Psychological Reports: Relationships & Communications2013, 112, 2, 578-592. © Psychological Reports 2013

DOI 10.2466/21.PR0.112.2.578-592 ISSN 0033-2941

EXPLORATION OF CHARITY TOWARD BUSKING (STREET PERFORMANCE) AS A FUNCTION OF RELIGION1

JOHN O. LEMAY IV AND LARRY W. BATES

University of North Alabama

Summary.—To examine conceptions of religion and charity in a new venue—busking (street performance)—103 undergraduate students at a regional universi-tyin the southeastern U.S. completed a battery of surveys regarding religion, and attitudes and behaviors toward busking. For those 85 participants who had pre-viously encountered a busker, stepwise regression was used to predict increased frequency of giving to buskers. The best predictive model of giving to buskers con-sisted of three variables including less experienced irritation toward buskers, prior experience with giving to the homeless, and lower religious fundamentalism.

A variety of variables have been found related to charitable giving. Recent research shows that variables related to this prosocial behavior in-clude clean scented rooms (Liljenquist, Zhong, & Galinsky, 2010), facial emotional expression (Small & Verrochi, 2009), wealth (Mayo & Tinsley, 2009), anecdotal evidence in messages (Das, Kerkhof, & Kuiper, 2008), and charity reputation (Meijer, 2009), to name a few. Type of charitable giving has been analyzed from the perspective of charitable auctions (Leszczyc & Rothkopf, 2010), matching or challenge gifts (Rondeau & List, 2008), physicians’ decisions to treat charity cases (Cunningham & Hadley, 2008), methods of advertising (Nelson, Brunel, Supphellen, & Manchanda, 2006), direct mailing (Van Diepen, Donkers, & Franses, 2009), and even lotteries (Peloza & Hassay, 2007). In short, the literature concerning charitable giv-ing is fairly robust. A search of terms in the PsycINFO database at the end of 2012 yielded 138 articles in peer-reviewed journals with the word “charity” in the title. Of those, 42% were published in the last five years. Hence, the interest in charity research is on the rise and it has been exam-ined from a variety of points of view.

One area that seems naturally linked to charitable giving is religion. Many forms of religion have, as a central tenet, something akin to loving and caring for those who are less fortunate (Coward, 1986). Stories such as the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-27, King James Bible) serve as examples of be-nevolence and charity and are common in many sacred texts. But the research concerning charity and religion is mixed and the relationships between the two are complex. Part of the difficulty of past research in this area has been defining religion itself, at least along any metric that might show consensus

1Address correspondence to Larry W. Bates, Ph.D., UNA Box 5255, Florence, AL 35632-0001 or e-mail (lwbates@una.edu).

BUSKING aNd RELIGION 579

(see Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009, pp. 6-12). Nevertheless, global measures of religiousness, however defined, have consistently shown moderate positive correlations with charity or benevolence of some sort (Rokeach, 1969; Nel-son & Dynes, 1976; Hunsberger & Platonow, 1986; Regnerus, Smith, & Sik-kink, 1998; Lam, 2002; Uslaner, 2002; Lyons & Nivison-Smith, 2006).

Religions do differ in their emphases and, as such, religious people differ in their worldviews and potentially in the importance that they at-tribute to charitable giving. Douglass, Klay, and Lunn (2001) found more conservative religions gave more to other religious organizations than did more liberal ones, who gave more to secular charities. Several other ef-forts have been made to examine religious orientation as a moderator of charitable giving and other prosocial behaviors. Gordon Allport (1950) in-troduced the concept of religious orientation in his landmark book, The Individual and His Religion. Allport developed the idea of intrinsic and ex-trinsic religious orientations. Specifically, intrinsic religious orientation oc-curs when religion is viewed as important in and of itself, is a more ma-ture religious stance, and is related to living out one’s religious principles. Hence, it is typically more influential than many other motives that the individual may have. In contrast, extrinsic religious orientation is more reward-based and religion is viewed as important because it assists one in achieving other personal or social goals. In other words, extrinsic religion is more egocentric than theocentric (see Hood, et al., 2009, pp. 406–407 for summary). This suggests intrinsic orientation would be related to charity and other prosocial behaviors; several studies have confirmed this rela-tionship (Watson, Hood, Morris, & Hall, 1984; Bernt, 1989; Chau, Johnson, Bowers, & Darvill, 1990; Hansen, Vandenberg, & Patterson, 1995). Many of these same studies also showed that extrinsic religious orientation was either unrelated or negatively related to charitable giving.

