Cross-National Comparisons of Monetary Donations to In-group and Out-group Members Kanako Taku, PhD, and Velinka Marton Abstract Method (Cont.) Results Terror management theory suggests that reminders of death affects one’s connections with one’s in-group. Further, depending on the importance of one’s in-group, bias toward one’s in-group can affect decisions to commit prosocial behaviors. The current study cross-nationally examined importance of nationality, mortality salience, and monetary donations to in-group and out-group members. It was hypothesized that importance of nationality will influence donations to one’s in-group and that, regardless of culture, people will increase the amount of donation to their in-group when awareness of one’s mortality is induced. Results revealed cross-national differences in donation patterns to one’s in-group and out-group. Future research should consider other constructs \to replicate the effects of mortality salience. Table 1. Demographics United States (n = 598) Japan (n = 423) Age M(SD) 20.27 (4.27) 22.23 (7.32) n % Religion Christianity 422 73.9 10 2.4 Buddhism 2 0.3 99 23.4 Non-Religious 110 18.4 287 67.8 Gender (female) 471 78.8 264 62.4 Introduction Results In-group / Out-group Patterns Terror Management Theory: Humans respond defensively to reminders of death by strengthening their connections with their in-group (Greenberg et al., 1990) Awareness of mortality can lead to in-group bias and affect prosocial behaviors (e.g., monetary donations) (Jonas et al., 2002) Behaviors can be affected by perception of the importance of one’s in-group (Ben-Ner et al., 2009) Purpose Cross-nationally examine how importance of nationality and mortality salience affects willingness to donate money to in- group and out-group members Hypothesis Importance of nationality will influence people to donate more to their in-group members. People will increase the amount of donation to their in-group members when awareness of one’s mortality is induced, regardless of culture. Importance of Nationality Importance of nationality was associated with in-group versus out-group distinction in the Japanese sample, F(2, 394) = 6.05, p = .003 No significant changes in the amount of donation for in-group versus out-group members were observed. Discussion Results suggest that people in the US are more likely than people in Japan to evenly donate to in-group / out-group members. Subjective importance of nationality accelerated in-group bias for Japanese participants only. This extends previous findings of in-group cues affecting donation amounts for those from collectivist cultures (Kim, 2016) This may reflect an inherent in-group bias associated with cultures that value the whole. Mortality salience induction effects were not observed in this study, as the majority of participants provided the same amount of donation before and after the experiment. This may be due to the country we selected as a comparison (U.S.). Limitation Although the amount of donation has been used to test in-group and out-group biases, a sense of obligation to one’s in-group or social desirability might play a role. Future Direction Future research should consider other constructs such as group entitativity to replicate the effects of mortality salience. Table 2. Importance of Nationality and Time 1 Donations (all participants) United States (n = 598) Japan (n = 423) Importance of Nationality M = 6.50, SD = 2.09 M = 5.61, SD = 2.02 n % Even donations 341 57.0 174 41.1 More to US members 236 39.5 6 1.4 More to JPN members 15 2.5 243 57.4 Chi-square test: (df = 3) = 463.87, p < .001 Table 3. Donations BEFORE / AFTER Mortality Salience Induction United States (n = 299) Japan (n = 212) n % BEFORE Even donations 173 57.9 87 41.0 More to US members 119 39.8 2 0.9 More to JPN members 5 1.7 123 58.0 Chi-square test: (df = 3) = 244.64, p < .001 AFTER 179 59.9 96 45.3 110 36.8 1 0.5 6 2.0 115 54.2 Chi-square test: (df = 3) = 226.02, p < .001 Method Procedure College students from mid-western US and a suburban area of Japan participated in the paper and pencil survey. Measures Importance of nationality (1 = not important, 9 = very important) Statement BEFORE and AFTER Mortality Salience Induction (experimental group) or no manipulation (control group) If I had $300 (or 30,000 yen) to donate, I would donate [insert amount of money] to a family in the US and/or [insert amount of money] to a family in Japan Mortality Salience Induction What emotions does the thought of your own death arouse in you? What will happen to you when your body dies? References Ben-Ner, A., Mccall, B., Stephane, M., & Wang, H. (2009). Identity and in-group/out-group differentiation in work and giving behaviors: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 72, 153–170. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.05.007 Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., … Sarason, I. (1990). Evidence for Terror Management Theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308–318. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.308 Jonas, E., Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2002). The scrooge effect: Evidence that mortality salience increases prosocial attitudes and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1342–1353. doi:10.1177/014616702236834 Kim, Y. (2016). Cultural orientation affects consumer responses to charity advertising. Social Behavior and Personality, 44, 1079–1088. doi:10.2224/sbp.2016.44.7.1079 Presented at the American Psychological Association August 8th, 2019 Contact: taku@oakland.edu, vmarton2@oakland.edu