Running head: POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 1

The Effect of United States' Politics on Altruism

Dawn V. Masterson

Central Connecticut State University

2018
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 2

Abstract

This correlational study examines the effect of political association on a person's level of

empathy and altruism. The purpose of the study was to test the role Social Judgment Theory

(Sherif & Sherif, 1967) played in effecting one's empathy when talking about politics. The survey

builds off of the Empathy-Altruism hypothesis (Toi & Batson, 1982) which states that someone

who is showing true altruism will assist others, not to help themselves but with the sole purpose

of easing the other person's perceived need. In (Cohen, 1972) altruism is operationally defined

into three parts; giving or the desire to give, empathy, and no expectation of a reward outside of

one's own satisfaction. Based off of these definitions the revised Prosocial Tendencies Measure

(PTSM-R) was used (Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003). Two versions of the survey

were created. Both versions used the PTSM-R and questions taken from the Pew Research

Center website (Rubenstein, 2016). These questions were used to empirically define the

participants' political association instead of basing it on the subjects perceived party. The

difference between the two sets of surveys was in the order in which the measures were

presented. For half of the sample the PSTM-R was given first, followed by the Pew Research

questionnaire and visa-versa for the other half. It was predicted that those who received the

PSTM-R first would have similar empathy levels regardless of political affiliation but that those

who received the questionnaire first would have opposing results, with the Conservative party

showing less altruism than the Liberal party. Results showed weak interactions between the

main effects under the altruism sub-scale only. Results will be used to create a better survey for

future studies.
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 3

The Effect of United States Politics on Altruism

The problem this study addressed was the perceived variation in levels of altruism across

the political spectrum (Rubenstein, 2016). The purpose was to take this problem and find an

empirical way to conclude that a) there were varying levels and b) that these levels disappeared

when politics were removed from the situation. The definition for altruism was first coined by

the philosopher Auguste Comte who studied the differences of altruism and egoism in

Revolutionary France (George, 1927.) This study uses Comte's philosophy and the works of

Darwin and many others to create the standing hypothesis that Liberals are more altruistic than

Conservatives. Coupled with Social Judgement Theory (Sherif & Sherif, 1967) the goal of this

study is to determine if an individual's political party influences their level of altruism.

Altruism and Biology

In (Buck, 2011) he talks about Darwin's outlook on biological sending and receiving

mechanisms and how these mechanisms allowed for the growth of altruism. Darwin argued that

a person's emotions would create an expressive display and it is crucial to the group's co-existence

for the receiver to pick up on these cues. In order for this emotional expression to be realized

Darwin theorized that the sending and receiving mechanisms co-evolved. There is ample evidence

supporting the theory of expressive displays seen in acts like ritualization.

Hamilton (1964) is famous for his view on inclusive fitness which simply states that an

altruistic person is more likely to help a relative than a stranger. Also known as kin selection, this

happens because a relative who shares genes with an altruist is more likely to be an altruist
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 4

himself. When a certain condition is met, known as Hamilton's rule, an altruistic gene will be

favored by natural selection.

This rule was tested by (Waibel, Floreano, & Keller, 2011) and in its simplest version, the

rule states that b > c/r, where c is the cost obtained by the altruist (the donor), b is the benefit

received by the recipient of the altruism, and r is the co-efficient of relationship between donor

and recipient. Hamilton's rule tells us that as long as the benefit of the act out ways the cost, which

is divided by how closely the individuals are related, then natural selection will happen.

Darwin and Hamilton may have set up the concepts behind natural altruism, but the

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (Toi & Batson, 1982) helps to test them. Toi and Batson conducted

a study involving 82 female graduates. In this study the subjects were exposed to a person in

distress and asked to either observe the victim's reaction (low empathy) or attempt to relate to

the victim's feelings (high empathy.)

They then manipulated the situation so that there were varying difficulties of escape for

the subjects (easy or difficult) (Toi & Baston, 1982). As predicted by the empathy-altruism

hypothesis those that were objective observers (low empathy) helped less when escape was easy

as opposed to difficult, suggesting that they only helped in the difficult setting to ease their own

growing distress at watching the victim. This was in opposition to the high empathy subjects who

helped even when escape was an easy opportunity.

Altruism and Politics

In (Brooks, 2004) information from the General Social Survey (GSS) is used to determine

which political party is more compassionate. The GSS is based out of the University of Chicago and
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 5

is one of the largest surveys in America. In 2002, the GSS asked individuals a series of questions to

measure how they perceived themselves with respect to compassion, empathy, and altruism.

Later they asked individuals to rate how often they donated to charities and volunteered to

compare perceived compassion and actual compassionate deeds.

