Ideological and Attributional Boundaries on Public Compassion: Reactions to Individuals and Communities Affected by a Natural Disaster

The present study explored whether ideologically based attributions for why people need public assistance (a) emerge even in the context of an external-uncontrollable cause of need; (b) generalize across different levels of analysis, for example, across different forms of assistance, as well as across different types of claimants (individuals or groups); and explored (c) the role of promised reform on willingness to help those with personal responsibility for their plight. Ideological and attributional differences in willingness to help emerged even in the context of a natural disaster. Liberals tended to suspend the usual consequences of attributional analysis when making judgments about humanitarian aid by helping even the irresponsible; conservatives did not. Liberals and conservatives alike were more supportive of aid designed to meet primary than secondary needs, aid made contingent on future reform, and of help for communities over individuals.