1. Results Results Solidarity in Student Organizations Kyle Zander & Jeff Erger ♦ Sociology Dept. ♦ University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire Solidarity in Student Organizations Kyle Zander & Jeff Erger ♦ Sociology Dept. ♦ University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire It is well known that student engagement in campus activities leads to more academic success and greater satisfaction with the college experience. Joining a student organization, whether it is a professional, academic, social, or a service organization can benefit the individual student, the student body, the campus community, and even the wider community that such associations serve. Our research is not intended to investigate this aspect of student engagement, but rather we seek to better understand the process that underlies these well supported empirical findings. Specifically, we are interested in the process that takes place within these organizations that leads to greater or lesser degrees of solidarity. Solidarity is a foggy concept. According to Michael Hechter (1987), solidarity is the result of corporate obligations and the member’s compliance with these obligations. The more dependent a member is on the group, the more she is willing to abide by the obligations in order to retain access to group. The corporate obligations must be enforced through a monitoring bureau. When this monitoring bureau lacks efficiency, free riding increases (Hechter, 1987.) However, there is some evidence that a higher degree of collective identity reduces free riding behavior, even absent the monitoring and sanctioning functions proposed by Hechter (Kollock, 1998; Lawler, Thye and Yoon, 2000). As the salience of the group member identity increases, the less likely they are to harm or use fellow members in a purely instrumental manner. We investigated some basic causal mechanisms that may draw groups closer together. We divided solidarity into behavioral and attitudinal categories and ask the following questions: 1)How do variations in group structures affect behavioral solidarity? 2)How do variations in group structures affect attitudinal solidarity? 3)How do variations in group structures affect organizational identities? 4)How do organizational identity changes affect behavioral solidarity over time? 5)How do organizational identity changes affect attitudinal solidarity over time? Methods Methods Twenty student organizations at a midsized regional university were randomly selected from a list of active organizations found on the university’s website (Active Organizations, 2007). Fifteen of the twenty organizations chose to participate. To be eligible for the current study the organization must be recognized by the university as a student organization, have a president, and hold meetings. Two hundred and sixty two students from the fifteen student organizations participated in this study. Participants completed two online questionnaires: one at the beginning of the Fall 2007 semester and the other at the beginning of the Spring 2008 semester. The questionnaire was posted on the university Websurvey system on the university’s website. The questionnaires gathered information about obligations of the group, intent to comply and reflections of compliance with the group’s requirements, perceptions of solidarity of group members, collective identity and organizational identity salience. Questions related to solidarity were grouped in to behavioral and attitudinal categories. Behavioral solidarity items focused on actions by the member (e.g. attendance at meetings, payment of dues, etc.) Attitudinal measures of solidarity focused on feelings of closeness with the group and other group members. Survey questions included items adapted from well tested instruments developed specifically to measure solidarity, role identity, and identity salience. The solidarity measure was adapted from Cramer and Champion’s index of solidarity (Cramer and Champion, 1975). The collective identity questions were adapted from a scale for measuring role identity and the salience of those roles for people (Burke and Tully, 1977). In addition to the questionnaires, an interview was conducted with the president of each organization to investigate group functions and organizational obligations directly from an executive member. The interviews allowed for a qualitative analysis of both the formal obligations and the informal obligations (norms) in the group. Interviews inquired about organizational structure, monitoring and sanctioning strategies employed by the group, and questions about group functioning. Dependent Variables a Intercept Dues Attendance Points R 2 Behavioral Solidarity Items T 2 a Attended all or most meetings5.773 -.881 (.481).978 (.578) -.180 (.336).025 Went above and beyond5.284 -1.091* (.474).904 (.569) -.217 (.331).038 Donated personal resources5.776 -1.152* (.478).538 (.574) -.127 (.334).055 Seen as active