A few studies have investigated the importance of religious salience in giving. Specifically, Kauffmann, Kauffmann, Harder, and Zimmerly (1985) found that participants gave significantly more money to solici-tors when “Christian” responsibility to help was made salient via verbal instructions. Malhotra (2010) noted that during charitable auctions, reli-gious people were more likely to bid higher for items in which the money would go to charity only on days when they had actually attended their place of worship, and that no differences between religious and non-reli-gious individuals existed on days when they had not attended worship. Malhotra suggested that religious salience plays a role and hence, remind-ers of one’s religious faith may result in acting more in accordance with one’s faith tenets regarding charity. Investigations of the relationship be-tween religion and charity should make religion salient to the participant.

Studies of religious fundamentalism have shown increased prejudice

j. o. lemay iv & l. w. bates580

toward several groups. Prejudice has been defined as relatively inflexi-ble, illogical, or erroneous thoughts, beliefs, and feelings regarding oth-ers (Barnes, 2006). Hunsberger and Jackson (2005) examined research con-cerning measures of religiosity and prejudice published since 1990 and observed that the best predictor of prejudice was religious fundamen-talism. Religious fundamentalism has been defined as the taking upon faith that there exists a collection of the most primitive, inerrant, essen-tial instructions that reveal the true nature of the human condition and deity, and that this truth must be defended from opposition and rigor-ously followed (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992). Specifically, Hunsberger and Jackson (2005) noted that religious fundamentalists manifested preju-dice toward homosexuals, Communists, religious groups outside of one’s own religion, and women. Studies of religious fundamentalism’s effect on charitable giving are lacking, but pejorative attributions toward out-groups suggest that it may be influential.

Religion and its relationship to charity have been investigated, even going so far as to tease out how religious orientation might serve as a moderator to enhance or attenuate prosocial behaviors such as charita-ble giving (see Watson, et al., 1984; Bernt, 1989; Chau, et al., 1990; Hansen, et al., 1995). Charitable giving itself has been viewed in a variety of situ-ations. One perspective that has received scant attention is busking, or street performance. Street performers entertain pedestrians as they walk down the streets of cities in hopes of receiving reimbursement for their time and energy. The art is thought to have originated in ancient Egypt during the times of the pharaohs when traveling artisans performed for these leaders (Scherer, 2004). The entertainment can take many forms such as juggling, painting, dancing, and playing music, just to name a few. In America, several rather notable musicians or singers have engaged in bus-king prior to establishing a career. Such names include Bob Dylan, Jon Bon Jovi, Eric Clapton, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Norah Jones, and Louis Armstrong, and others have called for a National Busking Day to honor this important contribution to music (National Busking Day, 2010). People have reported making various amounts of money from this practice and many have stated that busking is their sole means of income (Mac, 2009).

Busking potentially provides entertainment and hence an element of work is involved. The nexus between work and religion seems to center on the idea of a Protestant work ethic, first popularized by Max Weber (1905/1958). This ethic posits that one is responsible to the deity regarding how one conducts one’s life, and included in this is how one approaches work as a serious component of life (see also Jones, 1997). Jones, Furnham, and Deile (2010) found that the Protestant work ethic was positively cor-related with an intrinsic religious orientation. Hence, given that the Prot-

BUSKING aNd RELIGION 581

estant work ethic is largely a religious ethic, whether one views busking more as a form of work or more closely akin to a request for charity might influence giving. In the former case, a judgment about the seriousness of the work, consistent with a Protestant work ethic, could be involved.

