printed by

www.postersession.com

Gender Identity as a Possible Predictor of Altruism as Measured by Donation to CharityKaitlyn Collins, Jason Cole, Ndubeze Nwala, Jeff Everett, Erica Dixon, Kathryn Thompson-Clancy, April Kindrick, Amy Kassler

Department of Psychology, South Puget Sound Community College, Olympia, Washington

Recent studies indicate that women are more likely than men to act in altruistic ways (Ruf &

Radosevich, 2009). Evidence suggests that in controlled experiments with anonymous settings

women donate more money than men (Kamas, Preston ,& Baum, 2008). More specifically, women

may be more altruistic than men. The current research adds to the body of knowledge regarding

altruistic behavior by measuring gender identity, rather than sex, and its relationship to charitable

helping behavior. This research attempts to determine if feminine or androgynous gender identity is

equivalent with “women” in the previous research. Thus, the current study predicts a positive

correlation between feminine gender identity and altruism and a positive correlation between

androgynous gender identity and altruism.

The research presented here attempted to demonstrate that gender identity, rather than sex, was correlated with altruistic

behavior, expressed here as the willingness to donate a gift card to charity. The alternative hypothesis was disproved when

gender identity was separated into four categories and did not support the hypothesis that a distinct gender identity was

predictive of charitable behavior which was measured by the opportunity to donate a gift card to a local food bank (Bem, 1974).

However, when subgroups feminine and undifferentiated are compared, analysis of the data shows there to be a significant

difference in the donations, with the feminine group donating more.

Although the results in the current study do not support the variable of a feminine or androgynous gender identity

contributing to charitable helping behavior, there is evidence to suggest that the traits which are traditionally associated with

femininity can, under certain circumstances, lead to an increase in altruism (Kamas, Preston, & Baum, 2008).

Other variables or situations that may increase altruistic behavior deserve further study, specifically socio-economic status

or changes in economic status. The economic downturn which occurred in late 2008 may support the likelihood of participants

keeping the gift card, particularly for a student population who work, may have children and may be unemployed or

underemployed. Thus, age, head of household, and income need to be included as variables in future research. Other research

indicates that the value of the gift card may affect the propensity to donate, particularly by sex of participant (Andreoni &

Vesterlund, 2001).

A limitation to understanding the correlation of gender identity and altruism in this research may be the tool that was used

to measure gender identity. We are concerned that the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) as an instrument for measuring gender

identity may in fact be anachronistic. The scoring procedures for the BSRI are based on the culturally desirable traits for

masculinity and femininity determined by college undergraduates in the 1970’s (Hoffman & Borders, 2001). Contemporary

college undergraduates likely have different assessments of masculinity and femininity. Developing a more valid contemporary

instrument to measure gender identity is important in the field of gender studies in general and understanding its correlation with

altruism specifically. While Sandra Bem is unrivaled in her contributions to measuring gender identity, we are cautious in our

confidence of the tools current validity.

Ongoing research in the area of helping behavior is valuable in determining what makes people act in charitable or altruistic

ways. Future research in this area should continue to consider sex and gender identity, as well as the value of the gift card as a

correlating dependent variable. Gender identity is still an important variable to consider; perhaps a contemporary measure of

gender identity would yield different results. Other personality traits and variables should also continue to be measured as they

relate to altruism.

Altruism fosters positive relationships which lead to the emotional health and well being of the individual and society.

Understanding the intricate variables that influence altruistic behavior continues to be significant in the burgeoning field of

positive psychology.

Darby Kaikkonen,

Director of Institutional Research

South Puget Sound Community College

Baetz, M., & Towes, J. (2009). Clinical implications of research on religion, spirituality, and mental health. La Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 54, 292-301.

Bartlett, M., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 17(4), 319-325. Retrieved April 14, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9280. 2006.01705.x

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bem, S. L. (1978, 1981). Bem Sex Role Inventory Manual/Sampler Set Manual, Instrument and Scoring Guide and Original Form, Short Form, and Scoring Guide. Distributed by Mind Garden, Inc. Copyright © 1978, 1981

Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. For use by Erica Dixon only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on February 10, 2010 Permission for Erica Dixon to reproduce 500 copies within one year of February 10, 2010.

Christopher, A., Westerhof, D., & Marek, P. (2005). Affluence cues and perceptions of helping. North American Journal of Psychology, 7(2), 229-237. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Crowell, J., & Treboux, D. (1995). A review of adult attachment measures: Implications for theory and research. Social Development, 4(3), 294-327. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.ep11633847

Finkelstein, M. A. (2008). Predictors of volunteer time: the changing contributions of motive fulfillment and role identity. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 1353-1364.

Finkelstein, M., & Brannick, M. (2007). Applying theories of institutional helping to informal volunteering: Motives, role, identity, and prosocial personality. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 35(1),

101-114. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Fraley, R., Waller, N., & Brennan, K. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78(2), 350-365. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.350

Hoffman, R. M., & Borders D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: a reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling Development, 34,

39-55.

