Menus Subscribe Search
Liberal, Conservative, or Charitable

Liberal, Conservative, or Charitable: Politics Underpins How We Give

• August 10, 2012 • 8:54 AM

It’s not just super PACs—politics dictate how we donate to everyday charities, too.

To all the battles, big and small, between Democrats and Republicans, add this one: Who gives more to charity?

Arthur Brooks, president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, tried to tackle the question several years ago in his book Who Really Cares: America’s Charity Divide and concluded that the answer was Republicans—a finding which, depending on how you feel about AEI, is either obvious or dubious.

Brooks’ thesis, bandied about the blogosphere and the op-ed pages of New York’s respective partisan rags, the Times and the Journal, was essentially this: while liberal households make, on average, more money than conservative ones, they’re more stingy in their giving. A Republican family might donate $1,600 in a typical year; a Democratic one just $1,200. Not only that, Brooks argued, but the right was better about giving blood and making time for volunteer work than the left. Critics protested that the disparity in dollars donated had largely to do with religion—no one hits you up for money so often as a pastor, and nothing puts the squeeze on like an offering plate being handed down the pew—and, after removing churches from the equation, they re-crunched the numbers to produce a more favorable result.

A forthcoming study from the International Journal of Research in Marketing demonstrates that who gives is less interesting a question than why they give. The answer has much to do with the “moral foundations” that underpin our personal politics.

Through a series of three experiments, researchers from Pennsylvania State University, the University of Texas at San Antonio, and Rice University showed that just changing a few words in a charity’s mission statement had an impact on whether liberals or conservatives were more likely to make a donation. By calling on touchstone values like “equality” (for Democrats) and “tradition” (for Republicans), the authors were able to re-frame a single non-profit to suit either side of the aisle.

Market researchers like to break consumers down according to our “moral foundations,” the psychological shortcuts we use to decide, on the fly, if an idea agrees with our values or profanes them. Americans who self-identify as liberal and vote Democrat tend to focus on questions of fairness, reciprocity, and protection from harm; the vulnerable are to be cared for, the voiceless represented. (“Free Mumia! Build schools, not jails!”) Conservatives, meanwhile, from Tea Partiers to hedge fund tycoons, latch onto issues of loyalty, respect for authority, and religious purity; the social order is to be upheld and carnal desires resisted. (“These colors don’t run! It’s a child, not a choice!”)

It’s not that patriotism is a foreign concept in blue states, or social justice in red ones. Rather, liberals find “equality” to be of greater moral relevance when it comes to making a decision—like which charity to write a check to—than “tradition.” Conservatives feel precisely the opposite, thanks very much.

Karen Winterich and her coauthors drew on these shortcuts to study how Americans responded to a subtly suggestive charitable appeal. One experiment, conducted on a sample of students, highlighted a real charity (Save the Children) with a universal cause (rescuing kids from poverty) and massaged just a single detail about non-profit: its management structure. Half the students read about a government organization that staged interventions using public dollars; the other half read about a private organization that did identical work but relied on grants and donations. All the students were also given a “conservatism score,” based on their political beliefs, as well as a “moral identity” score, which rated how central their values were to decision making—a high scorer was highly sensitive to acting in accordance with her values, while a low scorer was indifferent.

The researchers hypothesized that liberal students would be more likely to give money to the public agency, while conservative students would throw their weight behind the private enterprise—which is precisely what happened. When told that they had $100 at their disposal, the students’ donations skewed as predicted. Notably, it was students with high moral identities—those who cared deeply about “walking the walk”—who rallied hard for their preferred management structure (e.g. public) or shortchanged the other (e.g. private).

A second trial concerned the charity Rebuilding Together, which performs home repairs in urban areas. When the non-profit was said to support “low income families” and protect “the right to a home,” liberals were quicker to open their wallets. But when its mission was tweaked to serve “working families” who hoped to “follow American traditions and support their communities,” it was conservatives who showed the deeper pockets.

Writ large, the politics of giving amount to more than just pennies. Charitable donations in the United States reached $298 billion last year—$218 billion of that from individuals, the rest from corporations and foundations—and development officers are forever scrambling to get a bigger slice of the action. Winterich and her colleagues note that in 2010 Target, the big box retailer, ran into a maelstrom of criticism when it made a $150,000 corporate donation to Minnesota Forward, a PAC supporting a conservative gubernatorial candidate who opposed gay marriage. Customers, like donors, have legs, and they’ll happily use them to do their shopping elsewhere.

“Future research should examine how large organizations like Target can simultaneously cater to many segments with diverse political identities,” the authors write. That’s sound marketing advice, which is to say it’s slippery and utterly lacking cojones. Indeed, why oughtn’t every non-profit simply draft two mission statements, one to court Republicans and the other to woo Democrats? It’s “Politics and the English Language” meets “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

As to that first question—whether its god loving, gun-toting conservatives or bleeding-heart, socialist-minded liberals who are the more benevolent souls—Winterich et al. quietly tucked their finding into a footnote. In the trial where students were told they had $100 to donate to Save the Children, it was Democrats who gave more than their Republican classmates.