Busking has two important elements that distinguish it from other forms of request for charitable giving. Firstly, it includes an implicit request for charity, as an open guitar case with a few coins in it would suggest. Sec-ondly, the performer is actually contributing something and not just asking for charity. So, while contributing to someone in need might have a higher appeal to those who are religious, the Protestant work ethic may be in con-flict with busking, in that such performances do not fit neatly into the cate-gory of meaningful employment. The charitable element of giving to some-one in need may have a higher appeal to those who are religious. However, the issue of Protestant work ethic is somewhat at odds with busking, in that the activity is both like a job and not like a job. It is quite possible that some religious people may view this as consistent with holding a job whereas others may view it as the exact opposite. In addition, although busking is a form of entertainment, it is usually unsolicited entertainment and may be an irritant to passers-by; for example, interrupting conversations or slowing foot traffic. Hence, both the potential for irritation and the questionable use-fulness of this work might add up to a rejection of busking by some people.

Giving to buskers could be viewed either as similar to charitable giv-ing or to payment for services. If perceived as the latter, giving to a busker would seem to be most closely related to tipping behavior. Relationships between religion and tipping behavior have not been examined empiri-cally. However, researchers have investigated tipping at restaurants, and found that in America the most popular rationale given by tippers at res-taurants include (1) that it is an established social norm, (2) they are grate-ful for the service, and (3) waiters depend on tips (Azar, 2010). Hence, at least some component of tipping behavior toward waiters is related to a charity-like concept, that the waiter needs that money to supplement a low hourly wage. Whether or not the same rationale would hold for giv-ing to buskers awaits examination. Busking certainly differs from waiting tables; in restaurants there is an implied request for service based on the customer’s choice to enter the establishment. Such a request for service does not seem to be implied in the case of busking. Nevertheless, whether giving to buskers is more like pure charitable giving or more like tipping, charity is a likely component and perhaps the closest concept.

The literature contains very little information on busking. The term busking is not found in abstracts of any published research in the PsycIN-FO database (American Psychological Association, APA, 2012). In one of the few studies that may shed light on responses to musical performance,

j. o. lemay iv & l. w. bates582

North, Tarrant, and Hargreaves (2004) found that mood can influence an individual’s charitable behavior and that this mood is influenced by mu-sic. They further found that uplifting music led to more charitable behavior than did annoying music. What is known about busking of any kind within psychology is gleaned from studies that are only tangentially related.

The purpose of this research was to bring together the concepts of re-ligion and charity in a new light, through an investigation of responses to busking. This preliminary study will examine relationships between reli-gion and attitudes toward giving to buskers.

Hypothesis 1. Those who score higher on intrinsic religious orientation will be more likely to view busking in a positive light and would be more likely to report giving to buskers.

Hypothesis 2. Those scoring higher on religious fundamentalism will tend to see busking less favorably and would report less giving to buskers.

method

ParticipantsA total of 103 university students were recruited and participated in

the survey portion of the experiment by class announcements, flyers, and campus e-mail. All participants received receipts for participation and some students received diminutive extra credit in class for participation. The purpose of this study was to examine attitudes and behaviors toward busking among those who had actually encountered buskers, so analyses were completed only on the 85 participants who answered positively to that item on a brief survey about busking (see below). Additional descrip-tive data for the sample are provided in Table 1.Instruments

Religious fundamentalism.—The Religious Fundamentalism Scale–Re-vised is a 12-item scale designed to measure fundamental beliefs about re-ligion (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004). Originally designed as a 20-item measure (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992), its shortened form is scored on a 9-point Likert-type scale, with anchors 4: Very strongly agree and ⁻4: Very strongly disagree. Fundamentalism, briefly, is the belief that one fundamental set of religious teachings represents basic and inerrant truth about mankind and deity (see Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2005). An exam-ple item in which a positive response represents religious fundamentalism is, “There is a particular set of religious teachings in this world that are so true, you can’t go any ‘deeper’ because they are the basic, bedrock mes-sage that God has given humanity.” The authors reported good inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s α = .90) and construct validity with Christian ortho-doxy, zealotry, and dogmatism (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004).

BUSKING aNd RELIGION 583

Religious orientation.—The Religious Orientation Scale–Revised, also referred to as the Intrinsic/Extrinsic–Revised scale, measures both intrin-sic and extrinsic religious orientation (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989). The intrinsic scale (I) measures the theocentricity of an individual, specifically whether religion is important in and of itself and plays a central motivat-ing role in one’s life. The extrinsic scale is subdivided into two categories, personally-oriented (Ep) and socially-oriented (Es) extrinsic-ness. Both ex-trinsic subscales point to using religion for some gain, but the Ep and Es scales divide that gain into social gains (e.g., friendship or standing in community) and other personal gains (e.g., going to heaven or being en-tertained at services). This scale was subsequently shortened to 14 items, rated on a five-point response scale (anchors 1: Strongly disagree and 5: Strongly agree) (Hill, 1989). This shortened version comprises the origi-nal factors, I and E, and the subfactors, Es and Ep, outlined by Kirkpatrick (1989). According to the authors, reliability estimates for the I and E scales were .83 and .65, respectively.

