The psychological The psychological Consequences of Consequences of

MoneyMoney

YunHee ChoSze Long MaKiKi WongSheren Yeung

Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L. & Goode, M. R. (2006). The Psychological Consequences of Money. Science, 314, 1154-

1156.

IntroductionSummary of experimentsAuthor’s conclusionsImplicationCritical Appraisal Further Research

Overview

IntroductionIntroduction Research Question: The effects of money

on human behaviour.

Previous studies & theories

• Incentive power: tool theory & drug theory (Lea and Webley, 2006)

• Money undermines personal harmony? (Amato and Rogers, 1997)

• Job loss led to depression, impaired functioning & poor health (Price et al., 2002)

IntroductionIntroductionHypothesis: Reminders of money lead to

changes in behaviour associated with self-sufficiency.

Definitions

• Money: represent the idea of money, not property or possessions

• Self-sufficient: a state wherein people put effort to attain personal goals & prefer to be separate from others

Summary of Summary of experimentsexperiments

IV = Priming methodsDV = Varied between experiments. Experiment 1-2 examined perseveranceExperiment 3-6 examined helpfulnessExperiment 7-9 examined independence

Experiment 1Experiment 13 conditions• 2 Experimental (play money & money

prime)• 1 Control

Descrambling taskDV: Time spent on solving the problem

before requesting for help.

Results:the experimental group spent significantly longer on the problem than the control group before asking for help.

Experiment 2Experiment 22 conditions• High (abundance) money • Low (restricted amount of) money

Read aloud an essay DV: Time spent on solving the impossible

task before requesting for help.

Results:the money prime group spent longer on task than than the low money group before asking for help.

Experiment 3Experiment 3

2 conditions: Money prime + ControlDescramble taskDV: Number of data sheets participants

volunteered to code.

Results:the money prime group offered to code less data sheets than the control group.

Experiment 4Experiment 4

2 conditions: Money prime + ControlDescramble task.DV: Time spent helping the confederate.

Results:the money prime group spent less time helping the confederate than the control group.

Experiment 5Experiment 5 Monopoly game with a confederate. 3 conditions & 2 procedures High money: $4000 + imagine a prosperous future. Low money: $200 + imagine a financial strained

future. Control: $0 + asked their plans for tomorrow. DV: The number of pencils picked up

Results:high money group picked up less pencils than low money group and control group. (no difference between the last 2)

Experiment 6Experiment 6 2 conditions: Money prime + Control Given $2 in quarters for partaking in the study. Descramble task Filler questionnaire DV: Amount of money donated.

Results:the money prime group donated significantly less than those in the control group.

Experiment 7Experiment 7 Fill out a questionnaire on a computer Screen saver appears after 6 min 3 conditions: Money screen, Fish screen & no

screen Move two chairs together to get acquainted with

another individual. DV: The distance between the two chairs.

Result:the money prime group placed the two chairs further apart than the 2 control groups. No difference between the last controls.

Experiment 8Experiment 8Sat at a desk facing a poster3 conditions: Money condition + 2 controlsQuestionnaire: choose between 2 leisure

activities (with others or on their own)DV: Choice of activities.

Result:the money group selected more independent activities than the control group.

Experiment 9Experiment 93 conditions: Same as experiment 7 Choose to work alone or with a peer to

create an advertDV: Choice to work alone or with another.

Result:the money group was less likely to work in a pair than those in the fish and no screen-saver condition. No difference between the last 2.

Exp IV Priming Method DV Result

1 Money primePlay moneyControl

Descramble task Time spent before asking for help

Money Prime = Play money > Control

2 High moneyLow money

Read essay Same as (1) High money > Low money

3 Money primeControl

Descramble task No. of data sheets volunteered to code

Money prime < Control

4 Money primeControl

Descramble task Time spent helping a peer

Money prime < Control

5 High moneyLow moneyControl

Money left in Monopoly & imagine future finance

No. of pencils gathered

High money < Low money = Control

6 Money primeControl

Descramble task Monetary donation

Money prime < Control

7 Money prime 2 Controls

Screen-saver priming

Distance between 2 chairs

Money prime > Controls

8 Money prime 2 Controls

Different Posters Leisure activity chosen

Money prime: aloneControl: with peers

9 Money prime 2 Controls

Different Screen Savers

Chose to work alone/with peer

Money prime: aloneControl: with peers

Author’s ConclusionAuthor’s Conclusion

All 9 experiments supported the hypothesis

Money as both good or evil

Enhanced individualism but diminished communal motivations

ImplicationsImplications Research can be used to explain

behaviour• He, Rui and Xiao (2012) show that when people

are listed on the Rich List, investors react more negatively to the listed entrepreneurs.

