| Literature DB >> 32296362 |
Jose Ramon Saura1, Pedro Palos-Sanchez2, Felix Velicia-Martin3.
Abstract
Technology has become the driving force for both economic and social change. However, the recruitment of volunteers into the projects of non-profit-making organizations (NGO) does not usually make much use of information and communication technology (ICT). Organizations in this sector should incorporate and use digital platforms in order to attract the most well-prepared and motivated young volunteers. The main aim of this paper is to use an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to analyze the acceptance of a technological platform that provides a point of contact for non-profit-making organizations and potential volunteers. The TAM is used to find the impact that this new recruitment tool for volunteers can have on an ever-evolving industry. The TAM has been extended with the image and reputation and visual identity variables in order to measure the influence of these non-profit-making organizations on the establishment and implementation of a social network recruitment platform. The data analyzed are from a sample of potential volunteers from non-profit-making organizations in Spain. A structural equation approach using partial least squares was used to evaluate the acceptance model. The results provide an important contribution to the literature about communication in digital environments by non-profit-making organizations as well as strategies to improve their digital reputation.Entities:
Keywords: Technology Acceptance Model; non-profit-making organization; social network; volunteers; website
Year: 2020 PMID: 32296362 PMCID: PMC7137897 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00429
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Proposed model.
Measurement items.
| Constructs | Items | Path coefficients (β) |
| Use online volunteer platforms | USE1 [Using a social media platform that helps connect volunteers and non-profit associations would increase my desire to participate in such partnerships.] | 1.000 |
| USE2 [The existence of this platform would increase the number of volunteers.] | Omitted | |
| Attitude toward using | AU1 [Its use would be positive for my life.] | 0.927 |
| AU2 [Its use would be beneficial to my family and circle of friends.] | 0.915 | |
| AU3 [Its use would be beneficial to society.] | Omitted | |
| Image and reputation online | IM1 [I value the service of an association based on its brand image.] | 0.825 |
| IM2 [I consider that an organization with a proper brand image is more reliable.] | 0.869 | |
| IM3 [I remember an association more easily if I associate it with a logo and/or color.] | 0.701 | |
| IM4 [The design of an organizations website is of great importance to me.] | 0.788 | |
| IM5 [I would like brands to support the use of this platform.] | Omitted | |
| Intention to use | IU1 [I would be willing to search for and/or write volunteer offers on this platform.] | 0.813 |
| IU2 [I would recommend using it to my family and friends.] | 0.860 | |
| IU3 [I hope to use this platform to easily volunteer in the coming months.] | 0.854 | |
| IU4 [I would accept advertising advice from this platform.] | Omitted | |
| Visual identity | IV1 [Visual identity (logo, colors, typography.) gives me clues about the quality of an organization’s services.] | 0.841 |
| IV2 [I consider more collaborating with a non-profit association when I like its visual identity.] | 0.838 | |
| IV3 [I consider more collaborating with a non-profit association when their visual identity is familiar to me.] | 0.821 | |
| IV4 [I gave up buying/collaborating on a website because I didn’t like its design.] | Omitted | |
| Perceived ease of use | PEOU1 [Its purpose is clear and understandable.] | 0.744 |
| PEOU2 [I find it easy to access volunteer offers easily.] | 0.821 | |
| PEOU3 [The existence of such a platform would make it easier for me to be more concerned about social and/or environmental problems.] | 0.723 | |
| PEOU4 [I would find useful a platform where I could easily find how to help in those matters that really concern me.] | 0.775 | |
| PEOU5 [Learning how to use this website would be easy for me.] | Omitted | |
| Perceived usefulness (PU) | PU1 [Using this platform would make me feel better about myself.] | 0.899 |
| PU2 [When using it, I expect to be helping society.] | 0.908 | |
| PU3 [The creation of such a platform would help the performance of non-profit associations participating on it.] | Omitted | |
| Trust | T1 [Contacting a non-profit association with this platform would make me more confident in that partnership.] | 1.000 |
| T2 [I feel safer on websites whose design I think is appropriate.] | Omitted |
Distribution of the sample, n = 254.
| Items | Frequency | % |
| Male | 101 | 39.60 |
| Female | 153 | 60.00 |
| Others | 1 | 0.4 |
| 18–30 years old | 155 | 60.8 |
| 31–45 years old | 25 | 9.8 |
| 46–55 years old | 45 | 17.6 |
| 56–65 years old | 28 | 11.0 |
| >65 years old | 2 | 0.8 |
| 6.1.1 | 6.1.2 | |
| No studies | 6 | 2.4 |
| Diploma/advanced diploma | 23 | 9.0 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 11 | 4.3 |
| Professional qualification | 24 | 9.4 |
| Graduate university | 191 | 74.9 |
| Employed | 1 | 0.4 |
| Self-employed | 10 | 9.1 |
| Student | 118 | 46.3 |
| House work | 9 | 3.5 |
| Does not work (unemployed) | 11 | 4.3 |
| Does not work (other situations: retired) | 14 | 5.5 |
| Never | 71 | 27.8 |
| Yes, voluntarily | 70 | 27.5 |
| Yes, economically | 67 | 26.3 |
| Yes, financially and voluntary | 47 | 18.4 |
Organizations in which the sample participates.
| Organization | Frequency | Number of participants |
| Unicef | 38.8% | 99 |
| Cruz Roja | 33.3% | 85 |
| Médicos sin Fronteras | 22.4% | 57 |
| Manos Unidas | 20.4% | 52 |
| Greenpeace | 10.6% | 27 |
| Caritas | 10.2% | 26 |
| Save the Children | 9.4% | 24 |
| Unhcr | 8.6% | 22 |
| Oxfam Intermon | 5.1% | 13 |
| Aldeas Infantiles | 3.9% | 10 |
| World Wide Fund for Nature | 3.9% | 10 |
| Amnesty International | 2.4% | 6 |
| Help in Action | 2.0% | 5 |
| Asociación Española Contra El Cáncer | 1.6% | 4 |
| Banco de Alimentos | 1.6% | 4 |
| Ayuda Humanitarian | 0.4% | 1 |
FIGURE 2Central and non-central distributions. Calculation of the power. Source: G*Power (Faul et al., 2009).
