ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The concept of corruption varies widely depending on societies and people. We expect that context influences on corruption perception. Previous studies shed light on the incidence of individual characteristics on the perceived level of corruption and show the effect of country of residence. In order to extend this previous research, the aim of this paper is to analyze how context, culture and/ or history shape corruption perception considering specific country characteristics. The data source is the module on Citizenship of the 2004 International Social Survey Program (ISSP). Taking into account some subsamples (considering country characteristics such us: size, European Union membership, etc.), we estimate ordered probit models. We find that the incidence of country of residence remains even when we consider countries with some characteristic in common.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Documentos de Trabajo
Individual Attitudes Towards Others,
Misanthropy Analysis in a Cross-Country Perspective.
Natalia Melgar, Máximo Rossi and Tom W. Smith
Documento No. 12/08
Julio, 2008
INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS OTHERS,
MISANTHROPY ANALYSIS IN A CROSS-COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE
Natalia Melgar, Máximo Rossi and Tom W. Smith
Abstract
In general, misanthropy has been analyzed taking into account residents of one country and just
comparing results. Instead of doing that, we employ 2004 International Social Survey Program
and analyze its determinants in a cross-country model taking into account both individual
characteristics and country effects.
Our model shows, as expected, that misanthropy could be explained by some socio-demographic
and economic individual characteristics. For instance, being a woman, having a university
degree, being married lowers misanthropy while being young; having a low income, having no
political preferences, being self-employed makes people more misanthropic. Moreover, in order
to capture fix effects, we included (dummies) variables per country of residence and almost all of
them result significant in determining misanthropy. This last result indicates that not only
individual characteristics matters but also some factors regarding context also play a significant
role. Finally, we show that there is a strong relationship among our misanthropy ranking of
countries and two corruption perception rankings.
Key words: misanthropy, trust, cross-country research, individual attitudes.
JEL classification: Z13
RESUMEN
En general, la misantropía has sido analizada tomando en cuenta a los residentes de un país y
comparando los resultados para distintos países. Nosotros, utilizando la encuesta del año 2004
del International Social Survey Program analizamos los determinantes de dicha actitud en un
enfoque que considera más de treinta países en forma simultánea, tomando en cuenta las
características de los ciudadanos e incluyendo efectos fijos por país. Las mujeres, tener un título
universitario y estar casado disminuye el grado de misantropía. En tanto ser joven, tener un
bajo ingreso, no tener preferencias políticas y estar auto-empleado muestra a dichos ciudadanos
con un mayor grado de misantropía.
Incluyendo efectos fijos a través de variables dummies por países encontramos que todas ellas
son significativas en la determinación del grado de misantropía. Finalmente encontramos que
existe una fuerte correlación entre el ordenamiento de los países por misantropía y dos
ordenamientos con distintas medidas de percepción de corrupción.
Palabras claves: misantropía, confianza, análisis comparativo, actitudes individuales.
Clasificación JEL: Z13
1
INTRODUCTION
Misanthropy is defined as hatred, dislike, or distrust of humankind and it is also a
disposition to dislike and/or distrust other people. Our research is motivated by the
following facts. First, by definition misanthropy is a social phenomenon. Second, and
as it will be explained later, its influence on individual behavior has been increasing and
changing. Third, the increasing consciousness that a way is needed to cope with
differences in pluralized societies.
Moreover, from sociology and economics, the analysis of misanthropy determinants is
relevant because it is connected with the erosion of social capital1, which is a function
of individual level actions and attributes. Misanthropy is, undeniably, a negative
externality that influences the decision-making process regarding whether to invest or
not in social capital.
The contribution of this research to the existing literature on the field is three-fold.
Firstly, we confirm a set of hypothesis about the impact on some individual
characteristics on misanthropy for a more heterogeneous and bigger sample than
previous analysis. Secondly, given that our database includes more than thirty
countries, we are able to analyze country effects and analyzing both individual and
contexts characteristics. Additionally, we construct our dependent variable from
principal components methodology and taking into account two dimensions of
misanthropy (trust in other people and fair treatment). Finally, we find evidence that
there is a strong relationship among our misanthropy ranking of countries and two
corruption perception rankings.
This paper is organized as follow. In Section I, we present some empirical evidence
and our expected results. Section II describes our database and methodology. Section
III deals with results and section IV discuss the relationship between corruption
perception and misanthropy. Finally, in section V we conclude.
1 Jacobs (1961) defines social capital as "neighborhood networks." According to Putnam (1995),
social capital represents "features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—that enable
participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives."