member5.707 -.853 (.469).321 (.563).033 (.328).031 Hours devoted b 5.288 -2.624*** (.502) 1.369* (.602) -.450 (.352).217 Attitudinal Solidarity Items T 2 a Got along together6.194 -.602* (.256).311 (.308) -.210 (.179).067 Stuck together5.682 -1.127** (.361).574 (.434) -.228 (.252).093 Helped each other6.172 -.922** (.300).007 (.361).071 (.210).137 Prefer company5.388 -.948* (.394) -.246 (.474).454 (.276).107 Everybody pitches in5.178 -.465 (.361).255 (.433).048 (.252).014 Success of org important to me6.518 -.523 (.290) -.027 (.349) -.118 (.203).075 Organizational Identity Items T 2 a Describe self 4.972 -1.522** (.474) 1.227* (.569) -.099 (.331).069 Central factor 4.898 -1.662*** (.471).731.566).238 (.329).102 Huge loss 5.601 -1.710*** (.466).593 (.560).002 (.326).127 Badmouth 5.636 -.994* (.396).294 (.476).016 (.277).068 Satisfaction 6.277 -.781* (.328).215 (.394) -.244 (.229).090 Important seen 5.127 -.795* (.380).378 (.456).286 (.265).043 Note: Numbers represent unstandardized coefficients; Numbers in parentheses represents the standard error a Participants responded to Likert type rating scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree b Participants responded to scale with 1 = less 1 hr/month to 7 = over 10 hrs/ month * p <.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 n = 148-161 (due to missing data on specific variables) Table 1. Organizational Structure on Behavioral Solidarity, Attitudinal Solidarity and Identity Variables Organizational Structure Independent Variables Dependent Variables a Intercept Describe self Central Factor SatisfactionImportant seen R 2 Behavioral Solidarity Item T 2 Attended all or most meetings6.057.175 (.090).218* (.094).138 (.084).304** (.097).231 Went above and beyond5.317.217* (.093).141 (.097).118 (.087).257* (.100).179 Donated personal resources5.418.208* (.094).166 (.098).191* (.088).171 (.101).175 Seen as active member5.535.241** (.089).258** (.093).105 (.083).122 (.096).213 Hours devoted b 4.080.184 (.113).243* (.119).236* (.109) -.051 (.128).123 Attitudinal Solidarity Items T 2 Got along together5.906.182*** (.051).027 (.053).140** (.048).041 (.055).191 Stuck together5.171.077 (.078).054 (.082).133 (.073).095 (.084).064 Helped each other5.486.101 (.063).084 (.066).188** (.059).029 (.068).140 Prefer company4.791.110 (.086).081 (.090).085 (.081).057 (.093).052 Everybody pitches in5.054.151* (.073).003 (.076).194** (.068).028 (.078).103 Success of org important to me6.170.190** (.058).074 (.060).098 (.054).096 (.062).190 Identity Change Score Independent Variables (T 2 - T 1 ) Table 2. Identity Change Scores on Behavioral and Attitudinal Solidarity Note: Numbers represent unstandardized coefficients; Numbers in parentheses represents the standard error Participants responded to Likert type rating scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree a Participants responded to Likert type rating scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree b Participants responded to scale with 1 = less 1 hr/month to 7 = over 10 hrs/ month * p <.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 n = 148-161 (due to missing data on specific variables) Variables Variables Organizational Structure Variables Does the organization require the payment of dues? (Dues) Is attendance taken at meetings? (Attendance) Does the organization utilize a point system? (Points) Behavioral Solidarity Items T 2 I have attended all or most meetings (Attended all or most meetings) I have gone above & beyond what the group requires of me (Went above & beyond) I have donated a lot of personal resources to the organization (Donated personal resources) Other members see me as an active member of this organization (Seen as active member) How many hours per month did you devote to this organization? (Hours devoted) Attitudinal Solidarity Items T 2 As a group, members of this organization have gotten along well together (Got along together) As a group, members of this organization stuck together through thick and thin (Stuck together) As a group, members of this organization have helped each other (Helped each other) Members of this organization spend lots of time together because we prefer each others company (Prefer company) When we have a job to do everyone pitches in (Everybody pitches in) The success of this organization is important to me (Success of org important to me) Organizational Identity Items T 2 When I describe myself, I include my involvement in this student organization (Describe self) Being a member of this organization has been a central factor to who I am (Central factor) It would be a huge loss to me if I could no longer be a member of this organization (Huge loss) If someone said something bad about this organization I would feel as if they said something bad about me (Badmouth) I have received a great deal of satisfaction from being a member in the organization (Satisfaction) I feel it is very import that people see me as a member of this organization (Important seen) Table 1 shows the results to research questions 1, 2 and 3. 