Two studies demonstrated that subjective socioeconomic status moderates the effects of reminders of money on the endorsement of the socioeconomic system. Whether reminders of money increased or decreased system justification (Study 1) and the belief in a just world (Study 2) depended on participants’ subjectively experienced standing in the social hierarchy. These findings were backed up by a small-scale meta-analysis across our entire data (N = 365). Hence, we also included a third study into the meta-analysis, in which the manipulation check indicated that the mental activation of money was comparably weak. This research offers new insights into the psychological mechanisms of money primes and reveals that interindividual differences, such as whether one feels privileged or not, can moderate the effects of money primes.
AsendorpfJ. B.ConnerM.De FruytF.De HouwerJ.DenissenJ. J. A.FiedlerK.…WichertsJ. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108–119. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1919
2.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
3.
BoucherH. C.KofosM. N. (2012). The idea of money counteracts ego depletion effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 804–810. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.003
4.
BraverS. L.ThoemmesF. J.RosenthalR. (2014). Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 333–342. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691614529796
5.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LundbergK. B.KayA. C.PayneB. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26, 15–26. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614553947
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. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029288
7.
CesarioJ. (2014). Priming, replication, and the hardest science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 40–48. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691613513470
8.
CesarioJ.JonasK. J. (2014). Replicability and models of priming: What a resource computation framework can tell us about expectations of replicability. Social Cognition, 32, 124–136. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.supp.124
9.
CummingG. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group.
10.
DemakakosP.NazrooJ.BreezeE.MarmotM. (2008). Socioeconomic status and health: The role of subjective social status. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 330–340. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.038
DohrenwendB. S. (1973). Social status and stressful life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 225–235. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035718
13.
DunnE. W.AkninL. B.NortonM. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319, 1687–1688. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1150952
14.
Esping-AndersenG.with GallieD.HemerijckA.MylesJ. (2002). Why we need a new welfare state. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
15.
FiscellaK.FranksP. (1997). Poverty or income inequality as predictor of mortality: Longitudinal cohort study. British Medical Journal, 314, 1724–1728. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7096.1724
16.
GąsiorowskaA.HełkaA. (2012). Psychological consequences of money and money attitudes in dictator game. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 43, 20–26. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10059-012-0003-8
GinoF.PierceL. (2009). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 142–155. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.003
19.
HansenJ.KutznerF.WänkeM. (2013). Money and thinking: Reminders of money trigger abstract construal and shape consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 1154–1166. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667691
20.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
HuntM. O. (2000). Status, religion, and the “Belief in a just world”: Comparing African Americans, Latinos, and Whites. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 325–343. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/42864385
22.
JiangY.ChenZ.WyerR. S.Jr (2014). Impact of money on emotional expression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 228–233. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.013
23.
JohnsonW.KruegerR. F. (2006). How money buys happiness: Genetic and environmental processes linking finances and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 680–691. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.680
24.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
25.
JostJ. T.BurgessD. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 293–305. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265003
26.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
27.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.CarvalloM. R. (2002). Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 586–602. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00505-X
28.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.SheldonO.Ni SullivanB. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.127
29.
KayA. C.FriesenJ. (2011). On social stability and social change: Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 360–364. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721411422059
30.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “Poor but honest” Stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823
31.
KleinR. A.RatliffK. A.VianelloM.AdamsR. B.JrBahníkŠ.BernsteinM. J.…NosekB. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
32.
KouchakiM.Smith-CroweK.BriefA. P.SousaC. (2013). Seeing green: Mere exposure to money triggers a business decision frame and unethical outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 53–61. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.12.002
33.
LasaletaJ. D.SedikidesC.VohsK. D. (2014). Nostalgia weakens the desire for money. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 713–729. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1086/677227
34.
LockeE. A. (2015). Theory building, replication, and behavioral priming: Where do we need to go from here?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 408–414. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691614567231
35.
MackenbachJ. P.MartikainenP.LoomanC. W.DalstraJ. A.KunstA. E.LahelmaE., & members of the SedHA working group. (2005). The shape of the relationship between income and self-assessed health: an international study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34, 286–293. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh338
36.
McLeodJ. D.KesslerR. C. (1990). Socioeconomic status differences in vulnerability to undesirable life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31, 162–172. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2137170
37.
MogilnerC. (2010). The pursuit of happiness: Time, money, and social connection. Psychological Science, 21, 1348–1354. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610380696
38.
OldmeadowJ.FiskeS. T. (2007). System-justifying ideologies moderate status = competence stereotypes: roles for belief in a just world and social dominance orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1135–1148. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.428
39.
PiffP. K.KrausM. W.CôtéS.ChengB. H.KeltnerD. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 771–784. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020092
40.
QuoidbachJ.DunnE. W.PetridesK. V.MikolajczakM. (2010). Money giveth, money taketh away: The dual effect of wealth on happiness. Psychological Science21, 759–763. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371963
41.
ReutnerL.WänkeM. (2013). For my own benefit or for the benefit of others: Reminders of money moderate the effects of self-related versus other-related persuasive arguments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 220–223. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550612450052
42.
RohrerD.PashlerH.HarrisC. (2015). Do subtle reminders of money change people’s political views?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 73–85. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000058
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, 86–93. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000091
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. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00576.x
47.
WheelerS. C.BergerJ. (2007). When the same prime leads to different effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 357–368. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1086/518547
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.
