlights

Highlights:

 Volunteer tourists are a unique clientele, differing from other tourists in fundamental ways.
 Voluntourists report higher levels of social engagement on a regular basis.
 Voluntourists demonstrate higher levels of openness, affection, cognition, reflectivity and civic
attitude than non-participants.
 These developmental disparities increased and remained significant for a month after the
voluntour.
 Implications are discussed regarding program design, marketing, and educational opportunities
through volunteer tourism.
*Manuscript (remove anything that identifies authors)
Click here to view linked References

Volunteer Tourism: Powerful Programs or Predisposed Participants?

1. Introduction

Volunteer tourism, or “Voluntourism,” is an increasingly popular form of leisure travel

for people of all ages. McGehee and Santos (2005, p. 760) define volunteer tourism as “utilizing

discretionary time and income to travel out of the sphere of regular activity to assist others in

need.” These experiences may last a weekend or several months, and they may include travel

within domestic countries or abroad. Travelers may choose to participate of their own volition,

or they may be “encouraged” by their schools or employers (Gold, 2011). As such, the term

“volunteer tourism” applies to a breadth of experiences, some of which heavily emphasize

volunteering and others which focus more on tourism. Given the inclusion of a service

component, this type of travel is thought to foster reciprocity between the participant and the host

community, thereby benefiting both parties (Raymond & Hall, 2008).

The impact of voluntourism on participants and related communities and organizations

has gained considerable interest by researchers. The benefits reported by participants have

included raised consciousness, increased interest in activism, and increased pro-social values,

compassion, and perspective-taking (Bailey & Russell, 2008; 2010; Wearing, 2001; Wearing &

Neil, 2003). These experiences also positively impact local communities through a renewed

commitment to community service and an increased system of network ties between

organizations and volunteers agencies (McGehee, 2002; McGehee & Santos, 2005). Additional

benefits include the direct and indirect economic impacts on the host community given the

compulsory (i.e. food and lodging) and recreational (i.e. souvenirs) spending of the tourists while

they are volunteering (Goodwin, 2008). Skeptics contend that volunteer tourism, especially in
the form of short-term excursions, has limited influence on participants and may be exploitative

of host communities (Simpson, 2004). Though these concerns are justified in some cases,

mounting anecdotal and empirical evidence provides a compelling argument for voluntourism as

a viable type of boundary-expanding travel experience (Brown & Morrison, 2003). In fact,

many researchers agree that volunteer tourists are a unique clientele who are actively seeking

interaction with, and a deeper understanding of diverse cultures (Wearing, 2001), and that the

experiences can be a powerful educational opportunity (Jamal, Taillon, & Dredge, 2011).

The purpose of this study was to explore the relative motivations and subsequent effects

of a ten-day volunteer tourism opportunity for college students during spring break. A key

objective of the study was to explore the backgrounds of the participants to better understand

what compelled and motivated them to want to spend their spring break engaged in community

service in a distant location. The outcomes of interest in the study were the degree to which the

experience impacted wisdom, civic attitude, and openness. Wisdom as a construct of interest has

gained considerable attention in recent years and is reasoned to consist of cognitive, affective

and reflective dimensions (Ardelt, 2003). The cognitive dimension is concerned with one’s

willingness and ability to understand phenomena on a deep level, knowledge of the ambiguity of

human nature, knowledge about the limits of knowledge, and an awareness of life’s uncertainty.

The affective dimension measures one’s demeanor and sympathetic compassion towards others.

The final dimension, reflection, measures the degree to which one tries to overcome their

subjectivity, their willingness to look at situations from various points of view, and their

acceptance of responsibility for their life circumstances (Ardelt, 2003). Openness assesses one’s

willingness to try new things or entertain new ideas. Finally, civic attitude examines an

individual’s belief that they can make a difference in the world and civic responsibility. The
following literature review examines these constructs of interest in more detail and presents a

rationale for why these constructs are important in the context of voluntourism, and the context

for this study.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Motivation

While tourist motivations are not analyzed directly in this study, motivational theories are

foundational to the research. Any experienced teacher will attest to the inherent “teachability” of

a motivated learner. Furthermore, those students who are intrinsically motivated tend to

outperform students who are extrinsically motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation

consists of external rewards provided in exchange for a student’s concerted effort to learn (i.e.

