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

August 21 • 4:00 PM

Julie Chen Explains Why She Underwent Westernizing Surgery

The CBS news anchor and television personality’s story proves that cosmetic surgeries aren’t always vanity projects, even if they’re usually portrayed that way.


August 21 • 2:37 PM

How the Brains of Risk-Taking Teens Work

There’s heightened functional connectivity between the brain’s emotion regulator and reason center, according to a recent neuroscience paper.


August 21 • 2:00 PM

Cracking Down on the Use of Restraints in Schools

Federal investigators found that children at two Virginia schools were being regularly pinned down or isolated and that their education was suffering as a result.


August 21 • 12:00 PM

What Makes You So Smart, School Principal?

Noah Davis talks to Evan Glazer about why kids aren’t getting smarter and what his school’s doing in order to change that.



August 21 • 10:00 AM

Why My Neighbors Still Use Dial-Up Internet

It’s not because they want to. It’s because they have no other choice.


August 21 • 8:15 AM

When Mothers Sing, Premature Babies Thrive

Moms willing to serenade pre-term infants help their babies—and themselves.


August 21 • 8:00 AM

To Fight the Obesity Epidemic Americans Will Have to First Recognize That They’re Obese

There is a void in the medical community’s understanding of how families see themselves and understand their weight.


August 21 • 6:33 AM

One Toxic Boss Can Poison the Whole Workplace

Office leaders who bully even just one member of their team harm everyone.


August 21 • 6:00 AM

The Fox News Effect

Whatever you think of its approach, Fox News has created a more conservative Congress and a more polarized electorate, according to a series of recent studies.


August 21 • 4:00 AM

Do Children Help Care for the Family Pet?

Or does mom do it all?


August 20 • 4:00 PM

Why Can’t Conservatives See the Benefits of Affordable Child Care?

Private programs might do a better job of watching our kids than state-run programs, but they’re not accessible to everyone.


August 20 • 2:00 PM

Oil and Gas Companies Are Illegally Using Diesel Fuel in Hundreds of Fracking Operations

An analysis by an environmental group finds hundreds of cases in which drillers used diesel fuel without obtaining permits and sometimes altered records disclosing they had done so.


August 20 • 12:00 PM

The Mystery of Britain’s Alien Big Cats

In a nation where the biggest carnivorous predator is a badger, why are there so many reported sightings of large cats?


August 20 • 10:00 AM

Death Row in Arizona: Where Human Experimentation Is the Rule, Not the Exception

Recent reports show that chemical roulette is the state’s M.O.


August 20 • 9:51 AM

Diversity Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Perception of group diversity depends on the race of the observer and the extent to which they worry about discrimination.


August 20 • 8:40 AM

Psychopathic or Just Antisocial? A Key Brain Difference Tells the Tale

Though psychopaths and antisocial people may seem similar, what occurs in their brains isn’t.


August 20 • 8:00 AM

What the Cost of Raising a Child in America Tells Us About Income Inequality

You’ll spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars to raise a kid in the United States, or about five times the annual median income.


August 20 • 6:00 AM

In Praise of ‘American Greed’

While it remains semi-hidden on CNBC and can’t claim the car chases of Cops, American Greed—now with eight seasons in the books—has proven itself a worthy endeavor.


August 20 • 4:00 AM

Of Course I Behaved Like a Jerk, I Was Just Watching ‘Jersey Shore’

Researchers find watching certain types of reality TV can make viewers more aggressive.


August 20 • 2:00 AM

Concluding Remarks About Housing Affordability and Supply Restricitions

Demand, not supply, plays the dominant role in explaining the housing affordability crisis. The wages are just too damn low.


August 19 • 4:00 PM

Can Lawmakers Only Make Laws That Corporations Allow?

There’s a telling detail in a recent story about efforts to close loopholes in corporate tax laws.




August 19 • 12:00 PM

How ‘Contagion’ Became Contagious

Do ideas and emotions really spread like a virus?


Follow us


How the Brains of Risk-Taking Teens Work

There's heightened functional connectivity between the brain's emotion regulator and reason center, according to a recent neuroscience paper.

When Mothers Sing, Premature Babies Thrive

Moms willing to serenade pre-term infants help their babies—and themselves.

One Toxic Boss Can Poison the Whole Workplace

Office leaders who bully even just one member of their team harm everyone.

Diversity Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Perception of group diversity depends on the race of the observer and the extent to which they worry about discrimination.

Psychopathic or Just Antisocial? A Key Brain Difference Tells the Tale

Though psychopaths and antisocial people may seem similar, what occurs in their brains isn’t.

The Big One

One in two full-time American fast-food workers' families are enrolled in public assistance programs, at a cost of $7 billion per year. July/August 2014 fast-food-big-one
Subscribe Now

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