Money priming can change people’s thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behaviors: An update on 10 years of experiments.

Abstract

Caruso, Vohs, Baxter, and Waytz (2013) posited that because money is used in free market exchanges, cues of money would lead people to justify and support the systems that allow those exchanges to take place. Hence, the authors predicted that money primes would boost system justification, social dominance, belief in a just world, and free market ideology, and found supportive evidence. Rohrer, Pashler, and Harris (2015) failed to replicate those effects. This article discusses the factors that predict priming effects, and particularly those pertinent to differences between Caruso et al. and Rohrer et al. Variations in a prime's meaning, the ease with which primed content comes to mind, the prime's motivational importance, and the ambiguity of the outcome situation influence the impact of the prime. Money priming experiments (totaling 165 to date, from 18 countries) point to at least 2 major effects. First, compared to neutral primes, people reminded of money are less interpersonally attuned. They are not prosocial, caring, or warm. They eschew interdependence. Second, people reminded of money shift into professional, business, and work mentality. They exert effort on challenging tasks, demonstrate good performance, and feel efficacious. Money priming is not the same as priming another popular means of exchange, credit cards, and can have bigger effects when there is an implied connection between the self and having money. The practical benefits of money have been studied by other disciplines for decades, and the time is now for psychologists to study the effects of merely being reminded of money.

Does money change political views? – An investigation of money priming and the preference for right-wing politics

“…We considered the hypothesis that money primes change people's political orientation, which was suggested by several publications (e.g., Caruso et al, 2013;Vohs, 2015;Zedelius et al, 2013) and subsequently questioned by other researchers (Klein et al, 2014;Rohrer et al, 2015;Schuler & Wänke, 2016;Vadillo, Hardwicke, & Shanks, 2016). We adopted a multistudy approach and across seven studies, we found little evidence for a main effect of money priming on political orientation among German participants.…”

“…Thus, because money priming triggers central convictions of right-wing politics, money primes should also make people endorse rightwing politics in general. On the other hand, reminders of money lead to a focus on personal concerns and one's personal advantages (see Gino & Pierce, 2009;Kouchaki et al, 2013;Reutner & Wänke, 2013;Vohs, 2015;Vohs et al, 2006). Thus, money priming should make people endorse a political orientation that increases their personal benefits.…”

“…Because the suggested psychological mechanisms of money priming seem to be universal and have been found across many different countries (see Vohs, 2015), we did not expect particular cultural differences.…”

“…Previous research across Western countries suggested that some of the core beliefs of political right-wing orientation such as the acceptance of social inequality, social dominance orientation, the justification of free market systems, and the conviction that only personal effort and achievement should be rewarded, are susceptible to subtle cues of money (Boucher & Kofos, 2012;Caruso et al, 2013;Vohs, 2015;Vohs et al, 2006Vohs et al, , 2008Zedelius et al, 2013). Thus, one may hypothesize that reminders of money subtly shift participants' political orientation to the right, because money primes change the beliefs and values on which it is built on.…”

“…Secondly and pertinent to the current research, Schuler and Wänke (2016) reasoned that if reminders of money stimulate people to focus more on their self and their personal benefits (e.g., Gino & Pierce, 2009;Reutner & Wänke, 2013;Vohs, 2015;Vohs et al, 2006), they should also favor a system which serves these personal needs as compared to a system which serves the necessities of others. Accordingly, the authors showed that when being primed with money, U.S. participants who felt socioeconomically privileged showed more support of the U.S.-American societal system that favors members from the upper levels of society, compared to participants who felt socioeconomically disadvantaged.…”