The Psychological Consequences of Money

Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States
Science (Impact Factor: 31.48). 12/2006; 314(5802):1154-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.1132491
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Money has been said to change people's motivation (mainly for the better) and their behavior toward others (mainly for the worse). The results of nine experiments suggest that money brings about a self-sufficient orientation in which people prefer to be free of dependency and dependents. Reminders of money, relative to nonmoney reminders, led to reduced requests for help and reduced helpfulness toward others. Relative to participants primed with neutral concepts, participants primed with money preferred to play alone, work alone, and put more physical distance between themselves and a new acquaintance.

Download full-text


Available from: Nicole Mead, Aug 29, 2015
  • Source
    • "Moreover, the willingness to accept harm was dramatically higher for multilateral markets (Falk and Szech, 2013). Another study argues that 'money brings about a self-sufficient orientation in which people prefer to be free of dependency and dependents' (Vohs et al., 2006: 1154) and can thus undermine other-regarding motivations. Taking this result as a validation of the Homo economicus model would simply ignore the fact that, in all cases, external intervention (through application of valuation methods such as willingness to pay or willingness to accept) is acting upon pre-existing norms and values. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The dominant understanding of how motivations to contribute to public goods are generated and sustained is largely shaped by the combined action of rational choice theory and neoclassical economics. This understanding relies on three key assumptions: individualism, instrumentalism and market equilibration. This paper questions the theoretical consistency and empirical relevance of these assumptions and of their associated policy model. I argue that a significant revision of this motivational theory is needed, one that takes into account intrinsic incentives, trust and strong reciprocity, as well as the effect of social and institutional context, monetization and market interactions on the propensity to contribute to public goods. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of this theoretical reconsideration for the organization of scientific research and for more effective policy making to sustain public goods provision.
    Environmental Policy and Governance 08/2015; 25(4):230-242. DOI:10.1002/eet.1684 · 1.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Priming money with words relevant to money (e.g., Vohs et al., 2006) prior to measuring social behavior was not judged eligible because these words do not directly relate to prosocial action without more complex assumptions about intervening psychological processes (i.e., money leads to self-sufficiency which in turn leads to less social behavior). Similarly, the future-related words influencing consumer decisions in Mogilner et al. (2012) were not eligible because the psychological link is more complex than either perception-behavior or goal-mediated processes. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A meta-analysis assessed the behavioral impact of and psychological processes associated with presenting words connected to an action or a goal representation. The average and distribution of 352 effect sizes (analyzed using fixed-effects and random-effects models) was obtained from 133 studies (84 reports) in which word primes were incidentally presented to participants, with a non-opposite control group, prior to measuring a behavioral dependent variable. Findings revealed a small behavioral priming effect (𝑑𝐹𝐸 = 0.332, 𝑑𝑅𝐸 = 0.352), which was robust across methodological procedures and only minimally biased by the publication of positive (vs. negative) results. Theory testing analyses indicated that more valued behavior or goal concepts (e.g., associated with important outcomes or values) were associated with stronger priming effects than were less valued behaviors. Furthermore, there was some evidence of persistence of goal effects over time. These results support the notion that goal activation contributes over and above perception-behavior in explaining priming effects. In sum, theorizing about the role of value and satisfaction in goal activation pointed to stronger effects of a behavior or goal concept on overt action. There was no evidence that expectancy (ease of achieving the goal) moderated priming effects.
    Psychological Bulletin 08/2015; · 14.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Although replication failures should be interpreted with caution, the sheer number of so many high-powered replication failures cast doubt on the money priming effects found by Caruso et al. Although we did not attempt to replicate any of the findings reported by Vohs et al. (2006), nearly all of their reported effects were found with priming manipulations that were identical to or similar to the manipulations that were used by Caruso et al. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A number of researchers have reported studies showing that subtle reminders of money can alter behaviors and beliefs that are seemingly unrelated to money. In 1 set of studies published in this journal, Caruso, Vohs, Baxter, and Waytz (2013) found that incidental exposures to money led subjects to indicate greater support for inequality, socioeconomic differences, group-based discrimination, and free market economies. We conducted high-powered replication attempts of these 4 money priming effects and found no evidence of priming (weighted Cohen's d = 0.03). We later learned that Caruso et al. also found several null effects in their line of research that were not reported in the original article. In addition, the money priming effect observed in the first study of Caruso et al. was included in the Many Labs Replication Project (Klein et al., 2014), and only 1 of the 36 labs was able to find the effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    Journal of Experimental Psychology General 08/2015; 144(4):e73-e85. DOI:10.1037/xge0000058 · 5.50 Impact Factor
Show more