Abstract
Building on recent literature, we examined whether subjective socioeconomic status moderated the impact of money priming on social distance. After manipulating the concept of money, participants indicated their social distance from others on a figure-based scale and evaluated their subjective SES on the MacArthur Ladder scale. Results showed that money priming significantly decreased the perceived social distance among people with lower subjective SES. The findings suggest that subjective SES differentially modulates the effect of money priming on the perception of social distance. This pattern in people with a lower level of subjective SES may stem from their perception of thinking money as a threat.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596.
Capaldi, C. A., & Zelenski, J. M. (2016). Seeing and being green? The effect of money priming on willingness to perform sustainable actions, social connectedness, and Prosociality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1047438.
Caruso, E. M., Shapira, O., & Landy, J. F. (2017). Show me the money: A systematic exploration of manipulations, moderators, and mechanisms of priming effects. Psychological Science, 28(8), 1148–1159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617706161.
Chan, E. Y., & Saqib, N. U. (2015). Online social networking increases financial risk-taking. Computers in Human Behavior, 51(Part A, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.002.
Cheon, B. K., & Hong, Y.-Y. (2017). Mere experience of low subjective socioeconomic status stimulates appetite and food intake. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607330114.
Christopher, A. N., Marek, P., & Carroll, S. M. (2004). Materialism and attitudes toward money: An exploratory investigation. Individual Differences Research, 2(2), 109–117.
Clark, M. S., Greenberg, A., Hill, E., Lemay, E. P., Clark-Polner, E., & Roosth, D. (2011). Heightened interpersonal security diminishes the monetary value of possessions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.001.
Demakakos, P., Nazroo, J., Breeze, E., & Marmot, M. (2008). Socioeconomic status and health: The role of subjective social status. Social Science & Medicine, 67(2), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.038.
Fritsche, I., & Jugert, P. (2017). The consequences of economic threat for motivated social cognition and action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 31–36.
Furnham, A., & Argyle, M. (1998). The psychology of money. London: Routledge.
Goodman, E., Adler, N. E., Kawachi, I., Frazier, A. L., Huang, B., & Colditz, G. A. (2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of social status: Development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), E31. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.2.e31.
Goodwin, R. (2008). Social support and the wealthy porcupine: Pain, social support, money, and culture. Psychological Inquiry, 19(3/4), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.2307/20447432.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2011). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022403.
Hansen, J., Kutzner, F., & Wänke, M. (2013). Money and thinking: Reminders of money trigger abstract construal and shape consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1154–1166. https://doi.org/10.1086/667691.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional Process analysis: A regression-based approach (1st ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.
He, W., Guo, S., Jiang, J., Zhou, X., & Gao, D. G. (2016). Physical pain induces negative person perception: Physical pain. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19(3), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12134.
Jiang, M., Gao, D.-G., Huang, R., DeWall, C. N., & Zhou, X. (2014). The devil wears Prada: Advertisements of luxury brands evoke feelings of social exclusion: Luxury brands. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17(4), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12069.
King, R. B. (2018). Materialism is detrimental to academic engagement: Evidence from self-report surveys and linguistic analysis. Current Psychology, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9843-5.
Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American Psychologist, 57(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.57.2.100.
Ma, L., Fang, Q., Zhang, J., & Nie, M. (2017). Money priming affects consumers’ need for uniqueness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.3888.
Mead, N. L., & Stuppy, A. (2014). Two sides of the same coin: Money can promote and hinder interpersonal processes. In The psychological science of money (pp. 243–262). Berlin: Springer.
Mok, A., & De Cremer, D. (2016). The bonding effect of money in the workplace: Priming money weakens the negative relationship between ostracism and prosocial behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(2), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1051038.
Polman, E., Effron, D. A., & Thomas, M. R. (2018). Other People’s money: Money’s perceived purchasing power is smaller for others than for the self. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx119.
Robinson, A. R., & Piff, P. K. (2017). Deprived, but not depraved: Prosocial behavior is an adaptive response to lower socioeconomic status. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 40–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17001108.
Shah, A. K., Zhao, J., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2018). Money in the mental lives of the poor. Social Cognition, 36(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2018.36.1.4.
Sim, A. Y., Lim, E. X., Leow, M. K., & Cheon, B. K. (2018). Low subjective socioeconomic status stimulates orexigenic hormone ghrelin – A randomised trial. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 89, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.01.006.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314(5802), 1154–1156. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132491.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2008). Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 208–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/20183283.
Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science, 44(9), 1205–1217. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205.
Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. K. (1999). Models and mosaics: Investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 611–617. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212969.
Zaleskiewicz, T., Gasiorowska, A., & Vohs, K. D. (2017). The Psychological Meaning of Money. In Economic Psychology (pp. 105–122). Hoboken: Wiley.
Zhou, X., & Gao, D. (2008). Social support and money as pain management mechanism. Psychological Inquiry, 19(3–4), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.2307/20447425.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education of China [18YJC880021]. We thank Liwen Gao, Dongling Li, and Sijing Zou for helping collect data. We also would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments in revising this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
There is no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
The procedure performed in this study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
He, W. The effect of thinking of money on social distance: The moderating role of subjective socioeconomic status. Curr Psychol 40, 2786–2790 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00219-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00219-8