INDIVIDUAL ADAPTABILITY AND PHILANTHROPIC BEHAVIOR OF MALAYSIAN COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS: SOCIAL NETWORK AS

MEDIATOR

Siti Noormi Alias, noormiey@gmail.com(Corresponding author)

Department of Professional Development and Continuing Education,Faculty of Educational Studies,

Universiti Putra Malaysia,43400 UPM Serdang,Selangor, Malaysia

Maimunah Ismail, mismail379@gmail.com, Turiman Suandi, turiman55@gmail.com, Zoharah Omar, omarzoharah@gmail.com

Department of Professional Development and Continuing Education,Faculty of Educational Studies,

Universiti Putra Malaysia,43400 UPM Serdang,Selangor, Malaysia

Stream: Comparative & Cross Cultural Dimensions of HRD

Submission type: Refereed Paper

1

INDIVIDUAL ADAPTABILITY AND PHILANTHROPIC BEHAVIOR OF MALAYSIAN COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS: SOCIAL NETWORK AS MEDIATOR

Abstract

Purpose - The study explored how individual adaptability factors impact philanthropic behavior among community health workers (CHWs), with social network as the mediator.

Design/methodology/approach – this study used a correlational research design involving 230 CHWs under MERCY Malaysia, a non-government organization (NGO) in the health sector. The data were analyzed using a two-step approach in structural equation modeling (SEM), combining a measurement model and a structural model.

Findings – Results showed that (1) social network fully mediated the relationship between task-oriented coping and philanthropic behavior and (2) social network partially mediated the relationship between social trust and philanthropic behavior.

Research limitations/implications – The data of the study were generated from a single NGO (MERCY Malaysia) and considered only social adaptability as the antecedent.

Originality/ value – The study is the first of its kind conducted in Malaysia. The finding that social network played a significant role as mediator in philanthropic behavior should be capitalized on by HRD practitioners to bridge the gap between theory and practice in the philanthropic work of CHWs.

Keywords: Philanthropic behavior, Social adaptability, Social coping, Social trust, Community health workers, Social network.

2

Introduction

Philanthropic behavior is defined as benevolent action directed towards the underprivileged

in the community (Andreoni, 2000), usually in the forms of charitable giving and

volunteerism (Layton and Moreno, 2014; Andronic, 2014; Schuyt, Smit, and Bekkers, 2004).

Philanthropic behavior conceptually covers donating and volunteerism (Ridings, 1997).

Donating involves acts of giving money, properties or any tangible goods to

an individual, organization, or certain upcoming special event (Lindskold et

al., 1977; Bryant et al., 2003). It is somehow not a sustained behavior. For

example, individuals might contribute a certain amount of money in a

particular month, but less or none in the following months. Donating also

refers to the act of giving to people but not necessarily meeting them

personally, i.e. it can be done without social interaction or meeting the target

recipients in person. On the other hand, volunteering relates to time and

effort spent to help and serve the needy (Bryant et al., 2003). Volunteering

also involves interactions between the volunteers and beneficiaries. This

paper operationalized philanthropic behavior from the perspective of volunteers in

health care as the impact of volunteering, particularly to the volunteer himself/herself, is

more reliable, personally felt in long run, and consistent in action compared to donating.

Hence the focus of the study was on the adaptability of health care volunteers vis-a vis

philanthropic behavior, with social network as the mediator.

Communal health and education are the principal sources of social solidarity and social

cohesion among peoples in a society (Rajakumar, 2007). Unfortunately, many countries,

including Malaysia, have to face the challenge of rising health care costs (Phua, 2007; Chee

and Wong, 2007. The government alone cannot afford to provide satisfactory health care

services for all its citizens. The situation is exacerbated by not only by the increase in the

3

number of chronically ill patients (Kamimura et al., 2014), but also the appearance of new

viral-born diseases such as H1N1. Hence there is an urgent need for support from non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) through their Community Health Workers (CHWs).

Those from non-medical background may volunteer their services in basic education on

health care (such as healthy lifestyle, personal hygiene) while CHWs with medical

qualifications may focus on the diagnosis and treatment. of diseases.

Research Gap

Despite CHWs playing a critical role in the community, there has not been much rigorous and

comprehensive research about the CHWs workforce in Malaysia and even abroad (Paik and

Navarre-Jackson, 2011; Malaysia Country Health Plan, 2011-2015; US Department of Health

and Human Services, 2007). In addition, CHWs’ potential capacity as human resources in

philanthropic services is also inadequately understood (Kim, 2012; Schneider, Hlophe and

van Rensburg, 2008; Chang, 2005) because most studies have been conducted without the

participation of actual volunteers or CHWs as research subjects (Hallett et al., 2012; Haines

et al., 2007; Norris et al., 2006; Brownstein et al., 2005). Moreover, integrated studies on

philanthropic behavior itself in the human resource development (HRD) context are

distinctively under-explored (Garavan and Carbery, 2012; Kim, 2012). Hence, this study

responds to the need to find out what predicts philanthropic behavior in health care among

CHWs who are volunteers.

