Int. J. Happiness and Development, Vol. 7, No.

1, 2022 91

Diversity, culture, and membership in social

organisations

Abu H. Ayob* and Nor Asiah Omar

Faculty of Economics and Management,
The National University of Malaysia,
43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Zafir Mohamed Makhbul

Graduate School of Business,
The National University of Malaysia,
43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Email: [email protected]

Taslima Jannat
Faculty of Economics and Management,
The National University of Malaysia,
43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Email: [email protected]

Abstract: This cross-national study empirically examines cultural context as a

boundary condition for the interaction of diversity and social organisations.
Specifically, this research explores the effects of ethnic, religious and linguistic
diversity on the membership of humanitarian and charitable organisations, and
how the relationships are moderated by the level of fairness and happiness.
The hypotheses are tested using the index of fractionalisation and data from the
World Values Survey from 38 countries. After controlling for the institutions,
the results show that ethnic and linguistic diversity, together with a level of
fairness, have positive effects on the membership of social organisations.
However, the impact of the level of happiness and the moderating effects of
cultural variables vary according to the type of diversity. The findings imply
that social heterogeneity and cultural context play a significant role in
determining engagement in voluntary social activities.

Keywords: ethnic diversity; religious diversity; linguistic diversity; fairness;

happiness; social organisations.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ayob, A.H., Omar, N.A.,
Makhbul, Z.M. and Jannat, T. (2022) ‘Diversity, culture, and membership in
social organisations’, Int. J. Happiness and Development, Vol. 7, No. 1,
pp.91–106.

Copyright © 2022 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

92 A.H. Ayob et al.

Biographical notes: Abu H. Ayob is an Assistant Professor at Faculty of

Economics and Management, the National University of Malaysia. He earned
the BS in ICT from Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, MS in Management
from Toulouse Business School and PhD in Management Science from
Université Toulouse 1 Capitole. Upon completion, he went to Boston
University as a visiting academic before pursuing his postdoctoral at
Copenhagen Business School and Toulouse Business School. His research
interest focuses on the exploration of social context for non-profit
organisations.

Nor Asiah Omar is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Economics and

Management, the National University of Malaysia. She also serves as a Head of
Research Centre at the Centre of Value Creation and Human Well-being.
She received her PhD in Marketing from University Technology Mara,
Malaysia. Currently, she teaches marketing-related courses and innovation at
the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Her main research focus is
consumer behaviour, branding, small and medium-sized enterprise, and service
marketing. Her publications have appeared in several academic journals which
include Food Control, Journal of Business Ethics, The Service Industry
Journal, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Renewable Energy,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Journal of
Islamic Marketing, and Journal of Business Economics and Management.

Zafir Mohamed Makhbul is a Professor in Human Resource and Organisational

Management. He is currently seconded as the Dean at Graduate School of
Business, the National University of Malaysia. Previously, he was also
seconded as the Deputy Director at the Ministry of Higher Education,
Malaysia. He has more than 23 years of experience in teaching and researching,
as well industrial experience in Motorola, Hong Leong Finance and Agrobank.
As an academician, he is directly involved in teaching, research, publication,
and community service activities other than being responsible as the main
supervisor and external examiner for post graduates students.

Taslima Jannat is a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Management

and Humanities, in Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. She also served as an
accounting and finance manager in Bangladesh Export Processing Zone.
She received her DBA in Management from the Graduate School of Business,
the National University of Malaysia. She earned the BBA and the MBA degree
in Accounting and Information System from the University of Chittagong.
Upon completion her doctoral degree, she worked as a research assistant at the
National University of Malaysia. Her main research focus is on business ethics,
employee attitude, and organisational behaviour. She has published in several
scholarly journals, including Journal of Business Ethics, The South East Asian
Journal of Management, Jurnal Ekonomi, and Jurnal Pengurusan.

1 Introduction

Social organisations, like other types of establishments, are created by the influence of
formal regulatory enforcement and informal institutions of shared norms and cultural
beliefs, in which individuals pursue their interests (Nee, 2005). Prior research has shed
light on the impact of formal institutions on social organisations, mostly in a positive
direction. For example, high economic and social levels in countries increase the
 Diversity, culture, and membership in social organisations 93

