Assignment 2. 7132581. Teagan Lowe. PSY2001 6 PDF

Preview

Summary

Social Psychology Research Report...

Description

Assignment 2: Research Report

1! of 14 !

The effect of Money Priming on Individual Altruistic Behaviour with relation to Political Orientation

PSY20016: Social Psychology Word limit: 2,700 (+/- 10%) Word count: 2,968 words Weighting: 40% Due: 5pm AEDT, Monday, 13th January, 2019

Teagan Lowe Student ID: 7132581 eLA: Trisha Evers!

Assignment 2: Research Report

2! of 14 !

Abstract

This study examines the effect of money priming on an individual’s altruistic behaviour. Evidence suggests that reminders of money cause people to behave self-sufficiently and tend to reduce charitable behaviour (Vohs, Mead & Goode, 2008). Several theoretical explanations for this effect have been proposed within literature. Students attending an online tutorial (N = 140) were used to examine association between money and altruism is moderated by political orientation. Independent samples t-tests were used to compare the means between money priming (High-money versus Low-money condition) groups and political orientation (left versus right). Results indicated that high affluence primes increase self-interested behaviour. No difference between political orientation was found. The interaction was insignificant in ANOVA. The study demonstrates that participants exposed to a narrative describing an affluent individual (High-money), display less altruistic behaviour; operationalised as imagined tax donations to charity. However this effect is not moderated by baseline political orientation.

"

Assignment 2: Research Report

3! of 14 !

Money has streamlined several economic processes for our species since its recent development in our evolutionary history (Wright, 1995). Evidence suggests that the effect money has on an individual’s behaviour may be moderated by their existing political orientation (Reed, Aquino & Levy 2007; Van Lange, et al., 2012). Exactly how the concept of money influences social behaviour, its valence and the interaction with political orientation is the subject of ongoing debate. Understanding how money influences social behaviour differently depending on political orientation allows for more efficient tailoring of initiatives targeting broader social issues which affect populations as a whole. This field of research draws upon several related concepts which need to be clearly defined. Simply reminding individuals of money, can influence their cognition and behaviour in subsequent tasks, this is known as money priming (Vohs, 2015). This technique is used to demonstrate that humans are often susceptible to subtle, often unconscious, cues (or primes) of money. One outcome variable often measured to demonstrate the influence of money is ‘self-interested behaviour’, a term describing individuals who concentrate on their own agenda rather than attending to the needs of others. Vohs et al.’s studies on psychological consequences of money show that money priming causes individual’s to display more self-interested behaviour (Vohs, Mead & Goode, 2008). Additionally, their research suggests that when participants are reminded of money, they prefer to do tasks alone; work alone, not ask for assistance, play alone, keep a physical distance between themselves and others and are less inclined to donate to charitable causes (Vohs, Mead & Goode, 2008). This research highlights both negative and positive consequences of money primes. Money priming reduce an individual’s helpfulness and promotes separation from others. Conversely, money priming increases persistence in challenging tasks or taking on more work for oneself (Vohs, Mead & Goode, 2008).

Assignment 2: Research Report

4! of 14 !