grades, money, etc.). Given that leisure tourists voluntarily participate, and often contribute

substantial sums of money, they can be seen as internally motivated (Iso-Ahola, 1982). Indeed,

research indicates that altruism and personal growth are common reasons for participation in

service-oriented leisure pursuits (Bailey & Russell, 2009). Mustonen (2006) likens voluntourism

to a postmodern pilgrimage, contending that altruism is the vehicle by which postmodern tourists

find enlightenment. Debate exists as to whether any action can be driven by altruism alone

(Okasha, 2005). Granted, a tourist’s decisions are likely guided by several competing motivators,

such as: experiencing different cultures, stimulation, nostalgia, recognition, and skill

enhancement (Bailey & Russell, 2009; Pearce & Lee, 2005). In sum, it appears that volunteer

tourists are actively seeking growth through their travel experiences while also making a positive

difference for the host community (Brown & Morrison, 2003). It is possible that this growth is a

self-fulfilling prophecy generated by preconceived expectations.

 2.2. Personality & Attitudes

While motivations are a popular topic in tourism literature, minimal quantitative research

has been conducted to determine unique traits associated with volunteer tourists. Cohen (1979)

laid the foundation for distinguishing travelers seeking an escape from daily life from those

seeking deeper interaction with local members of the host community. Wearing, Deville, &

Lyons (2008) further developed this argument, identifying openness as a key trait of volunteer

tourists. Openness, as a personality trait, refers to those who enjoy novel experiences, trying new

things, and entertaining new ideas (McCrae & Costa, 1999). These individuals thrive in

situations that might make others uncomfortable. An open disposition would be an asset to a

voluntourist who, for example, works alongside a homeless person, tutors children from diverse

backgrounds, and/or provides emotional support for marginalized persons.

Given their motivation toward personal growth and skill enhancement, it is also likely

that volunteer tourists exhibit high levels of cognitive functioning. While not a measure of

intellectual performance, a pro-cognitive personality indicates an interest in abstract ideas, a

drive to understand phenomena on a deep level, and a willingness to expend considerable mental

effort in solving problems (Ardelt, 2003). This trait is conceptually related to openness, as both

variables extend from an innate curiosity that encourages exploration and discovery. Those who

choose to challenge themselves (mentally, physically, and culturally) during their free time may

be intrinsically driven by this cognitive disposition (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Altruistic motivations are indicative of empathetic tendencies. Previous research found

that volunteer tourists exhibit pro-social and collectivist values, which are associated with

affective personality traits (Bailey & Russell, 2008). It is conceivable that compassion is the
driving force behind one’s decision to participate in a service-oriented experience. Indeed,

compassion can be a powerful motivator to act, often outperforming formal reasoning (Goleman,

2002). Service-oriented leisure experiences can increase a participant’s affective attitudes and

behaviors (Bailey & Russell, 2010; Lundy, 2007), but it is unclear whether this is due to the

service experience or the participant’s predisposition toward empathy and compassion.

A reflective personality is closely associated with compassionate, thoughtful individuals.

Some would argue that reflectivity is the mother of empathy and deep understanding (Ardelt,

2003). Those who delay judgment of others and try to view issues from a variety of perspectives

also tend to reject dogmatic statements, preferring instead to develop a thorough picture of the

complexities of each situation. Volunteer tourism provides a unique opportunity to facilitate

understanding and appreciation of diverse cultures (Brown & Morrison, 2003). The experiences

encountered certainly provide ample material for reflection (Wearing, 2001). However, it is also

possible that reflective individuals gravitate toward such opportunities. Is reflectivity an output

or an input of a voluntourism experience?

Finally, those who engage in service-oriented activities often report high levels of civic

awareness and responsibility (Mabry, 1998). These activities may benefit participants

exponentially throughout their lifetime, through increased network ties, civic knowledge, and

awareness of diversity (Astin, Sax & Avalos, 1999). Volunteer vacations have been shown to

influence civic attitudes, but these programs may be “preaching to the choir”, given the

propensity for civic-minded individuals to participate in alternative tourism (Lyons & Wearing,

2008). Those who are compelled to promote the common good and who believe that they can

make a difference might be more likely to act upon those beliefs.