Demographics.—A series of questions were asked about biographical data of the participants (age, sex, grade, etc.) and about religious affilia-tion and involvement.

Busking.—This short survey was created to explore behavior and atti-tudes toward busking and the participant’s experience with buskers in real life situations. The items were chosen for simplicity to begin an initial em-pirical examination of the phenomenon of busking. Given the lack of em-pirical investigations of busking, the authors read busking websites (e.g., Busker World, see J. Mac, 2009) to better understand the subject of interest. Furthermore, one of the authors personally engaged in busking in a major southeastern U.S. city for one night. Specific items can be viewed in Table 2.Procedure

The participants were directed to a website to view the information about the experiment. After they provided informed consent, they com-pleted the battery of questionnaires on the website. Code numbers were used in lieu of names to ensure anonymity.

results

Religiosity of SampleThe descriptive statistics indicate that the sample attended religious

services about once per week and engaged in prayer about once per day. The group’s average score on the scale of intrinsic religiousness was 28.2 (SD = 7.35), between the mean of 37.2 in Southern California students (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989) and the mean of 26.9 in Nebraska students (Byrd, Hageman, & Isle, 2007).

j. o. lemay iv & l. w. bates584

TABLE 1descriPtiVe statistics For demograPhic VariaBles

M SD RangeAge 21.5 4.37 18–50Engaged in prayer, times per week 7.0 7.97 0–40Attended religious services, times per year 49.8 64.49 0– 240 Sex* N %

Men 30 35.3Women 55 64.7

EthnicityCaucasian 67 78.8African-American 7 8.2Mixed 6 7.1Hispanic 3 3.5Native American 1 1.2Other 1 1.2

College classificationFreshman 20 23.5Sophomore 25 29.4Junior 15 17.6Senior 20 23.5Graduate 2 2.4Other 3 3.6

Religious preferenceBaptist 29 34.1Church of Christ 13 15.3Agnostic 7 8.2Catholic 6 7.1

Methodist 6 7.1Atheist 4 4.7Non-denominational, Christian, charismatic 4 4.7Presbyterian 3 3.5Islam 2 2.4Non-denominational, Christian, non-charismatic 2 2.4No religious preference 2 2.4Pentecostal/Church of God/Assembly of God 2 2.4Other 5 5.9

*Coded 0 for men, 1 for women.

BUSKING aNd RELIGION 585

Reliability of ScalesDescriptive statistics and internal consistency reliabilities for the for-

mal scales employed in the study are shown in Table 3. In general, internal consistency reliability was good for the Religious Fundamentalism Scale–Revised, Intrinsic Religious Orientation, and the Extrinsic–Social subscale, but was marginal for overall Extrinsic Religious Orientation scale and the Extrinsic–Personal subscale. These reliabilities were similar to those found by the scales’ developers. The Busking Survey was not a “scale” and re-liability was not calculated. Descriptive statistics for the Busking Survey items are included in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Busking surVey items, with descriPtiVe statistics

N %1. Have you ever given money to someone who

seemed to be homeless, specifically did you hand him or her money or place it in a recepta-cle that they provided?

Yes 65 76.5No 20 23.5

2. Have you ever encountered a street performer/busker who was playing for tips?*

Yes 85 100No 0 0

M SD Rangea. If yes to #2, how often in your life has this

occurred? ____ times 10.65 14.40 1–100b. If yes to #2, how often did you give money?

