SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ekonomi İşletme Siyaset ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

Postmaterialism and Altruism: A Cross-National Comparison

Volkan YENİARAS
Pages
87–110
Publication Date
2016-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Employing the data that cover the United States and the members of the European Union, it was found that postmaterialism negatively affects altruism in Estonia, Sweden, and the United States.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Altruism is quintessential to human evolution.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this paper it is argued that cultural evolution has an impact on altruism.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Employing the data that cover the United States and the members of the European Union, it was found that postmaterialism negatively affects altruism in Estonia, Sweden, and the United States.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Altruism · Reciprocity · Postmaterialism

Özet

Altruism is quintessential to human evolution. In this paper it is argued that cultural evolution has an impact on altruism. Using data from the sixth wave of World Values Survey we examined the mechanisms through which altruistic orientations may be affected at both side of the Atlantic. Employing the data that cover the United States and the members of the European Union, it was found that postmaterialism negatively affects altruism in Estonia, Sweden, and the United States. Reciprocity enhances postmaterialism-altruism association in Cyprus while buffering it in Poland. Furthermore, it was established that the importance assigned to an omniscient and omnipotent being enhances this association in the Netherlands, Poland, and the United States. The results also have some public policy implications regarding the adoption of pro-environmental behaviour.

🔖

Cite This Article

YENİARAS, V. (2016). Postmaterialism and Altruism: A Cross-National Comparison. Ekonomi İşletme Siyaset ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 87–110. https://ajindex.com/articles/753574

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Aiken, L.S. ve West, S. G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions: Sage. Atran, S. ve Norenzayan, A. (2004), “Religion's Evolutionary Landscape: Counterintuition, Commitment, Compassion, Communion”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, S. 27(6), s. 713-730.
  2. Bekkers, R. ve Wiepking, P. (2010), “A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms That Drive Charitable Giving”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, S. 40(5), s. 1-50.
  3. Belk, R. W. (1984), “Three Scales to Measure Constructs Related to Materialism: Reliability, Validity, and Relationships to Measures of Happiness”, Advances in Consumer Research, S. 11(1), s. 291-297.
  4. Bell, D. (1976), The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society. Paper presented at The Educational Forum. Bering, J. M., McLeod, K. ve Shackelford, T. K. (2005), “Reasoning about Dead Agents Reveals Possible Adaptive Trends”, Human Nature, S. 16(4), s. 360-381.
  5. Bowles, S. ve Gintis, H. (2003), “Origins of Human Cooperation. In: Genetic and Cultural Evolution Of Cooperation”, ed. P. Hammerstein, s. 429–43.
  6. MIT Press Bowles, S. ve Gintis, H. (2004), “The Evolution of Strong Reciprocity: Cooperation in Heterogeneous Populations”, Theoretical Population Biology, S. 65(1), s.17-28.
  7. Boyd R. ve Richerson PJ. (2006), “Solving the Puzzle of Human Cooperation. In Evolution and Culture, ed. S Levinson”, S. 105–32.
  8. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Burnham, T. C. ve Hare, B. (2007), “Engineering Human Cooperation.”, Human Nature, S. 18(2), s. 88-108.
  9. Camerer, C. F. ve Fehr, E. (2006), “When Does" Economic Man" Dominate Social Behavior?”, Science, S. 311(5757), s. 47-52.
  10. Chaudhuri, A. (2011), “Sustaining Cooperation in Laboratory Public Goods Experiments: A Selective Survey of the Literature”, Experimental Economics, S. 14(1), s. 47-83.
  11. Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J. ve Moore, M. R. (2003), “Internal and External Influences on Pro-Environmental Behavior: Participation In A Green Electricity Program”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, S. 23(3), s. 237-246.
  12. Delener, N. (1994), “Religious Contrasts in Consumer Decision Behaviour Patterns: Their Dimensions And Marketing Implications”, European Journal of Marketing, S. 28(5), s. 36-53.
  13. Diekmann, A. (2004), “The Power Of Reciprocity Fairness, Reciprocity, and Stakes in Variants Of The Dictator Game”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, S. 48(4), s. 487-505.
  14. Efron, B. ve Tibshirani, R. J. (1994),
  15. An Introduction to the Bootstrap, CRC Press.
  16. Essoo, N. ve Dibb, S. (2004),