2
I. MISANTHROPY: INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDE AND MASS
PHENOMENON
Misanthropy is defined as hatred, dislike, or distrust of humankind and it is also a
disposition to dislike and/or distrust other people.
Our research is motivated by the following facts. First, by definition misanthropy is a
social phenomenon. Second, its influence on individual behavior has been increasing
and changing. Smith (1997) shows that, in the case of American Society, misanthropy
registered a positive tendency since ´70 and for example, regarding September 11th,
as Rasinski, Berktold, Smith and Albertson (2002) hold, even when strong feelings of
national pride persisted well beyond that date, so did positive perceptions of people in
general.
A standard measure of misanthropy (which asks whether people are fair, helpful and
trustworthy) underwent a substantial shift shortly after 9/11. According to the authors,
this result indicates that, rather than thinking about the acts of the terrorists, people
reflected upon the acts of those involved in the rescue and relief efforts in New York,
acts of charity from those throughout the country, and acts of patriotism both within
the country and abroad.
Additionally, Wilson (1991) states that social psychological factors such us (dis)trust
and (in)tolerance have been changing through another process: urbanism that is a
quality (of communities but also) of person’s experiences which are determined by
person’s exposure to life and interactions with others. Third, the increasing awareness
that it is needed to find a way to cope with differences in pluralized societies.
As mentioned, from sociology and economics, the analysis of misanthropy
determinants is relevant because it is connected with the erosion of social capital,
which is a function of individual level actions and attributes. According to Glaeser,
Laibson, Scheinkman and Soutter (1999), networks are not merely the result of
historical accident; they come about as individuals spend time and energy to connect
with others. If scientists are going to understand social capital, then the starting point
is the analysis of the decision-makers who actually invest or not in social connection:
3
an individual's social capital is that individual's social characteristics—including
charisma, status and access to networks—that enable that person to extract private
returns from interactions with others. The social capital of a set of individuals is the
aggregate of those individuals' social capital that takes into account all externalities
across the members of the set. Misanthropy is, undeniably, one negative externality
that influences the decision making process.
According to Heitmeyer (2003) it is optimistic to consider the human being’s social and
cultural existence in various groups as conflict-free. There has been an
underestimation of the social impact of structural and regulatory crises, as well as the
changing of social relationships and networks (crises of cohesion) within the society.
Cattacin, Gerber, Sardi, and Wegener (2006) argue that, in the long run, especially
when misanthropic situations and attitudes come together, the negative aspects of
modernization create a destructive impact on the individual and the human society.
Following Smith (1997), we test the following hypothesis and for doing so we construct
the independent variables reported in table 1.
Insert Table 1: Description of independent variables.
H-01) Misanthropy could be higher among men than women.
Included variable: woman.
H-02) Misanthropy might be lower among older adults.
Included variables: age2, age3 and age4.
H-03) Misanthropy could decrease with socioeconomic status.
Included variables: edu2, edu3, edu4 and income.
H-04) Misanthropy could increases with disruptive family situations especially those
involving divorce.
Included variables: married and divorced.
H-05) Misanthropy might be higher among cultural groups and minorities that have
been discriminated against and isolated from the majority culture. However, for
4
the majority social contact with minorities should have minimal impact.
Included variable: minorities.2
H-06) Religions and religiosity is expected to reduce misanthropy.
Included variables: no_religion, roman_catholic and attendance.
H-07) Misanthropy is likely to be greater in large metropolitan areas.
Included variable: big_city.
H-08) Misanthropy is expected to increase as negative life events occur.
Included variable: unemployed.3
H-09) There are other individual characteristics that could be connected with
misanthropy. For example: 1) job characteristics and/ or 2) political affiliation.
Included variables: private_sector, self_employed, worked_hours, no_pparty,
left and right.
H-10) Misanthropy is influenced by other factor contexts.
Different levels of: violence, inter-group hostility, standards of living etc. should
tend to make differences among countries. Therefore, in order to capture those
fix effects, we added dummies variables representing country of residence.
II. DATA AND METHODOLOGY
The source of individual-level data analyzed in this paper is the National Identity
module of the International Social Survey Program that was carried out in 2003 and
2004 and covers more than 30,000 respondents from 36 countries at different stages
of economic development.
2 We include those who answer that his/ her ethnic group or family origin was Arabs, Blacks,
Chinese and Turks and lives in a country where those groups are minorities. For example,
Chinese living in New Zealand or Turks in Germany.
3 Specifically, pessimism may increase with experiences of: a) criminal victimization, b) violence,
c) illness or family deaths and d) unemployment. We include a variable that indicates whether
the person is unemployed; unfortunately we have no variables to measure others aspects.