____ % 31.79 33.82 0–100c. If yes to #2, what amount did you typically

give? $ ____ 2.14 3.16 0–253. On a scale of 0–100 of increasing irritation, rate

your feelings of irritation toward street per-formers/buskers. (0 would be no irritation at all and 100 would be very much irritated.) 19.75 25.22 0–100

4. On a scale of 0–100 of increasing entertainment, rate how entertained you feel by most street performers/buskers. (0 would be not entertain-ing at all and 100 would be very much enter-taining.) 56.84 25.24 0–100

*Denotes that of the 103 participants, those answering affirmative on this item numbered 85 and this latter number constituted those for which analyses were completed.

j. o. lemay iv & l. w. bates586

TABLE 3descriPtiVe and reliaBility statistics For religious scales

Scale M SD Range Possible

Range Obtained

Cronbach’s Alpha

Religious fundamentalism 6.80 28.83 –48 to 48 –48 to 48 .96Intrinsic orientation 28.22 7.35 8 to 40 13 to 40 .89Extrinsic orientation 15.74 3.74 6 to 30 6 to 25 .62

Extrinsic – personal 10.16 2.76 3 to 15 3 to 14 .69Extrinsic – social 5.58 2.35 3 to 15 3 to 12 .78

Who Gives Money to BuskersTo ascertain what variables might predict frequency of giving money

to buskers among those who had encountered buskers (the dependent vari-able), we analyzed the data using the remaining Busking Survey items, Reli-gious Fundamentalism Scale–Revised scores, Intrinsic Orientation, the two Extrinsic subscales, and the additional variables of sex, age, and frequency of prayer and religious attendance as independent or predictor variables us-ing stepwise regression analysis (p ≤ .05 to enter).

It was found that only three variables entered the equation (R2 = .16, F3 = 5.11, p = .003) to predict the frequency of giving money to buskers among those who had encountered buskers. These three predictor vari-ables were irritation at buskers (7.1% of the variance), whether one had previously given money to someone who appeared homeless (4.6% of the variance), and Religious Fundamentalism Scale–Revised scores (4.1% of the variance). Lower irritation, previously having given to the homeless, and lower Religious Fundamentalism scales were predictive of increased frequency of giving to buskers (Table 4), although the variables together accounted for only 16% of the variance in giving.

To further ascertain which of the above independent/predictor vari-ables might be associated with the dollar amount typically given to busk-ers, a similar stepwise regression analysis was performed. None of the independent variables significantly entered the regression equation to predict dollar amount typically given to buskers.

TABLE 4standard stePwise regression analyses Predicting FreQuency oF giVing to Buskers

B SE B β p ΔR2

(Constant) 26.12 7.68 .001Irritation at buskers –0.35 0.14 –0.26 .014 .07Previously given to homeless 18.46 8.12 0.23 .026 .05Religious fundamentalism –0.24 0.12 –0.20 .049 .04Note.—For model, R2 = .16, F3,31 = 5.11, p = .003.

BUSK

ING

aN

d RELIG

ION

587

TABLE 3

desc

riPtiVe a

nd r

eliaBility s

tatistic

s For r

eligio

us s

ca

les

ScaleM

SDRange

PossibleRange

Obtained

Cronbach’s A

lphaReligious fundam

entalism6.80

28.83–48 to 48

–48 to 48.96

Intrinsic orientation28.22

7.358 to 40

13 to 40.89

Extrinsic orientation15.74

3.746 to 30

6 to 25.62

Extrinsic – personal10.16

2.763 to 15

3 to 14.69

Extrinsic – social5.58

2.353 to 15

3 to 12.78

TABLE 4

sta

nd

ard s

tePwise r

egressio

n an

alyses P

redic

ting F

reQu

enc

y oF g

iVin

g to Bu

skers

BSE B

βp

ΔR2

(Constant)

26.127.68

.001Irritation at buskers

–0.350.14

–0.26.014

.07Previously given to hom

eless18.46

8.120.23

.026.05

Religious fundamentalism

–0.240.12

–0.20.049

.04N

ote.—For m

odel, R2 = .16, F

3,31 = 5.11, p = .003.