This study found that conservatives were more likely to view themselves as compassionate

than liberals (Brooks, 2004). Later it was found that, regardless of political party, people who were

religious tended to act upon that compassion more than secular individuals. Concisely, Brooks

concluded that since the conservative party was the party of religion, they were the more

compassionate party.

George (1927) talks about the separation of Comte's philosophies from the mainstream

politics of his time. Comte wanted to move away from subjective "rights" and focus more on

objective facts. He also placed importance on social inter-dependence and social functionality. In

America today, we are still ruled by politics as opposed to sociology like Comte wanted but there

is a strong connection between his ideals and the Liberal party.

The left wing holds more stock in science and tends to vote for more government

assistance (Rubenstein, 2016) because, like Comte (George, 1927), they feel that inter-social

dependence is important. This inter-social dependence also relates to Darwin's (Buck, 2011) and

Hamilton's (Waibel, Floreano, & Keller, 2011) concepts of altruism. If it is proven that we are

altruistic by nature, then why would Conservatives insist on voting for policies that do not support

the pieces working together as a whole? This is where our hypothesis based on Social Judgement

Theory (Sherif & Sherif, 1967) comes in to play.

POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 6

Brooks made some great points in his study but instead of showing us how political parties

influenced empathy, he showed us how religion connected empathy and the political party

(Brooks, 2004). It is the goal of this current study to use Social Judgement Theory (Sherif & Sherif,

1967) to see if political parties influence empathy. Social Judgement Theory is used to determine

when persuasive messages are most likely to succeed and how people make judgements about

those messages. In other words, an individual is more likely to react positively to information that

already fits within his established ideologies.

Social Judgement Theory (SJT) was built off the Len's Model created by Brunswik (1952).

In this adaptation there are 4 main components that measure a person's ability to make an

accurate judgement (Hall, 2015). The first is the individual's ability to accuracy predict an outcome

based on cues. The second is the individual's ability to maintain control in their analyses regardless

of outside cues.

The third is the linear knowledge obtained from paying attention to predictive information

and ignoring unpredictive information (Halls, 2015). The fourth is achievement which is the

individual's judgment as compare between the actual value and the individual's predictions. Using

these four components, SJT can be used to manipulate the altruism scores taken by individuals in

these study's experimental group.

Theoretical Framework

The purpose of the current study was to determine if a person's political views altered their

levels of altruism and empathy. This study looked to identify the existence of altruism and empathy

and then operationally define them (, Cohen, 1972). The Social Judgement Theory states that a
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 7

person will have a better response to a concept if it fits into their pre-established ideals. (Sherif &

Sherif, 1967, Hall, 2015) In this study how a person responded to the PTSM-R was their response

and their political party acted as their pre-established ideals., Cohen, 1972). The Social Judgement

Theory states that a person will have a better response to a concept if it fits into their pre-

established ideals. (Sherif & Sherif, 1967, Hall, 2015) In this study how a person responded to the

PTSM-R was their response and their political party acted as their pre-established ideals.

Using the theoretical framework consisting of the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (Toi &

Baston, 1982) and the Social Judgement Theory (Sherif & Sherif, 1967) it was hypothesized that

there would be similar levels of altruism between all individuals in the control group and diverse

levels in the experimental. With a second hypothesis stating that Liberals would see an increase in

the experimental group and Conservatives would see a decline. Results of this study will be used

to help individuals realize the effect that their political beliefs have on their moral standing and

help decipher any moral differences or similarities between the United States parties.

Method
Participants and Sampling

Based on the criteria of a good sample size for a survey (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, &

Zechmeister, 2009) 80 participants were used. 41% were females and 59% were males. The

average age of the participants was 31 years old with a range from 19-68 years of age. The

ethnic background of the sample was 81% Caucasian, 11% African American, and 8% Hispanic.

All participants were asked to take a survey, half of which had the revised Prosocial Tendencies

Measure first and then Pew Research Center questionnaire second and the other half visa-versa.
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 8

All participants were conveniently sampled from Wing It On Tap in Naugatuck.

Convenience sampling is a type of non-probability sampling (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, &

Zechmeister, 2009). Participants were chosen based on their availability and willingness.

Measures and Materials

All participants were given an IRB approved consent form at the beginning of the

experiment. (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Zechmeister, 2009) Participants were told the

information given on the survey would only be used for research purposes and would be kept

confidential. The consent form stated that the participants did not have to answer every

question although they were encouraged to do so. They were told they could leave at any point

during the experiment and if they had any questions to ask the researcher. A debriefing form

was presented at the end of the experiment that gave contact information for a counselor and

the researcher. The debriefing form also stated the full purpose of the survey and informed the

participants how their contribution would be helpful.