More recently, research has examined the association between political orientation, on a spectrum of conservative (Right-wing) through to liberal (Left-wing) and altruism (selfless concern for the wellbeing of others) often operationalised in financial means. The evidence that priming the concept of money leads individuals to act in a more self-interested manner is considerable. One way that self-sufficient behaviour has been utilised is by measuring altruism. Vohs, Mead and Goode (2006) demonstrated that participants who read an essay describing their upbringing as affluent were less likely to ask for help in a follow up task compared to participants whose background was described as impoverished. The same authors found that participants who descrambled phrases priming money, donated significantly less money to a confederate compared to participants who descrambled neutral phrases. This is noteworthy as it demonstrates that money has a measurable influence on altruism when primed outside conscious awareness, without reference to an individual’s own personal financial context. Several theoretical accounts for these priming effects have been proposed. Firstly, money primes appear to decrease interpersonal attention and increase independent agency, otherwise known as ‘self-sufficiency’ (Vohs, Mead & Goode, 2006). ‘Self-sufficiency’ describes individual focus on pursuit and attainment of goals without assistance from others. Research has found that money primes do increase ‘work mentality’ operationalised as increased persistence on unsolvable tasks (Vohs, Mead & Goode, 2006). This theory suggests that if money cues promote selfsufficiency and individualism, it should have a negative association with pro-social behaviour (Vohs, 2015). A second component underpinning the priming effect has been proposed involving the activation of an ‘exchange’ schema. Money may be exchanged for goods or services, without the need to establish the reciprocal, positive interpersonal rapport required for an effective bartering system (Weatherford, 1998). An individual does not need to invest effort deciphering the needs of

Assignment 2: Research Report

5! of 14 !

others when the transaction may be expedited with the exchange of currency. People use money in trading goods and services, and they exchange work/effort for money (Weatherford, 1998). A third theory suggests that money alters values, ethics and morals (Kouchaki et al., 2013). This effect may be negative, such as increasing rates of cheating and unethical activities (Kouchaki et al., 2013). However, the effect of money primes on ethics and morals may also be positive. Yang and colleagues (2013) found while priming the concept of ‘dirty money’ (unclean, stolen, buried) did elicit negative influence on moral behaviour, priming ‘clean money’ (clean, crisp, unhandled notes) did lead participants to act fairly and in a manner promoting positive reciprocity (Yang et al., 2013). This theory suggests that the effect that money primes have on subsequent moral behaviour may differ according to individual differences in the baseline conceptualisation of money. An individual’s baseline conceptualisation of money is likely to be reflected in their political orientation. Before exploring potential interaction, it is important to first examine how selfinterested behaviour is associated with political orientation, independent of money. Zettler and Hilbig (2010) explored the idea that personality factors account for significant variance in pro-social behaviour. They found that individuals who scored high on a scale of altruism were more likely to identify as having left-wing political orientation. The authors suggested that a desire for social equality amongst left-wing participants may be responsible for effect. A significant negative association between altruism and conservative political orientation was determined (Zettler, Hilbig & Haubrich, 2011). This work demonstrated that association was positively correlated with forecasted voting behaviour in the real world. The authors again suggested that higher rates of altruism shown by leftwing participants was driven by a desire to reduce social inequality (Zettler, Hilbig & Haubrich, 2011). However, not only was this mediation not tested specifically, it appears to contradict evidence that left-wing individuals are more likely to see money as ‘dirty’, priming dishonesty and unfair behaviour.

Assignment 2: Research Report

6! of 14 !

The primary purpose of the current paper is to actuate which of these two competing theoretical explanations of the priming effect of money is more accurate. Who is more likely to act in an altruistic way: left-wing individuals aiming to reduce social inequality, despite a more negative view of money? Or, right-wing individuals who view money in positive ways, priming fairness and reciprocity, despite their self-interested ways? This research question will be addressed by testing three hypotheses. Firstly, given that money primes tend to increase self-interested behaviour, it is expected that participants exposed to a narrative describing an affluent individual (High-money) will exhibit less altruistic behaviour, operationalised as an imagined tax donation to charity. In comparison to participants who are exposed to a narrative about an impoverished individual (Low-money). Secondly, given that right-wing individuals tend to be less altruistic than left-wing individuals, it is expected that right-wing political orientation will be associated with lower tax donations to charity compared with left-wing participants. Lastly, two competing hypotheses are proposed to determine which theoretical explanation, for money priming effect, is more accurate. If right-wing participants are more likely to see money as ‘clean’, eliciting fairness and positive reciprocity, right-wing participants in the ‘Low-money’ condition should donate more tax to charity than left-wing participants in the same money condition (hypothesis 3a). Alternatively, if left-wing participants are motivated to alleviate social inequality, left-wing participants in the ‘Low-money’ condition should donate more tax to charity than rightwing participants in the same condition (hypothesis 3b).