5
We use answers to the following two questions to construct our dependent variable.
These two questions represent measures of attitudes towards fairness and trust,
respectively:
1. “How often do you think that people would try to take advantage of you if they
got the chance, and how often would they try to be fair?”: (1) try to be fair
almost all of the time, (2) try to be fair most of the time, (3) try to take
advantage most of the time, (4) try to take advantage almost all of the time
and (8) can’t choose.
2. “Generally speaking, would you say that people can be trusted or that you can
not be too careful in dealing with people?”: (1) people can almost always be
trusted, (2) people can usually be trusted, (3) you usually can not be too
careful in dealing with people, (4) you almost always can not be to careful in
dealing with people and (8) can’t choose.
Figure 1 shows the weighted frequency distribution of the answers to those questions
in the whole sample.
Insert Figure 1: Distribution of answers.
In order to estimate the impact of the independent variables on misanthropy at
individual level we adopt the following strategy.
With the purpose of incorporating the weights of each dimension we construct a new
continuous variable from principal components analysis.4 When we did so, we found
that the two dimensions have the same weight. This new variable ranges from -2.5 to
2.4, figure 2 shows the density and frequency functions.
Insert Figure 2: Density and frequency functions
4 When we construct this variable, the answers to the categories “don’t know” or “can’t choose”
were consider as missing values.
6
The data set also contains a wealth of information on demographics, socio-economic
status, and values, which we use to test ten hypotheses about the incidence of
individual characteristics on the formation of this attitude.
With our dependent variable and a set of independent variables, we estimated a linear
regression and regarding individual characteristics the estimated coefficients represent
the elasticities.
III. RESULTS
As could be seen in table 2, almost all hypotheses are verified in the expected
direction.
Insert Table 2: The model.
As mentioned, the estimated coefficients give direct information about the impact of
each individual characteristic on misanthropy. In each case, if the variable is
significant, the estimated coefficient reports the change in misanthropy (our dependant
variable) with respect to its level.5
H-01: Women are less misanthropic than men. Traditionally men see the world in more
competitive and conflictual terms, while women are more cooperative and nurturing.
When we consider a woman instead of a man, the reduction in misanthropy is 4.8%.
Although, these traditional gender roles and perspectives have been changing in recent
decades, some influences remains and differences between genders are significant.
H-02: All variables associated with age are significant. However, it is worth noting that
misanthropy decreases with age: the impact is negative and strictly decreasing. If the
person belongs to the second group (between 31 and 50 years old) misanthropy
decreases 3.8% and the reduction is 14% if the person belongs to the fourth group (71
years old or older). This may result from life course adjustments, as adults adapt to
their surroundings and interact with other people whom they can trust or not. As Smith
5 This is true because we are estimating a linear model where: XbaY *
+
=
, consequently, bi
represents the marginal effect on Y when Xi changes.
7
(1997) argues, lower misanthropy among older adults might be a function of cohort.
Older adults were raised during a period in which society and ones fellow citizens were
more civil (e.g., less crime, less divorce, more people living outside of large
metropolitan areas). Therefore, they should be less misanthropic than more recent
generations socialized in more troubled situations and more impersonal environments.
H-03: Misanthropy decreases with socioeconomic status, the better-off people are
materially and the higher their social standing, the more likely they will view the world
and other people in a favorable light. Specifically, misanthropy should decline as
income and education increase. As could be seen in table 2, both income and
education (level 3 and 4) are significant and the coefficients are negatives. An
infinitesimal increase in income, cause a reduction in misanthropy of 6.7%. Moreover,
even when the two highest levels of education reduce misanthropy; the impact of level
4 is much higher than level 3 (-18.6% and 30%, respectively).
H-04: Regarding marital status, we find that while married and divorced are significant
variables; those variables show opposite signs and similar absolutes values (-6.5% and
6.3%, respectively). While it is possible to see divorce as just another miscellaneous
negative life event, Smith (1997) holds that divorce will have a distinct and especially
strong impact on shaping judgments about human nature since it concerns broken
commitments involving very close, interpersonal relationships.
H-05: Misanthropy is higher among cultural groups and minorities that have been
discriminated against and isolated from the majority culture. Specifically, as our model
shows, negative assessments are higher among those who belong to a minority group;
the dummy that represents those ethnic groups is significant (at 1%), especially high
and its sign are positive (15.5%).
H-06: We found that there are no significant differences among people who identify
with some religious group and those who do not (atheist and agnostics), we found that
religiosity matters in the expected direction. Misanthropy reduces 3.7% if the person
attends religious services once a month or more frequently. However, as there is no
information available, we could not identify if there are a significant difference among
those with fundamentalist beliefs, which may emphasize the sinful nature of humans
and a stern and authoritarian God, and others.