propensity to volunteer and donate (Wilson, 2000). Yet scholars have criticised
international comparative research on social membership because it has focused mainly
on political and economic factors (Ruiter and De Graaf, 2006).
In contrast, exploration of the socio-cultural environment which favours participation
in social organisations, remains limited. This research aims to contribute to our
understanding of cross-country differences in social participation (Wilson, 2012), with an
emphasis on the impact of the national context on individual social behaviour (Wilson,
2000). A notable work by Luria et al. (2015) has partially addressed the issue. However,
these authors adopted a predetermined cultural dimension rather than crudely extracting
one from a data source, a novel approach adopted in this study.
Diversity is an important social variable proven to have an influence on many aspects
of the national landscape, such as democratic stability (Erisen and Wiltse, 2017),
entrepreneurship and innovation (Erayden et al., 2010; Qian, 2013) and subjective
well-being (Churchill and Mishra, 2017). An investigation of the impact of diversity
on the social environment in a country is more promising than ever due to the recent
cross-border movement events of asylum seekers and economic migrants. Accordingly,
scholars posit that the mechanism of how diversity affects a society is contingent upon
cultures and norms rooted in the national value system (Putnam, 2007). In other words,
‘positive’ values shared among people in a country would facilitate the assimilation and
integration process, as well as eliminate potential conflicts emerging between groups in a
diversified society.
To further comprehend the issue, this study aims to examine the impact of diversity
on the prevalence of membership of humanitarian and charitable organisations across
nations, and, particularly, how the relationship is moderated by the level of fairness and
happiness. The analysis distinguishes between three types of diversity – ethnic, religious
and linguistic – and controls for formal institutions to capture all hierarchies in the new
institutional model (Williamson, 2000).
This research proposes hypotheses that draw on a prosocial behaviour perspective to
investigate how ethnic/religious/linguistic heterogeneity interacts with shared values of
fairness and happiness in determining the propensity to participate in social organisations.
At the first level, we argue that a highly diversified society can either enhance mutual
understanding via more interactions or create tensions between groups that possibly cause
more severe social crises (Putnam, 2007). In any case, there is a strong motivation or urge
for people to become involved in solving domestic social issues (Lepoutre et al., 2013),
which increases the rate of social engagement in a country.
At the second level, it is held that the social values embedded in society have a
significant role in facilitating (or obstructing) the mechanism. For example, empirical
studies have found that the cultural dimensions of collectivism and femininity, as
opposed to individualism and masculinity, are associated with more social organisations
in a country (Puumalainen et al., 2015). Uniting arguments at both levels, this study
proposes that, given diversity as a factor that is stable and difficult to change (Alesina et
al., 2003), endogenous events should be examined as the products of interaction with
other social variables such as fairness and happiness.
The empirical approach of this research advances the literature in several ways. First,
three types of diversity: ethnic, religious and linguistic; are distinguished to extend the
focus to measure other types of diversity than only ethnic diversity (Savelkoul et al.,
2014). We conduct a separate analysis to verify the argument that each type of diversity
is defined uniquely, and thus has a different effect on social phenomena (Alesina et al.,
94 A.H. Ayob et al.

2003). Also, this macro-level study offers rigorous generalisability by controlling for
formal institutions and alternative informal institutions across nations to complement
single-country studies conducted previously (e.g., Levels et al., 2015). Lastly, this study
establishes causality using lagged data of explanatory variables from the World Values
Survey (WVS) wave 5 2005–2009 on the dependent variable of membership of
humanitarian or charitable organisations from the WVS wave 6 2010–2014. WVS studies
national values and their impact on social and political life across countries. It is a
reliable data source that has been used in much research across disciplines.

2 Literature review on diversity

Diversity in a country can be manifested in different forms – through ethnicity, religion

and linguistics (Ayob, 2020a). For example, ethnic diversity has been found to be low in
South Korea and high in India. In contrast, South Korea is one of the most heterogeneous
societies in the world in terms of religion, whilst Poland and Spain have low religious
diversity.
Traditionally, diversity has existed in human settlements since prehistoric times.
Diversity emerged endogenously among peripheral populations due to the insufficient
supply of necessary goods (Ahlerup and Olsson, 2012). However, in the modern world
where the trans-border movement of people has become common, both the government
and local people have expressed concern about the effect of diversity caused by the influx
of immigrants on the economic and social development of a country (Putnam, 2007).
For example, a theoretical study by Montalvo and Reynal-Querol (2005) suggests two
ways in which diversity may negatively impact the economic progress of a country. First,
competition between groups often arises in countries that are more ethnically or
religiously diverse because rent-seeking models consider the resources spent by any
particular group to earn political supremacy over other groups is a nonproductive use of
social cost, presumably by axing investment in more productive sectors. Secondly, the
government in a largely diversified country would also be forced to spend more resources
on resolving social disruptions caused by instability such as crimes.
In terms of the social effect, Lepoutre et al. (2013) offer two possible outcomes of
diversity on social participation. On the one hand, social participation could increase in
highly diversified countries in order to solve increased social problems, such as civil wars
or corruption (Dincer, 2008). On the other hand, because heterogeneous societies often
exhibit domestic problems such as poverty and inequalities (Putnam, 2007), people have
more important issues to contemplate for survival rather than engaging in voluntary
activities for the social good. In other words, they would be more concerned about basic
economic matters, such as employment, which eventually make social participation less
attractive.