Results:

1. Interpersonal rejection would increase the desire of money.

2. The entrepreneurs act self-sufficient as they believe others are less likely to help them.

3. In addition, they do not help because of the rule of reciprocity and attribution. This results in a negative cycle.

ImplicationsImplications

The research can explain social distress.• Zhou, Vohs and Baumeister (2009) found that money

can influence social distress.

Results:

1. Reminders of money resulted in reduced social distress.

2. Lack of money resulted in dependency and need for approval

ImplicationsImplications

Explains why economic training ‘transforms people into serial killers’• Robert, Gilovich and Regan (1993) claim that

economists are less likely to cooperate in social dilemmas.

• Trained economists are more convinced to be self-interested than non-economists.

Result:

• The illusion of affluence induces self-sufficiency

ImplicationsImplications

Can explain the deterioration of interpersonal relationships.• Bauer, Wilkie, Kim and Bodenhausen (2012)

showed that cueing to trigger materialistic desires resulted in negative personal and social consequences.

Result:

1. Reduced interpersonal trust. 2. The desire to out do others resulted in increased

independence and reduced desire to engage socially with others.

Critical Appraisal – Does the Critical Appraisal – Does the

study add anything new?study add anything new? Previous studies mostly drawn on methodological &

conceptual tools of anthropology & sociology (Burgoyne at el., 2006) e.g. Belk and Wallendorf, 1989

Use a more scientific approach & emphasize money as not a cultural phenomenon but material

Use self-sufficiency theory to encapsulate the previous findings about the essentially & evilness of money e.g. Led et al., 2006; Amato and Rogers, 1997

Linked the concept of money to actual behaviour

Critical Appraisal - Was the study Critical Appraisal - Was the study

design appropriate for the research design appropriate for the research

question?question?

Experimental• Quantifying the behaviour allows direct

comparison across situations• Standardization of obtaining data

But,• Concern about generalizability• Participant reaction to being observed

Verification of the methods• Control experiment - descrambling task (word-stem

completion task)

Critical Appraisal – Did the study Critical Appraisal – Did the study

address key sources of bias? address key sources of bias? (Hartman et al., (Hartman et al.,

2002)2002)

Overall addressed key potential sources of bias

Selection biases: all participants were randomly assigned to different conditions• But failed to note the method of randomization

'Blind' participants: no prior knowledge of the real aim

• Post-experimental questionnaire• False debriefs• Filler task

Critical Appraisal – Did the study Critical Appraisal – Did the study

address key sources of bias? address key sources of bias? (Hartman et al., (Hartman et al.,

2002)2002)

Excluded 'un-blinded' participants• Is the questionnaire enough to scale the

reliability of participants?

‘Blind' confederates: to participant's priming condition (experiment 4 & 5)• Actors & data collectors

Critical Appraisal – Critical Appraisal – Treatment of confoundingTreatment of confounding

Each experiment either refined the previous ones or explored a new dimension• e.g. experiment 2 eliminated confounding done by

differential sensitivity to the experimenter's higher status

Mood questionnaire/scale

Critical Appraisal – Are the Critical Appraisal – Are the

results conclusive?results conclusive? Is self-sufficient a useful term? (Bauer et al., 2012)

• Self-sufficient or concerning reciprocity in the future?

• Self-sufficient or competitiveness?

Is money the only thing that leads to self-sufficiency?• Power increases social distance (Lammers et al. , 2012)

• Money confers power but power doesn’t necessarily require money

• Other possessions? E.g. consumer goods (Bauer et al., 2012)

Critical Appraisal – Are the Critical Appraisal – Are the

results conclusive?results conclusive?