Method Design Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the means between the money prime (High-money vs Low-money condition) groups. The purpose of this study was to test for any

Assignment 2: Research Report

7! of 14 !

perceived differences in response to simple reminders of money and its ability to change the way people engage in social behaviours. The study further investigated the differences between primes of fictional affluent and impoverished family background, whether certain types of political origination lead to more self-interested response (left-wing versus right-wing) and if these two potential origination groups differ in terms of how much they were affected by money priming. Participants The population consisted of 140 participants, however 30 were removed from the final dataset after failing the manipulation check. Therefore 110 students (75 female, 34 men and 1 other) were recruited as a sample of convenience during an online psychology tutorial at Swinburne University. Ages ranged between 19 and 43 years old (M = 22.6, SD = 4.63). Participants were selfdescribed Australian; 103 Australian Citizens, 4 Australian permanent residents and 3 Australian student visas. Participation was voluntary and designed to facilitate exposure to research practices. Money prime status was comprised of income brackets ranging between: “$0 to $10,000” and “$125,000 and above”. Measures The Qualtrics survey platform used an open response format for participants to disclose age and gender. To report income, the participants were asked “What is your annual household income?”. Responses were indicated using a 10-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “$0-10,000” through to 10 = “$125,000 and above”. High scores on this scale indicated participants came from more affluent financial backgrounds. The dependent variable of altruism was measured by asking participants to report tax donation behaviour in a hypothetical scenario. Responses were indicated on an 11-point scale ranging from 1 = “0%” through to 11 = “10%”. High scores on this scale indicate that participants were willing to donate more of their tax to charity, suggesting higher altruism.

Assignment 2: Research Report

8! of 14 !

Participants were asked “Imagine there is a proposal before government that means a small percentage of all your future tax returns would be allocated to an approved charity of your choosing up to a maximum portion of 10%. You can choose anywhere, including or between 0% and 10%, and none of this money is tax deductible the following year, it is a donation. Thinking about this, what percentage (if any) would you personally consider allocating to your charity?” The political orientation was measured by asking “Where do you see yourself politically on a scale of Left (Liberal) to Right (Conservative)?” Responses to this question were given using a sliding scale, where 0 = “Left” and 2 = “Right”. Responses on this scale were coded dichotomously where 0 – 1 = left-wing and 1.01 – 2 = right-wing. Procedure The experiment was conducted online during student tutorials as a class exercise. During the tutorial, participants followed a link which outlined the study procedure and offered their freedom to withdraw at anytime without academic penalty. Students willing to participate were able to opt into the study by following a link to the Qualtrics survey platform. Demographic questions including participant’s age, gender and residence were presented. In addition to relevant demographic questions, all participants were all asked to report their income. This first exposure to the concept of money meant that all participants, regardless of subsequent randomisation, had been primed by money in the context of their own financial situation. Experimental conditions After disclosing demographic questions and exposure to the initial money prime, participants were randomly allocated, using the inbuilt Qualtrics algorithm, into either the Highmoney versus Low-money condition. Participants in the High-money condition read a narrative written from the perspective of an individual from an affluent family, e.g. “I know that since my family has money, I have been provided with more opportunities than the average person.” Participants in the Low-money condition read a narrative written from the perspective of a family

Assignment 2: Research Report

9! of 14 !

with low income, e.g. “I grew up in a modest home, though it was small enough that I had to share a bedroom with one of my siblings”. Full descriptions can be found in supplementary materials. After reading the scenarios, participants responded to questions testing manipulation, socially desirable response bias, the dependent measure of altruism and political orientation.