Kamas, L., Preston, A., Baum, S. (2008). Altruism in individual and joint-giving decisions: what’s gender got to do with it? Feminist Economics, 14, 23–50

Karakashian, L., Walter, M., Christopher, A., & Lucas, T. (2006). Fear of negative evaluation affects helping behavior: The Bystander Effect revisited. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 13-32. Retrieved from

Academic Search Complete database.

Karremans, J. (2007). Considering reasons for a value influences behaviour that expresses related values: an extension of the value-as-truisms hypothesis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(3), 508-523.

doi:10.1002/ejsp.371

Klaus, D. (2009). Why do adult children support their parents? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40, 227-241.

Koenig, L. B., McGue, M., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard, T. J. (2007). Religiousness, antisocial behavior, and altruism: genetic and environmental mediation. Journal of Personality, 75, 265-290.

Leak, G., & Leak, K. (2006). Adlerian social interest and positive psychology: A conceptual and empirical integration. Journal of Individual Psychology, 62(3), 207-223. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Li, J. (2005). Why is income inequality linked to altruism? The Lancet, 366, 23-29.

Maner, J., & Gailliot, M. (2007). Altruism and egoism: Prosocial motivations for helping depend on relationship context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 347-358. doi:10.1002/ejsp.364

Mastain, L. (2006). The lived experience of spontaneous altruism: A phenomenological study. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 37(1), 25-52. doi:10.1163/156916206778150439

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2005). Attachment security, compassion, and altruism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 34-38. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00330.x

Mowen, J., & Sujan, H. (2005). Volunteer behavior: A hierarchical model approach for investigating its trait and functional motive antecedents. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 170-182.

doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1502_9

Ngai. S. S., & Cheung, C. (2009). Idealism, altruism, career orientation, and emotional exhaustion among social work undergraduates. Journal of Social Work Education, 45, 105-121.

Purkayasths, D. (2003). From parents to children: intra household altruism as institutional behavior. Journal of Economic Issues, 37, 601-620.

Reizer, A., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Assessing individual differences in working models of caregiving the construction and validation of the mental representation of caregiving scale. Journal of Individual Differences, 28,

227–239.

Ruf, D., & Radosevich, D. M. (2009). How personality and gender may relate to individual attitudes toward caring for and about others. Roeper Review, 31,207–216.

ScaffidiAbbate, Costanza, et al. (2006). A field experiment on perspective-taking, helping, and self-awareness. Basic & Applied Social Psychology 28(3) 283-287. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.

Slotterback, C. S. (2006). Terrorism, altruism, and patriotism: an examination of children’s letters to santa claus, 1998–2002. Current Psychology , 25, 144-153.

Staats, S., Hupp, J., & Hagley, A. (2008, July). Honesty and heroes: A positive psychology view of heroism and academic honesty. Journal of Psychology, 142(4), 357-372. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from Academic Search

Complete database.

Stahl, J., & Hill, C. (2008, April). A comparison of four methods for assessing natural helping ability. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(3), 289-298. Retrieved April 14, 2009, doi:10.1002/jcop.20195.

Steele, W. R., Schreiber, G. B., Guiltinan, A., Nass, C., Glynn, S. A., Wright, D. J., Kessler, D., Schlumpf, K. S., Tu, Y., Smith, J. W., & Garratty, G. (2008). The role of altruistic behavior, empathetic concern, and social

responsibility motivation in blood donation behavior. Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study, 48, 43-54.

Vieten, C., Amorok, T., Schlitz, M. M. (2006). I to we: the role of consciousness transformation in compassion and altruism. Zygon, 41, 915-931.

Wiepking, P. & Ineke M. (2009). Resources that make you generous: effects of social and human resources on charitable giving. Social Forces, 87, 1973-1996.

Williams, L., & Bargh, J. (2008, October 24). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322(5901), 606-607. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Wu, W. L., Lin, C. H., Hsu, B. F., & Yeh, R. S. (2009). Interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing: moderating effects of individual altruism and a social interaction environment. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 83-94.

Zimbardo, P. (2004, July). Does psychology make a significant difference in our lives?. American Psychologist, 59(5), 339- 351. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.5.339

College students who score feminine or androgynous in their gender identity are more likely to

engage in chartable behavior than participants who score masculine or undifferentiated in their

gender identity. We expect to reject the null hypothesis by finding a relationship between the quasi-

independent variable of feminine gender identity or androgynous gender identity and the dependent

variable of altruistic behavior as measured by charitable behavior. This study is also an initial test

for correlation to determine if a relationship exists between gender identity and altruism.