TABLE 5Pearson correlation matrix For religious and other VariaBles

Variable Sex Prayer Per Week

Religious Attendance

Per Year

Intrinsic Orientation

Extrinsic – Social

Extrinsic – Personal

Religious Fundamentalism

Irritated by Busker (0 to 100)

Entertained by Busker (0 to 100)

Age –.36†–.58, –.09

.35†.08, .57

.06 .12 .09 .04 –.02 .14 –.08

Sex –.04 –.03 –.01 –.24 .21 .03 –.23 .28*.00, .52

Prayer per week .49†.24, .67

.61†.40, .76

–.02 .36†.10, .58

.51†.27, .69

.01 –.01

Religious attendance per year

.56†.33, .72

.02 .19 .52†.28, .70

.02 .05

Intrinsic orientation –.02 .39†.12, .60

.82†.71, .90

–.10 .12

Extrinsic – social .07 .01 .22 .01Extrinsic – personal .50†

.26, .68.03 .22

Religious fundamentalism

–.01 .09

Irritated by busker (0 to 100)

–.28*–.52, .00

*p < .01, †p < .001.

j. o. lemay iv & l. w. bates588

Other Correlations and FindingsThe religious variables were analyzed via Pearson correlations with

other variables of interest and are shown in Table 5. Given the large num-ber of analyses and increased risk of family-wise error, 99% confidence intervals are shown with correlations for which p < .01. Specifically, re-ligious fundamentalism scores were positively associated with greater prayer frequency, more frequent religious attendance, and scores on ex-trinsic–personal and intrinsic religious orientations. Prayer frequency was also associated with more frequent religious attendance, extrinsic–per-sonal and intrinsic religious orientation scores. Women rated entertain-ment by buskers higher than did men (women M = 62.00, SD = 24.23; men M = 47.37, SD = 24.67; t = –2.65, p = .01, d = 0.83). No other gender dif-ferences were noted, except for age (women M = 20.40, SD = 1.88, men M = 23.63, SD = 6.39). Not surprisingly, perceived entertainment of busk-ing was negatively correlated with irritation with buskers.

discussionThe first research hypothesis was not supported; intrinsic religious

orientation was not related to giving money to buskers. Since there is some historical support for those with intrinsic religious orientation hav-ing more empathy (Watson, et al., 1984), this perspective calls into ques-tion whether giving to buskers is viewed as a form of charity. However, a possible explanation is that although prosocial behaviors generally may be increased among the intrinsically oriented, they tend to prefer nons-pontaneous types of helping behavior (Hansen, et al., 1995) and giving money to buskers would appear to be more spontaneous. Also, the evi-dence for a relationship between religious orientation and benevolence has been somewhat mixed, with some contemporary research findings in the direction opposite that predicted by Allport (1950). For example, higher extrinsic–social orientation has been shown to be more predictive of signing up to donate organs posthumously than intrinsic orientation (Ryckman, Van Den Borne, Thornton, & Gold, 2004).

The second hypothesis was supported. Scores on religious fundamen-talism were one of the three significant predictors for giving to buskers and the direction of that relationship was also confirmed; namely, those with higher religious fundamentalism scores tended to give less to busk-ers. This hypothesis was founded on past research that showed that one of the best predictors of prejudice toward those in an out-group is reli-gious fundamentalism (Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005). While not giving to buskers is not necessarily prejudicial, the findings of this research seem to at least add some support to the idea that they have less than positive attitudes toward giving to buskers; but a strong caveat is the very small

BUSKING aNd RELIGION 589

amount of variance accounted for. Theoretically this result is interesting, but it must be kept in mind that practically, the “increase” in prejudice with higher fundamentalism scores is extremely small. As an alternative to reacting to buskers as an out-group, it is possible that buskers are not viewed by those scoring higher on fundamentalism as viable recipients of charitable giving, and hence, they would not apply religious tenets relat-ed to benevolence. If busking is viewed as a job, then it may not be seen as a form of useful or gainful employment, so one might expect that reli-gious beliefs about benevolence would be considered irrelevant to the sit-uation, which might actually reduce the probability of giving, if busking was viewed as not satisfying the Protestant work ethic. At present, data are not available to assess whether people view giving to buskers as char-ity or payment for service, and what variables may moderate that view.