2.3. Social Environment

 A supportive social environment is crucial for thriving over the entire course of the

lifespan (Erikson, 1982). This support may be even more indispensable during the formative

years of childhood and adolescence. Socio-economic status (SES), for example, may influence

self-confidence, academic performance, civic behavior, and career trajectory (Ardelt, 2000;

Scales, Roehlkepartain, Neal, Kelsmeier, & Benson, 2006). SES may also determine the friends

one has and the activities one engages in. Individuals with a higher SES are more likely to

participate in volunteering for leisure (Chang, Fang, Ling, & Tsai, 2011), and individuals from

more educated, higher income families are consistently more engaged in community service

activities (Foster-Bey, 2008). To account for this influence, our study incorporated a six-item

social environment inventory.

2.4. Social Engagement

Pro-social behaviors are almost universally accepted as a positive developmental

indicator. Those who engage in social activities, whether formal (i.e. clubs) or informal (i.e.

dinner with friends), demonstrate higher academic performance, better socialization, and higher

levels of empathy and compassion (Bailey & Russell, 2008; Putnam, 2001). Routine interactions

with others also tend to foster trust, which is the basis of meaningful relationships and of well-

functioning societies (Putnam & Feldstein, 2003). It is plausible that volunteer tourists are more

socially active on a routine basis, and that their travel choices are merely an extension of their

daily lives. This idea is conceptually related to the spillover theory of leisure, whereby

individuals participate in similar leisure activities as they do at work (McLean, Hurd, & Rogers,

2005). This would be consistent with a trait-based theory of voluntourism participation.

3. Methodology
 The participants in this study consisted of 617 students at a university in the Midwestern

United States. Roughly half (n=288) of these students participated in the Pay It Forward Tour

(PIFT); a service-oriented spring break trip offered by the Students Today Leaders Forever

(STLF). These students boarded a coach bus in Minneapolis and traveled to Washington, D.C.

over the course of ten days. Each day included some type of service (i.e. soup kitchen, tutoring

inner-city youth) to a local community, as well as small and large group discussions, city tours,

and group activities. Participants voluntarily participated in this tour, and received no course

credits or other compensation for their efforts. While the tour does cost several hundreds of

dollars per participant, scholarships are available and no student has ever been turned away for

lack of funds.

All participants were given pre-trip questionnaires one week before the trip. Those who

elected to participate in the study completed the forms at their leisure and returned them to an

STLF leader at the time of trip departure. From this sampling frame, a total of 235 completed

the pre-trip instrument, resulting in a response rate of 82%. The post-trip measure for the

participant group was administered during the fifth week after the conclusion of the trip using an

online survey tool. Of the 235 participants who participated in the study, 192 (82%)

questionnaires could be utilized for comparison of pre and post measurements. The measurement

schedule was specifically designed to minimize elevated scores due to the influence of

anticipatory and post-euphoric effects before and after highly emotional experiences; a common

limitation of experiential research (Ewert & Sibthorp, 2009). This design was employed as a

method of analyzing participant characteristics, not as a type of program evaluation.

The non-participant group consisted of a non-equivalent sample of students currently

enrolled in recreation, sports management, and physical activity program classes. Many of these
students shared classes with those attending the PIFT and all of the students frequented the

recreation facility where the PIFT was heavily advertised. While it is not guaranteed that all of

these participants were aware of the PIFT before this study, they were certainly surrounded by

information regarding the opportunity. Given the policy of the STLF to provide for anyone with

the desire to participate, the main constraints for these non-participants would be lack of

awareness and lack of interest.

A total of 307 questionnaires were collected from the non-participant group. An identical

second questionnaire was distributed during the fifth week after the conclusion of spring break.

Of the original 307 surveys collected, 207 (68%) could be matched for comparison of pre-trip

and follow-up measurements. This moderate response rate was due to sporadic class attendance

at the end of the semester and the voluntary nature of the study. The majority of these students

(41%) cited visiting family and friends as their primary spring break activity, 20% engaged in

other types of travel, 21% cited work as their primary activity, and 18% cited other activities

(e.g. “Drank a lot and played video games”) or chose not to respond. None of the non-

participants engaged in service-oriented activities during their spring break. A preliminary

ANOVA with Games-Howell post-hoc analysis was conducted to determine differences in these

non-participant sub-groups. The only significant difference was for hanging out with friends in

public places (p = .043). Subsequent analyses included all non-participants as a single group.