3 Theoretical framework and hypotheses development

3.1 Diversity and social organisations

Diversity defines the heterogeneity of individual attributes, such as ethnicity, inherited
from our ancestors or acquired from the environment, such as languages spoken
 Diversity, culture, and membership in social organisations 95

(Montalvo and Reynal-Querol, 2005). Although most traits are static, some are
changeable such as religious affiliation as people can decide on their faith limitlessly
(Alesina et al., 2003). Today, diversity is more subtle than ever and has contributed
significantly to the influx of refugees and economic migrants from countries with ethnic,
religious and linguistic attributes that differ from those of the local people (Joly, 1996;
Putnam, 2007; Sturgis et al., 2010). However, the impact of variation in identity among
people living in the same geographical area remains inconclusive, as explained in contact
and conflict theory (Dinesen and Sonderskov, 2015; Putnam, 2007; Stolle et al., 2008;
Sturgis et al., 2010).
Although contact and conflict theories are often considered contrary, a discussion of
both leads us to propose the positive effect of diversity on participation in social
organisations. First, contact theory suggests that a diversified society provides
opportunities for more interactions with outsiders or out-group members (Huijts et al.,
2014). Thus, close proximity with people from various backgrounds helps to bridge
differences and increase understanding. As a result, empathic feelings, such as
cooperation, responsibility, tolerance and trust are strongly nurtured in the culture
(Schwartz, 1999).
On the other hand, conflict theory proposes that diversity is harmful for social
integration because it leads to clashes and competition between groups (Putnam, 2007).
On a larger scale, diversity can cause political chaos and social instability that hinders the
market from functioning properly (Mavridis, 2015). Thus, negative social responses such
as illiteracy, poverty, and marginalised minorities require collective participation from all
parties including individuals volunteering in social organisations. In fact, the creation of
social organisations in highly diversified countries is crucial as an alternative or
complementary solution to the government sectors (Dincer, 2008).
In accordance with both theories, this study proposes:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Countries with higher ethnic diversity exhibit a higher rate of
membership in humanitarian and charitable organisations.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Countries with higher religious diversity exhibit a higher rate
of membership in humanitarian and charitable organisations.
Hypothesis 1c (H1c): Countries with higher linguistic diversity exhibit a higher rate
of membership in humanitarian and charitable organisations.

3.2 Culture and social organisations

To address the effect of cultural values on social participation, we draw on a prosocial
behaviour perspective, specifically what motivates individuals to serve the needs of
others by becoming members of social organisations (Luria et al., 2015). The existing
literature has identified the traits that positively determine subsequent social engagement
at both individual and country level. For example, the values of secularity and self-
expression are found to be positively related to the prevalence of social businesses
(Hechavarría, 2016), as the former emphasises social inclusion and tolerance on
unconventional social issues, whilst the latter exhibits trust, tolerance, and quality of life.
Following findings in prior studies, this research focuses on an examination of two
values, fairness and happiness, as the main effects and moderators. Fairness and
happiness are considered personality resources that encourage people to participate in
96 A.H. Ayob et al.

community services (Thoits and Hewitt, 2001), a prosocial behaviour that aims to
maintain ideal standards shared among members in a country (Penner et al., 2005).
Fairness is an interchangeable term used in the literature with a similar concept of
justice. Classically, the principle of fairness has been developed from three ideas: liberty,
equality and reward for services contributing to the common good (Rawls, 1958). Today,
fairness includes broader cultural dimensions, such as secular orientation, which opposes
all types of discrimination and recognises that the social deprivations of others need to be
addressed (Puumalainen et al., 2015). When people are treated fairly, they tend to
develop the prosocial motivations of benevolence, concern for immediate others,
universalism and concern for the welfare of all people (Bardi and Schwartz, 2003;
Schwartz, 1999). One study suggests that the intention to contribute to society stems from
egalitarianism and harmony values (Schwartz, 1999), where the former implies the
attributes of equality, social justice, freedom, and responsibility.
Consistent with existing studies, we hold to a positive impact of fairness on social
participation as a main effect. Subsequently, as for interaction, we argue that fairness
intensifies the positive effect of all types of diversity on the membership of social
organisations. In other words, the higher the level of fairness in a country, the stronger
the positive effect of ethnic, religious, and linguistic diversity on social engagement.
Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Countries with a higher level of fairness exhibit a higher rate
of membership of humanitarian and charitable organisations.
Hypothesis 2b (H2b): A higher level of fairness accelerates the positive effect of 1)
ethnic, 2) religious, and 3) linguistic diversity on the rate of membership of
humanitarian and charitable organisations.
Prior studies provide evidence on the positive relationship between happiness and
involvement in social organisations as a determinant or outcome (Borgonovi, 2008;
Thoits and Hewitt, 2001). When people live in happiness as the product of surrounding
factors, they tend to give more in return to society. For example, cognitive whole-life
satisfaction theory posits that happiness results when one’s actual life meets or matches
one’s initial ideal life plan (Feldman, 2010). Accordingly, most social volunteers perceive
participation in social activities that are beneficial to others as a means to build
integration that satisfies their personal needs and self-image (Penner et al., 2005). Hence,
social involvement would increase life satisfaction and self-esteem, and give a better
sense to volunteers that they are controlling their lives (Meier and Stutzer, 2008; Thoits
and Hewitt, 2001).
In general, we propose that a happier society shows a stronger engagement in social
activities. Also, a higher level of happiness would strengthen the positive effect of
diversity on membership of social organisations. Hence, it is expected that:
Hypothesis 3 (H3a): Countries with a higher level of happiness exhibit a higher rate
of membership of humanitarian and charitable organisations.
Hypothesis 3b (H3b): A higher level of happiness accelerates the positive effect of 1)
ethnic, 2) religious, and 3) linguistic diversity on the rate of membership of
humanitarian and charitable organisations.
Figure 1 summarises the hypotheses developed in this paper.
 Diversity, culture, and membership in social organisations 97

