Regression Results for Experiment 2.

<p><i>Note.</i> The 3-way interaction between charity framing, social political ideology, and perceived politics of the charity was tested initially but was not significant and was subsequently dropped from the model. Social political ideology and perceived politics were measured on a scale of −3 (<i>strongly conservative</i>) to 3 (<i>strongly liberal</i>) and charity framing was dummy coded as community (<i>0</i>) or religious (<i>1</i>). All statistics reported are unstandardized regression coefficients and should be interpreted in the context of these scales. Significance tests for <i>t</i> statistics associated with unstandardized regression coefficients are reported as <i>p</i> values:</p>*<p><.01,</p>**<p><.001,</p>***<p><.0001.</p

Perceived political belief similarity predicts favoritism for Christians.

<p>Regression analysis predicting the number of dollars contributed to the Community Service Center Charity from social political ideology and perceived political position of the charity.</p

Political ideology predicts favoritism for both Christians and nonreligious people.

<p>Regression analysis predicting the number of dollars contributed to the Community Service Center Charity by political ideology and charity framing (community or religious) by both Christians and non-religious people for Experiment 1.</p

Perceived Politics of the Charities and Correlation with Political Ideology in Experiment 2.

<p><i>Note.</i> Perceived politics and social political ideology were measured on the same scale of −3 (<i>strongly conservative</i>) to 3 (<i>strongly liberal</i>). Each denomination charity was only viewed by participants of that denomination.</p

Regression Results for Experiment 1.

<p><i>Note.</i> The 3-way interaction was tested and dropped from the model, so the model reported in the text has only main effects and 2-way interactions. Political ideology was measured on a scale of −3 (<i>strongly conservative</i>) to 3 (<i>strongly liberal</i>). Charity framing was dummy coded as community (<i>0</i>) or religious (<i>1</i>) and religious group membership was dummy coded as nonreligious (<i>0</i>) or Christian (<i>1</i>). Unstandardized regression coefficients should be interpreted in the context of these scales.</p

Christians’ Contributions to Charities and Correlation with Political Ideology for Experiments 1 and 2.

<p><i>Note.</i> Total Contribution = $1000 without rounding error. All correlations are significant at the <i>p</i><.05 level except the Community Service Center and Defenders of Animal Rights in Experiment 1 and AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and Institute for Educational Advancement in Experiment 2.</p

Alpha internal consistency coefficients for the five subscales of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire by survey format condition.

<p>Note: Samples include only participants that completed all MFQ items. A bootstrap comparison of alphas with 5000 runs each demonstrated that all five subscales had higher reliability in the one-at-a-time compared to all-at-once conditions (<i>p</i>’s <.001).</p

Statistical comparisons of actual and predicted answers for liberals, moderates, and conservatives.

<p><i>Note.</i> Top panel compares predicted and actual answers for the study sample, and bottom panel compares predictions to actual answers in the nationally-representative dataset, using only items common to both datasets (no items in common for Ingroup judgments). Lib = Liberal participants, Mod = Moderate participants, Con = Conservative participants. Formulas used to calculate <i>t, df,</i> and <i>d</i> without assuming equal sample sizes or variances can be found in the supplement.</p

Predicted and actual Moral Foundations Questionnaire subscore means and standard deviations.

<p><i>Note.</i> Top panel shows predicted and actual answers for the study sample, and bottom panel shows the same for the comparison to the nationally-representative dataset, using only items common to both datasets (no items in common for Ingroup judgments). Sample sizes for each statistic, as well as predicted “typical” answers broken down by liberals, moderates, and conservatives, can be found in the supplement.</p

Comparisons of moral stereotypes to actual conservative-liberal differences in moral foundation endorsement.

<p>Comparisons of moral stereotypes to actual conservative-liberal differences in moral foundation endorsement.</p