After the consent form was filled out the survey was presented. The survey contained a

demographics form asking for age, race, biological sex, ethnicity, yearly income, town of

residency, and highest level of education (Shaughnessy, Zechimeister, & Zeichmeister, 2009).

The participant was then presented with 2 forms, the Prosocial Tendencies Measure and the

Pew Research Center's political party questionnaire.

The revised Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PSTM-R) (Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, &

Randall, 2003) contained 25 altruism-based questions. In this questionnaire, participants were

asked to rate how well it applies to them on a scale of 1 to 5. (1. Does Not Describes Me at All, 2.
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 9

Describes Me A little, 3. Somewhat Describes Me, 4. Describes Me Well, 5. Describes Me Greatly)

For example, a statement claimed, "Most of the time, I help others when they do not know who

helped them." The participants then rated themselves from does not describe me at all to

describes me greatly.

The Pew Research Center questionnaire was given to test where the participants fell on

the United States political spectrum ("Political Party Quiz", 2016). An example of one of the

questions asked, "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and

lesbians to marry legally?" The researcher later inserted the answers into the quiz on the Pew

Research Center website to obtain results.

To test the effect of political identity of altruism, the Social Judgement Theory was

applied (Sherif & Sherif, 1967). Half of the participants were given the PSTM-R first followed by

the Pew Research questionnaire and visa-versa for the second half.

The 25-item version of the Prosocial Tendencies Measure (Carlo, Hausmann,

Christiansen, & Randall, 2003) was created from 6 other scales: public (4 items, Cronbach’s α =

0.78), anonymous (5 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.85), dire (3 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.63), emotional

(5 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.75), compliant (2 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.80), and altruism (6 items,

Cronbach’s α = 0.74).

Procedure and Protocol

Each session took place inside the main bar area of Wing It On Tap in Naugatuck. The bar

was chosen for its perceived diversity in political affiliation. Participants were chosen from the

main bar area after the time of 6 p.m. on the nights of Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 10

Saturday when the volume of customers was low, and participants had less than 3 drinks.

Participants were handed an IRB consent form (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Zechmeister, 2009)

and asked to read and sign. After handing back the consent form they were given the survey and

were asked not to discuss the questions with those around them.

After the participant finished filling out the survey, they were asked to hand it back and

given a debriefing form. At that time the researcher allowed time for any questions, concerns, or

feedback (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Zechmeister, 2003). Participants were asked not to

share any information with other potential participants.

Data Analysis

To test the hypothesis that a person's level of altruism would change when placed in the

context of politics a one-way ANOVA and a factorial ANOVA were run (Green & Salkind, 2005).

Results

By performing a visual inspection on the measures of central tendency and variability of

the data, descriptive analyses indicated that the political parties (liberal, independent, and

conservative) and the subscale scores for the PSTM-R were normally distributed.

When running the one-way ANOVA, we compared the 3 political groups (liberal,

independent, and conservative) to the 6 subscales (altruism, anonymous, compliance, dire,

emotional, and public). We found that the mean values for the altruism subscale for liberals ( M

= 27.57, SD = 2.64 ), vs independents ( M = 25.67, SD = 3.99 ), vs conservatives ( M = 23.18, SD =

5.18 ) was statistically significant for liberals vs conservatives, p < .01.

POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 11

When running a between subjects factorial ANOVA the sub-score labeled altruism in the

PSTM-R was subjected to a 3 x 2 analyses of variance having 3 levels of political party affiliation

and 2 levels of survey presentation. Both main effects were statistically significant. The main

effect of political party was statistically significant F(2, 74) = 12.09, p <.001, eta2 = .25, indicating

a weak effect size. The main effect for survey presentation was also statistically significant F(1,

74) = 4.00, p < .05, eta2 = .05, indicating a weak effect size. The interaction effect was not

statistically significant F(2, 74) = 2.32, p = .12, eta2 = .06, indicating a weak effect size. A Scheffe

test revealed that the mean score for the altruism sub-scale for liberals ( M = 27.57, SD = 2.64 )

was statistically significantly higher, p < .001 than that of conservatives ( M = 23.18, SD = 5.18 )

but not for independents( M = 25.67, SD = 3.99 ).

Our results of the 25-item version of the Prosocial Tendencies Measure (Carlo,

Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003) and the 6 sub scales: public (4 items, Cronbach’s α =

0.69), anonymous (5 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.85), dire (3 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.66), emotional

(5 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.77), compliant (2 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.41), and altruism (6 items,

Cronbach’s α = 0.72).

No other subscales were run based on the lack of statistical significance seen in the one-

way ANOVA.

The results indicate that although there is some interaction between our three variables

as seen in Profile Plots 1 and 2, all interactions have weak effect sizes. These results will be used

for future studies to find more significant effect sizes.

POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 12

Profile Plot 1
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 13

Profile Plot 2

Table 1

ANOVA Summary Table for Altruism Sub-Scores, by Political Party and Survey

Presentation

Source df Some of Mean of F p eta2

Squares Squares
PoliticalP 2 310.59 155.23 12.09 .000 .246
ExorCon 1 51.45 51.51 4.00 .049 .051
PP*EoC 2 59.59 29.79 2.32 .106 .059
Error 74 950.83 12.85

Discussion
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 14

This study proposed that if we gave participants a survey in two different orders then we

would see an effect on their levels of altruism based on their political party (Hall, 2015; Sherif &

Sherif, 1967). It also proposed that if we did see a difference then we would find that Liberals

were more altruistic than Conservatives (George, 1927). The results did not support either

hypothesis. However, there was an indication of a weak relationship between the two main

effects on the altruism sub-score, separately. These results were supported by a between

subjects factorial ANOVA.

Although we did not see any significant connections with the other sub-scales of the

PSTM-R (Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003), (Anonymous, Public, Compliant,

Emotional, and Dire) it is interesting that there was a statistically significant interaction for the

altruism sub-score. This was the sub-score that related most closely with our operational

definition of altruism as stated in the introduction and in the Empathy and Altruism hypothesis

(Batson et al., 1988; Toi & Batson, 1982). It would be good to use this information for future

studies when deciding the best way to measure altruism levels.

Limitations

In future studies, it is recommended that a scale other than the revised Prosocial

Tendencies Measure should be used. The PTSM-R was designed to measure a range of

prosocial sub-groups that did not relate specifically to altruism. Even though we did see some

results in the altruism sub-score it would be a good idea to use another scale for future

research.
POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 15

As could be seen in the results there was some mild interaction between the political party

and the altruism sub-score but none of the other sub-scores which could be an indication of the

scale used. It is also recommended that a larger sample size is used. To run an effective factorial

ANOVA at least 20 participants should have been in each category. (i.e. Liberal control group,

Liberal experimental group, independent control group etc.)

A larger population size should also be used to obtain more diversity. When using the

Pew Research Center questionnaire, it is without a doubt that less people scored Conservative

than if they had written down their perceived parties. While this information is fascinating it

makes it harder to appropriately judge a politically diverse crowd.

It is important to keep in mind levels of alcohol consumption between participants as

well. Even though the researcher attempted to ask participants who had less than three drinks

every person has varying levels of alcohol tolerance, and it is also hard to control alcohol

consumed before arrival. Other factors such as what time the participant was asked to complete

the survey, anywhere between 6 p.m. and 12 a.m., could have influenced the results. A future

survey could be done in a more controlled setting.

The purpose of this study was to take the perceived variation levels of altruism across the

political spectrum and identify if they existed and to what extent. The results we obtained will be

used to create future studies to expand on the weak interactions that we obtained. These results

can also be used to teach others about exaggeration used in media since our results could have

been biasedly skewed to meet an agenda.

POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 16

References

Brooks, A. C. (2004). Compassion, religion, and politics. Public Interest, (157), 57-66.

Buck, R. (2011). Communicative genes in evolution of empathy and altruism. Behavior Genetics,

41(6), 876-888. doi:10.1007/s10519-011-9456-3

Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Prosocial Tendencies Measure--

Revised. Psyctests, doi:10.1037/t16386-000

Cohen, R. , 1972. Altruism, human, cultural, or what? Journal of Social Issues 28, 39-57

George, W. H. (1927). AUGUSTE COMTE: SOCIOLOGY AND THE NEW POLITICS. American Journal

Of Sociology, 33(3), 371-381.

Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and

understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hall, C. C., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2015). Error Parsing: An alternative method of implementing

social judgment theory. Judgment And Decision Making, 10(5), 469-478.

Hamilton, W. D., 1964, ‘The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour I and II’, Journal of

Theoretical Biology, 7: 1–16, 17–32.

Rubenstein, S. (2016, August 26). Political Party Quiz. Retrieved November 16, 2017, from

http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-party-quiz

Shaughnessy, J.J., Zechmeister, E.B., & Zechmeister, J.S. (2009). Research methods in psychology.

New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

POLITICS AND ALTRUISM 17

Sherif, M. and Sherif, C. W. (1967). Attitudes as the individual’s own categories: The social-

judgment approach to attitude and attitude change. In C. W. Sherif and M. Sherif (eds.),

Attitude, ego-involvement and change (pp. 105-139). New York: Wiley.

Toi, M. and Batson, C. D. (1972). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-292.

Waibel, M., Floreano, D., & Keller, L. (2011). A quantitative test of Hamilton's rule for the

evolution of altruism. Plos Biology, 9(5), 1-7. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000615