1. Hannah Tait, Natalia Manning & Fiona McNeill 1

2.  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

3.  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

4. Exp.N Condi- tions Priming methodDVSig. level 1523Descramble/Monopoly moneyTime taken to ask for helpp<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. 5

6.  But did the experimenter’s perceived status influence the participant’s behaviour?.... 6

7. Exp.N Condi- tions Priming methodDVSig. level 2382EssayTime taken to ask for helpp=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. 8

9. Exp.N Condi- tions Priming methodDVSig. level 3392DescrambleTime 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

10.  But as the experimenter asked for help in the future did money primed participants fail to realise that help was truly needed?…. 10

11.  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.NCondi -tions Priming methodDVSig. level 4442DescrambleTime spent helping a peerp<0.04 11

12.  But did participants perceive that helping the confederate required previous knowledge?…. 12

13.  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.NCondi -tions Priming methodDVSig. level 5363Monopoly money, Imagine Number of pencils gatheredp<0.02, p<0.05 13

14.  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.NCondi -tions Priming methodDVSig. level 6442DescrambleValue of monetary donationp<0.05 14

15.  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.NCondi -tions Priming methodDVSig. level 7363ScreensaversPhysical distance from partner P<0.05, p<0.05 15

16. 16

17.  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.NCondi -tions Priming methodDVSig. level 8613PostersNumber of solitary activities chosen P<0.05, p<0.05 17

18. 18

19.  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.NCondi -tions Priming methodDVSig. level 9373ScreensaversChoice whether to work alone or in a pair P<0.05, p<0.05 19

20. Exp.NCondi -tions Priming methodDVSig. level 1523Descramble/Monopoly money Time taken to ask for helpp<0.02, p<0.03 2382EssayTime taken to ask for helpp=0.05 3392DescrambleTime volunteered to help experimenter p<0.05 4442DescrambleTime spent helping a peerp<0.04 5363Monopoly money, Imagine Number of pencils gathered p<0.02, p<0.05 6442DescrambleValue of monetary donation p<0.05 7363ScreensaversPhysical distance from partner P<0.05, p<0.05 8613PostersNumber of solitary activities chosen P<0.05, p<0.05 9373ScreensaversChoice whether to work alone or in a pair P<0.05, p<0.05 20

21.  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

22.  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

23.  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

24.  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

25.  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

26.  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

27.  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

28.  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

29.  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

30.  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

31.  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

32. 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