One’s attitude toward busking was somewhat influential on frequen-cy, but not amount, of giving. Feeling entertained was not related to giving but feeling irritated was the single best predictor of not giving to buskers. Although not empirically documented, perhaps some people have given a coin to someone who approached them on the street or said “yes” to a telephone solicitor to shorten the exchange, or reduce the irritation. But irritation apparently does not result in the desired contribution for busk-ing, perhaps because buskers are typically stationary, so any irritating ex-change can be shortened by just walking away. The cost of the response is quite different in cases when one is approached and when one approach-es the solicitor. When one is approached, irritation potentially can be re-duced and time saved by giving a coin, but in the case of stationary busk-ers, irritation can be reduced simply by walking away.

Concerning the correlational analyses, none of these were surprising. However, of some interest was the discovery that women tended to report being entertained more by busking than men. This finding is tangentially consistent with a study in the Netherlands that found that entertainment can add value to an advertisement for women but not men (Sun, Lim, Ji-ang, Peng, & Chen, 2010).

This exploratory experiment has several limitations. Obviously, the sample was rather homogenous, with the typical respondent being a white, Protestant, female, undergraduate student, so caution should be taken in at-tempts to generalize these findings. The data are all self-report and as such suffer from the problems inherent in selective recall of past behavior and common methods variance. Obviously, a better understanding of busking and those who give money to buskers will be gained in actual field studies. At present, no data have been published regarding who gives, how often they give, the amount typically given, and the characteristics of the givers. Hence, although religion seems to be a minor variable in this situation, reli-

j. o. lemay iv & l. w. bates590

gious fundamentalism may have some minor influence. It is suggested that future studies should first attempt to assess if giv-

ing to buskers is indeed akin to making a charitable contribution, tipping behavior, paying for entertainment, affirming someone’s attempt at work, or means of dismissing an irritating person. Once that is assessed, the lit-erature for that area could then be searched for direction for additional studies. Previous research of tipping behavior (e.g., Azar, 2010) might be a starting point.

REFERENCES

allPort, g. w. (1950) The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan.altemeyer, B., & hunsBerger, B. (1992) Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism,

quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113-133.

altemeyer, B., & hunsBerger, B. (2004) A revised Religious Fundamentalism scale: the short and sweet of it. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(1), 47-54.

altemeyer, B., & hunsBerger, B. (2005) Fundamentalism and authoritarianism. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Parks (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spiritual-ity. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Pp. 378-393.

american Psychological association (aPa). (2012) PsycINFO Database. http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/index.aspx.

aZar, o. h. (2010) Tipping motivations and behavior in the U. S. and Israel. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(2), 421-457.

Barnes, s. l. (2006) Subverting the power of prejudice: resources for individual and social change. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.

Bernt, F. m. (1989) Being religious and being altruistic: a study of college service vol-unteers. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(6), 663-669.

Byrd, k. r., hageman, a., & isle, d. B. (2007) Intrinsic motivation and subjective well-being: the unique contribution of intrinsic religious motivation. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17, 141-156.

chau, l., Johnson, r. c., Bowers, J. k., & darVill, t. J. (1990) Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity as related to conscience, adjustment, and altruism. Personality and Indi-vidual Differences, 11(4), 397-400.

coward, h. (1986) Intolerance in the world’s religions. Studies in Religion, 15, 419-431.cunningham, P. J., & hadley, J. (2008) Effects of changes in incomes and practice cir-

cumstances on physicians’ decisions to treat charity and Medicaid patients. Mil-bank Quarterly, 86(1), 91-123.

das, e., kerkhoF, P., & kuiPer, J. (2008) Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: the impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175.

douglass, a., klay, r., & lunn, J. (2001) Relationships among giving, church atten-dance, and religious belief: the case of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(4), 765-775.

BUSKING aNd RELIGION 591

gorsuch, r. l., & mcPherson, s. e. (1989) Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E – Re-vised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348-354.

hansen, d. e., VandenBerg, B., & Patterson, m. l. (1995) The effects of religious ori-entation on spontaneous and nonspontaneous helping behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(1), 101-104.

hill, P. c. (1989) Religious Orientation Scale–Revised. In P. C. Hill & R. W. Hood, Jr. (Eds.), Measures of Religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press. Pp. 154-156.

hood, r. w., Jr., hill, P. c., & sPilka, B. (2009) The psychology of religion: an empirical approach. (4th ed.) New York, NY: Guilford Press.

hunsBerger, B., & Jackson, l. m. (2005) Religion, meaning, and prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 807-826.

hunsBerger, B., & Platonow, e. (1986) Religion and helping charitable causes. Journal of Psychology, 120, 517-528.