3.1. Measures

The survey packet included a total of 81 items measuring ten variables. The variables of

interest included social environment, social engagement, cognition, affection, reflection,

openness, and civic attitude. Social environment was measured with four items which describe

the education and intellectual interests of parents, and educational aspirations of the participant.
Social engagement was measured using six items indicating the number of formal and informal

relationships in which the participant was involved (i.e. eating out with friends, attendance at

religious ceremonies, clubs, etc.) and frequency of participation in the previous 12 months.

These items were adapted from the Social Capital Short Form (The Saguaro Seminar, 2002).

The dependent variables were measured using three established instruments: Ardelt’s

(2003) 3-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (39 items measuring Cognitive, Affective, and Reflective

traits), Civic Attitude (Mabry, 1998), and the Openness subscale of the NEO-PI (McCrae &

Costa, 1999). The 3-Dimentional Wisdom Scale (3DWS) measures wisdom as evidenced by

cognitive, affective and reflective effect indicators (Ardelt, 2003). Items measuring the cognitive

dimension assess one’s willingness and ability to understand phenomena on a deep level,

knowledge of the ambiguity of human nature, knowledge about the limits of knowledge, and an

awareness of life’s uncertainty. The affective dimension measures one’s demeanor and

sympathetic compassion towards others. This domain is “other-oriented” and higher ratings

should demonstrate a lack of self-centeredness. The final dimension, reflection, measures the

degree to which one tries to overcome their subjectivity, their willingness to look at situations

from various points of view, and their acceptance of responsibility for their life circumstances

(Ardelt, 2003). Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable for all three domains (Affective= .75;

Cognitive= .80; Reflective= .77)

Openness was measured by the Openness to Experience subscale of the NEO-PI (McCrae

& Costa, 1999). This scale includes 12 items assessing one’s willingness to try new things (i.e.

“I often try new and foreign foods”), entertain new ideas (i.e. “I often enjoy playing with theories

or abstract ideas”). Reliability for this scale was robust (α = .79). Finally, civic attitude was

measured with Mabry’s (1998) Civic Attitude Scale. This brief assessment includes five items
addressing civic efficacy (i.e. “I believe I can make a difference in the world”) and civic

responsibility (i.e. “It is important to help others even if you don’t get paid for it”). Cronbach’s

alpha for this scale was .88.

3.2. Analyses

To test the initial differences between participants and non-participants, an ANOVA was

conducted with group as the between subjects variable. Further descriptive analyses were

performed on the trip participants to generate a complete profile of the PIFT clientele. To

determine group differences on dependent variables, a multiple analysis of covariance

(MANCOVA) was conducted on the final scores with group status as the between-subjects

variable. The pre-test scores and four independent variables (gender, age, social environment

and social engagement) were included as covariates to account for any differences in group

status before the experience. These covariates also help determine those pre-existing differences

that might contribute toward disparities of growth.

4. Results

The results indicate that there were significant differences between the PIFT participants

and those who did not participate in service activities over the course of spring break. A

summary of these results can be seen in Table 1. There was no difference between groups on

measures of educational attainment of parents, intellectual interests of their parents, nor on self-

report GPA. PIFT participants reported significantly higher measures of civic involvement (i.e.

Community groups, religious organizations and club membership), but there was no difference in

measures of informal social engagement (i.e. Hanging out with friends at home & in public

places). The PIFT participants rated themselves higher for all 5 personality measures on the

survey instrument with a significance of p< .001. It should also be noted that two thirds of PIFT
participants were female, and that the non-participant group’s mean age was slightly higher (<

1year).

Insert Table 1 here.

The developmental disparities evident before the tour continued to grow over the course

of five weeks. As shown in Table 2, the two groups demonstrated divergent growth trajectories

on almost all outcome measurements. The F statistic and effect sizes are listed for comparison.

As a reference, an eta squared of .01 is considered small, .06 is medium, and .14 is a large effect

when conducting a MANCOVA (Kline, 2004). First, it is evident that the PIFT group scored

significantly higher on all but one outcome while accounting for pre-trip scores and other

relevant variables. The effect of the group factor ranged from low (Affection = .03) to moderate

(Openness = .09). However, it appears that pre-trip scores had a stronger effect on their

respective final outcome scores than did the group factor. Openness, for example, was

moderately affected by group status (.09), but very strongly affected by one’s initial openness

score (.34). The same phenomenon emerged for all the outcome variables with the exception of

civic attitude. Gender had no significant influence on any outcome variables. Age had a small

effect on civic attitude and openness. Openness was also influenced by social environment and

social engagement.