Figure 1 Summary of hypotheses (see online version for colours)

Fairness Happiness
on(H2a, b) (H3a, b)

Ethnic diversity
(H1a)

Religious diversity Membership in humanitarian or

(H1b) charitable organisations

Linguistic diversity
(H1c)

4 Data

This cross-country study develops a dataset from multiple sources. An important deficit
in our empirical approach is that only a small number of countries consistently presents in
all sources available for analysis. Although the index of fractionalisation covers 190
countries, the WVS waves 5 and 6 capture only about 60 countries. When merging all
data sources, we yielded only 38 countries with complete data for all the variables
studied. Table 1 shows all the countries that were analysed, equally represented by 17
high-income, 13 upper-middle, and eight lower-middle and low-income nations,
following the World Bank classification in 2005.
The dependent variable, membership of social organisations, is captured from WVS
wave 6 2010–2014, question 32: “… could you tell me whether you are an active
member, an inactive member or not a member of a humanitarian or charitable
organisation”. Because the percentage of ‘not a member’ for most countries is very large,
we decided to aggregate both active and inactive members as the measure. In other
words, the variation is very small if we only include active members to represent the
variable. This is admittedly an important caveat in this study since prior studies have
distinguished between active and passive participation (Savelkoul et al., 2014).
For the explanatory variable, diversity, we used the index of fractionalisation from
Alesina et al. (2003). The index measures the probability of two randomly selected
individuals in a country belonging to different ethnic, religious or linguistic groups. It
ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 describes a totally homogeneous society and 1 defines a
totally heterogeneous society. This index has been used widely in research across fields
such as economics and sociology (e.g., Posner, 2004; Hodler, 2006). Although the index
was constructed more than a decade ago, it remains robust for research purposes over the
foreseeable future because diversity in a country is considered stable for a 30-year period.
To alleviate endogeneity, data on fairness and happiness were acquired from WVS
wave 5 2005–2009, a one-wave lagging from the dependent variable. Fairness is
measured through an ordinal scale of 1 (people would try to take advantage) to 10
(people would try to be fair) in the question: “Do you think most people would try to take
advantage of you …”, whilst happiness was captured in the percentage of respondents
answering ‘very happy’ and ‘rather happy’ to the question “Taking all things together,
would you say you are …”.
98 A.H. Ayob et al.

Table 1 Countries for analysis

Country Region Income group

1 Argentina Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income
2 Australia East Asia and Pacific High income
3 Brazil Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income
4 Chile Latin America and the Caribbean High income
5 China East Asia and Pacific Upper middle income
6 Colombia Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income
7 Cyprus Europe and Central Asia High income
8 Egypt Middle East and North Africa Lower middle income
9 Georgia Europe and Central Asia Lower middle income
10 Germany Europe and Central Asia High income
11 Ghana Sub-Saharan Africa Lower middle income
12 Hong Kong East Asia and Pacific High income
13 India South Asia Lower middle income
14 Iraq Middle East and North Africa Upper middle income
15 Japan East Asia and Pacific High income
16 Jordan Middle East and North Africa Lower middle income
17 Malaysia East Asia and Pacific Upper middle income
18 Mexico Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income
19 Morocco Middle East and North Africa Lower middle income
20 Netherlands Europe and Central Asia High income
21 New Zealand East Asia and Pacific High income
22 Peru Latin America and the Caribbean Upper middle income
23 Poland Europe and Central Asia High income
24 Romania Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income
25 Russia Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income
26 Rwanda Sub-Saharan Africa Low income
27 Slovenia Europe and Central Asia High income
28 South Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Upper middle income
29 South Korea East Asia and Pacific High income
30 Spain Europe and Central Asia High income
31 Sweden Europe and Central Asia High income
32 Taiwan East Asia and Pacific High income
33 Thailand East Asia and Pacific Upper middle income
34 Trinidad and Tobago Latin America and the Caribbean High income
35 Turkey Europe and Central Asia Upper middle income
36 Ukraine Europe and Central Asia Lower middle income
37 USA North America High income
38 Uruguay Latin America and the Caribbean High income
 Diversity, culture, and membership in social organisations 99