Constructs and their measurement items.
| Cronbach’s alpha | rho_A | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted (AVE) | |
| Attitude toward using | 0.822 | 0.825 | 0.918 | 0.849 |
| Image and reputation online | 0.807 | 0.814 | 0.875 | 0.637 |
| Intention of use | 0.88 | 0.883 | 0.917 | 0.735 |
| Visual identity | 0.786 | 0.813 | 0.872 | 0.694 |
| Perceived ease of use | 0.776 | 0.775 | 0.856 | 0.598 |
| Perceived usefulness | 0.775 | 0.776 | 0.899 | 0.816 |
| Trust | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Use online volunteer platforms | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Correlations between constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
| ATU | IR | IU | VI | PEOU | PU | T | USE | |
| Attitude toward using (ATU) | 0.921 | 11.1 | 11.2 | 11.3 | 11.4 | 11.5 | 11.6 | 11.7 |
| Image and reputation online (IR) | 0.294 | 0.798 | 11.8 | 11.9 | 11.10 | 11.11 | 11.12 | 11.13 |
| Intention of use (IU) | 0.763 | 0.331 | 0.857 | 11.14 | 11.15 | 11.16 | 11.17 | 11.18 |
| Visual identity (VI) | 0.317 | 0.709 | 0.314 | 0.833 | 11.19 | 11.20 | 11.21 | 11.22 |
| Perceived ease of use (PEOU) | 0.617 | 0.395 | 0.746 | 0.308 | 0.774 | 11.23 | 11.24 | 11.25 |
| Perceived usefulness (PU) | 0.643 | 0.348 | 0.696 | 0.295 | 0.695 | 0.904 | 11.26 | 11.27 |
| Trust (T) | 0.461 | 0.346 | 0.543 | 0.313 | 0.666 | 0.567 | 1 | 11.28 |
| Use online volunteer platform (USE) | 0.534 | 0.236 | 0.605 | • | • | • | • | • |
Heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio.
| ATU | IR | IU | VI | PEOU | PU | T | USE | |
| Attitude toward using | 11.28.1 | 11.28.2 | 11.28.3 | 11.28.4 | 11.28.5 | 11.28.6 | 11.28.7 | 11.28.8 |
| Image and reputation online | 0.358 | 11.29 | 11.30 | 11.31 | 11.32 | 11.33 | 11.34 | 11.35 |
| Intention of use | 0.897 | 0.391 | 11.36 | 11.37 | 11.38 | 11.39 | 11.40 | 11.41 |
| Visual identity | 0.383 | 0.857 | 0.364 | 11.42 | 11.43 | 11.44 | 11.45 | 11.46 |
| Perceived ease of use | 0.768 | 0.495 | 0.896 | 0.373 | 11.47 | 11.48 | 11.49 | 11.50 |
| Perceived usefulness | 0.804 | 0.438 | 0.838 | 0.366 | 0.891 | 11.51 | 11.52 | 11.53 |
| Trust | 0.51 | 0.385 | 0.577 | 0.339 | 0.748 | 0.644 | 11.54 | 11.55 |
| Use online volunteer platforms | 0.587 | 0.26 | 0.643 | 0.226 | 0.764 | 0.599 | 0.418 | 11.56 |
Comparison of the hypotheses.
| Number | Hypothesis | Path coef. (β) | Supported | ||
| H1 | Trust → perceived ease of use | 0.601 | 12.053 | 0 | Yes |
| H2 | Trust → perceived usefulness | 0.172 | 2.306 | 0.021 | Yes |
| H3 | Visual identity → trust | 0.313 | 4.911 | 0 | Yes |
| H4 | Visual identity → perceived usefulness | 0.042 | 0.643 | 0.520 | No |
| H5 | Visual identity → image and reputation online | 0.709 | 22.031 | 0 | Yes |
| H6 | Image and reputation online → perceived usefulness | 0.041 | 0.621 | 0.535 | No |
| H7 | Image and reputation online → perceived ease of use | 0.187 | 3.357 | 0.001 | Yes |
| H8 | Perceived ease of use → perceived usefulness | 0.552 | 8.132 | 0 | Yes |
| H9 | Perceived ease of use → attitude toward using | 0.328 | 4.78 | 0 | Yes |
| H10 | Perceived usefulness → attitude toward using | 0.415 | 6.034 | 0 | Yes |
| H11 | Attitude toward using → intention to use | 0.537 | 8.716 | 0 | Yes |
| H12 | Perceived usefulness → intention of use | 0.351 | 5.194 | 0 | Yes |
| H13 | Intention to use → use online volunteer platforms | 0.605 | 12.742 | 0 | Yes |
FIGURE 3Quality of the measurement model and the structural model.