8
H-07: Even when it is expected that place of residence matters, (we hypothesized that
misanthropy was likely to be greater in large metropolitan areas because in those
areas people are strangers and the environment is perceived as more threatening and
impersonal ) we found that this does not occur. Living in a big city is not relevant in
forming this attitude towards other people.
H-08: When the person is unemployed, misanthropy increases (13.2%). This
individual characteristic is significant and regarding economic characteristics, its
positive coefficient is the highest. In general, negative experiences, especially those
caused by other people, should lead to unfavorable evaluations of people.
H-09: Regarding job characteristics, all the variables included increases misanthropy.
Working for a private enterprise and to be self-employed make misanthropy higher, as
expected the last variable has a higher effect (6.5% and 10.4%, respectively).
Moreover, misanthropy increases 8%, if the person works more than thirty hours per
week. Secondly, we found that political affiliation has a very important role in
determining misanthropy. While identifying with the right makes no difference, those
who identify with the left wing are less misanthropic (7.4%). In addition, having no
political preferences increase misanthropy (12.1%).
H-10: Misanthropy is influenced by other factor such us country and contexts
characteristics. Different levels of: violence, inter-group hostility, standards of living
etc. should tend to make differences among countries. As could be seen in table 2, we
found significant differences among countries. The omitted dummy variable is United
States; this means that the results are estimated with respect to that country.
According to our model, ten countries are more misanthropic than United States and
fifteen are less misanthropic. On the other hand, there are no significant differences
among United States, France, Great Britain, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Portugal, South
Africa, South Korea, Spain and Taiwan; those dummies variables are no significant.
Table 2 also shows the ranking of countries and the significant country variables are
reported in figure 3. As could be seen, country effects vary from 73.4% in the case of
Chile to -63.3% in the case of Cyprus.
9
Insert Figure 3 – Marginal effects per country of residence.
All Latin American countries included in our sample belong to the first group (Chile,
Brazil, Mexico and Uruguay). The same is true in the case of almost all Ex-socialist
countries of Eastern Europe (Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Bulgaria) and Russia. Even
when some of those countries are part to the European Union, they are the newest
members so the result indicates that other factors have a bigger negative effect (past
of corruption, economic instability, lower gross domestic product, lower human
development index etc.).
Taking into account the group of countries, which register a negative sign (fifteen
countries), we found that Anglo-settlement colonies (Australia, Canada and New
Zealand) fall in this group as do the majority of countries that have showed good
economical performance such as others European countries (Ireland, Czech Republic,
Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland).
In the case of Asia, we found greater heterogeneity. While living in Philippines
increases misanthropy, the opposite is true in the case of Japan. Once again,
differential economic performance could be one cause of this result. As mentioned,
Taiwan and Israel are no significant.
IV. CORRUPTION PERCEPTION AND MISANTHROPY, ARE THEY
RELATED?
Given our previous results, we analyzed whether there is a relationship among this
ranking of countries and corruption perception rankings. As could be seen in table 3,
the rankings seem to be related. In order to prove this, we employed the Spearman’s
rank correlation test, which displays the correlation coefficients for selected variables.
The null hypothesis established that the variables are independent.
In particular, we tested whether our misanthropy ranking of countries is correlated with
two corruption perception rankings. We selected Transparency International’s
Corruption Perception Index (2004) and a previous ranking that was obtained in a
previous research (Melgar, Rossi and Smith, 2008).
10
Insert Table 3: Corruption and misanthropy rankings.
As expected we find that misanthropy ranking is correlated with both corruption
perception rankings. In the first case, the correlation coefficient is 68,44 and in the
second case, it raises to 80,61. In both cases the null hypothesis was rejected at 1%.
Even when those coefficients are high, the correlation is not perfect because those
variables are not determined by the same set of independent variables.
Figure 4 shows the dispersion between the misanthropy ranking and our previous
corruption perception ranking.
Insert Figure 4: Corruption perception ranking and misanthropy ranking.
This results sheds light on the relationship between those variables, social trust is
strongly connected with political trust. Person’s trust in other people and trust in civil
servants seem to be positively related.
V. CONCLUSIONS
We found that women are less misanthropic than men and older people also tend to be
less misanthropic than young people. Moreover, misanthropy decreases when income
and/ or the level of education increases. Additionally, although we found that there are
no significant differences among religious groups and atheists, our model shows that
religiosity decreases misanthropy.