When studying philanthropic behavior among CHWs, many factors should be considered,

including personal predictors that lead an individual to devote part of his or her spare time to

helping others (Moreno-Jimenez and Villodres, 2010). Most current literature on

philanthropic behavior emphasize only philanthropic behavior by demographic factors such

4

as religions (Carabain and Bekkers, 2012; Bekkers and Schuyt, 2008), gender (Kottasz,

2004), income (Schwartz, 1968), and the effects of education (Wei, Donthu, and Bernhardt,

2012). Yet there is little empirical evidence regarding the influence of individual adaptability

factors on the philanthropic engagement of CHWs in healthcare services (Ben-Ner and

Kramer, 2011; Moreno-Jimenez and Villodres, 2010). Individual adaptability factors in this

study refer to the individual’s capacity of coping and social trust. Coping is divided into

three sub-variables, viz. task coping, emotional coping, and avoidance coping. Coping is

essential in philanthropic behavior as it shields one from stressful life events; social trust

refers to relationship qualities between two groups of people. This intangible social capital

entails being vulnerable to harm from others, and yet believing that these others would not do

harm even though they could (Kramer, 1999). These influencing factors should be explored

because such knowledge could benefit NGOs in structuring their recruitment, selection,

replacement, training, motivation, and retention efforts of their CHWs, and would also help

them monitor the implementation of philanthropic projects.

In addition, Carlo et al. (2005) suggest that individual adaptability factors may be indirectly

related to philanthropic behavior, a multi-faceted concept. The authors further suggest the

need for a mediating variable to be used to investigate the relationship between individual

adaptability factors with philanthropic behavior. Since philanthropic behavior also involves a

degree of social interactions among volunteers themselves as well as between volunteers and

recipients, it is thus reasonable to include any of the social influences or social capital factors

in the study as a potential intervening variable. Accordingly, Wymer, Riecken and Yavas

(1997) indicate that friends, family members, and others who are part of an individual’s

social network can exert varying degrees of influence on volunteerism. Therefore, social

network is proposed as the mediating variable in this study. Brown and Ferris (2007) assert

5

that social network would facilitate collective actions and is likely to play a crucial role in

eliciting philanthropic behavior from individuals in a community. However, in previous

studies that employed social network as the mediator, particularly between the relationships

of individual factors and philanthropic behavior, findings had been generally inconclusive

(Paik and Navarre-Jackson, 2011; Brown and Ferris, 2007), and social network was not

considered as an antecedent to philanthropic behavior.

The effects of social pressure on volunteerism have been of considerable interest to social

scientists (Meer, 2011). Worries among volunteers are often associated with pessimism and

inactivity (Ojala, 2007). Thus, the individual’s ability to cope with changing social needs and

also social pressure while carrying out his responsibility as a CHW potentially determines his

continuing engagement in philanthropic activities. However, less is known about coping

strategies and social trust among CHWs in volunteering (Essex and Scott, 2008; Ben-Zur and

Michael, 2007) with most studies being conducted outside Malaysia. Against such a

backdrop, several questions arise: How do individual adaptability factors such as coping

strategies and social trust predict philanthropic behavior? How does social network mediate

the relationships between adaptability factors and philanthropic behavior? This study sought

to answer these research questions.

In the context of this study, it is interesting that Malaysia, with a population of 30.5 million in

2015, and expected to rise to 32.6 million by 2020 (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2015)

has undergone tremendous developments at the turn of the century. An investigation of

philanthropic behaviour among CHWs is significant because it contributes empirically on a

dimension of the workers’ expected behaviour and role in community development. The

study is vital, particularly in seeing the reality of philanthropic actions conducted by one of

6

the important NGOs (MERCY Malaysia) in the country through which it shows the response

of NGOs to a government’s call for their increased involvement in community development

as it falls in one of the eight Strategic Reform Initiatives (SRIs), namely re-energizing the

private sector in the mainstream development (National Economic Advisory Council, 2010).

This is in line with the country’s long term policy of reaching industrialized country status by

2020 as stipulated in the New Economic Model (NEM) of Malaysia.

The next section of this paper continues with the theoretical grounding of this study, followed

by literature reviews on the influence of individual adaptability factors on philanthropic

behavior and social network as mediator. The methodology of the study is then presented,

followed by its findings. The paper ends with a discussion of the findings, a conclusion and

recommendations for HRD practice and future research.

Theoretical Bases

Social Network Theory

This study uses the Social Network (SN) Theory to support the mediating role of social

network. The theory posits that the quality (strength) and quantity (size) of individual social

ties determine opportunities for behavioral changes (Finnigan, Daly, and Jing, 2013; Fowler

and Christakis, 2010). Fowler and Christakis (2010) assert that a wide variety of behaviors,

including philanthropic behavior, may spread in social networks. Individuals might have

several social networks at a time (e.g. volunteering social network, labour market social

network, alumni social network) but each network is typically discriminated by the content

that is exchanged by the actors (Daly and Finnigan, 2010). Based on this theory, the social

network would facilitate behavioral change among interacting units (Amato, 1990;

Haythornthwaite, 1996). Since the philanthropic behavior of volunteers is influenced by

7

interactions (Penner, 2002) in social networks, the individual’s capacity (i.e. coping and

social trust) are expected to adapt to the social changes happening within his social network

in order to absorb the philanthropic value from other group members.

Theory of Planned Behavior

The direct relationships between individual adaptability factors (viz. social coping and social

trust) are based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. This theory explains that the individual’s

background factors, including mood, adaptability, and past experiences, could influence his

or her belief and intention to portray a certain behavior (Ajzen, 2005; 2011). According to

Ajzen (2005, p.134),

“…people growing up in different social environments can acquire different information about a variety of issues, information that provides the basis for their beliefs about the consequences of a behavior, about the normative expectations of important others, and about the obstacles that may prevent them from performing a behavior.

