The psychological Consequences of Money

1. The psychological Consequences of Money YunHee Cho Sze Long Ma KiKi Wong SherenYeung Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L. & Goode, M. R. (2006). The Psychological Consequences of Money. Science, 314, 1154- 1156.

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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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)

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

16. Author’s Conclusion • All 9 experiments supported the hypothesis • Money as both good or evil • Enhanced individualism but diminished communal motivations

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. Critical Appraisal - Was the study design appropriate for the research question? • Experimental • Quantifying the behaviour allows direct comparison across situations • Standardizationof obtaining data • But, • Concern about generalizability • Participant reaction to being observed • Verification of the methods • Control experiment - descrambling task (word-stem completion task)

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Critical Appraisal – Are the results conclusive? • Is self-sufficient a useful term? (Bauer et al., 2012) • Self-sufficient or concerning reciprocityin the future? • Self-sufficient or competitiveness? • Is money the only thingthat 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)

27. 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)

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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?

31. 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 andPersonality 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.

32. 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

33. Thank You!

34. Questions?