Nicole L. Mead

The psychological consequences of money.

Money has been said to change peoples motivation (mainly for the better) and their behavior toward others (mainly for the worse). The results of nine experiments suggest that money brings about a self-sufficient orientation in which people prefer to be free of dependency and dependents. Reminders of money, relative to nonmoney reminders, led to reduced requests for help and reduced helpfulness toward others. Relative to participants primed with neutral concepts, participants primed with money preferred to play alone, work alone, and put more physical distance between themselves and a new acquaintance.

Social exclusion causes people to spend and consume strategically in the service of affiliation

When peoples deeply ingrained need for social connection is thwarted by social exclusion, profound psychological consequences ensue. Despite the fact that social connections and consumption are central facets of daily life, little empirical attention has been devoted to understanding how belongingness threats affect consumer behavior. In four experiments, we tested the hypothesis that social exclusion causes people to spend and consume strategically in the service of affiliation. Relative to controls, excluded participants were more likely to buy a product symbolic of group membership (but not practical or self-gift items), tailor their spending preferences to the preferences of an interaction partner, spend money on an unappealing food item favored by a peer, and report being willing to try an illegal drug, but only when doing so boosted their chances of commencing social connections. Overall, results suggest that socially excluded people sacrifice personal and financial well-being for the sake of social well-being.

The essential tension between leadership and power: when leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest.

Throughout human history, leaders have been responsible for helping groups attain important goals. Ideally, leaders use their power to steer groups toward desired outcomes. However, leaders can also use their power in the service of self-interest rather than effective leadership. Five experiments identified factors within both the person and the social context that determine whether leaders wield their power to promote group goals versus self-interest. In most cases, leaders behaved in a manner consistent with group goals. However, when their power was tenuous due to instability within the hierarchy, leaders high (but not low) in dominance motivation prioritized their own power over group goals: They withheld valuable information from the group, excluded a highly skilled group member, and prevented a proficient group member from having any influence over a group task. These self-interested actions were eliminated when the group was competing against a rival outgroup. Findings provide important insight into factors that influence the way leaders navigate the essential tension between leadership and power.

How Leaders Self-Regulate Their Task Performance: Evidence That Power Promotes Diligence, Depletion, and Disdain

When leaders perform solitary tasks, do they self-regulate to maximize their effort, or do they reduce effort and conserve their resources? Our model suggests that power motivates self-regulation toward effective performance-unless the task is perceived as unworthy of leaders. Our 1st studies showed that power improves self-regulation and performance, even when resources for self-regulation are low (ego depletion). Additional studies showed that leaders sometimes disdain tasks they deem unworthy, by withholding effort (and therefore performing poorly). Ironically, during ego depletion, leaders skip the appraisal and, therefore, work hard regardless of task suitability, so that depleted leaders sometimes outperform nondepleted ones. Our final studies replicated these patterns with different tasks and even with simple manipulation of framing and perception of the same task (Experiment 5). Experiment 4 also showed that the continued high exertion of leaders when depleted takes a heavy toll, resulting in larger impairments later. The judicious expenditure of self-control resources among powerful people may help them prioritize their efforts to pursue their goals effectively.

Political partisanship influences perception of biracial candidates' skin tone

People tend to view members of their own political group more positively than members of a competing political group. In this article, we demonstrate that political partisanship influences peoples visual representations of a biracial political candidates skin tone. In three studies, participants rated the representativeness of photographs of a hypothetical (Study 1) or real (Barack Obama; Studies 2 and 3) biracial political candidate. Unbeknownst to participants, some of the photographs had been altered to make the candidates skin tone either lighter or darker than it was in the original photograph. Participants whose partisanship matched that of the candidate they were evaluating consistently rated the lightened photographs as more representative of the candidate than the darkened photographs, whereas participants whose partisanship did not match that of the candidate showed the opposite pattern. For evaluations of Barack Obama, the extent to which people rated lightened photographs as representative of him was positively correlated with their stated voting intentions and reported voting behavior in the 2008 Presidential election. This effect persisted when controlling for political ideology and racial attitudes. These results suggest that peoples visual representations of others are related to their own preexisting beliefs and to the decisions they make in a consequential context.

On keeping your enemies close: powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats.