Therefore, this theory supports the use of two individual adaptability factors, viz. social

coping and social trust, as both are deeply embedded in the feeling, mood, and psychological

status of the individual, particularly towards helping others through volunteer work.

Individual Adaptability Factors

Individuals’ engagement in philanthropic behavior increases in a society that supports such

behavior among its members. Beatty, Kahle, and Homer (1991) propose that value

acquisition results from the abstraction of essential principles from the socialization process.

To be accepted in a particular group or society, each member must possess similar values as

other members. Individual capacity (i.e. coping and social trust) to adapt to social changes

8

happening within a social network is crucial in order to absorb philanthropic values from

other group members.

Individual differences in social experiences lead to different ways of interaction with others

(Sih et al., 2009) as well as determine their continuing efforts in a particular behavior (e.g.

philanthropic behavior). The following subsections highlight the two individual adaptability

factors of coping and social trust, and their relationships with philanthropic behavior, based

on empirical findings from past studies.

Coping with Stressful Life Events

Lazarus (1991) refers to coping as the way an individual deals with situations which are

challenging, threatening, harmful, or even benefiting him. It can also be defined as conscious

attempts to manage internal or external stressors that the individual perceives as over his

limitations (Folkman and Moskowitz, 2004; Folkman and Lazarus, 1991). Coping thus can be

used to describe the individual’s adaptation to adverse social interaction circumstances.

Brissette, Scheier, and Carver (2002) strongly believe that coping helps an individual to

better adjust to stressful life events.

Coping in philanthropy occurs when people sometimes engage in such behavior under social

pressure (Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub, 1989) because of repeated traumatic events

experienced as part of their work as volunteers (Cicognani, Pietrantoni, Palestini, and Prati,

2009) and also because of frequent contact with victims (i.e. people with illnesses or serious

social problems) who require considerable physical and emotional comfort (Moreno-Jimenez

and Villodres, 2010). Moreover, an appropriate coping strategy is required because

volunteering work can be complex, responsible, intrinsically important, challenging, and

9

stressful (Lewig, Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Dollard, and Metzer, 2007). Individuals who are

unable to cope with stressful social events may see their physical, social, and emotional

functioning affected (Billings and Moos, 1981). Hence, adjustment competencies are

required.

The most robust dimensions of coping are three constructs, namely task, emotion, and

avoidance-oriented coping (Endler and Parker, 1990; McWilliams, Cox, and Enns, 2003).

Endler and Parker’s (1990) study involving 298 respondents revealed that those with

emotion-oriented coping ability were associated with less-adaptive persons, whereas task-

oriented coping individuals were found to be more-adaptive persons. According to a study by

Ebata and Moos (1991), individuals who used less avoidance coping were better adjusted.

Grove and Heard (1997) found that the task-oriented strategy was associated with optimism,

whereas emotion-oriented strategy was negatively associated with optimism. Another study

conducted among social workers confirmed that task-oriented coping positively correlated

with philanthropic engagement, whereas emotion oriented coping was negatively correlated

(Ben-Zur and Michael, 2007). Thus, it is hypothesized that:

H1-1: Positive coping strategies positively correlate with philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

- H1-1a: Task-oriented coping strategy positively correlates with philanthropic

behavior of CHWs.

- H1-1b: Low emotion-oriented coping strategy positively correlates with philanthropic

behavior of CHWs.

- H1-1c: Less avoidance-oriented coping strategy positively correlates with

philanthropic behavior of CHWs

10

Social Trust

“Trust is one of the most important synthetic forces within society”

(Simmel, 1950, p. 326).

Relating to above statement, social trust is one of the compartments of social capital (other

than social network and shared goals) that exists between human interactions and is widely

used to describe various collaborative interactions in the community, including philanthropic

behavior (Wing and Lai, 2008; Subramaniam, Kim, and Kawachi, 2002; Coleman, 1990). In

general, trust can be defined as “the assured reliance of another’s integrity” (Held, 1968;

Rothstein and Uslaner, 2005). Social trust refers to the degree of one’s willingness to be

vulnerable to the actions of other people (Chow and Chan, 2008, p. 464). Newton (2001, p.

202) defines social trust as the individual’s belief that, at worst, others will not knowingly or

willingly do him harm, and at best, that they will act in his interests. Rotter (1967, p.651),

defines social trust as “an expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, promise,

verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon”. Based on these

definitions, social trust is operationally defined as a CHW’s belief that others will not do him

harm and can be relied upon.

Social trust, which includes trust in other people and trust in the organization, generally

results in a greater likelihood of the individual to actively engage and be continually involved

in philanthropic activities (Kelly, 2009; Rothstein and Uslaner, 2005). A study conducted by

Kelly (2009) among youth (with ages ranging from 15-25 years) showed that individuals who

trusted others and the government were more inclined to participate in philanthropic

11

activities. A study by Wing and Lai (2008) involving 190 managers from Hong Kong firms

showed that social trust, however, did not have a direct effect on knowledge sharing

behavior. Delhey and Newton (2003) suggest that social trust contributes to the provision of

public good, social integration, cooperation and harmony, and even to good health and

longevity. They add that social trust is a property of social systems, not the individuals

themselves.