Background

Hypothesis

Results Discussion

References

Acknowledgements

27.7%

36.8%

26.6%23.0%

72.3%

63.2%

73.4%77.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Androgynous Feminine Masculine Undifferentiated

Distribution of Donation by All Gender Groups

Yes

No

Methods and Procedure

27.7%

36.8%

72.3%

63.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Distribution of Donation by Feminine and Androgynous

Yes

No

36.8%

26.6%

63.2%

73.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Distribution of Donation for Feminine and Masculine

Yes

No

For Further Information Contact:

Kathryn Thompson-Clancy, kclancy@spscc.ctc.edu

Erica Dixon, edixon@spscc.ctc.edu

April Kindrick, akindrick@spscc.ctc.edu

Amy Kassler, akassler@spscc.ctc.edu

36.8%

23.0%

63.2%

77.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Distribution of Donation by Feminine and Undifferentiated

Yes

No

Method

Participants (N = 471) were given the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to determine their gender

identity (Bem, 1974). They were subsequently divided into 4 groups: masculine gender identity,

feminine gender identity, androgynous gender identity, or undifferentiated gender identity. Analysis

compared altruism and gender identity against all groups.

Quasi-independent variable: Gender identity (feminine or androgynous).

Dependent variable: After completing the surveys, participants were given a packet which included

the following: a five dollar gift card to Safeway as a thank you for participating and a pre-

addressed/stamped envelope for optional donation of the five dollar gift card to a charity (Thurston

County Food Bank). Participants were told by a confederate that they could either keep the gift card

for themselves or mail the gift card, in the enclosed envelope to the charity. The envelope was

addressed to a P.O. Box where the research team collected and kept track of which participants

donated the gift cards to the charity and which participants kept the gift card. Determination of the

option to donate was made by the amount of envelopes collected at the P.O. Box.

Participants

The test sample was taken from students at South Puget Sound Community College, N = 471. All

participants were current students in the Winter Quarter of 2010, thus providing us with a

representative sample of South Puget Sound Community College students. Participants were given the

BSRI in class, at the end of the class session, so as not to discuss results and decision to donate their

gift card (see procedure below).

Procedure

Participants were given a packet that contained a consent form, the BSRI gender identity

questionnaire, and a sealed envelope that contained instructions, a second envelope, and a five dollar

gift card for Safeway. Each BSRI was coded with a number corresponding to the number on the gift

card to determine which participant donated their gift card. Participants completed the BSRI

anonymously in their classroom, resulting in 471 total surveys. After the participants completed the

BSRI, a research informant separated the consent form and the BSRI from the envelope. The envelope

was returned to the participant with the instruction to open the envelope only after leaving the room.

The instructions inside the sealed enveloped informed the participant that they could choose to keep

the five dollar gift card for themselves or they could mail it to the charity, listed as the Thurston

County Food Bank. There was a pre-addressed /stamped envelope for the participant to use if they

wished to donate the gift card. This choice of whether to donate or keep the gift card was the final

variable in the research and served as a measure to see if the participant demonstrated altruistic

behavior through donation to charity. After gathering the completed BSRI surveys, the surveys were

scored and separated into four categories based on score: feminine, androgynous, masculine, and

undifferentiated. The donated five dollar gift cards were collected by the research team from the P.O.

Box, rented for the purpose, counted and compared to gender identity of the participant. All donated

gift cards were subsequently donated to the Thurston County Food Bank.

Analysis

A chi-square analysis was performed to determine significant relationships between the four

categories and altruistic behavior through charitable giving. All four groups were compared with

decision to donate the gift card or keep the gift card. Individual group comparison was also

performed.

Sample

A total of N = 471 participants were surveyed and divided into four gender identities; (a) Androgynous (n = 83), (b) Feminine, (n =

125), (c) Masculine (n = 124), and (d) Undifferentiated (n = 139). The total amount of donations to charity, each gender identity and

whether or not donated the five dollar gift card to charity is listed in Table 1.

Results of Chi Square Test of All Groups and Comparisons Between Groups

The data does not show a significant difference between gender identity; including androgynous, feminine, masculine, and

undifferentiated and charitable helping behavior in a 4x2 analysis, X² (3, n = 471) = 6.52, p = .089, p<.05, found in charts 2 and 3.

Individual group comparison was then performed and showed one significant result between feminine gender identity and

undifferentiated gender identity, these results are listed in chart 6. The data does not show a significant difference between the

feminine gender identity and androgynous gender identity and charitable helping behavior, X² (1, n = 208) = 1.86, p = .173, p<.05,

found in chart 3. The data does not show a significant difference between the feminine gender identity and masculine gender identity

and charitable helping behavior, X² (1, n = 249) = 2.98, p = .084, p<.05, found in chart 4. However, the data show a significant

difference between the feminine gender identity and undifferentiated gender identity and charitable helping behavior, X² (1, n = 264)

= 6.00, p = .014, p<.05.

Gender Identity Gave $ to Charity Did not give $ to Charity n

Androgynous 23 60 83

Feminine 46 79 125

Masculine 33 91 124

Undifferentiated 32 107 139

134 337 N = 471

Chart 1

Chart 2 Chart 3

Chart 4 Chart 5

Table 1