The psychological Consequences of Money

The psychological Consequences of Money

• YunHee Cho
• Sze Long Ma
• KiKi Wong
• Sheren Yeung

• Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L. & Goode, M. R. (2006).
• The Psychological Consequences of Money. Science, 314, 1154- 1156.

Introduction

• Introduction
• Summary of experiments
• Author’s conclusions
• Implication
• Critical Appraisal
• Further Research

• Overview

Introduction

• 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)

Introduction

• Hypothesis: 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 experiments

• IV = Priming methods
• DV = Varied between experiments.
• Experiment 1-2 examined perseverance
• Experiment 3-6 examined helpfulness
• Experiment 7-9 examined independence

Experiment 1

• 3 conditions
• 2 Experimental (play money & money prime)
• 1 Control
• Descrambling task
• DV: 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 2

• 2 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 3

• 2 conditions: Money prime + Control
• Descramble task
• DV: Number of data sheets participants volunteered to code.
• Results:

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

Experiment 4

• 2 conditions: Money prime + Control
• Descramble task.
• DV: Time spent helping the confederate.
• Results:

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

Experiment 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 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 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 8

• Sat at a desk facing a poster
• 3 conditions: Money condition + 2 controls
• Questionnaire: 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 9

• 3 conditions: Same as experiment 7
• Choose to work alone or with a peer to create an advert
• DV: 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.

• Author’s Conclusion

• All 9 experiments supported the hypothesis
• Money as both good or evil
• Enhanced individualism but diminished communal motivations

Implications

• 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:
• Interpersonal rejection would increase the desire of money.
• The entrepreneurs act self-sufficient as they believe others are less likely to help them.
• In addition, they do not help because of the rule of reciprocity and attribution. This results in a negative cycle.

Implications

• The research can explain social distress.
• Zhou, Vohs and Baumeister (2009) found that money can influence social distress.
• Results:
• Reminders of money resulted in reduced social distress.
• Lack of money resulted in dependency and need for approval

Implications

• 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

Implications

• 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:
• Reduced interpersonal trust.
• The desire to out do others resulted in increased independence and reduced desire to engage socially with others.

Critical Appraisal – Does the 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 design appropriate for the research 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 address key sources of bias? (Hartman et al., 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 address key sources of bias? (Hartman et al., 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 – Treatment 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 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 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 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 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 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?

• References

• Adler, 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.

References

• Heine, 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!

Questions?