The incidence of belonging to minorities groups is also significant; we found that if the
person belongs to an ethnic group that is a minority in his/ her country, misanthropy
increases.
Marital status also influences on misanthropy. While being married decreases it, being
divorced has the opposite effect. Something similar was found in the case of political
affiliation, if the individual identifies with the left, he/ she seems to be less
misanthropic than do people who not and having no political preferences increase
11
misanthropy.
It was found that unemployed people are likely to be more misanthropic than those
who have a job or are retired. In addition those who have a job vary on misanthropy
depending on its characteristics. Working for a private enterprise, being self-employed
and working more than 30 hours per week make misanthropy higher.
As expected, misanthropy is influenced by context factor. We capture those effects by
including (dummies) variables per country of residence. We included thirty-six
countries and the results were computed with respect to United States. It was found
that there is a significant difference in twenty-five cases. According to our model, ten
countries show a positive impact (people are more misanthropic than United States
inhabitants) and fifteen register a negative people (people are less misanthropic than
United States residents). As showed, country effects vary from 73.4% in the case of
Chile to -63.3% in the case of Cyprus.
Moreover, the ranking of countries shows that among others characteristics, economic
performance could be an important determinant of misanthropy. All Latin American
countries are found at the top of the ranking and the same is true in the case of almost
all Ex-socialist countries of Eastern Europe and Russia. Australia, Canada and New
Zealand (Anglo-settlement colonies), register a negative sign as do European
countries. This group of countries has in common good indicators of economic
performance. In the case of Asia, we found greater heterogeneity.
Finally, we find evidence that misanthropy is strongly and positively correlated with
corruption perception.
Summing up, we found substantial heterogeneity in the determinants of misanthropy.
In particular, not only there are socio-demographic and cultural variables that play a
relevant role in shaping this attitude but also we show that economic and context
characteristics such us personal income, employment status and country of residence
matters. This heterogeneity makes difficult to revert this attitude, which has been
increasing. Additionally, misanthropy ranking of countries is correlated with two
corruption perception rankings.
12
REFERENCES
- Cattacin, S., Gerber, B., Sardi, M., and Wegener, R. (2006). Monitoring rightwing
attitudes, xenophobia and misanthropy in Switzerland: an explorative study.
University of Geneva, Department of sociology, sociological research: report 1.
- Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A. and Soutter, C. L. (1999). What is
Social Capital? The Determinants of Trust and Trustworthiness. NBER, working
paper 7216.
- Heitmeyer, W. (ed.) (2003). Deutsche Zustände: Folge 1. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
- Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage.
- Melgar, N., Rossi, M. and Smith, Tom W. (2008). Perception of Corruption.
Department of Economics; Uruguay, working paper 05-08.
- Putnam, R. (1995). The Case of the Missing Social Capital. Mimeo.
- Rasinski, K. A., Berktold, J., Smith, T. W. and Albertson, B. L. (2002). America
Recovers: A Follow-up to a national Study of Public response to the September 11th
Terrorist Attack. Chicago, IL., National Opinion Research Center.
- Smith, T. W. (1997). Factors Relating to Misanthropy in Contemporary American
Society. Social Science Research 26 (2): 179-196.
- Wilson, T. C. (1991). Urbanism, migration and tolerance: a reassessment.
American Sociological Review, 56: 117-123)
13
ANNEX
1. Figures
Figure 1 - Distribution of answers.
How often do you think that people would try to
take advantage of you if they got the cance, and
how often would they try to be fair?
10.00%
44.45%
27.95%
8.30% 9.31%
Try to be fair almost all of the time
Try to be fair most of the time
Try to take advantage most of the time
Try to take advantage almost all the time
Don´t know / can´t choose
Would you say that people can be trusted or that
you can´t be too carefull in dealing with people?
3.77%
36.80%
41.35%
15.05% 3.04%
People can almost always be trusted
People can usually be trusted
You usually can not be too careful in dealing with people
You almost always c an not be to c areful in dealing with people
Don´t know / can´t choose
Figure 2 – Density and frequency functions.
0.1 .2 .3 .4 .5
-20 -10 010 20
cubic
0.5 11.5 22.5
0 2 4 6
square
0 1 2 3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2
identity
2.1 Density functions
2.2 Frequency functions
14
05000 1.0e+04 1.5e+04
-20 -10 010 20
cubic
05000 1.0e+04 1.5e+04
0 2 4 6
square
05000 1.0e+04 1.5e+04
-3 -2 -1 012
identity
Figure 3 - Marginal effects per country of residence.