Insert Table 2 here.

Additional descriptors collected from the PIFT participants shed more light on the unique

aspects of this population. Nearly all of these participants (99.6%) have had formal classes in
leadership at the college level. Over half (53%) have been involved in a “significant” service-

learning experience in the past, either in school or on their own. Seventy percent report having

traveled outside of the United States at least once, while 22% have been out of North America

four or more times. Almost all (99%) of these students have a leadership role in at least one club

or extra-curricular activity. Finally, 87% of the PIFT participants are considering a career in the

non-profit field.

5. Discussion

5.1. Limitations

This study provides insight into a self-selected group of voluntourism participants, but

the results should be interpreted in light of a few limitations. It is extremely difficult to select an

indisputable set of “non-participants” for a voluntary program. Given the regional, cultural,

academic, and socio-economic similarities of the PIFT and non-participant groups, they can be

considered comparable. However, it should be noted that the non-participants may have had

unknown reasons for not joining the PIFT which could impact the results. Additionally, self-

report assessments are always susceptible to desirability influence (i.e. the Hawthorne effect).

Finally, this study was conducted on one specific voluntourism experience. While these results

may be informative for other programs, they cannot be generalized without prudence.

5.2. Initial Status

The purpose of this study was to explore the differences in initial status and growth

trajectories of college students who did and did not participate in a voluntourism experience.

Profiles of those who choose to participate in service-oriented vacations are plentiful, but

comparisons with similar groups who do not participate are much more difficult to find. It is

evident from this study that these groups may be fundamentally different. Those who choose to
participate in these tours report higher levels of yearly civic engagement. In addition, they tend

to place a higher value on civic engagement and to believe that they can make a difference in the

world (i.e. civic attitude). PIFT participants were more open to new experiences, and

demonstrated higher levels of compassion (i.e. Affection), of cognitive drive, and reflectivity

(i.e. not impulsive or judgmental).

Many of these findings merely confirm assumptions about volunteer tourists expressed in

previous literature. Pro-social orientation, compassionate, altruistic intentions, and openness

have all been associated with volunteer tourists, either conceptually or empirically (Bailey &

Russell, 2008; Wearing, 2001). The largest differences between the groups in this study were in

affection and openness. A more compassionate disposition would be consistent with altruistic

motives for participation (Taillon & Jamal, 2010). A certain level of openness &

adventurousness may be a requisite characteristic for volunteer tourists, given the inherent

discomfort involved with travel, cultural accommodation, and boundary-spanning social

interaction (Brown & Lehto, 2005). PIFT participants may represent Plog’s (1994) “allocentric”

tourist type, as they are relatively well-traveled (<70% have travelled outside of the U.S.),

adventurous, and value independent thought.

These findings may have implications for the marketing and design of voluntourist

programming. Not all programs report such positive assets regarding their volunteers. In fact,

certain programs indicate that voluntourists exploit their services as a method of cheap travel

(Kloushafer, 2007). These tourists appear to be more interested in experiencing the local

hedonic culture than serving the local population. Though beyond the scope of this study, one

could speculate that advertising and program design contribute to this predicament. The STLF’s

promotional material, for example, heavily emphasizes leadership development and the
opportunity to make a positive difference during spring break. This may explain the high level of

leadership experience reported by the PIFT participants. It is not uncommon for other

voluntourism agencies to highlight the local culture, amenities, and/or affordability over and

above the service activities. This marketing strategy may increase participant numbers, but it

may also attract a less altruistic clientele and/or create undesired expectations for the participant.

Future research would be needed to address this speculation.

The issue of less-altruistic clientele may also be a consequence of program design. The

PIFT is a highly- structured tour, with little free time or choice of activities. While each tour is

uniquely shaped by the group involved, participants essentially sign up for an “all-inclusive”

travel experience. Even if individuals were inclined to pursue hedonic activities, they would

likely be discouraged by the lack of time and/or other participants. This model is not practical

for all voluntourism programs, of course, but it could be adapted to suit other contexts.

Volunteers could, for example, be required to commit a minimum number of service hours for

the privilege of cheap room and board. Additionally, an orientation at the beginning of the

experience may better acquaint participants to the mission and values of the organization,

establish relationships which would serve as a measure of accountability, and clarify

expectations for the client and the agency. Supplementary structure requires supplementary

planning and support. Each program would need to determine the level of structure suitable to

their needs.