Jones, h. (1997) The Protestant ethic: Weber’s model and the empirical literature. Hu-man Relations, 50, 757-778.

Jones, h. B., Jr., Furnham, a., & deile, a. J. (2010) Religious orientation and the Protes-tant work ethic. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13(7/8), 697-706.

kauFFmann, d., kauFFmann, k., harder, k., & Zimmerly, t. (1985) Religious salience and contributions to a charitable organization. Journal of Psychology and Christian-ity, 4(1), 56-61.

kirkPatrick, l. a. (1989) A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin mea-sures of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. In D. O. Moberg & M. L. Lynn (Eds.), Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion. (Vol. 1) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 1-31.

lam, P-y. (2002) As the flocks gather: how religion affects voluntary association par-ticipation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 405-422.

lesZcZyc, P. t. l. P., & rothkoPF, m. h. (2010) Charitable motives and bidding in char-ity auctions. Management Science, 56(3), 399-413.

lilJenQuist, k., Zhong, c-B., & galinsky, a. d. (2010) The smell of virtue: clean scents promote reciprocity and charity. Psychological Science, 21(3), 381-383.

lyons, m., & niVison-smith, i. (2006) Religion and giving in Australia. Australian Jour-nal of Social Issues, 41(4), 419-436.

mac, J. (2009) What is busking? Retrieved 28 February 2010, from http://www.busk-erworld.com/busking-info/what-is-busking.

malhotra, d. (2010) When are religious people nicer? Religious salience and the “Sunday effect” on pro-social behavior. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(2), 138-143.

mayo, J. w., & tinsley, c. h. (2009) Warm glow and charitable giving: why the wealthy do not give more to charity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 490-499.

meiJer, m-m. (2009) The effects of charity reputation on charitable giving. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(1), 33-42.

national Busking day - calls music industry. (2010) M2PressWIRE. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

j. o. lemay iv & l. w. bates592

nelson, l. d., & dynes, r. r. (1976) The impact of devotionalism and attendance on ordinary and emergency helping behavior. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli-gion, 15, 47-59.

nelson, m. r., Brunel, F. F., suPPhellen, m., & manchanda, r. V. (2006) Effects of culture, gender, and moral obligations on responses to charity advertising across masculine and feminine cultures. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 45-56.

north, a., tarrant, m., & hargreaVes, d. J. (2004) The effects of music on helping behavior: a field study. Environment & Behavior, 36(2), 266-275.

PeloZa, J., & hassay, d. n. (2007) Does vice make nice? The viability and virtuousness of charity lotteries. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18(1), 57-80.

regnerus, m. d., smith, c., & sikkink, d. (1998) Who gives to the poor? The influence of religious tradition and political location on the personal generosity of Ameri-cans toward the poor. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 481-493.

rokeach, m. (1969) Value systems and religion. Review of Religious Research, 11, 24-38.rondeau, d., & list, J. a. (2008) Matching and challenge gifts to charity: evidence

from laboratory and natural field experiments. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 253-267.

ryckman, r. m., Van den Borne, B., thornton, B., & gold, J. a. (2004) Intrinsic-ex-trinsic religiosity and university students’ willingness to donate organs posthu-mously. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 196-205.

scherer, J. (2004) Busking through Canada. Faces, 20(6), 22.small, d. a., & Verrochi, n. m. (2009) The face of need: facial emotion expression on

charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777-787. sun, y., lim, k. h., Jiang, c., Peng, J., & chen, x. (2010) Do males and females think

in the same way? An empirical investigation on the gender differences in Web advertising evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1614-1624.

uslaner, e. m. (2002) Religion and civic engagement in Canada and the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 239-254.

Van diePen, m., donkers, B., & Franses, P. h. (2009) Dynamic and competitive effects of direct mailings: a charitable giving application. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 120-133.

watson, P. J., hood, r. w., morris, r. J., & hall, J. r. (1984) Empathy, religious ori-entation, and social desirability. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 117(2), 211-216.

weBer, m. (1904–1905/1958) The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (Talcott Parsons, Trans.) New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published 1904–1905)

Accepted March 27, 2013.