Effects of sex, nationality, and political beliefs on allocation preferences

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study addresses the issue of individual differences in preference for the allocation principles of proportionality, equality, and need. Two hundred and one subjects in the U.S.A. and 182 subjects in Australia provided data indicating their allocation preferences. They also completed measures of the Protestant Ethic (PE) and of their political beliefs (using the Mirels and Garrett PE scale, and scales of liberalism, conservatism, and radicalism). Analyses of variance revealed sex differences in liberalism and in preference for quality, with women being more liberal and more favourable to equality than were men. The U.S. sample was more liberal, more radical. and more favourable to equality (on one of two measures) than was the Australian sample, which in turn was more conservative, scored higher on the PE scale, and favoured proportionality. Using multiple regression analyses, sex, nationality, the various political attitude scales, and the PE scale were wed to predict rule preferences. Of the attitude measures, liberalism and radicalism predicted preference for equality and need, but were unrelated to proportionality. Conservatism was negatively related to preference for equality (on one of two measures). Only PE scores predicted preference for proportionality. The regression results suggest that sex and nationality differences in allocation preferences may be produced by differences in political and social attitudes. The importance of these results. though, is limited by small squared multiple correlations. 1989 Australian Psychological Society

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)49-59
Number of pages11
JournalAustralian Journal of Psychology
Volume41
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 1989
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Politics
Ethnic Groups
Sex Characteristics
Individuality
Analysis of Variance
Regression Analysis

Cite this

@article{b5cef55e9edc4c0493bae893d1e6fdd9,
title = "Effects of sex, nationality, and political beliefs on allocation preferences",
abstract = "This study addresses the issue of individual differences in preference for the allocation principles of proportionality, equality, and need. Two hundred and one subjects in the U.S.A. and 182 subjects in Australia provided data indicating their allocation preferences. They also completed measures of the Protestant Ethic (PE) and of their political beliefs (using the Mirels and Garrett PE scale, and scales of liberalism, conservatism, and radicalism). Analyses of variance revealed sex differences in liberalism and in preference for quality, with women being more liberal and more favourable to equality than were men. The U.S. sample was more liberal, more radical. and more favourable to equality (on one of two measures) than was the Australian sample, which in turn was more conservative, scored higher on the PE scale, and favoured proportionality. Using multiple regression analyses, sex, nationality, the various political attitude scales, and the PE scale were wed to predict rule preferences. Of the attitude measures, liberalism and radicalism predicted preference for equality and need, but were unrelated to proportionality. Conservatism was negatively related to preference for equality (on one of two measures). Only PE scores predicted preference for proportionality. The regression results suggest that sex and nationality differences in allocation preferences may be produced by differences in political and social attitudes. The importance of these results. though, is limited by small squared multiple correlations. 1989 Australian Psychological Society",
author = "Iain Walker",
year = "1989",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/00049538908260069",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "49--59",
journal = "Australian Journal of Psychology",
issn = "0004-9530",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Effects of sex, nationality, and political beliefs on allocation preferences. / Walker, Iain.

In: Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 41, No. 1, 01.01.1989, p. 49-59.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of sex, nationality, and political beliefs on allocation preferences

AU - Walker, Iain

PY - 1989/1/1

Y1 - 1989/1/1

N2 - This study addresses the issue of individual differences in preference for the allocation principles of proportionality, equality, and need. Two hundred and one subjects in the U.S.A. and 182 subjects in Australia provided data indicating their allocation preferences. They also completed measures of the Protestant Ethic (PE) and of their political beliefs (using the Mirels and Garrett PE scale, and scales of liberalism, conservatism, and radicalism). Analyses of variance revealed sex differences in liberalism and in preference for quality, with women being more liberal and more favourable to equality than were men. The U.S. sample was more liberal, more radical. and more favourable to equality (on one of two measures) than was the Australian sample, which in turn was more conservative, scored higher on the PE scale, and favoured proportionality. Using multiple regression analyses, sex, nationality, the various political attitude scales, and the PE scale were wed to predict rule preferences. Of the attitude measures, liberalism and radicalism predicted preference for equality and need, but were unrelated to proportionality. Conservatism was negatively related to preference for equality (on one of two measures). Only PE scores predicted preference for proportionality. The regression results suggest that sex and nationality differences in allocation preferences may be produced by differences in political and social attitudes. The importance of these results. though, is limited by small squared multiple correlations. 1989 Australian Psychological Society

AB - This study addresses the issue of individual differences in preference for the allocation principles of proportionality, equality, and need. Two hundred and one subjects in the U.S.A. and 182 subjects in Australia provided data indicating their allocation preferences. They also completed measures of the Protestant Ethic (PE) and of their political beliefs (using the Mirels and Garrett PE scale, and scales of liberalism, conservatism, and radicalism). Analyses of variance revealed sex differences in liberalism and in preference for quality, with women being more liberal and more favourable to equality than were men. The U.S. sample was more liberal, more radical. and more favourable to equality (on one of two measures) than was the Australian sample, which in turn was more conservative, scored higher on the PE scale, and favoured proportionality. Using multiple regression analyses, sex, nationality, the various political attitude scales, and the PE scale were wed to predict rule preferences. Of the attitude measures, liberalism and radicalism predicted preference for equality and need, but were unrelated to proportionality. Conservatism was negatively related to preference for equality (on one of two measures). Only PE scores predicted preference for proportionality. The regression results suggest that sex and nationality differences in allocation preferences may be produced by differences in political and social attitudes. The importance of these results. though, is limited by small squared multiple correlations. 1989 Australian Psychological Society

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84990107602&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00049538908260069

DO - 10.1080/00049538908260069

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 49

EP - 59

JO - Australian Journal of Psychology

JF - Australian Journal of Psychology

SN - 0004-9530

IS - 1

ER -