There are other values in WVS that could possibly be extracted for analysis. However,
some questions in WVS have been criticised for not accurately measuring the intended
meanings. For example, trust is measured through the question: “… would you say that
most people can be trusted?” The way the question is framed is questionable because of
its moralistic overtone (Koopmans and Veit, 2014) and ambiguous meaning (Bjornskov,
2006). Therefore, we decided not to include other values, but to focus only on fairness
and happiness.
Other factors might confound the hypotheses proposed in this study. Hence, we
include controls suggested in prior research: formal and informal institutions. First, the
alternative informal institution of the human development index (HDI) from the United
Nations development program has been added. The index measures the average
achievements of a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and
healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living. Second, we included
formal institution variables from the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), ranging
from –2.5 to 2.5: government effectiveness (defined as the quality of public services,
policy formulation and implementation, as well as the credibility of the government’s
commitment to the policies); regulatory quality (defined as the government’s ability to
formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private
sector development); and rule of law (defined as the extent to which agents have
confidence in, and abide by, the rules of society).
Tables 2 and 3 show descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for all the
variables, respectively.

Table 2 Variables and descriptions

Variables N Min Max Mean S.D

Ethnic diversity 38 0.00 0.75 0.35 0.21
Religious diversity 38 0.00 0.86 0.45 0.26
Linguistic diversity 38 0.00 0.87 0.29 0.23
Fairness 38 3.89 7.95 5.68 0.87
Happiness 38 52.5 96.5 83.14 10.51
Membership 38 0.40 57.7 15.20 12.85
HDI 38 0.43 0.93 0.77 0.12
Government effectiveness 38 –1.82 1.87 0.35 0.93
Regulatory quality 38 –0.69 1.92 0.56 0.74
Rule of law 38 –0.66 1.95 0.56 0.79
Component WGI 38 –1.43 1.63 0.00 1.00

Table 3 Correlation table

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Ethnic 1.00
diversity
2 Religious 0.01 1.00
diversity
100 A.H. Ayob et al.

Table 3 Correlation table (continued)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3 Linguistic 0.41 0.28 1.00
diversity
4 Fairness –0.18 0.28 0.06 1.00
5 Happiness –0.13 0.07 –0.16 0.13 1.00
6 Membership 0.08 0.29 0.38 0.31 0.30 1.00
7 HDI –0.50 0.15 –0.40 –0.06 0.35 –0.10 1.00
8 Government –0.51 0.29 –0.08 0.11 0.62 0.33 0.69 1.00
effectiveness
9 Regulatory –0.44 0.34 –0.09 0.06 0.47 0.28 0.75 0.90 1.00
quality
10 Rule of law –0.51 0.37 –0.03 0.20 0.59 0.35 0.71 0.93 0.93 1.00
11 Component –0.50 0.35 –0.07 0.13 0.58 0.33 0.74 0.97 0.97 0.98 1.00
WGI
Significant at the p < 0.01 level when Pearson correlations >0.30 and < –0.40.

5 Results

Before the estimation was executed, we ran robustness checks to ensure there were no
abnormalities in the final dataset, such as common method bias, although this is unlikely
because our dataset has been developed from multiple sources. To alleviate
multicollinearity, we performed principal component analysis for the three formal
institution variables from the WGI because they are correlated almost perfectly, ranging
from 0.901 to 0.934, with an unacceptable level of variance inflation factor between
9.603 and 17.801. A single component has emerged, component WGI, with an
eigenvalue of 2.843, explaining 94.777% of the variance, and the component loading
exceeds 0.969. Thus, the final model is robust and free from any major possibility of
statistical deficiencies.
We use ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to estimate the impact of diversity,
fairness and happiness on membership of humanitarian or charitable organisations.
Table 4 shows the results of the hypotheses, which are tested separately according to the
type of diversity. Models 1–3a test the main effects, whilst models 1–3b analyse the
interaction effects.
ll models are statistically significant with acceptable VIF between 1.030 and 3.851.
However, it is important to mention that the adjusted R2 for model 1 reduces by 0.017
from model 1a to 1b. In other words, inserting the moderating effects does not improve
the overall prediction for ethnic diversity. On the other hand, moderators help to increase
the adjusted R2 for model 2 and 3 by 0.034 and 0.139, respectively.
Hypotheses 1a-c predict the positive effects of ethnic, religious and linguistic
diversity on membership of social organisations. The results, however, provide moderate
support only for Hypotheses 1a and 1c, with no significant impact of religious diversity
observed. This suggests that ethnic and linguistic diversity positively determine
 Diversity, culture, and membership in social organisations 101

participation in social activities. The findings are particularly striking because the
majority of prior studies favour the negative effect of diversity on many aspects of social
capital, such as trust (Putnam, 2007) and participation in interest organisations (Savelkoul
et al., 2014) and political affairs (Levels et al., 2015).