Results A series of independent-samples t-tests were used to test hypothesis 1 and 2. Donation Behaviour was compared between participants in Low-money versus High-money conditions. There was a significant difference in the Donation Behaviour scores for Low-money (M = 6.48, SD = 3.20) and High-money (M= 5.09, SD = 2.91) conditions; t(108) = 2.37, p = 0.019. As expected, participants exposed to the High-money condition donated less tax to charity than participants in the Low-money condition. Hypothesis 1 was determined to be accurate. Donation Behaviour was compared between participants who identified as having a leftwing versus right-wing political orientation. There was no significant difference in the Donation Behaviour scores for Left (M = 5.35, SD = 3.11) versus Right (M = 6.18, SD = 3.12); t(108)=1.39, p = 0.166. Contrary to expectations, political orientation had no influence on Donation Behaviour as left-wing participants donated similar amounts of tax as their right-wing counterparts. Hypothesis 2 was false. A two-way between groups factorial ANOVA was conducted on the influence of Political Orientation (Left, Right) and Money Condition (High, Low) on the amount of tax donated to charity. Means and standard deviations are reported in table 1. The significant main effect of Money Condition was confirmed F(1, 106) = 4.52, p = 0.036), however, the interaction was not significant F(1, 106) = 0.62, p = 0.433. Contrary to expectations, the effect of Money on altruism was not moderated by Political Orientation, meaning that neither hypotheses 3a or 3b were correct. It is impossible, within the current data, to determine if left-wing participants were seeking to alleviate

Assignment 2: Research Report

10 ! of 14 !

social inequality, or right-wing participants primed towards reciprocal fairness, is driving the effect of money primes.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics across levels of Money Condition and Political Orientation Money Condition

Political Orientation

Mean (SD)

n

Low Money

Right

6.91 (3.08)

34

Left

5.80 (3.34)

22

Right

5.19 (2.95)

25

Left

5.01 (2.93)

29

High Money

Discussion There are two competing theoretical explanations for the priming effect of money on altruism. The aim of the current paper was to determine which explanation is more accurate. Who is more likely to act in an altruistic way: left-wing individuals aiming to reduce social inequality, despite a more negative view of money? Or, right-wing individuals who view money in a positive way, priming fairness and reciprocity, despite their tendency to act in self-interested way? As money primes tend to increase self-interested behaviour, it was expected that participants exposed to a narrative describing an affluent individual (High-money) would exhibit less altruistic behaviour. This is in comparison to participants who are exposed to a narrative about an impoverished individual (Low-money). Results indicated this was true. As Right-wing individuals tend to be less altruistic than Left-wing individuals, it was expected that Right-wing political orientation would be associated with lower tax donation to charity compared with Left-wing participants. Contrary to expectations, this hypothesis was false.

Assignment 2: Research Report

11 ! of 14 !

Two competing hypotheses were proposed to determine which theoretical explanation for the money priming effect might be more accurate. If right-wing participants (in the Low-money condition) are more likely to see money as ‘clean’, they should donate more tax to charity than Left-wing participants in the same money condition (hypothesis 3a). Alternatively, if left-wing participants are motivated to alleviate social inequality, in the Low-money condition, they should donate more tax to charity than right-wing participants in the same condition (hypothesis 3b). While there was a trend in favour of hypothesis 3a, appropriate statistical analysis ruled out the significance of the interaction. To test for an interaction between money exposure and political orientation, the use of a split-file analysis to conduct separate independent samples t-tests could only suggest an interaction. Therefore, the two-way between groups factorial ANOVA was conducted to determine if an interaction was significant within the current dataset. This study was not without limitations. Data on each participant’s baseline level of income was collected as an initial money prime. An opportunity was missed to use this demographic data to control for differences in participant socio-economic background. There may be mean differences in earning between members of each political orientation meaning that they may identify more strongly with affluence narratives, effecting subsequent altruism. There is a significant body of evidence that suggests that familiarity promotes pro-social behaviour. Experimental errors, such as failure to consider family history with money, or personal motivation to desire more money could effect the results. Additionally, one's cultural upbringing, or group culture/community has no...