Money Priming and Social Behavior of Natural Groups in Simple Bargaining and Dilemma Experiments

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractWe examine the effects of money priming and solidarity on individual behavior in three simple experiments: dictator game, ultimatum game, and prisoner's dilemma. Our study comprises two money treatments and two neutral (control) treatments. Additionally, we control for the strength of social ties between experimental participants. Although our priming procedure is sufficient to remind people of the concept of money, it is not sufficient to induce systematically different behavior of the treatment groups compared to the control groups.Moreover, we do not find any significant differences between groups with strong vs. weak social ties. Since our findings contradict previous research, it calls for further investigation on the topic of how money priming influences economic behavior. JEL: C78, C9, D36PsycINFO: 3020Keywords: money priming; bargaining; dilemma; social behavior; natural groups; economic experiment Acknowledgements: We want to express our gratitude to Kathleen D. Vohs and Agata Gasiorowska for valuable comments. We thank Katharina Gangl for helping with manipulation check.

The Effect of Money Denomination on Prosocial Behavior: Through the Perspective of Metaphorical Cognitive Theory

“…This research also did some contributions to clarify the controversy whether money priming would reduce prosocial behavior. In the research Study 2 found that the presence of money inspired similar or higher levels of prosocial behavior than a lack of money, which is inconsistent with previous research results (Gasiorowska et al., 2016; Gino & Pierce, 2009; Guéguen & Jacob, 2013; Teng et al., 2016; Vohs, 2015; Vohs et al., 2006) but consistent with the findings of some other studies (Beus & Whitman, 2017; Michailova & Bühren, 2017; Yang et al., 2013). For example, Experiment 2 and 3 by Yang et al.…”

“…This research also did some contributions to clarify the controversy whether money priming would reduce prosocial behavior. In the research Study 2 found that the presence of money inspired similar or higher levels of prosocial behavior than a lack of money, which is inconsistent with previous research results (Gasiorowska et al, 2016;Gino & Pierce, 2009;Gu eguen & Jacob, 2013;Teng et al, 2016;Vohs, 2015;Vohs et al, 2006) but consistent with the findings of some other studies (Beus & Whitman, 2017;Michailova & Bu¨hren, 2017;Yang et al, 2013). For example, Experiment 2 and 3 by Yang et al (2013) showed that the main effect of money versus paper on prosocial behavior was not significant; Beus and Whitman (2017) did not find individuals show less prosocial behavior when they were money primed; and Andreoni et al (2017) found the rich are more prosocial than the poor.…”

“…Previous studies seemed to use a variety of denominations in their money condition and failed to control for the effect of denomination that larger denominations could produce more prosocial behavior than smaller denominations. For example, Michailova and Bu¨hren (2017) showed seven paper currency (5 euros, 10 euros, 20 euros, 50 euros, 100 euros, 200 euros and 500 euros each) and six coins (1 euro cent, 2 euro cents, 5 euro cents, 10 euro cents, 20 euro cents and 50 euro cents each) on a single picture in their money priming condition of Experiment 1, no significant money priming effect on participants' decision on dictator game and ultimatum game was found. They further found money priming inspired the participants of Kassel University to be more cooperative in prisoner's dilemma.…”

“…Similarly, there was no obvious conflict of interest between participants and experimenters. This kind of relationship without conflict of interest is different from the common economic game scenarios, which are often used to measure prosocial behavior (Michailova & Bühren, 2017; Yang et al., 2013). In economic games, such as the dictator game, there are often conflicts of interest between decision makers and those who are affected by their decisions.…”

Priming in economics

“…We limit ourselves to "economic" experiments, i.e., experiments where subjects' decisions are financially incentivized. 2 Priming in incentivized experiments has also been used to render other concepts salient, such as money [10,15,16], markets and competition [17][18][19], intuitive reasoning [18,20,21], morality [14,22], and observability [23][24][25][26][27]. We further discuss recent concerns related to priming research and lay out avenues for future research.…”