5.3. Differences in Growth

Even while accounting for pre-trip scores in all outcome variables, the “group” factor

accounted for a significant amount of variance in four of the five outcome variables. This

indicates that volunteer vacations may have lasting effects over and beyond the pre-disposition
of participants. Given the five week time span between assessments and the large amount of

unexplained variance (~60%) for each outcome variable, it is evident that other factors contribute

to the growth in outcome variables. However, SES indicators and routine social engagement had

only a minimal influence on a single outcome, openness. This leaves a large portion of

unexplained variance in that cannot be ascertained by the data in this study. Future research must

be conducted to determine the nature of other significant influences, whether they be personal or

environmental.

The results provide adequate support for the suspicion that voluntourists are a unique

clientele, and that their trip experiences and/or routine activities contribute to a growing gap in

openness, cognition, affection and reflection. This has implications for any program seeking to

evaluate program outcomes. There is a dearth of rigorous, quantitative research utilizing

experimental methods to evaluate voluntourism experiences. Much valuable information can be

gleaned from qualitative research, but the nature of the method inhibits objectivity and

extrapolation. A rich description of one participant’s growth experience provides a depth of

understanding, but does little to substantiate claims of positive program impact for all

participants. Given the growing skepticism about volunteer tourism and its potential to exploit

host communities (McGee & Andereck, 2008), programmers should take seriously the

responsibility to conduct rigorous evaluations. This may not only provide support for continued

programming, but will maximize the impact of each new experience through evidence-based

modifications.

Empirical support will become increasingly important if voluntourism evolves into a

method of character-based education (Jamal, Taillon, & Dredge, 2011). Evidence suggests that

these experiences can produce lasting effects in certain developmental assets (Bailey & Russell,
2010). Our study revealed a divergent growth trend that raises additional concerns. Figure 1

illustrates the nature of the change for PIFT and non-PIFT study participants. While PIFT

participants gained an average of 8 percentile points across all outcomes, the non-PIFT group

lost an average of 6 percentile points. In other words, volunteer tourists are not only gaining

ground, but something exists in the normal college environment which may be detrimental to

growth in these domains.

Insert Figure 1 here

Assuming education involves socialization as well as memorization (Dewey, 1916), these

findings do not bode well for our future citizenry. One could speculate on myriad of causes for

these declines. One such explanation coincides with Iso-Ahola’s (1982) travel motivational

model. This model contends that a combination of push factors (i.e. getting away from school &

routine) and intrinsic motivations (i.e. personal growth, enjoyment) determine one’s tourism

choice. All travelers in this study may have been driven by the push factors of “getting away

from school” during spring break. This could be accomplished by visiting family, going to

Cancun, or by attending the PIFT. However, their intrinsic motivations, or what they were

seeking from their experience, would likely differ. Travel home, for instance, may be indicative

of the search for security and/or the reinforcement of established social bonds (Putnam &

Feldstein, 2003). Travel to an exotic destination (i.e. Cancun) suggests the search for adventure

and/or enjoyment. The choice of a service-oriented vacation such as the PIFT, implies a search

for personal growth and/or an opportunity to help those in need (Bailey & Russell, 2009).

If this conjecture holds true, then voluntourists are intrinsically motivated to seek

personal growth and serve others. The results support this surmise, given the increased social
engagement of the PIFT participants on a regular basis. The same motivation that drives them to

participate in clubs and community service at home “spills over” to their choice of leisure travel

(McLean, Hurd, & Rogers, 2005). Voluntourism enhances their development while encouraging

them to serve at home in order experience the same benefits. The cycle continues and the

developmental gap persists.

This presents a dilemma for those hoping to promote voluntourism as a method of

character education: that of inducing intrinsic motivation toward positive developmental assets.

Compulsory participation would likely interfere with participant enjoyment, regardless of the

activities involved (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). However, an understanding of participant travel

motivations would enable a programmer to include participant expectations into the mix of

activities. They would need to take caution, lest they fall into the trap of establishing

inappropriate expectations (see above). Given the indication that early service experiences lead

to continued service throughout one’s lifetime (Astin, Sax, & Avalos, 1999), volunteer vacations

may serve as a gateway to enhanced citizenship.