Cultural bias/norms (Levine et al.,2001; Heine, 2001)

Age Sex difference (Jaffee and Hyde, 2000; Gneezy et al., 2003)

Individual difference (King et al., 2005)

SES (Dubois et al., 2010; Adler & Snibble, 2003)

Further ResearchFurther Research Increase generalizability:

• Study different age groups• So represents the whole population, not just university

students

Sex difference :• Women are more empathetic than men and emphasize

conformity & the group (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000)

• Therefore, men will be more self-sufficient than women?

• Future experiment: should have equal number of male and female participants, and find out whether there are sex differences in the effects of money

Further ResearchFurther Research

Effect of culture:• Western culture vs Easter culture (Heine, 2001; Levine,

Norenzayan & Philbrick, 2001)

• Do eastern cultures demonstrate the same effects of money as western cultures?

Effect of personality:• People high on agreeableness are more likely to help

other people (King et. al. 2005)

• So, does personality influences the helping behaviour?• differences between different personality traits using

the Big Five

Further ResearchFurther Research

Other possible research areas:• Is there a difference between helping a stranger and

helping your friend?• Brain Imaging in money priming (high or low) vs.

control• Economic students are more self-sufficient in social

dilemma games (Frank, Gilovich & Regan, 1993). How about different fields of occupation?

ReferencesReferencesAdler, N.E. & Snibbe, A.C. (2003). The Role of Psychological Processes in Explaining the Gradient Between Socioeconomic Status and Health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 119-123 Amato, P. R. & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A Longitudinal Study of Marital Problems and Subsequent Divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(3), 612-624. Bauer, M. A., Wilkie, J. E. B., Kim, J. K. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2012) Cuing Consumerism: Situational Materialism Undermines Personal and Social Well-Being. Psychological Science, 23(5), 517-523. Belk, R. W. & Wallendorf, M. (1989). The Sacred Meanings of Money. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 35-67. Burgoyne, C. B. & Lea, S. E. G. (2006). Money is Material. Science, 314, 1091. Dubois, D., Rucker, D.D. & Galinsky, A.D. (2010). The Accentuation Bias: Money Literally Looms Larger (and Sometimes Smaller) to the Powerless. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 000(00), 1-7. Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T. D., & Regan D. T. (1993). Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspective, 7(2), 159-171 Gneezy, U., Niederle, M. & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in Competitive Environments Gender Differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1049-1074. Hartman, J. M., Forsen, J. W., Wallance, M. S. & Neely, J. G. (2002). Tutorial in Clinical Research: Part IV: Recognizing and Controlling Bias. The Laryngoscope, 112, 23-31. He, X., Rui, O., & Xiao, T. (2012). The Price of Being a Billionaire in China: Evidence Based on Hurun Rich List.

ReferencesReferencesHeine, S. J. (2001). Self as Cultural Product: An Examination of East Asian and North American Selves. Journal of personality, 69(6), 882-906. Jaffee, S. & Hyde, J. S. (2000) Gender differences in moral orientation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 702-726. King, E. B., George, J. M. & Hebl, M. R. (2005). Linking Personality to Helping Behaviors at Work: An Interactional Perspective. Journal of Personality, 73(3), 586-608. Lammers, J., Galinsky, A.D., Gordijn, E.H. & Otten, S. (2012) . Power Increases Social Distance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 282-290 Lea, S. E. G. & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Science, 29, 161-209. Levine, R. V., Norenzayan, A. & Philbrick, K. (2001). Cross-Cultural Differences in Helping Strangers. Journal of Cultural Psychology, 32, 543-560. McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. L., Loewenstein, G. & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate Neural Systems Value Immediate and Delayed Monetary Rewards. Science, 306, 503. Price, R. H., Choi, J. N. & Vinokur, A. D. (2002). Links in the Chain of Adversity Following Job Loss: How Financial Strain and Loss of Personal Control Leads to Depression Impaired Functioning, and Poor Health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(4), 302-312. Zhou, X., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009) The Symbolic Power: Reminders of Money Alter Social Distress and Physical Pain. Psychological Science, 6, 700-706

Thank You!Thank You!

Questions?Questions?