Conservatives give more money to charity, studies show. This makes some sense; liberals believe in sharing wealth already and advocate policies reflecting that while conservatives advocate smaller government and greater individual initiative.
But why do people in those political groups give to one cause over another? According to a new analysis in the International Journal of Research in Marketing: Special Issue on Consumer Identities, the values of their political affiliation are more important than the charity itself.
The work is based on three studies, two of which comprised nationally representative samples of adults and another based on a randomized experiment...with students, so calibrate accordingly. The researchers wondered not who gives more, but why liberals or conservatives would donate more or less to a specific charity.
They found that donations to a specific charity by Republicans and Democrats (which are interchangeably conservatives and liberals to marketing people and clueless young comment editors) are strongly affected by their perceptions of the charity's alignment with each party's respective moral foundations. Modern Republicans' moral foundations are embodied in concepts like individuality and loyalty; modern Democrats' moral foundations are embodied in concepts like equality and protection.
The researchers presented participants with a description of the same charity, Rebuilding Together. However, they subtly changed small parts of the description to suggest that the charity was either supporting American traditions and loyalty or ensuring equality. Among participants who indicated that morals are highly important, they found that Republicans were almost three times as likely as Democrats to donate when the charity was described as supporting working American families following traditions and supporting their communities. In contrast, Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans to donate when the charity was described as ensuring the protection of a home for every individual.
The researchers said their findings were supported in two additional studies that focused on children's charities, including one for children's advocacy, which seeks to break the cycle of child abuse through prevention, education, advocacy and funding. The charity was described as either aligning with Republican moral foundations of purity and loyalty or Democratic moral foundations of equality and protection from harm. Again focusing on the participants who value morals highly, the researchers found that when the charity description emphasized protection from harm, Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to donate; when the charity description emphasized purity and loyalty to community, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to donate.
"We found that while both Republicans and Democrats tend to equally value justice and caring for the vulnerable, Republicans place a much higher value on issues of purity and respect for authority," said Karen Page Winterich, study co-author and assistant professor of marketing at Pennsylvania State University. "Given these differences, Republicans are more inclined to donate to a charity when these values of purity and respect are met, whereas Democrats are more inclined to donate when the emphasis is purely on equality or protection rather than respect or purity."
"Charities, in addition to focusing on their main mission, must also clarify how their mission is aligned with the moral foundations of a donor's political identity," said Yinlong Zhang, study co-author and associate professor of marketing at the University of Texas at San Antonio. "A very simple repositioning of the charity's description so that it aligns with a person's political identity can increase donation intentions two- or threefold. Of course, this raises important questions for charities in terms of their communication strategy. But assuming this divide does not exist can only hurt their chances of maximizing donations from liberals and conservatives."
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "There are no Greenpeace GMOs. Go away with your bullcrap and take your GMOs with you. ..."
- "Talk about manned missions to Mars is foolishness until we've established a robot colony that has..."
- "Mars is basically a dead rock. Any life that can take hold there, good for it. Now the oceans of..."
- "Most people like average, because average is most predictable - just as frequent words and symmetrical..."
- "Save Lives With Golden Rice..."
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a way off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Mars bars for brain health? Not so fast