1. Chile
2. Brazil
3. Po land
4. Slovenia
5. Slovak
6. Mexico
7. Uruguay
8. Bulgaria
9. Philippines
10. Russia
11. A u s t r a l i a
12 . Irela nd
13. Czech Republic
14 . N e w Z e a l a n d
79
810
12 13 14 15 16
22
21
19
18
25
24
23
20
17
11
345
6
2
1
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
21. Germany
22. Netherlands
23. Aus tria
24. Switzerland
25. Cyprus
15. Canada
16. Japan
17. Sweden
18 . N o r w a y
19. Finland
20. Denmark
Figure 4 – Corruption perception ranking and misanthropy ranking.
Finland New Zealand
Israel
Aus tria
Switzerland
Cyprus Denmark
Netherlands
Ireland
Canada
Germany
Japan
Czech Republic
Philippines
Russia
Bulgaria
Uruguay
Mexi co
Slovenia
Slovak
Poland
Chile
Brazil
South Korea
Portugal
Latvia
Hungary
United States
Taiwan
France and Spain
Great Bri tain
Australia
Norway
Sweden
-0,10
-0,05
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
-0,7 -0,5 -0,3 -0,1 0,1 0,3 0,5 0,7
misanthropy
corruption
perception
15
2. Tables.
Table 1 - Description of independent variables.
Hypothesis Variable Categories Mean
H-01 Woman 1 if respondent is a woman 0.533
Age18-30 1 if respondent’s age is between 18 and 30 years old 0.195
Age31-50 1 if respondent’s age is between 31 and 50 years old 0.405
Age51-70 1 if respondent’s age is between 51 and 70 years old 0.304
H-02
Age+71 1 if respondent’s age is 71 years old or older 0.097
Edu1 1 if respondent’s years of education are less than 6 0.065
Edu2 1 if respondent’s years of education are between 6 and 12 0.578
Edu3 1 if respondent’s years of education are between 13 and 17 0.293
Edu4 1 if respondent’s years of education are between 18 and 22 0.064
H-03
Income Log of earnings 8.542
Married 1 if respondent is married or living as married 0.601
H-04 Divorced 1 if respondent is divorced or legally separated 0.087
H-05 Minorities
1 if respondent belongs to an ethnic group that is a minority in
his/ her country 0.053
No_religion 1 If respondent is atheist or agnostic 0.195
Roman_catholic 1 if religious group is Roman Catholic 0.359
H-06 Attendance 1 if respondent attends religious services, at least, once a month 0.307
H-07 Big city 1 if respondent lives in a big city 0.321
H-08 Unemployed 1 if respondent is unemployed 0.075
Private_sector 1 if respondent works for a private enterprise 0.419
Self-employed 1 if respondent is self-employed 0.125
Worked_hours 1 if respondent works more than 30 hours a week 0.900
Center 1 if party affiliation is center 0.162
Left 1 if party affiliation is left 0.204
Right 1 if party affiliation is right 0.179
H-09
No_pparty 1 if respondent does not identify with a political party 0.145
H-10 Country dummies 1 if respondent lives in that country -----
Table 2 - The model.
MISANTHROPY
WOMAN -0.048*** [0.012]
AGE31-50 -0.038** [0.018]
AGE51-70 -0.048** [0.020]
AGE+71 -0.140*** [0.026]
EDU2 -0.038 [0.032]
EDU3 -0.186*** [0.034]
EDU4 -0.300*** [0.039]
INCOME -0.067*** [0.008]
MARRIED -0.065*** [0.015]
DIVORCED 0.063*** [0.024]
LEFT -0.074*** [0.017]
RIGHT -0.010 [0.018]
NO_PPARTY 0.121*** [0.022]
UNEMPLOYED 0.132*** [0.034]
PRIVATE_SECTOR 0.065*** [0.013]
WORKED_HOURS 0.080*** [0.018]
SELF_EMPLOYED 0.104*** [0.020]
NO_RELIGION -0.007 [0.016]
ATTENDANCE -0.037** [0.016]
BIG_CITY -0.007 [0.013]
MINORITIES 0.155*** [0.041]
CHILE 0.734*** [0.048]
BRAZIL 0.545*** [0.051]
POLAND 0.417*** [0.049]
SLOVENIA 0.403*** [0.058]
SLOVAK 0.328*** [0.059]
MEXICO 0.211*** [0.052]
URUGUAY 0.191*** [0.055]
BULGARIA 0.176*** [0.052]
PHILIPPINES 0.156*** [0.048]
RUSSIA 0.147*** [0.040]
AUSTRALIA -0.079** [0.036]
IRELAND -0.124** [0.055]
CZECH REPUBLIC -0.134*** [0.045]
NEW ZEALAND -0.136*** [0.038]
CANADA -0.177*** [0.051]
JAPAN -0.182*** [0.045]
SWEDEN -0.233*** [0.038]
NORWAY -0.253*** [0.045]
FINLAND -0.277*** [0.042]
DENMARK -0.363*** [0.044]
GERMANY -0.444*** [0.040]
NETHERLANDS -0.466*** [0.038]
AUSTRIA -0.577*** [0.049]
SWITZERLAND -0.626*** [0.039]
CYPRUS -0.633*** [0.045]
17
FRANCE -0.029 [0.046]
GREAT BRITAIN -0.083 [0.054]
HUNGARY -0.028 [0.047]
ISRAEL 0.042 [0.054]
LATVIA -0.054 [0.053]
PORTUGAL 0.001 [0.050]
SOUTH AFRICA -0.034 [0.062]
SOUTH KOREA 0.049 [0.044]
SPAIN -0.008 [0.044]
TAIWAN -0.026 [0.042]
Constant 0.659*** [0.076]
Observations 30762
R-squared 0.15
Robust standard errors in brackets
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; ***
significant at 1%
United States is the omitted variable
18
Table 3: Corruption and misanthropy rankings.