According to Neves and Caetano (2006), social trust is an important predictor of behavioral

change. Results of their study involving employees from a metallurgic factory showed that

social trust (trust in the supervisor) was significantly correlated (r = .58) with employee

readiness for behavioral change. In this context, it indicated that social trust (i.e. trust in

family, trust in peers) could bring about behavioral change. According to Siegrist and

Cvetkovich (2000), social trust is used by the individual to select experts who are trustworthy

and whose opinion can be believed as being accurate. Their study on the role of social trust

showed that there was a significant correlation (r = .59) between social trust and individual

decisions towards performing a certain behavior in the absence of sufficient knowledge. Such

a trend is likely to occur with regard to the philanthropic behavior of CHWs. Thus, it is

hypothesized that:

H2: Social trust positively correlates with philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

Social Network as Mediator

In this study, social network was chosen as the mediating variable between the relationships

of the predictor variables with philanthropic behavior. Rose, Holmbeck, Coakley, and Franks

(2004) suggest that the mediator variable is an explanatory link in the relationship between

12

two variables and conceptualized as the mechanism through which one variable (i.e. the

predictor) influences another variable (i.e. the criterion). Hayes (2013) defines the mediator

as an intervening variable of a causal relationship between the predictor and criterion

variables.

The individuals’ ability to build a strong and wide social network with other people depends

on his inner individual factors, capability to socialize, as well as organizational setting where

the interactions happen. According to Amichai-Hamburger and Vinitzky (2010), individual

factors such as social coping and social trust can influence the strength and size of his social

network. Moreover, these individual factors are crucial in determining his participation in

social network (Correa, Hinsley, and de Zuniga, 2010).

Every individual, including CHWs, must have social resilience to adapt to multiple social

changes daily. Every day, we may meet up with new business partners, start a new friendship,

or even dealwith friends or beneficiaries of different characters. In fact, every person differs

in his ability to cope with his social environment (Casciaro, 1998). The individual’s

adaptability factors such as coping and social trust play an important role in his adjustment to

complex life events (Brissette et al., 2002). Those who are able to respond to stressful life

events and put their trust in others are expected to form social bonds with others and expand

their social network (Siegrist and Cvetkovich, 2000; Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Billings

and Moos, 1981). Individuals who perceive accurately the structure of relationships in their

work environment are more capable of getting what they want since they know which social

ties allow them to access the resources they need (Casciaro, 1998).

13

Volunteer or charity organizations should highlight a characteristic that might possibly

invoke feelings of pride and respect among their members so that they are more committed

to their job (Boezeman and Ellemers, 2008), and proud to share the novelty of their

philanthropic actions with others, thus widening their social network. To date, there have

been no known studies that employ social network as a mediator based on the Malaysian

context. While there was a study by Chia, Chong, Lee-Patridge, Hwee, and Wei-Fei (2001)

in China that could be replicated to explain the mediating role of social network, it would not

be in the context of philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

H1-2: Social network mediates the relationships of individual coping strategies with

philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

- H1-2a: Social network mediates the relationship between task-oriented coping

strategy and philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

- H1-2b: Social network mediates the relationship between low emotion-oriented

coping strategy and philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

- H1-2c: Social network mediates the relationship between less avoidance-oriented

coping strategy and philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

H2-2: Social network mediates the relationship of social trust with philanthropic behavior of

CHWs

Based on the reviews, therefore, the framework of this research included three coping

orientations (viz. task-oriented coping, emotion-oriented coping, and avoidance-oriented

coping) and social trust as the predictors; social network was the chosen mediator variable;

philanthropic behavior was the designated criterion variable. The interrelationships of all the

variables are depicted diagrammatically in Figure 1.

14

Methodology

This study was conducted based on a correlation research design using volunteers attached to

MERCY Malaysia. Data was collected from a sample of 230 CHWs. The unit of analysis of

this study was the individual CHW. The data were analyzed using structural equation

modeling (SEM) procedures. In addition, the following were considered in this study to

determine the model fit for the two levels of analyses in SEM, viz. a) structural model, and b)

measurement model: factor loading >.50, Relative x2 < 5.0, the root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA) <.08, Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) in which lower is better,

the goodness of fit index (GFI) >.90, the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) >.90, the

15

Dependent variableMediatorIndependent variables

Coping strateg

Emotional coping

Avoidance coping

Task coping

Philanthropic behavior

Social network

Social trust

Adaptability factors

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study

comparative fit index (CFI) >.90, the incremental fit index (IFI) >.90, and Tucker-Lewis

index (TLI) >.90.

Instrument from Canadian National Survey of Giving, Volunteering, and Participation by

Hall (2001) is used to measure philanthropic behavior using 5-item scale with 1 = Very rarely

to 5 = Very frequently; and other variables using 5-item scale with 1 = Disagree strongly to 5

= Agree strongly. Meanwhile, for individual adaptability factors, Coping Inventory for

Stressful Situations is used to measure coping strategies among volunteers and General Trust

Scale by Yamagishi (1998) is used to measure their social trust. As for social network, we

adapt the items by Kaskutas, Bond, and Humphreys (2002).

An example of item used to measure philanthropic behavior is “In the past 12 months, did

you help to organize or supervise activities or events for an organization?”. Examples of

items used for social coping include “Focus on the problem and see how I can solve it”,

“Blame myself for having gotten into this situation”, and “Take some time off and get away

from the situation”. Example of item used to measure social trust is “Most people are

basically honest”. An item for social network is “Number of people in my social network

related to volunteer work is increased day after day”.

