A major challenge for accumulating knowledge in psychology is the variation in methods and participant populations across studies in a single domain. We offer a systematic approach to addressing this challenge and implement it in the domain of money priming. In three preregistered experiments (N = 4,649), participants were exposed to one of a number of money manipulations before completing self-report measures of money activation (Study 1); engaging in a behavioral-persistence task (Study 3); completing self-report measures of subjective wealth, self-sufficiency, and communion-agency (Studies 1–3); and completing demographic questions (Studies 1–3). Four of the five manipulations we tested activated the concept of money, but, contrary to what we expected based on the preponderance of the published literature, no manipulation consistently affected any dependent measure. Moderation by sociodemographic characteristics was sparse and inconsistent across studies. We discuss implications for theories of money priming and explain how our approach can complement recent efforts to build a reproducible, cumulative psychological science.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751–763.
2.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592.
3.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D. (2015). The meanings of money: Behavioral, interpersonal, cognitive, motivational, and affective consequences of money-related thoughts. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
4.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.FunderD. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403.
5.
BoucherH. C.KofosM. N. (2012). The idea of money counteracts ego depletion effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 804–810.
6.
CarusoE. M.VohsK. D.BaxterB.WaytzA. (2013). Mere exposure to money increases endorsement of free-market systems and social inequality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 301–306.
7.
CesarioJ. (2014). Priming, replication, and the hardest science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 40–48.
DoyenS.KleinO.SimonsD.CleeremansA. (2014). On the other side of the mirror: Priming in cognitive and social psychology. Social Cognition, 32, 12–32.
10.
GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H.MageeJ. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466.
11.
GasiorowskaA. (2014). Psychologize znaczenie pienie˛dzy: Dlaczego pienie˛dze wzbudzaja˛ koncentracje˛ na sobie [The psychological meaning of money: Why money induces self-focus]. Warsaw, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
12.
KleinR. A.RatliffK.VianelloM.AdamsA. B.Jr.BahnkS.BernsteinN. B.NosekB. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “Many Labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152.
13.
KrausM. W.PiffP. K.Mendoza-DentonR.RheinschmidtM. L.KeltnerD. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119, 546–572.
14.
KushlevK.DunnE. W.Ashton-JamesC. E. (2012). Does affluence impoverish the experience of parenting?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1381–1384.
15.
LammersJ.GalinskyA. D.GordijnE. H.OttenS. (2012). Power increases social distance. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3, 282–290.
16.
LedgerwoodA. (2014). Introduction to the special section on advancing our methods and practices. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 275–277.
17.
LindsayS. D. (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science, 26, 1827–1832.
18.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
LockeE. A. (2015). Theory building, replication, and behavioral priming: Where do we need to go from here?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 408–414.
20.
MogilnerC. (2010). The pursuit of happiness: Time, money, and social connection. Psychological Science, 21, 1348–1354.
21.
NosekB. A.SpiesJ. R.MotylM. (2012). Scientific utopia II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631.
22.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 943.
23.
PfefferJ.DeVoeS. E. (2009). Economic evaluation: The effect of money and economics on attitudes about volunteering. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 500–508.
24.
PiffP. K. (2014). Wealth and the inflated self class, entitlement, and narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 34–43.
25.
RohrerD.PashlerH.HarrisC. R. (2015). Do subtle reminders of money change people’s political views?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, e73–e85.
26.
SchulerJ.WänkeM. (2016). A fresh look on money priming: Feeling privileged or not makes a difference. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 7, 366–373.
27.
ShapiraO.MoloukiS.MeadN. L.CarusoE. M. (2014, February). I think I have, therefore I deserve: Thinking about money increases men’s sense of entitlement. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX.
28.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
29.
SmithP. K.GalinskyA. D. (2010). The nonconscious nature of power: Cues and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 918–938.
StroebeW.StrackF. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 59–71.
32.
Van BavelJ. J.Mende-SiedleckiP.BradyW. J.ReineroD. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113, 6454–6459.
33.
van ElkeM.MatzheD.GronauQ. F.GuanM.VandekerckhoveJ.WagenmakersE.-J. (2015). Meta-analyses are no substitute for registered replications: A skeptical perspective on religious priming. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1365. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01365
34.
VohsK. D. (2015). Money priming can change people’s thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behaviors: An update on 10 years of experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, e86–e93.
35.
VohsK. D.MeadN. L.GoodeM. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314, 1154–1156.
36.
VohsK. D.MeadN. L.GoodeM. R. (2008). Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 208–212.
YongJ. C.LiN. P. (2012). Cash in hand, want better looking mate: Significant resource cues raise men’s mating standards. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 55–58.
39.
ZhouH.FishbachA. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the Web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 493–504.
40.
ZhouX.VohsK. D.BaumeisterR. F. (2009). The symbolic power of money: Reminders of money alter social distress and physical pain. Psychological Science, 20, 700–706.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
