The Psychological Consequences of Money

Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States
Science (Impact Factor: 33.61). 12/2006; 314(5802):1154-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.1132491
Source: PubMed


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.

306 Reads
  • Source
    • "eferred social / communal norms . One possibility is that the individual self - sufficiency orientation guides compensation behaviors . Self - sufficiency is defined as an insulated state wherein people put forth effort to attain personal goals and prefer to be separate from others . Money can make the self - sufficiency orientation more salient ( Vohs et al . , 2006 ) ."
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Compensation is a kind of pro-social behavior that can restore a social relationship jeopardized by interpersonal transgression. The effectiveness of a certain compensation strategy (e.g., repaying money, sharing loss, etc.) may vary as a function of the social norm/relationship. Previous studies have shown that two types of norms (or relationships), monetary/exchange and social/communal, differentially characterize people's appraisal of and response to social exchanges. In this study, we investigated how individual differences in preference for these norms affect individuals' perception of others' as well as the selection of their own reciprocal behaviors. In a two-phase experiment with interpersonal transgression, we asked the participant to perform a dot-estimation task with two partners who occasionally and unintentionally inflicted noise stimulation upon the participant (first phase). As compensation one partner gave money to the participant 80% of the time (the monetary partner) and the other bore the noise for the participant 80% of the time (the social partner). Results showed that the individuals' preference for compensation (repaying money versus bearing noise) affected their relationship (exchange versus communal) with the partners adopting different compensation strategies: participants tended to form communal relationships and felt closer to the partner whose compensation strategy matched their own preference. The participants could be differentiated into a social group, who tended to form communal relationship with the social partner, and a monetary group, who tended to form communal relationship with the monetary partner. In the second phase of the experiment, when the participants became transgressors and were asked to compensate for their transgression with money, the social group offered more compensation to the social partners than to the monetary partners, while the monetary group compensated less than the social group in general and showed no difference in their offers to the monetary and social partners. These findings demonstrate that the effectiveness of compensation varies as a function of individuals' preference for communal versus monetary norm and that monetary compensation alone does not heal all wounds.
    Frontiers in Psychology 09/2015; 6. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01411 · 2.80 Impact Factor
    • "In addition, considering that reward (i.e. money) can provide a financial incentive to increase participants' intentions to lie (Aquino, Freeman, Reed, Lim, & Felps, 2009; Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006), we manipulated the reward level to provide a higher ($10 or $0.50) and a lower ($8 or $0.20) reward to provide different financial incentives. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study tested whether the presence of an attractive face would influence individuals' honesty. In 2 experiments, 225 participants were asked to predict the outcome of computerised coin-flips and to self-report the accuracy of their predictions. Self-reports were made in the presence of a facial photo of a female who had been rated before the experiment as high attractive, middle attractive or low attractive by other volunteers. Participants were rewarded based on their self-reported (not actual) accuracy. The results showed that subjects tended to give more dishonest self-reports when presented with middle or low attractive facial images than when presented with high attractive images, with self-reported accuracy being significantly higher than the random level. The results of this study show that presented with an attractive face, subjects tend to engage in behaviours that conform to moral codes.
    International Journal of Psychology 09/2015; DOI:10.1002/ijop.12218 · 1.23 Impact Factor
  • 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
Show more