Throughout history, humans have had to detect and deflect myriad threats from their social and physical environment in order to survive and flourish. When people detect a threat, the most common response is avoidance. In the present research, the authors provide evidence that ingroup power threats elicit a very different response. Three experiments supported the hypothesis that dominant leaders seek proximity to ingroup members who pose a threat to their power, as a way to control and downregulate the threat that those members pose. In each experiment, leaders high (but not low) in dominance motivation sought proximity to an ingroup member who threatened their power. Consistent with the hypothesis that increased proximity was designed to help leaders protect their own power, the proximity effect was apparent only under conditions of unstable power (not stable power), only in the absence of intergroup competition (not when a rival outgroup was present), and only toward a threatening group member (not a neutral group member). Moreover, the effect was mediated by perceptions of threat (Experiment 1) and the desire to monitor the threatening group member (Experiment 3). These results shed new light on one key strategy through which dominant leaders try to maintain control over valuable yet potentially threatening group members. Findings have implications for theories of power, leadership, and group behavior.

Social Rejection Can Reduce Pain and Increase Spending: Further Evidence That Money, Pain, and Belongingness Are Interrelated

At first blush,money, pain, and social support would seem to be worlds apart. Pain is a fundamental biological fact built into the bodies of almost all animals. Social support, reflected in the subjective impact of social acceptance and rejection, is limited to social animals (of which there are many varieties, to be sure) and is a mixture of biological and social factors. Money, meanwhile, is limited to human beings who live in culture. It is entirely a cultural invention. Despite being based in entirely different kinds of reality and different spheres of life, money, pain, and social support have surprisingly strong interrelationships, as shown in the review by Zhou and Gao (this issue). In this commentary, we seek to build on their analysis by developing two crucial points. First, the view that social rejection brings pain is too broad and simple a formulation. We present and integrate evidence that the immediate reaction to social exclusion often includes a temporary reduction of the capacity to feel pain. Second, the formula that rejected people want and cling to money is also overly simple, and we present evidence that rejected people sometimes spend more freely than others. Despite these seeming contradictions, we argue that these findings actually fit well with the broad theoretical themes that Zhou and Gao raise, even though some refinements are necessary.

Two sides of the same coin: Money can promote and hinder interpersonal processes

Money is a complex phenomenon: it has the potential to unite people from opposite corners of the globe but it can also be the source of strife and suffering. Understanding when, why, and how money changes interpersonal processes is thus an important endeavor for many academic disciplines. To shed light on these questions, this chapter reviews a growing body of research that has investigated the linkages between interpersonal outcomes and money in its varied forms, such as loving money, having money, and merely thinking about money. To date, the majority of the psychological literature points to money hindering interpersonal harmony and inner processes that facilitate interpersonal outcomes. Yet emerging evidence indicates that money has the potential to foster interpersonal harmony, particularly in exchange contexts or when the dominant exchange function of money is overridden by communal motives. Although money and power have elicited similar outcomes, power cannot explain all the cognitive, motivational, and behavioral consequences of money. Future research should therefore continue to disentangle how money and power similarly and differentially alter interpersonal processes. Additionally, research should continue to uncover the interpersonally beneficial consequences of money, so that future generations can fully utilize the remarkable strengths of money for the benefit of many.

No match for money: Even in intimate relationships and collectivistic cultures, reminders of money weaken sociomoral responses

Abstract The present research tested two competing hypotheses: (1) as money cues activate an exchange orientation to social relations, money cues harm prosocial responses in communal and collectivistic settings; (2) as money can be used to help close others, money cues increase helping in communal or collectivistic settings. In a culture, characterized by strong helping norms, money cues reduced the quality of help given (Experiment 1), and lowered perceived moral obligation to help (Experiment 2). In communal relationships, money reminders decreased willingness to help romantic partners (Experiment 3). This effect was attenuated among people high on communal strength, although money cues made them upset with help requests (Experiment 4). Thus, the harmful effects of money on prosocial responses appear robust.

Simple Pleasures, Small Annoyances, and Goal Progress in Daily Life

Despite the explosion of research on goal pursuit, relatively little is known about the shaping of goal progress by the simple experiences that characterize everyday life. Two literatures furnish competing predictions about the relationship between pleasant daily experiences (simple pleasures), unpleasant daily experiences (small annoyances), and day-to-day goal progress. A 6-day experience-sampling study revealed support for the favored integrative account. On a given day, a relatively high number of simple pleasures offset the negative relationship between the number of small annoyances and goal progress through a restoration of daily happiness rather than a reduction of daily stress. This study highlights the bright side of pleasurable experiences, indicating that goal progress can flourish in a life punctuated with frequent simple pleasures because they help offset daily irritations. As natural precursors to positive and negative affect, simple pleasures and small annoyances could be powerful predictors of important consumer outcomes.