Hannah Tait, Natalia Manning & Fiona McNeill
1





Foundations:
Money = incentive (Lea & Webley, 2006)
Money undermines interpersonal harmony
(Amato & Rogers, 1997)
Are both right? Are both a result of selfsufficiency?
Self Sufficiency
◦ Being free from needing others to effectively
perform a task
◦ Socially insensitive: others can also do it themselves
2
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
Exp.
N
1




52
Conditions
Priming method
3 Descramble/Monopoly money
DV
Time taken to ask for help
Sig. level
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
5

But did the experimenter’s perceived status
influence the participant’s behaviour?....
6
Exp.
N
2
38



Conditions
Priming method
2 Essay
DV
Time taken to ask for help
Sig. level
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
8
Exp.
N
3



39
Conditions
Priming method
2 Descramble
DV
Sig. level
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

But as the experimenter asked for help in
the future did money primed participants
fail to realise that help was truly
needed?….
10
Exp.
4



N
44
Condi
-tions
Priming method
2 Descramble
DV
Time spent helping a peer
Sig. level
p<0.04
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
11

But did participants perceive that helping
the confederate required previous
knowledge?….
12
Exp.
5




N
36
Condi
-tions
Priming method
3 Monopoly money,
Imagine
DV
Sig. level
Number of pencils gathered
p<0.02,
p<0.05
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).
13
Exp.
N
6
44





Condi
-tions
Priming method
2 Descramble
DV
Value of monetary donation
Sig. level
p<0.05
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
14
Exp.
N
7
36






Condi
-tions
Priming method
3 Screensavers
DV
Physical distance from
partner
Sig.
level
P<0.05,
p<0.05
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
15
16
Exp.
N
8
61






Condi
-tions
Priming method
3 Posters
DV
Number of solitary
activities chosen
Sig.
level
P<0.05,
p<0.05
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
17
18
Exp.
N
9
37




Condi
-tions
Priming method
3 Screensavers
DV
Choice whether to work
alone or in a pair
Sig.
level
P<0.05,
p<0.05
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
19
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



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





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
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








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


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

Increasing salary may make you work harder
◦ But can increasing salary decrease employees prosociability? (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




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 longterm real life?
27



Test in a country that values social networks
more and individualism less e.g. Japan
Test using people of differing socioeconomic status
Longitudinal within subjects study
28






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

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), 208212.
30


Vohs, K.D., Mead, N.L. & Goode, M.R. (2006) The
Psychological Consequences of Money. Science, 314, 11541156.
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5802/1154/DC1
31
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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.
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.
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, 161209.
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.
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.
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.
Quoidbach, J., Dunn, E.W., Petrides, K.V. & Mikolajczak, M. (2010) Money
Giveth, Money Taketh Away, Psychological Science, 21(6), 759-763.
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