+ All Categories
Home > Documents > “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

“The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Date post: 06-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: agrata
View: 41 times
Download: 3 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
“The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006). Hannah Tait, Natalia Manning & Fiona McNeill. Background. Self Sufficiency Being free from needing others to effectively perform a task Socially insensitive: others can also do it themselves. Foundations: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Popular Tags:
32
Hannah Tait, Natalia Manning & Fiona McNeill 1
Transcript
Page 1: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Hannah Tait, Natalia Manning & Fiona McNeill

1

Page 2: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Self Sufficiency◦ Being free from needing others to effectively perform

a task◦ Socially insensitive: others can also do it themselves

Foundations: Money = incentive (Lea & Webley, 2006) Money undermines interpersonal harmony

(Amato & Rogers, 1997) Are both right? Are both a result of self-

sufficiency?

2

Page 3: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Investigated idea that money brings about a self-sufficient orientation

9 experiments IV = Money priming techniques Money priming led to reduced desire for help and reduced helpfulness towards others.

3

Page 4: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Exp. N Condi-tions

Priming method DV Sig. level

1 52 3 Descramble/Monopoly money Time taken to ask for help p<0.02, p<0.03

Prediction: Participants primed with money would work longer than controls before requesting help

Participants primed with real money, play money or neutral concepts

Participants were given difficult but solvable problems

Money primed participants (real or play) worked longer than those primes with neutral concepts.

4

Page 5: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

5

Page 6: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

But did the experimenter’s perceived status influence the participant’s behaviour?....

6

Page 7: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Exp. N Condi-tions

Priming method DV Sig. level

2 38 2 Essay Time taken to ask for help p=0.05

Prediction: Participants primed with high money would spend more time working than participants primed with low money before asking for help

Status differences between the participant and experimenter were removed

High money primed participants spent longer on the task than low money primed participants

7

Page 8: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

8

Page 9: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Exp. N Condi-tions

Priming method DV Sig. level

3 39 2 Descramble Time volunteered to help experimenter

p<0.05

Prediction: People who value self-sufficiency will be less helpful than others because they expect each person to take care of themselves

Participants were primed with either money or neutral concepts

Money primed participants offered less help than neutral concept primed participants

9

Page 10: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

But as the experimenter asked for help in the future did money primed participants fail to realise that help was truly needed?….

10

Page 11: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Prediction: Participants primed with money would spend less time helping than controls

Participants joined by a confederate completing another task who pretended not to understand their task instructions

Money primed participants spent just 45% of the time helping that controls spent

Exp.

N Condi-tions

Priming method DV Sig. level

4 44 2 Descramble Time spent helping a peer p<0.04

11

Page 12: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

But did participants perceive that helping the confederate required previous knowledge?….

12

Page 13: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Prediction: Participants primed with money would offer less help than controls

Primed in 2 steps:1. Played Monopoly with a confederate. Left with play money of differing amounts.2. Imagine a future with abundant finances (high money), strained finances (low money) or imagine plans for tomorrow (control)

Confederate spilled a box of pencils High money condition picked up an average of 2 less

than control condition (difference not as large for low money condition).

Exp. N Condi-

tions

Priming method DV Sig. level

5 36 3 Monopoly money, Imagine

Number of pencils gathered

p<0.02, p<0.05

13

Page 14: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Prediction: participants primed with money concepts would donate less money

$2 in quarters in exchange for participation Filler questionnaires and a false debrief Experimenter mentioned they were taking

donations in a box by the door Mean for controls was 57₡ (74%) more than

for money primed participants

Exp. N Condi-

tions

Priming method DV Sig. level

6 44 2 Descramble Value of monetary donation

p<0.05

14

Page 15: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Tested in social context using physical distance

Questionnaires in front of computer screen Screensaver: currency/fish/blank screen “Get acquainted” conversation – asked to

move chairs Money prime: places chairs further apart Physical distance

Exp.

N Condi-

tions

Priming method DV Sig. level

7 36 3 Screensavers Physical distance from partner

P<0.05, p<0.05

15

Page 16: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

16

Page 17: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Tested in social context Questionnaire with poster on wall in front of

them Currency/seascape/flower garden Second questionnaire: choose between solo

activity or an activity for two or more people

Money prime: individually focused leisure experiences

Less social

Exp.

N Condi-

tions

Priming method DV Sig. level

8 61 3 Posters Number of solitary activities chosen

P<0.05, p<0.05

17

Page 18: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

18

Page 19: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Tested in working context Used the same screensaver conditions as

Exp. 7 (Money/Fish/None) Project work – alone or with peer? Money prime: less likely to choose to work

with peer

Exp.

N Condi-

tions

Priming method DV Sig. level

9 37 3 Screensavers Choice whether to work alone or in a pair

P<0.05, p<0.05

19

Page 20: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Exp.