Findings

MethodDesign and procedureA 2-wave full panel design was used, with a time lag of 2 years (vs. 1 year in the originalstudy). In April 1999 (T1) and April 2001 (T2), questionnaires were distributed to allemployees at two Dutch residential health care institutions, followed by reminderletters several weeks later.ParticipantsOf 715 questionnaires distributed at the first measurement, 328 (46%) were returned. Of

16

these respondents at T1, 100 (30%) had left their institution by T2. Of the remaining 228respond ents, 137 (60%) returned a second questionnaire at T2. Hence, the panel groupcomprised 19% of the original group at T1 (vs. 57% in the original study). Mostrespond ents in the panel group were women (82%), as in the original study. Themajority (60%) were aged between 36 and 65 years (vs. 40% aged between 18 and 35years); 43% had received university-level education.The panel group (N ¼ 137; vs. N ¼ 261 in the original study) was compared withthe group lost to turnover at T2 (N ¼ 100) and to non-responders at T2 (N ¼ 93) in one-way ANOVAs with post hoc comparisons, on all control variables, job characteristics andwell-being indicators at T1. Signific antly higher demands (p , :05), higher emotionalexhaustion ( p , :001) and lower job satisfaction (p , : 01) were reported in the grouplost to attrition vs. the panel group. No differences were observed between the panelgroup and non-responders at T2.The means, standard deviations and correlations of the dependent, independents, and

mediator variables are presented in Table 1 with the Cronbach’s α for each scale shown in

bold and on the diagonal. In general, the bivariate correlations provided confidence that the

measures were functioning properly.

Table 1. Correlations between study variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6PB 3.76 .64 .78TOC 4.21 .58 .502** .84EOC 4.06 .51 .277** .512** .66AOC 4.13 .51 .585** .613** .494** .71ST 4.28 .52 .361** .290** .202** .338** .73SN 4.15 .55 .446** .688** .466** .499** .253** .87

Note: PB = philanthropic behavior; TOC = task-oriented coping; EOC = emotional-oriented coping; AOC = avoidance-oriented coping; ST = social trust; SN = social network. n = 230.The bold and the diagonal figures are Cronbach’s α for each variable. **significant at the .01 level (two-tailed)

As suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), this study used the two-step structural

equation modeling approach, employing both a measurement model and structural model.

Avoidance coping items had to be eliminated in the measurement model because all the items

showed factor loadings below .50. Thus, the hypotheses H1-1c, and H1-2c were not

17

supported. The relative x2 statistic for the full measurement model was 2.078 with 142

degrees of freedom (df), RMSEA was .069, the Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) was

391.05, the comparative fit index (CFI) was .921, the incremental fit index (IFI) was .922,

and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) was .905. Accordingly, the full measurement model provided

an acceptable fit to the data and justified the use of the two-step approach.

Next, in the structural model where variables were assigned to their role as indicated in the

research framework (i.e. independent variables, mediator, and dependent variable),

emotional-oriented coping had to be eliminated to achieve a fitted structural model as shown

in Figure 2. Thus, the hypotheses H1-1b, and H1-2b were also not supported. Consequently,

the results of the structural model below showed a reasonable fit to the data (the relative x2

= .878, df = 14, RMSEA = .000, AIC = 56.296, CFI = 1.000, IFI = 1.002, and TLI = 1.0005.

These are shown in Figure 2 (structural model) and Table 2 (regression weight).

18

Figure 2. The Results of Structural Model Analysis.

Table 2. Regression weight of the structural model

Estimate S.E. C.R. P

SN <--- TASK .347 .072 4.79

1 ***

SN <--- TRUST .449 .085 5.29

5 ***

PB <--- TRUST .784 .148 5.31

4 ***

PB <--- SN .535 .156 3.43

4 ***

PB <--- TASK -.051 .103 -.501 .616

Note: SN = social network, TASK = task-oriented coping, TRUST = social trust, PB = philanthropic behavior.

Firstly, we tested the relationship between task-oriented coping with social network and task-

oreiented coping with philanthropic behavior. Based on the results shown in , task-oriented

19

coping was significantly related to social network but not with philanthropic behavior, which

supported H1-2a but rejected H1-1a. Next, we also tested the relationship between social trust

with social network, and social trust with philanthropic behavior. Social trust was

significantly associated with social network and philanthropic behavior, supporting both H2-

1 and H2-2.

Finally, we evaluated the hypotheses in which social network was introduced to mediate the

relationship between the social coping strategies and social trust with philanthropic behavior.

In order to assess this mediation role of social network, Sobel’s (1982) test was carried out to

examine hypotheses H1-3a and H2-3. Hypotheses H1-3b and H1-3c did not need to be

examined because H1-2b and H1-2c had been rejected earlier. The results showed that

Hypotheses H1-3a was not supported because social network fully mediated the relationship

between task-oriented coping and philanthropic behavior (z = 2.79, p = < 0.01) (full

mediation); H2-3 was supported ( z = 2.88, p = < 0.01), indicating that social network had a

partial mediating effect on the relationships between social trust and philanthropic behavior.

Table 3. Summary of Results of Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses Estimate C.R. p Hypotheses supported?

