1. Sex Differences in Altruistic Norm Compliance
Gordon Heltzel Julie Eyink Edward R. Hirt
Indiana University Indiana University Indiana University
Background
Methods
Norms help to define which behaviors are considered socially acceptable
Norms are traditionally separated into two categories (Cialdini et al., 1990)
Injunctive: What ought to be done
Ex: You should not use curse words, You should recycle
Descriptive: What most people actually do
Ex: People go 5 mph over the speed limit, show up to social gatherings fashionably late
What happens when norms suggest conflicting behaviors?
In a park with high rates of theft, signs focusing on the social disapproval of stealing (injunctive against stealing) lead to less theft than signs that focused the alarming current amount of theft (descriptive promoting theft) (Cialdini et al. 2003)
Keep America Beautiful campaign depicting a Native American upset (injunctive norm against littering) about the amount of public littering (descriptive norm promoting littering) did not decrease littering (Cialdini et al., 1991; Cialdini et al., 2003)
Men and women hold different norms for effort
Self handicapping studies suggest women value effort regardless of the situation (injunctive norm) while men look to what others are doing to determine appropriate behavior (descriptive norm) (Eyink & Hirt, in prep)
Cooperation/Competition game (Eyink & Hirt, in prep)
Women behaved according to the injunctive norm, men behaved according to the descriptive
Males and Females differ in donating behaviors and reasons for donating
Men donate based on favorable risk/reward potential, women donate based on empathy (Andreoni & Vesterlund, 2001)
Men donate to in-groups, women donate to out-groups and include other in self (Winterich, Mittal, & Ross, 2009)
Both norms important for pro-social volunteering intentions (Warburton & Terry, 2000), but injunctive more important for donating intentions (Smith & Sweeney, 2007)
Research Question: do the sex differences in effort norms extend to donating?
Effort Norms: competition (i.e., sports and tests)
Non-Effort Norms: pro-social behaviors (i.e., donating, volunteering, and recycling)
Current Study: Investigate compliance to norms concerning donations to a charity organization.
Hypothesis: The injunctive norm will be more important but males will follow the descriptive more than females
N= 112 male, 128 female undergraduates
Design: 2 (sex– male/female) x 2 (injunctive norm – should/should not donate to Red Cross) x 2 (descriptive norm – most students do/do not donate to the red cross) with 2 controls (male/female with no norms)
IVs:
Injunctive norm: ... “Research by Brown and Rooney (2010) and Steinberg and Rooney (2005) support claims that [Red Cross services are crucial / the Red Cross spends ineffectively]… The Lilly Family School of Philanthropy therefore does not advocate donating to the American Red Cross.
Descriptive norm: …Specifically, surveys have found about 75% of IU students have [never donated / donated at least once] to the Red Cross.
DVs:
Amount donated to the Red Cross Foundation (out of $100)
Attitudes toward the Red Cross Foundation
Discussion
Males and Females both follow injunctive
Donating is something you “ought to” do
Your donation is private, so less need to conform to others
When others do not donate, injunctive is more salient
When others do not donate to a good organization, you feel personally responsible for donating
This contribution is seen as a “greater good”
When others do not donate to a bad organization, you feel no responsibility or social pressure to donate
Sex differences: Injunctive * Descriptive interaction was more pronounced in females than males
Females contributed more to norm interaction effects
In effort norms, men look to descriptive but in a donating context, women look to descriptive more.
This is a different pattern than with effort norms in previous research
Suggests that robust sex differences in effort norms do not extend to the non-effort context of donating behavior
Future Directions:
Further explore pro-social norm compliance
Explore sex differences in norm compliance in public vs. private donating to increase descriptive norm salience
Public (Salvation Army bucket)
Semi-private (church collections)
Private (mail in, online)
Explore conflicting inj*des pattern in “greater good” outcomes
Rare blood type donations
Greater need for volunteers
Results
Red Cross Donation Amount:
Injunctive Norm main effect Participants donated more when given injunctive norm supporting Red Cross. F(1, 182) = , p<.001
Attitudes towards Red Cross:
Injunctive Norm main effect Participants held more positive attitudes about the Red Cross when given injunctive norm supporting Red Cross. F(1, 182) = , p<.001
Injunctive*Descriptive interaction Given ‘most do not donate’ descriptive norm, supportive injunctive lead to more positive attitudes whereas condemning injunctive lead to less positive attitudes. F(1, 182) = , p= .012
Sex*Injunctive*Descriptive interaction females show a bigger difference between positive attitudes in the “support RC / most do not donate” condition and negative attitudes in the “condemn RC / most do not donate” condition. F(1, 182) = 3.147, p=.078
Red Cross Donations .535 correlation with Red Cross Attitudes, p<.001
Interaction between Inj * Des Norm on Attitudes
Interaction between Sex * Inj * Des norm on attitudes
Main Effect of Injunctive norm on Donation Amount
*For questions, comments, or working papers, the first author at