1. Variations in Organizational Structure on Behavioral Solidarity. Members in organizations that require dues responded with significantly lower levels of behavioral solidarity on the items: “I went above and beyond what the group requires of me,” “I donated a lot of personal resources to the group,” and hours devoted to the organization. Attendance taken at meetings was positively related to hours devoted. There were no other organizational structure effects on behavioral solidarity. 2. Variations in Organizational Structure on Attitudinal Solidarity Members in organizations that require the payment of dues showed lower levels of attitudinal solidarity on the items: “As a group we got along together,” “As a group we stuck together,” “As a group we helped each other,” and “We spend lots of time together because we prefer each other’s company.” Dues required was the only organizational structure variable related to attitudinal solidarity. 3. Variations in Organizational Structure on Organizational Identity The dues requirement was negatively related to all 6 of the organizational identity variables. Attendance taken at meetings was positively related to the organizational identity item “When I describe myself, I include my membership in this student organization.” Table 2 shows the results to research questions 4 and 5 4. Identity Changes on Behavioral Solidarity Positive changes in organizational identity over time are positively related to behavioral solidarity. Each behavioral solidarity item was significantly related to at least 2 of the identity change scores in the identity change score model. Comparing the organizational structure and the identity change score model, the R 2 values shows that the identity change score model accounts for more of the variance in behavioral solidarity. 5. Identity Changes on Attitudinal Solidarity Positive changes in organizational identity over time are positively related to attitudinal solidarity. The items: “As a group we got along together,” “As a group we helped each other,” “When we have a job to do everyone pitches in,” and “The success of the organization is important to me,” all were significantly related to positive changes in organizational identity. Comparing the organizational structure and the identity change score model, the R 2 values show that the identity change score model accounts for more of the variance in these behavioral solidarity items. Introduction Introduction Discussion & Conclusion Discussion & Conclusion Contrary to our expectations, drawing from Hechter’s theory of group solidarity, members in organizations that require the payment of dues, a formal obligation, show lower rather than higher levels of behavioral and attitudinal solidarity. The dues requirement was also negatively related to organizational identity. This suggests that in organizations that require the payment of dues, membership is treated basically as an economic transaction. Members pay the required dues and get what they want, another line on their resume. Their involvement and attachment to the group stops there. In addition, our data suggests that attitudinal and behavioral solidarity is better predicted by identity salience than by organizational structure. Drawing off the R 2 values from the 2 models, the identity change score model accounted for more of the variance in 4 of the 6 the attitudinal solidarity items and all but 1 of the behavioral solidarity items. Members who strengthen their organizational identity over time not only engage themselves more behaviorally, but also have closer connections with the group. If valid, our findings could be useful for voluntary associations and other organizations beyond the campus community. Our research is useful for organizations looking to increase member’s solidarity and attachment to the organization. For these organizations, highly structured rules and requirements may be the least important thing to focus on. Instead, in order to get more contributions to the collective good, and reduce the level of free riding, a focus on interactions among members and creating shared identities seems to be the stronger way to go. References References Active Organizations. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from (http://www.uwec.edu/asp/dc/orgs/alpha.asp) Burke, P, J. & Tully, J.C. (1977). The Measurement of Role Identity. Social Forces, 55, 881-897. Cramer, J. A. & Champion, J. (1975). Toward the classification of solidarity: A factor-analytic study. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 292-309. Hechter, Michael. (1987) Principles of Group Solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and Group Cohesion in Productive Exchange. The American Journal of Sociology, 106, 616-657. Kollock, P. (1998). Social Dilemmas: The Anatomy of Cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183-214