H1-1: Positive coping strategies positively correlate with philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

- H1-1a: Task-oriented coping strategy positively correlates with philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

+ -.051 -.501 .616 No

- H1-1b: Low emotion-oriented coping strategy positively correlates with philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

+ na na na No

- H1-1c: Less avoidance- + na na na No

20

oriented coping strategy positively correlates with philanthropic behavior of CHWs

H1-2: Social network mediates the relationships of individual coping strategies with philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

- H1-2a: Social network mediates the relationship between task-oriented coping strategy and philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

+ < 0.01Yes (Full

mediation)

- H1-2b: Social network mediates the relationship between low emotion-oriented coping strategy and philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

+ na na na No

- H1-2c: Social network mediates the relationship between less avoidance-oriented coping strategy and philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

+ na na na No

H2-1: Social trust positively correlates with philanthropic behavior of CHWs.

+ .784 5.314 *** Yes

H2-2: Social network mediates the relationship of social trust with philanthropic behavior of CHWs

+ < 0.01 Yes

Discussion

We found that social network could be predicted by task-oriented coping and social trust.

Furthermore, the results also showed that social network could predict philanthropic

behavior of CHWs. Most importantly, this study found that social network had a mediating

effect on the relationship between social trust and philanthropic behavior. This mediating

effect of social network has not been examined in previous research. In addition, we also

found that social network fully mediated the relationship between task-oriented coping and

philanthropic behavior, contradicting findings of the previous research. This study was able

21

to show how individual adaptability factors (specifically task-oriented coping and social

trust) contributed to social network, and subsequently to philanthropic behavior. This

knowledge contribution can be explained in a number of ways: First, the finding that task-

oriented coping had a positive association with social network is consistent with the finding

by Brissette et al. (2002) that individual capability to adapt is important in the adjustment to

complex life events. Although Endler and Parker (1990) believe that there is a direct

relationship between task-oriented coping and philanthropic behavior, this study did not find

evidence for this direct relationship. Volunteerism involving health-related actions, as in this

study context, requires one who should be committed fully to the task assigned, which in turn

needs specific competencies (e.g. in medical, pharmaceutical, and communication matters).

However, this study showed that volunteers’ task-oriented coping did not influence

philanthropic behavior, thus implying that being competent at certain tasks does not

necessarily increase one’s tendency to participate in philanthropic work. On the other hand,

social network fully mediated the relationship between task-oriented coping and

philanthropic behavior; the volunteers believed that volunteering was the result of their social

interaction.

Second, we found that social trust directly influenced philanthropic behavior as well through

the mediation function of social network. This is consistent with the finding of Kelly (2009)

whose study showed that individuals who trusted others and colleagues had greater tendency

to participate in philanthropic activities. In their study on social trust and philanthropic

behavior, Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2000) made a similar finding. This shows one of the

strengths of social network which, according to Kramer (1999), is a type of social capital the

benefit of which is intangible and unquantifiable.

22

Implications to HRD

This study has a number of theoretical and practical implications. First, previous studies that

used the Social Network theory focused mainly on the technical aspects of social network

such as strengthening, and increasing the size and magnitude of network. This study provides

empirical evidence on the important role of social network as an intervening factor. Second,

the study contributes to the use of Theory of Planned Behavior, expanding it to community

development and HRD research through the involvement of CHWs in philanthropic

activities. Hitherto, the theory has been widely used only in educational research. Third, we

believe that HRD practitioners could use this knowledge in their program intervention to

attract and retain their CHWs. Fourth, it has been acknowledged that community

development is subsumed under HRD (McLean et al., 2012). Therefore this study

substantiates evidence on the role and dynamism of community development in HRD from

the perspective of philanthropic behavior of CHWs. Fifth, this study provides evidence for

NGOs to promote volunteering activities among the public, particularly in health care

services by emphasizing the crucial role of social network.

Conclusions and Future Research

We have identified the mediating role of social network in the relationships between

individual adaptability factors such as task-oriented coping and social trust with the

philanthropic behavior of CHWs based on the Social Network Theory and Theory of Planned

Behavior. We conclude that CHWs with the high social trust characteristic would tend to

display philanthropic behavior. In addition, social network would facilitate individual CHWs

23

with high task-oriented coping and social trust to be more inclined towards philanthropic

behavior.

With regard to the limitations of the study, there are several. We suggest the following for

future research: First, this study was limited to CHWs from one single NGO (MERCY

Malaysia). We therefore recommend future research to include CHWs from other health-

related NGOs in the country such as Malaysian Red Crescent Association. Second, due to the

limitation of having only two predictor variables, perhaps future research could take into

consideration other individual and demographic factors such as personality, educational

attainment, age, gender, and religiosity. Third, it would be useful to include organizational

support and organizational commitment as the antecedents of philanthropic behavior, either

as independent or intervening variables. Finally, this research should be replicated to other

countries in Asia and other regions in the world the results of which could be used for making

comparative purposes about the role of social network as a mediator on the influence of

individual adaptability factors of coping strategies and social trust with the philanthropic

behavior of CHWs.

References

Ajzen, I., 2005. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior (2nd edition). New York: Open University Press.

Amato, P. R., 1990. Personality and social network involvement as predictors of helping behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53(1), pp. 31-43.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y. & Vinitzky, G., 2010. Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), pp. 1289-1295.

Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), pp. 411-423.

Andreoni, J., 2000. The economics of philanthropy. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Volume 2, pp. 11369-11376.

Andronic, R.-L., 2014. Definition of volunteering in social sciences. Brasov, s.n., pp. 1-4.