Table 4 Results of OLS regression

Ethnic Religious Linguistic

Model 1a Model 1b Model 2a Model 2b Model 3a Model 3b
Diversity (D) 14.835* 14.675* 4.765 0.706 13.867* 15.657**
(6.712) (6.891) (5.103) (5.247) (6.214) (5.500)
γ
Fairness (F) 3.158* 3.123* 2.189 2.890* 2.684 2.908*
(1.405) (1.442) (1.453) (1.447) (1.376) (1.210)
Happiness (H) 0.041 0.028 0.132 0.163 0.185 0.229 γ
(0.139) (0.148) (0.143) (0.141) (0.140) (0.124)
D×F –1.954 –7.524 20.194**
(7.348) (5.403) (6.591)
D×H 0.174 1.380* –2.557***
(0.784) (0.613) (0.649)
HDI –65.358*** –65.806*** –71.776*** –74.817*** –51.744** –43.203**
(15.512) (15.964) (15.605) (15.267) (17.985) (16.356)
Component 10.817*** 10.974*** 8.936*** 8.254*** 7.463*** 7.285***
WGI (2.079) (2.209) (2.220) (2.182) (2.246) (1.990)
γ γ
Constant 39.117 40.787 45.061* 42.838* 20.5000 7.240
(20.262) (21.432) (20.787) (20.343) (23.571) (21.397)
R2 0.434 0.435 0.402 0.450 0.434 0.577
Adjusted R2 0.393 0.376 0.359 0.393 0.394 0.533
∆ Adjusted R2 –0.017 0.034 0.139
F value 10.723*** 7.465*** 9.398*** 7.940*** 10.754*** 13.232***
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; γ p < 0.10 (two-tailed).

Next, all models also provide support for Hypothesis 2a, that a higher degree of fairness
in a country would increase social organisation membership. However, Hypothesis 3a on
the effect of happiness receives no support for all types of diversity. In other words, the
findings show that social engagement is positively influenced only by the fairness value,
but not happiness.
Lastly, the positive effect of the interaction between diversity and fairness is
significant only in model 3, linguistic diversity. However, the moderating effects of
diversity and happiness are found to be mixed, positively for religious diversity but
negatively for linguistic diversity, in partial support of Hypothesis 3b. Thus, the findings
suggest that feelings of happiness actually attenuate the positive effect of linguistic
diversity on social membership. All interactions are illustrated in Figures 2–4.
102 A.H. Ayob et al.

Figure 2 Predicted probability of membership of social organisations based on the interaction

between religious diversity and happiness

Figure 3 Predicted probability of membership of social organisations based on the interaction

between linguistic diversity and fairness
 Diversity, culture, and membership in social organisations 103

Figure 4 Predicted probability of membership of social organisations based on the interaction

between linguistic diversity and happiness

6 Discussion and conclusion

Since diversity presents in a country as a very stable social variable, its impact on
subsequent national events will be examined as the product of interactions with both
formal and informal institutions. Holding to the proposition, this research examines
fairness and happiness values as boundary conditions for diversity and social organisation
interactions. Specifically, we explore the impact of ethnic, religious, and linguistic
diversity on membership of humanitarian and charitable organisations, together with
fairness and happiness as main effects and moderators. The rationale of this study lies at
the heart of a resource model explained by Wilson and Musick (1999) that:
1 human capital is essential for productive work
2 social capital is essential for collective behaviour
3 cultural capital is essential for ethically motivated work.
This study constructs hypotheses drawing on prosocial behaviour perspectives and a brief
discussion of contact and conflict theory. We developed a dataset from multiple sources
comprising 38 countries for analysis. The findings provide evidence that only ethnic and
linguistic diversity have a positive effect on social engagement. While the results
confront the widely accepted view in the literature of the negative impact of diversity,
little research has favoured the positive effect, i.e., that it increases participation in
activist organisations (Savelkoul et al., 2014). Prior empirical work by Ayob (2018)
found similar evidence that social enterprises are more prevalent in highly diversified
countries. One prominent argument is that diversity has caused many social deficits that
104 A.H. Ayob et al.