N Condi-

tions

Priming method DV Sig. level

1 52 3 Descramble/Monopoly money

Time taken to ask for help

p<0.02, p<0.03

2 38 2 Essay Time taken to ask for help

p=0.05

3 39 2 Descramble Time volunteered to help experimenter

p<0.05

4 44 2 Descramble Time spent helping a peer

p<0.04

5 36 3 Monopoly money, Imagine

Number of pencils gathered

p<0.02, p<0.05

6 44 2 Descramble Value of monetary donation

p<0.05

7 36 3 Screensavers Physical distance from partner

P<0.05, p<0.05

8 61 3 Posters Number of solitary activities chosen

P<0.05, p<0.05

9 37 3 Screensavers Choice whether to work alone or in a pair

P<0.05, p<0.05

20

Page 21: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Hypothesis supported- money brings about a state of self-sufficiency

Predictions met – money primes cause you to be less helpful towards others and more inclined to work alone

Implications- enhanced individualism but diminished communal motivations in today's money focused society

21

Page 22: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Previous research has not looked at this directly

First to focus on self-sufficiency Many of the experiments are not original

(Macrae et al. 1994; Twenge et al., 2007) but not necessarily unimproved

Questions the issue in a real world setting Builds on its own foundations, experiments

become more rigorous often improving on the last

22

Page 23: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

The 2 aspects of ‘self-sufficient’ defined are investigated

Design focuses on real life behaviour But… Experiment 7: distance chair is placed from

partner – does this fit with the definition of self-sufficient?

Experiment 8: options for group vs. independent social activity – does this really fit with the definition of self-sufficient given?

23

Page 24: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Filler questionnaires and false debriefs Blind-to-condition experimenters/confederates

(where possible) Double-check system Controlled for mood fluctuations Checked for and excluded suspicious

participants No systematic errors identified but less of a

concern as tasks don’t produce specific values to be applied

We are surprised more people were not suspicious

Selection bias: participants were all students from the US and Canada

24

Page 25: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

An extensive array of experiments Findings were consistent throughout

But… Is money making you more self-sufficient or

Stubborn Hard working Antisocial

2 way system of money and self-sufficiency (Zhou, Vohs & Baumeister, 2009)

25

Page 26: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Increasing salary may make you work harder◦ But can increasing salary decrease employees

pro-sociability? (Jordan, 2010) Money impairs people’s everyday abilities

to savour everyday positive emotions and experiences (Quoidbach et al. 2010)

Willingness to volunteer own time is affected by thinking of time in terms of money (Pfeffer & DeVoe, 2009).

26

Page 27: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Student population not representative Although students are from Canada, the US,

China and Hong Kong they are all at one of 3 universities in North America

Between subjects design Does the experiment really apply to long-

term real life?

27

Page 28: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Test in a country that values social networks more and individualism less e.g. Japan

Test using people of differing socio-economic status

Longitudinal within subjects study

28

Page 29: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

We question that the hypothesis has been supported: A salient concept of money appears to increase self-sufficient behaviour… but is it really self-sufficient?

Thorough and well designed experiment Very consistent (significant) findings Easily applicable to a real world setting

But… 2 experiments do not conclusively show self

sufficiency

29

Page 30: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

Vohs, K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2008). Merely Activating the Concept of Money Changes Personal and Interpersonal Behaviour, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 208-212.

30

Page 31: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

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

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5802/1154/DC1

31

Page 32: “The Psychological Consequences of Money” Vohs , K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006)

1. Amato, P.R. & Rogers, S.J. (1997) A longitudinal study of Martial Problems and Subsequent Divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(3), 612-624.

2. Jordan, J.M. (2010) Salary and Decision Making: Relationship Between Pay and Focus on Financial Profitability and Prosociability in an Organizational Context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(2), 402-420.

3. Lea, S. E. G. & Webley, P. (2006) Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of a strong incentive.Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 29, 161-209.

4. Macrae, C.N., Bodenhausen, G.V., Milne, A.B. & Jetten, J. (1994) Out of mind but back in sight: stereotypes on the rebound, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808-817.

5. Pfeffer, J. & DeVoe, S.E. (2009) Economic evaluation: The effect of money and economics on attitudes about volunteering. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 500-508.

6. Twenge, J.M., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.M. Ciarocco, N.J. & Bartells, J.M (2007) Social Exclusion Decreases Prosocial Behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56-66.

7. Quoidbach, J., Dunn, E.W., Petrides, K.V. & Mikolajczak, M. (2010) Money Giveth, Money Taketh Away, Psychological Science, 21(6), 759-763.

8. Zhou, X.Y., Vohs, K. D. & Baumeister, R. (2009). The symbolic power of money: Reminders of money alter social distress and physical pain. Psychological Science, 20, 700–706.

32


Recommended