Country Corruption
perception
(1)
Transparency
International
(2) Misanthropy
Brazil 0,344 3,9 0,545
Mexico 0,222 3,6 0,211
Bulgaria 0,183 4,1 0,176
Poland 0,175 3,5 0,417
Russia 0,146 2,8 0,147
France 0,140 7,1 0,000
Slovak 0,135 4,0 0,328
Philippines 0,125 2,6 0,156
Slovenia 0,053 6,0 0,403
Czech Republic 0,053 4,2 -0,134
Great Britain 0,045 8,6 0,000
Hungary 0,040 4,8 0,000
Chile 0,038 7,4 0,734
Uruguay 0,037 6,2 0,191
Israel 0,037 6,4 0,000
Japan 0,025 6,9 -0,182
Latvia 0,014 4,0 0,000
Portugal 0,000 6,3 0,000
South Korea -0,013 4,5 0,000
Spain -0,030 7,1 0,000
Taiwan -0,030 5,6 0,000
Ireland -0,031 7,5 -0,124
Germany -0,031 8,2 -0,444
Canada -0,033 8,5 -0,177
Sweden -0,042 9,2 -0,233
Austria -0,044 8,4 -0,577
Australia -0,049 8,8 -0,079
Switzerland -0,052 9,1 -0,626
Norway -0,053 8,9 -0,253
Netherlands -0,054 8,7 -0,466
Cyprus -0,055 5,4 -0,633
United States -0,055 7,5 0,000
New Zealand -0,056 9,6 -0,136
Finland -0,059 9,7 -0,277
Denmark -0,059 9,5 -0,363
(1) This ranking was obtained in a previous research, Melgar et al. (2008), each coefficient
indicates the changed in the probability of perceiving the highest level of corruption if the
person lives in that country with respect to living in the United States.
(2) Corruption Perception Index 2004, the higher the coefficient, the lower the level of corruption
perception.
19
... En Además, se encuentra que la escala subjetiva de ingresos está relacionada positivamente con las actitudes hacia los inmigrantes, en sentido favorable. Este resultado es consistente con la literatura previa, dado que los individuos con altos niveles de ingresos tienden a ser más tolerantes y a confiar más en otros individuos (Melgar et al., 2008). En resumen, se encuentra que existe un conjunto de variables cuyo impacto es relevante en al menos uno de los casos analizados (género, edad, educación, el estado civil, lugar de residencia y auto-empleo). ...
Article
Full-text available
Espa�a ha sido uno de los destinos preferidos de los emigrantes y ha registrado un claro proceso de apertura comercial. Sin embargo, en el contexto actual de fuerte desempleo, las pol�ticas de inmigraci�n y libre-comercio son cuestionadas. Este trabajo examina la influencia de los factores econ�micos, culturales y sociales en las opiniones sobre estas facetas de la globalizaci�n. Se encuentra que los espa�oles tienen actitudes m�s favorables hacia el libre-comercio y m�s desfavorables hacia la inmigraci�n que el promedio de la Uni�n Europea. Adem�s, estas actitudes no son explicadas por los sentimientos nacionalistas o la religi�n. En l�nea con las predicciones del modelo Heckscher-Ohlin, los m�s educados apoyan el libre-comercio y tambi�n se oponen a la inmigraci�n. Adem�s, se encuentra evidencia a favor del modelo Ricardo-Viner: los empleados en sectores con ventaja comparativa apoyan el libre-comercio y aquellos empleados en los sectores agricultura y servicios se oponen a la inmigraci�n.
