Notes on Winterich and Zhang (2014) – Power Distance and Charitable Behavior
Paper: “Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior”
Main Topic or Phenomenon
This paper examines how cultural power distance affects charitable giving behavior, specifically investigating why some countries and individuals are more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors like monetary donations and volunteering time compared to others.
Theoretical Construct
Power Distance (PD): The extent to which a society expects and accepts inequality in power or wealth at the cultural level.
High PD Example: In China (PD = 80), strict hierarchical respect is evident in business banquets where seating arrangements reflect social status, and employees rarely question authority figures. This cultural acceptance of inequality extends to charitable giving attitudes.
Low PD Example: In Denmark (PD = 18), egalitarian values dominate - CEOs often eat lunch with employees, and there’s strong social pressure to minimize inequality through high taxes and robust social welfare systems.
Power Distance Belief (PDB): Individual-level differences in the extent to which people expect and accept inequality in power and wealth, even within the same society.
Example:
High PDB Individual: A manager who believes “people should know their place in society” and that “some people are naturally meant to have more than others”
Low PDB Individual: Someone who believes “everyone deserves equal opportunities” and feels uncomfortable with large wealth gaps
The framework draws on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, focusing specifically on how acceptance of inequality influences feelings of responsibility toward others in need.
Key Findings
-
Main Effect: Higher power distance (both cultural and individual level) decreases charitable behavior including monetary donations, volunteering time, and helping strangers.
High PDB → Low responsibility → Less charitable behavior
-
Mediation Mechanism: The effect operates through perceived responsibility to aid others - those with high PDB feel less responsible for helping others because they accept social inequality as natural and appropriate.
-
Country-Level Evidence: Countries with higher power distance scores (>70) show significantly lower charitable giving rates compared to low power distance countries (<40).
-
Causal Evidence: Temporarily priming power distance beliefs reduces charitable donations, demonstrating causality beyond correlational country-level differences.
Boundary Conditions and Moderators
Need Type (Controllable vs. Uncontrollable):
- For uncontrollable needs (natural disasters): PDB effect disappears - all individuals feel responsible regardless of power distance beliefs
- For controllable needs (lifestyle-related): PDB effect remains strong - high PDB individuals don’t feel responsible for “self-inflicted” problems
Example: Compare donations to:
breast cancer - largely uncontrollable vs. Anti-smoking campaigns (lung cancer prevention - more controllable)
High PDB individuals would show similar giving to breast cancer but lower giving to smoking-related causes
Relationship Norms (Exchange vs. Communal):
- Under communal norms: PDB effect is attenuated because communal orientation increases feelings of responsibility for others
- Under exchange norms: PDB effect persists as expected
Both moderators work by influencing the underlying mechanism of perceived responsibility.
Building on Previous Work
Extensions:
- Moves beyond Kort et al.’s (2010) correlational work on blood donations to examine broader charitable behaviors with causal evidence
- Extends Hofstede’s cultural framework to prosocial consumer behavior
- Provides first systematic examination of the process mechanism (responsibility) underlying PD effects on helping
Theoretical Integration:
- Connects cultural psychology with charitable giving literature
- Integrates attribution theory (controllability) with cultural values research
- Links relationship norms research to cultural effects on prosocial behavior
Major Theoretical Contribution
The paper’s primary theoretical contribution is identifying and empirically demonstrating that perceived responsibility to aid others is the key psychological mechanism through which power distance beliefs influence charitable behavior. This addresses a significant gap in understanding why cultural differences in prosocial behavior exist and provides a process model rather than just documenting cultural differences.
Additionally, it demonstrates that cultural values can be temporarily activated to influence consumer behavior, supporting the situated cognition perspective on culture.
Major Managerial Implications
For Nonprofit Organizations:
- Cultural Targeting: In high power distance cultures, emphasize uncontrollable aspects of needs (natural disasters, genetic conditions) rather than controllable lifestyle factors
- Message Framing: Activate communal relationship norms in fundraising appeals to increase feelings of responsibility
- Responsibility Appeals: Directly address responsibility perceptions rather than just emotional appeals
- Temporary Mindset Shifts: Use messaging that temporarily reduces power distance thinking by emphasizing equality themes
For International Fundraising: Tailor approaches based on cultural power distance scores, with different strategies needed for high vs. low power distance markets.
Unexplored Theoretical Factors
Several potentially important moderators were not examined:
Individual Differences:
- Personal wealth/social class position (might interact with cultural PD)
- Religious orientation or moral foundations
- Empathy levels or perspective-taking ability
- Personal experience with need/charity cause
Situational Factors:
- Social visibility of donations (public vs. private giving)
- Group identity/in-group vs. out-group recipients
- Geographic/psychological distance to recipients
- Donation magnitude or commitment level
Cultural Factors:
- Interaction between power distance and other cultural dimensions (uncertainty avoidance, masculinity)
- Temporal orientation (short-term vs. long-term cultural values)
- Historical context or recent social changes
Methodological Extensions:
- Longitudinal effects of repeated exposure to charitable appeals
- Cross-generational differences within high PD cultures
- Role of social media and peer influence in high vs. low PD contexts
Reference
Winterich, Karen Page and Yinlong Zhang (2014), “Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 274–93.