Anon., 2010. Malaysia Country Health Plan, Putrajaya: Ministry of Health Malaysia.

24

Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R., 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), pp. 497-529.

Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R. & Homer, P., 1991. Personal values and gift-giving behaviors: A stduy across cultures. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), pp. 149-157.

Bekkers, R. & Schuyt, T., 2008. And who is your neighbor? Explaining denominational differences in charitable giving and volunteering in the Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, pp. 74-96.

Ben-Ner, A. & Kramer, A., 2011. Personality and altruism in the dictator game: Relationship to giving to kin, collaborators, competitors, and neutrals. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), pp. 216-221.

Ben-Zur, H. & Michael, K., 2007. Burnout, social support, and coping at work among social workers, psychologists, and nurses. Social Work in Health Care, 45(4), pp. 63-82.

Billings, A. G. & Moos, R. H., 1981. The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(2), pp. 139-157.

Boezeman, E. & Ellemers, N., 2008. Pride and respect in volunteers' organizational commitment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), pp. 159-172.

Brissette, I., Scheier, M. F. & Carver, C. S., 2002. The role of optimism in social network development, coping, and psychological adjustment during a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), pp. 102-111.

Brown, E. & Ferris, J. M., 2007. Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact of social capital on individual giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quaterly, 36(1), pp. 85-99.

Brownstein, J. N. et al., 2005. Community health workers as interventionists in the prevention and control of heart disease and stroke. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29(5SI), pp. 128-133.

Bryant, W. K., Jeon-Slaughter, H., Kang, H. & Tax, A., 2003. Participation in philanthropic activities: Donating money and time. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(1), pp. 43-73.

Carabain, C. L. & Bekkers, R., 2012. Explaining differences in philanthropic behavior between Christians, Muslims, and Hindus in the Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, 53(4), pp. 419-440.

Carlo, G. et al., 2005. The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: Aggreableness, extraversion, and prosocial value motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), pp. 1293-1305.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F. & Weintraub, J. K., 1989. Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), pp. 267-283.

Casciaro, T., 1998. Seeing things cearly: Social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception. Social Networks, 20(4), pp. 331-351.

25

Chang, W. W., 2005. Expatriate training in international nongovernmental organizations: A model for research. Human Resource Development Review, 4(4), pp. 440-461.

Chee, H. L. & Wong, Y. L., 2007. Women's access to health care services in Malaysia. In: Health care in Malaysia: The dynamics of provision, financing, and access. New York: Routledge, pp. 137-153.

Chia, H. B. et al., 2001. Enacting and reproducing social and individual identity through mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 19(1), pp. 49-74.

Chow, W. S. & Chan, L. S., 2008. Social network, social trust, and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45(7), pp. 458-465.

Cicognani, E., Pietrantoni, L., Palestini, L. & Prati, G., 2009. Emergency workers' quality of life: The protective role of sense of community, efficacy beliefs and coping. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), pp. 449-463.

Coleman, J. S., 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W. & de Zuniga, H. G., 2010. Who interacts on the web?: The intersection of users' personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), pp. 247-253.

Daly, A. J. & Finnigan, K. S., 2010. A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11(2), pp. 111-138.

Delhey, J. & Newton, K., 2005. Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism?. European Sociological Review, 21(4), pp. 311-327.

Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2015. Department of Statistics Malaysia. [Online] Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.my/[Accessed 3 April 2015].

Ebata, A. T. & Moos, R. H., 1991. Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12(1), pp. 33-54.

Endler, N. S. & Parker, J. D. A., 1990. State and trait anxiety, depression and coping styles. Australian Journal of Psychology, 42(2), pp. 207-220.

Essex, B. & Scott, L. B., 2008. Chronic stress and associated coping strategies among volunteer EMS Personnel. Prehospital Emergency Care, 12(1), pp. 69-75.

Finnigan, K. S., Daly, A. J. & Jing, C., 2013. Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring, using, and diffusing research evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), pp. 476-497.

Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S., 1991. Coping and emotion. In: Stress and Coping: An Anthology. Columbia University: New York Press.

Folkman, S. & Moskowitz, J. T., 2004. Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 55, pp. 745-774.

26

Fowler, J. H. & Christakis, N. A., 2010. Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(12), pp. 5334-5338.

Garavan, T. N. & Carbery, R., 2012. A review of international HRD: Incorporating a global HRD construct. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(2/3), pp. 129-157.

Grove, J. R. & Heard, N. P., 1997. Optimism and sport confidence as correlates of slump-related coping among athletes. The Sport Psychologist, Volume 11, pp. 400-410.

Haines, A. et al., 2007. Achieving child survival goals: Potential contribution of community health workers. The Lancet, 369(9579), pp. 2121-2131.

Hallett, C., Klug, G., Lauber, C. & Priebe, S., 2012. Volunteering in the care of people with severe mental illness: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry, 12(1), pp. 226-236.

Hall, M. H., 2001. Hall, M. H. (2001). Measurement issues in surveys of giving and volunteering and strategies applied in the design of Canada’s National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), pp. 515-526.

Hayes, A. F., 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: The Guildford Press.

Haythornthwaite, C., 1996. Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library & Information Science Research, 18(4), pp. 323-342.

Held, V., 1968. On the meaning of trust. Ethics, 78(2), pp. 156-159.

Kamimura, A. et al., 2014. The relationship between diabetes attitudes and treatment among free clinic patients and volunteers. Journal of Community Health, 39(6), pp. 1186-1192.