... Este mercado podría estar segmentado de forma tal que las mujeres enfrentan un riesgo mayor (ante la competencia de inmigrantes o el libre comercio). mayor sea el nivel de ingresos, mayor es la tolerancia y la confianza interpersonal (Melgar et al., 2008) y además, se vincula con el acceso a una variedad mayor de bienes. El conjunto de variables vinculado a la religión y/o religiosidad presentan resultados disímiles. ...
Article
Full-text available
Given the current context of the European Union (EU), there are pressures to adopt restrictive policies on international trade and immigration. As these policies arise as the response of policy makers to individual’s preferences; this paper analyzes the factors that shape them. The dataset is the survey carried out in 2003 by the International Social Survey Program. The estimated models show that the characteristics that most influence the formation of these preferences are gender, education, income, religiosity, self-employment and nationalism. In line with the Ricardo-Viner model, it is found that people employed in sectors with comparative advantage support free trade and those employed in non-tradable sectors show negative attitudes towards immigrants. In line with the Hecksher-Ohlin model and in both cases, education generates more favorable attitudes. In addition, individuals are aware of the re-distributive effects of free trade and in line with the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, less educated workers who lives in countries relatively abundant in capital show unfavorable attitudes and vice versa.
Article
Full-text available
The concept of corruption varies widely depending on societies and people. We expect that context influences on corruption perception. Previous studies shed light on the incidence of individual characteristics on the perceived level of corruption and show the effect of country of residence. In order to extend this previous research, the aim of this paper is to analyze how context, culture and/ or history shape corruption perception considering specific country characteristics. The data source is the module on Citizenship of the 2004 International Social Survey Program (ISSP). Taking into account some subsamples (considering country characteristics such us: size, European Union membership, etc.), we estimate ordered probit models. We find that the incidence of country of residence remains even when we consider countries with some characteristic in common.
Article
Full-text available
Using a sample of Harvard undergraduates, the authors analyze the trust and social capital in two experiments. Trusting behavior and trustworthiness rise with social connectionl differences in race and nationality reduce the level of trusworthiness.
Article
Previous research has found only modest effects of community size on social psychological characteristics of residents. Focusing on urban experience, I find that urbanism's impact on personality may be stronger than previously thought. For respondents whose urban experience is adequately reflected by available community size measures, community size has strong positive effects on tolerance. Migration also promotes tolerance regardless of size of destination community.
Article
Examines how the level of misanthropy (MT) has changed over a 40-yr period (1956–1996) and the factors that predict MT, as measured by a 3-item scale adapted from M. Rosenberg's (1956) original 5-item MT scale. The present discussion is based on a review of the literature, and data collected from the General Social Surveys of the National Opinion Research Center with full-probability samples of the adult household population in the US using in-person interviews, which included the 3-item MT scale. This was previously reported by J. A. Davis and T. W. Smith (1994). It is argued that MT is higher among those with lower socioeconomic status, subgroups toward the social periphery such as racial and ethnic minorities and Southerners, people suffering recent negative life events, those who do not attend church and fundamentalists, and members of more recent cohorts. For Blacks, MT is decreased by more social contact with Whites, but the MT of Whites is not affected by contact with Blacks. There has been some recent increase in MT, but claims that MT has shown a large and long-term rise are not well supported by the time series. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Perception of Corruption. Department of Economics
  • N -Melgar
  • M Rossi
  • Smith
  • W Tom
-Melgar, N., Rossi, M. and Smith, Tom W. (2008). Perception of Corruption. Department of Economics; Uruguay, working paper 05-08.
Deutsche Zustände: Folge 1. Frankfurt am Main
  • W -Heitmeyer
-Heitmeyer, W. (ed.) (2003). Deutsche Zustände: Folge 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Monitoring rightwing attitudes, xenophobia and misanthropy in Switzerland: an explorative study
  • S Cattacin
  • B Gerber
  • M Sardi
  • R Wegener
  • E L Glaeser
  • D I Laibson
  • J A Scheinkman
  • C L Soutter
Cattacin, S., Gerber, B., Sardi, M., and Wegener, R. (2006). Monitoring rightwing attitudes, xenophobia and misanthropy in Switzerland: an explorative study. University of Geneva, Department of sociology, sociological research: report 1.-Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A. and Soutter, C. L. (1999). What is Social Capital? The Determinants of Trust and Trustworthiness. NBER, working paper 7216.