6. Conclusions

Program planners, marketers, and educators should consider the unique characteristics of

those who choose to participate in volunteer vacations. Knowledge of this unique clientele can

improve program outcomes and provide the basis for future research to understand the

dispositions of those who do and don’t participate in these unique travel experiences. It is evident

that voluntourists possess unique characteristics and motivations that influence the perceived

outcomes of these experiences. Continual efforts should be made to conduct rigorous

experimental and quasi-experimental research to determine the true effects of such programs,

and to address the growing critiques of the industry.

Table 1. Differences Between Voluntourism Participants & Non-Participants.

Dimension Item F Sig.

Demographics Age 9.496 .002
Gender 25.657 .000
Social Environment Father's Education .002 .969
Mother's Education 1.491 .223
Parent's Intellectual Interests .864 .353
Current Plans for Your Education .937 .333
Social Engagement Number of Clubs involved in (Last 12 months) 34.843 .000
(Formal) Community Volunteering (Last 12 months) 13.253 .000
Religious Services attended (Last 12 months) 4.470 .035
Social Engagement Number of very close friends .425 .515
How often do friends come to your house?
.004 .951
(Informal) (Last 12 months)
Hanging out with friends in public places.
.294 .588
(Last 12 months)
Personality Civic Attitude 29.700 .000
Affection 52.377 .000
Cognition 32.642 .000
Reflection 23.714 .000
Openness 38.272 .000
Table 2. F- values and effect size for the influence of variables on developmental outcomes.

Civic Attitude 2 Affection 2 Cognition 2 Reflection 2 Openness 2

eta eta eta eta eta
F squared F squared F squared F squared F squared
Age 5.035 *0.02 0.307 0.00 0.505 0.00 0.024 0.00 4.322 *0.01
Gender 1.298 0.00 1.562 0.01 0.222 0.00 1.284 0.00 1.797 0.01
Social Envir 3.224 0.01 1.272 0.00 1.823 -0.01 2.545 0.01 3.964 *0.01
Social Engage 0.179 0.00 0.550 0.00 0.235 0.00 0.286 0.00 3.732 *0.01
Civic Attitude1 17.967 *0.06 0.927 0.00 0.570 0.00 0.276 0.00 0.328 0.00
Affection1 11.630 *0.04 93.656 *0.24 .0940 0.00 2.835 0.01 4.812 *0.02
Cognition1 1.006 0.00 2.544 0.01 57.974 *0.16 4.250 *0.01 0.792 0.00
Reflection1 0.435 0.00 2.434 0.01 7.792 *0.03 108.178 *0.27 0.792 0.00
Openness1 0.196 0.00 0.554 0.00 2.026 0.01 3.753 *0.01 156.707 *0.34
Group 18.216 *0.06 10.126 *0.03 1.862 0.01 17.297 *0.06 28.903 *0.09

* Significant at a level of p < .05

1
First wave of data
2
Second wave of data
 * *

* No change from pre to post-test scores

Figure 1. Percentile change for PIFT and Non PIFT groups over the course of five weeks.
 References

Ardelt, M. (2000). Antecedents and effects of wisdom in old age. Research on Aging, 22(4), 360-394.

Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical assessment of a three-dimensional wisdom scale. Research on Aging,

25(3), 275-324.

Bailey, A., & Russell, K. (2008). Psycho-social benefits of a service-learning experience. Journal of

Unconventional Parks, Tourism & Recreation Research, 1(1), 9-16.

Bailey, A., & Russell, K. C. (2009). Engaging youth through volunteer travel: In service of the

common good. Journal of Youth Development, 4(4), 60-72.

Bailey, A., & Russell, K. C. (2010). Predictors of interpersonal growth in volunteer tourism: A latent

curve approach. Leisure Sciences, 32(4).

Brown, S., & Lehto, X. (2005). Traveling with a purpose: Understanding the motives and benefits of

volunteer vacationers. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(6), 479-496.

Brown, S., & Morrison, A. (2003). Expanding volunteer vacation participation. An exploratory study

on the mini-mission concept. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 73-82.

Chang, S., Fang, C., Ling, Y., & Tsai, B. (2011). Effects of socioeconomic status on leisure

volunteering constraints: a structural equation model. Social Behavior and Personality: an

international journal, 39(4), 477-490.

Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13, 179-201.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. NY: The Free Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: Norton.

Ewert, A., & Sibthorp, J. (2009). Creating outcomes through experiential education: The challenge of

confounding variables. Journal of Experiential Education, 31(3), 376-389.

Foster-Bey, J. (2008). Do race, ethnicity, citizenship, and socio-economic status determine civic

engagement? (Background Paper for 2008 Annual Service Conference. Working paper #62). The

Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE).

Gold, J. (2001, June 3). US foreign aid efforts get a corporate boost. Today. Msnbc.com. Retrieved

from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43190484/ns/us_news-giving/#

Goleman, D. (2002). Primal Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Goodwin, H. (2008). Pro-poor tourism- a response. Third World Quarterly, 29(5), 869-871.

Iso-Ahola, S. (1982). Toward a social-psychological theory of tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism

Research, 9, 256-261.

Jamal, T., Taillon, J., & Dredge, D. (2011). Sustainable tourism pedagogy and academic-community

collaboration: A progressive service-learning approach. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality

Research, 11(2), 133-147.

Kline, R. (2004). Beyond significance testing. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological

Association.

Lundy, B. L. (2007). Service-learning in life-span developmental psychology: Higher exam scores

and increased empathy. Teaching of Psychology, 34(1), 23-27.

Lyons, K. D., & Wearing, S. (2008). Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism. Cambridge, MA:

CABI.

Mabry, J. B. (1998). Pedagogical variations in service-learning and student outcomes: How time,

contact, and reflection matter. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 32-47.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality (Vol. 2, pp. 139-154). New

York: The Guilford Press.

McGehee, N. (2002). Alternative tourism and social movements. Annals of Tourism Research, 99(1),

124-143.

McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. (2008). “Pettin the critters”: Exploring the complex relationship

between volunteers and the voluntoured in McDowell County, West Virginia, USA and Tijuana,

Mexico. Journeys of Discovery in Volunteer Tourism (pp. 12-24). Cambridge, MA: CABI.

McGehee, N., & Santos, C. (2005). Social change, discourse and volunteer tourism. Annals of

Tourism Research, 32(3), 760-779.

McLean, D., Hurd, A., & Rogers, N. (2005). Kraus’ recreation and leisure in modern society.

Sudbury, MA: Jones and Barlett Publishers.

Mustonen, P. (2006). Volunteer tourism: Postmodern pilgrimage? Journal of Tourism and Cultural

Change, 3(3), 160-177.

Okasha, S. (2005). Biological Altruism (Summer edition.). Stanford: The Stanford encyclopedia of

philosophy.

Pearce, A., & Lee, U. (2005). Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation. Journal of

Travel Research, 43(3), 226-237.

Plog, S. (1994). Developing and using psychographics in tourism research. Travel, Tourism, and

Hospitality research (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Putnam, R. D. (2001). Community-based social capital and educational performance. Making Good

Citizens: Education and Civil Society (pp. 58-95). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Putnam, R. D., & Feldstein, L. M. (2003). Better together: Restoring the American community. New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Raymond, E. M., & Hall, C. M. (2008). The development of cross-cultural (mis)understanding

through volunteer tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 530-543.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new

directions. Contemporary Education Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

Scales, P. C., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Neal, M., Kielsmeier, J. C., & Benson, P. L. (2006). Reducing

academic achievement gaps: The role of community service and service-learning. Journal of

Experiential Education, 29(1), 38-60.

Simpson, K. (2004). “Doing development”: The gap year, volunteer-tourists, and a popular practice of

development. Journal of International Development, 16(5), 681-692.

Taillon, J., & Jamal, J. (2010). Understanding the voluntourist: A qualitative study. Voluntourist

Newsletter, 4(1), 1-3.

The Saguaro Seminar. (2002). Social capital short form. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/measurement/measurement.htm#shortform

Wearing, S. (2001). Volunteer tourism: Experiences that make a difference. Cambridge, MA: CABI.

Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2003). Refiguring self and identity through volunteer tourism. Society and

Leisure, 23(2), 389-419.

Wearing, S., Deville, A., & Lyons, K. D. (2008). The volunteer’s journey through leisure into the self.

Journeys of Discovery in Volunteer Tourism (pp. 63-71). Cambridge, MA: CABI.

 Figure (including maps and photographs)
Click here to download high resolution image
View publication stats