Hannah Tait, Natalia Manning & Fiona McNeill 1
Dec 30, 2015
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
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 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
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
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
But as the experimenter asked for help in the future did money primed participants fail to realise that help was truly needed?….
10
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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), 208-212.
30
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
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