require complementary solutions and greater participation in social works in society,

rather than merely relying on the role played by the government (Dincer, 2008; Putnam,
2007).
Also, fairness values significantly predict social participation in a positive direction,
whilst happiness has no effect. Our findings verify a study by Ayob (2020b) that found
fairness is positively related with active and inactive membership in social organisations.
Social engagement is a symbiotic relationship in which people feel voluntarily obligated
to give to society if they receive equal or fair treatment from others or via government
policies (Mason, 2016).
Lastly, hypotheses related to the moderating effects yield only partial support,
contingent upon the type of diversity. Fairness interacts significantly with linguistic
diversity to have a positive effect on social organisations while happiness accelerates the
effect of religious diversity; however, fairness is found attenuating the positive effect of
linguistic diversity. The result is similar to a study by Ayob (2018), which found
moderate interactional effects of cultural value between diversity and social engagement.
This study advances the existing literature in two ways. First, it sheds light on the
socio-cultural determinants of social organisations, complementing much-focused
research on the role of formal institutions, such as the socio-economic development level
(Wilson, 2000). The findings provide empirical evidence that the social variables of
diversity and fairness are as important as other factors in explaining social participation.
Second, the empirical approach of this research is unique and robust for generalisability.
It distinguishes between three types of diversity that demonstrate different effects on
social organisations. Also, it utilises WVS data over two time periods which allows
country-level analysis and the establishment of causality.
The results of this study are relevant for government agencies, NGOs and individuals.
Generally, it is suggested that heterogeneity in society facilitates more involvement in
humanitarian and charitable organisations. To further enhance the effect, the value of
fairness must be nurtured through an effective justice system (Herreros and Criado,
2008), or cultural diffusion. Therefore, all parties must work hand in hand to pursue the
smooth integration of diversified groups that is beneficial for collective wellbeing
activities. Moreover, this study suggests that incoming immigrants of different ethnic or
linguistic backgrounds would promote more engagement in social organisations. Since
accelerated immigration is inevitable in this modern era, government should embrace
assimilation and integration programs amongst people of diverse social backgrounds.
Lastly, upholding the principle of fairness in a country is essential to further strengthen
the positive effect of diversity.
Despite its contribution, this research has some limitations. First, merging data from
multiple sources results in a small number of countries available for analysis. Thus, a
statistical approach with a limited number of countries could be too simplistic to explain
complex economic and social phenomena (Dinesen and Sonderskov, 2015). Future works
covering longer time periods could find alternative measures or data sources that include
more countries. For example, the happiness value can be captured from the World
Happiness Report by the United Nations. Second, although the findings show the positive
effect of ethnic and linguistic diversity on social involvement, the actual mechanism
remains unexplained. In other words, the results only demonstrate the ‘what’ but not the
‘how’ of the relationship. Thus, this study provides a potential avenue for theoretical
development to further explain the mechanism. Future works could address this issue via
qualitative methodology and explore related values such as freedom and tolerance.
 Diversity, culture, and membership in social organisations 105

References
Ahlerup, P. and Olsson, O. (2012) ‘The roots of ethnic diversity’, Journal of Economic Growth,
Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.71–102.
Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S. and Wacziarg, R. (2003)
‘Fractionalization’, Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 8, pp.155–194.
Ayob, A.H. (2018) ‘Diversity, trust and social entrepreneurship’, Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.1–12.
Ayob, A.H. (2020a) ‘Diversity, institutions and entrepreneurship’, Journal for International
Business and Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.298–315.
Ayob, A.H. (2020b) ‘An exploratory study of societal values in social participation across nations’,
The Social Science Journal, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp.310–325.
Bardi, A. and Schwartz, S.H. (2003) ‘Values and behavior: strength and structure of relations’,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 10, pp.1207–1220.
Bjornskov, C. (2006) ‘Determinants of generalized trust: a cross-country comparison’,
Public Choice, Vol. 130, pp.1–21.
Borgonovi, F. (2008) ‘Doing well by doing good. the relationship between formal volunteering
and self-reported health and happiness’, Social Science, and Medicine, Vol. 66, No. 11,
pp.2321–2334.
Churchill, S.A. and Mishra, V. (2017) ‘Trust, social networks and subjective wellbeing in China’,
Social Indicators Research, Vol. 132, No. 1, pp.313–339.
Dincer, O.C. (2008) ‘Ethnic and religious diversity and corruption’, Economics Letters, Vol. 99,
No. 1, pp.98–102.
Dinesen, P.T. and Sonderskov, K.M. (2015) ‘Ethnic diversity and social trust: evidence from the
micro-context’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 80, No. 3, pp.550–573.
Erayden, A., Tasan-Kok, T. and Vranken, J. (2010) ‘Diversity matters: immigrant entrepreneurship
and contribution of different forms of social integration in economic performance of cities’,
European Planning Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.521–543.
Erisen, C. and Wiltse, E.C. (2017) ‘Divided, institutions and economic performance: a cross-
national analysis of democratic stability’, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 123, No. 3,
pp.1145–1161.
Feldman, F. (2010) What is This Thing Called Happiness?, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hechavarría, D.M. (2016) ‘The impact of culture on national prevalence rates of social and
commercial entrepreneurship’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.1025–1052.
Herreros, F. and Criado, H., 2008. The state and the development of social trust. International
Political Science Review, 29(1), pp.53-71.
Hodler, R. (2006) ‘The curse of natural resources in fractionalized countries’, European Economic
Review, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp.1367–1386.
Hoogendoorn, B. (2016) ‘The prevalence and determinants of social entrepreneurship at the macro
level’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 54, No. S1, pp.278–296.
Huijts, T., Kraaykamp, G. and Scheepers, P. (2014) ‘Ethnic diversity and informal intra-and inter-
ethnic contacts with neighbours in the Netherlands: a comparison of natives and ethnic
minorities’, Acta Sociologica, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp.41–57.
Joly, D. (1996) Haven Or Hell? Asylum Policies and Refugees in Europe, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Koopmans, R. and Veit, S. (2014) ‘Ethnic diversity, trust and the mediating role of positive and
negative interethnic contact: a priming experiment’, Social Science Research, Vol. 47,
pp.91–107.
Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S. and Bosma, N. (2013) ‘Designing a global standardized
methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: the global entrepreneurship
monitor social entrepreneurship study’, Small Business Economics, Vol. 40, pp.693–714.
106 A.H. Ayob et al.