Kelly, D. C., 2009. In preparation for adulthood: Exploring civic participation and social trust among youn minorities. Youth & Society, 40(4), pp. 526-540.

Kim, N., 2012. Societal development through human resource development: Contexts and key change agents. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(3), pp. 239-250.

Kogut, B. & Zander, U., 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), pp. 502-518.

Kottasz, R., 2004. Differences in the donor behavior characteristics of young affluent males and felames: Empirical evidence from Britain. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2), pp. 181-203.

Kramer, R. M., 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(February), pp. 569-598.

Layton, M. D. & Moreno, A., 2014. Philanthropy and social capital in Mexico. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(3), pp. 209-219.

Lazarus, R. S., 1991. Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lewig, K. A. et al., 2007. Burnout and connectedness among Australian volunteers: A test of the Job Demands-Resources model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(3), pp. 429-445. doi:

27

10.1016/j.jvb.2007.07.003.

Lindskold, S., Forte, R. A., Haake, C. S. & Schmidt, E. K., 1977. The effects of directness of face-to-face requests and sex of solicitor on street corner donations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 101(1), pp. 45-51.

McLean, G. N. et al., 2012. Capacity building for societal development: Case studies in human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(3), pp. 251-263.

McWilliams, L. A., Cox, B. J. & Enns, M. W., 2003. Use of the coping inventory for stressful situations in a clinically depressed samle: Factor structure, personality correlates, and prediction distress. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(4), pp. 423-437. doi: 10.1002/jclp.10080.

Meer, J., 2011. Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), pp. 926-941.

Moreno-Jimenez, M. P. & Villodres, M. C. H., 2010. Prediction of Burnout in Volunteers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(7), pp. 1798-1818.

National Economic Advisory Council, 2010. New Economic Model for Malaysia, Putrajaya: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad.

Neves, P. & Caetano, A., 2006. Social exchange processes in organizational change: The roles of trust and control. Journal of Change Management, 6(4), pp. 351-364.

Neves, P. & Caetano, A., 2009. Commitment to change: Contributions to trust in the supervisor and work outcomes. Group & Organization Management, 34(6), pp. 623-644.

Newton, K., 2001. Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International Political Science Review, 22(2), pp. 201-214.

Norris, S. L. et al., 2006. Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of persons with diabetes. Diabetic Medicine, 23(5), pp. 544-556.

Ojala, M., 2007. Confronting macrosocial worries: Worry about environmental problems and proactive coping among a group of youn volunteers. Futures, 39(6), pp. 729-745. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2006.11.007.

Paik, A. & Navarre-Jackson, L., 2011. Social networks, recruitment, and volunteering: Are social capital effects conditional on recruitment?. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), pp. 476-496.

Penner, L. A., 2002. Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), pp. 447-467.

Phua, K. L., 2007. Rising health care costs: The contradictory responses of the Malaysian state. In: Health care in Malaysia: The dynamics of provision, financing, and access. New York: Routledge, pp. 59-71.

Rajakumar, M. K., 2007. Foreword. In: Health care in Malaysia: The dynamics of provision, financing, and access. New York: Routledge, pp. xiii-xix.

28

Ridings, D. S., 1997. Philanthropy in action: Building community. National Civic Review, 86(4), pp. 281-286.

Rose, B. M., Holmbeck, G. N., Coakley, R. M. & Franks, E. A., 2004. Mediator and moderator effects in developmental and behavioral pediatric research. Developmental and Behavioral Paediatrics, 25(1), pp. 58-67.

Rothstein, B. & Uslaner, E. M., 2005. All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(1), pp. 41-72.

Rotter, J. B., 1967. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), pp. 651-665.

Rowley, T. J., 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 887-910.

Schneider, H., Hlophe, H. & van Rensburg, D., 2008. Community health workers and the response to HIV/AIDS in South Africa: Tensions and prospects. Health Policy and Planning, 23(3), pp. 179-187.

Schuyt, T., Smit, J. & Bekkers, R., 2004. Constructing a philanthropy-scale: Social responsibility and philanthropy. s.l., s.n., pp. 1-26.

Schwartz, R. A., 1968. Corporate philanthropic contributions. The Journal of Finance, 23(3), pp. 479-497.

Siegrist, M. & Cvetkovich, G., 2000. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), pp. 713-719.

Sih, A., Hanser, S. F. & McHugh, K. A., 2009. Social network theory: New insights and issues for behavioral ecologists. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 63(7), pp. 975-988.

Simmel, G., 1950. The sociology of George Simmel. s.l.:SimonandSchuster.com.

Subramaniam, S. V., Kim, D. J. & Kawachi, I., 2002. Social trust and self-rated health in US communities: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 79(4), pp. 21-34.

Swider, S. M., 2002. Outcome effectiveness of community health workers: An integrative literature review. Public Health Nursing, 19(1), pp. 11-20.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007. Community health worker national workforce study, Texas, USA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Wei, Y., Donthu, N. & Bernhardt, K. L., 2012. Volunteerism of older adults in the United States. International Review on Public and NonprofitMarketing, 9(1), pp. 1-18.

Wing, S. C. & Lai, S. C., 2008. Social network, social trust, and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45(7), pp. 458-465.

Wymer, W., Riecken, G. & Yavas, U., 1997. Determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 4(4), pp. 3-26.

29

30