How much more? Eight cents.

Kevin Charles Redmon
Kevin Charles Redmon is a journalist and critic. He lives in Washington, D.C.

More From Kevin Charles Redmon

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

September 15 • 4:00 PM

The Average Prisoner Is Visited Only Twice While Incarcerated

And black prisoners receive even fewer visitors.


September 15 • 2:00 PM

Gambling With America’s Health

The public health costs of legal gambling.


September 15 • 12:23 PM

The Scent of a Conservative

We are attracted to the body odor of others with similar political beliefs, according to new research.


September 15 • 12:00 PM

2014: A Pretty Average Election

Don’t get too worked up over this year’s congressional mid-terms.


September 15 • 10:00 AM

Online Harassment of Women Isn’t Just a Gamer Problem

By blaming specific subcultures, we ignore a much larger and more troubling social pathology.


September 15 • 8:00 AM

Atheists Seen as a Threat to Moral Values

New research attempts to pinpoint why non-believers are widely disliked and distrusted.


September 15 • 6:12 AM

To Protect Against Meltdowns, Banks Must Map Financial Interconnections

A new model suggests looking beyond balance sheets, studying the network of investment as well.


September 15 • 6:00 AM

Interview With a Drug Dealer

What happens when the illicit product you’ve made your living off of finally becomes legal?


September 15 • 4:00 AM

A Feeling of Control: How America Can Finally Learn to Deal With Its Impulses

The ability to delay gratification has been held up as the one character trait to rule them all—the key to academic success, financial security, and social well-being. But willpower isn’t the answer. The new, emotional science of self-regulation.



September 15 • 2:04 AM

No Innovation Without Migration: Do Places Make People?

We know that people make places, but does it also work the other way?


September 12 • 4:00 PM

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Plastic Bags

California wants you to pay for your plastic bags. (FYI: That’s not an infringement on your constitutional rights.)


September 12 • 2:00 PM

Should We Trust the Hearts of White People?

On the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, revisiting a clip of James Baldwin on the Dick Cavett Show.


September 12 • 12:00 PM

Big Government, Happy Citizens?

You may like to talk about how much happier you’d be if the government didn’t interfere with your life, but that’s not what the research shows.


September 12 • 10:00 AM

Whispering in the Town Square: Can Twitter Provide an Escape From All Its Noise?

Twitter has created its own buzzing, digital agora, but when users want to speak amongst themselves, they tend to leave for another platform. It’s a social network that helps you find people to talk to—but barely lets you do any talking.


September 12 • 9:03 AM

How Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human History

We thought we knew how we’d been shaped by evolution. We were wrong.


September 12 • 8:02 AM

Give Yourself a Present for the Future

Psychologists discover that we underestimate the value of looking back.


September 12 • 8:00 AM

I Walked Through the Financial Crisis

Why are former Wall Street employees guiding tourists around the Financial District? Paul Hiebert signed himself up and tried to find out.


September 12 • 7:05 AM

Scams, Scams, Everywhere


September 12 • 6:17 AM

In Soccer as in Art, Motifs Matter

A new study suggests a way to quantitatively measure a team’s style through its pass flow. It may become another metric used to evaluate potential recruits.


September 12 • 4:00 AM

Comfort Food Is a Myth

New research finds that, contrary to our beliefs, such foods don’t have any special ability to improve our moods.



September 11 • 4:00 PM

Reading the Camouflage Uniforms in Ferguson: ‘You Are Now Enemy Combatants’

Why are police officers wearing green or desert camouflage in a suburban environment?


September 11 • 2:00 PM

Wage Theft: How Two States Are Fighting Against Companies That Categorize Employees as Independent Contractors

New York and Illinois have passed hard-nosed laws and taken an aggressive tack toward misclassification.


September 11 • 11:03 AM

Yes, I’m a Good Person. But Did You Hear About Her?

A new study tracks how people experience moral issues in everyday life.


Follow us


To Protect Against Meltdowns, Banks Must Map Financial Interconnections

A new model suggests looking beyond balance sheets, studying the network of investment as well.

Big Government, Happy Citizens?

You may like to talk about how much happier you'd be if the government didn't interfere with your life, but that's not what the research shows.

Give Yourself a Present for the Future

Psychologists discover that we underestimate the value of looking back.

In Soccer as in Art, Motifs Matter

A new study suggests a way to quantitatively measure a team’s style through its pass flow. It may become another metric used to evaluate potential recruits.

Searching for Everyday Morality

Experimenters use text messages to study morality beyond the lab.

The Big One

One in three drivers in Brooklyn's Park Slope—at certain times of day—is just looking for parking. The same goes for drivers in Manhattan's SoHo. September/October 2014 new-big-one-3

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.