Levels, M., Scheepers, P., Huijts, T. and Kraaykamp, G. (2015) ‘Formal and informal social capital
in Germany: the role of institutions and ethnic diversity’, European Sociological Review,
Vol. 31, No. 6, pp.766–779.
Luria, G., Cnaan, R.A. and Boehm, A. (2015) ‘National culture and prosocial behaviors: results
from 66 countries’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp.1041–1065.
Mason, D.P. (2016) ‘Recognition and cross-cultural communications as motivators for charitable
giving: a field experiment’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 1,
pp.192–204.
Mavridis, D. (2015) ‘Ethnic diversity and social capital in Indonesia’, World Development, Vol. 67,
pp.376–395.
Meier, S. and Stutzer, A. (2008) ‘Is volunteering rewarding in itself?’, Economica, Vol. 75,
pp.39–59.
Montalvo, J.G. and Reynal-Querol, M. (2005) ‘Ethnic diversity and economic development’,
Journal of Economic Development, Vol. 76, pp.293–323.
Nee, V. (2005) ‘The new institutionalisms in economics and sociology’, The Handbook of
Economic Sociology, Vol. 2, pp.49–74.
Penner, L.A., Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A. and Schroeder, D.A. (2005) ‘Prosocial behavior:
multilevel perspectives’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56, pp.365–392.
Posner, D.N. (2004) ‘Measuring ethnic fractionalization in Africa’, American Journal of Political
Science, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp.849–863.
Putnam, R. (2007) ‘E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006
johan skytte prize lecture’, Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.137–174.
Puumalainen, K., Sjogren, H., Pasi, S. and Barraket, J. (2015) ‘Comparing social entrepreneurship
across nations: an exploratory study of institutional effects’, Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 32, pp.276–287.
Qian, H. (2013) ‘Diversity versus tolerance: the social drivers of innovation and entrepreneurship
in US cities’, Urban Studies, Vol. 50, No. 13, pp.2718–2735.
Rawls, J. (1958) ‘Justice as fairness’, Philosophical Review, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp.164–194.
Ruiter, S. and De Graaf, N.D. (2006) ‘National context, religiosity, and volunteering: results from
53 countries’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 71, pp.191–210.
Savelkoul, M., Gesthuizen, M. and Scheepers, P. (2014) ‘The impact of ethnic diversity on
participation in European voluntary organizations: direct and indirect pathways’, Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp.1070–1094.
Schwartz, S.H. (1999) ‘A theory of cultural values and some implications for work’, Applied
Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.23–47.
Stolle, D., Soroka, S. and Johnston, R. (2008) ‘When does diversity erode trust? Neighborhood
diversity, interpersonal trust and the mediating effect of social interactions’, Political Studies,
Vol. 56, No. 1, pp.57–75.
Sturgis, P., Brunton-Smith, I., Read, S. and Allum, N. (2010) ‘Does ethnic diversity erode trust?
Putnam’s ‘hunkering down’ Thesis Reconsidered. British Journal of Political Science,
Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.57–82.
Thoits, P.A. and Hewitt, L.N. (2001) ‘Volunteer work and well-being’, Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, Vol. 42, pp.115–131.
Williamson, O. (2000) ‘New institutional economics’, Journal of Economics Literature, Vol. 38,
pp.595–613.
Wilson, J. (2000) ‘Volunteering’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, pp.215–240.
Wilson, J. (2012) ‘Volunteerism research: a review essay’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp.176–212.
Wilson, J. and Musick, M.A. (1999) ‘The effects of volunteering on the volunteer’, Law and
Contemporary Problems, Vol. 62, pp.141–168.