Thesis title: High on Money
Subtitle: The Influence of a Primed Abundance of Money on Risk Seeking Behavior.
Author: M.R. Nagelhout
Department: Faculty of Economics and Business Qualification: Master thesis
Completion date: June 16th, 2016 Word count: 6.238 Address: Ridderspoor 3 8081 DR Elburg Phone: +31 (0)6 200 44 552 Email: nagelhoutmartijn@gmail.com Student number: s2592053
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. B. M. Fennis External supervisor: Y. Joye, PhD.
Abstract
Money influences people in a great amount of ways, however, current literature has not yet specifically touched upon the influences of an abundance of money on general risk-seeking behaviors. This study focused on the influence of an abundance of money (compared to scarcity of money as a controlling factor) on risk-seeking behavior, which was hypothesized to be moderated by a person’s susceptibility to abundance (determined by BAS score). None of the hypotheses could be accepted due to insignificant differences in the analyses.
This study offers multiple recommendations and implications for future studies, which can complement the current study a great deal. For instance, a replication of the experiment could be carried out in a lab setting, and the ability to win ‘real money’ in the risk-seeking test could motivate participants more to display their real feelings on risk-seeking. Another option is to switch the current control group from scarcity of money to something totally irrelevant, such as memories of great food in order to get a clearer view of the influence of money.
From a managerial perspective this study adds to current literature in that it offers insights into creating a study that could find ways to increase or decrease risk in individuals in given situations. For example, companies that offer risky products (e.g. casino’s, lottery tickets), might benefit from searching other ways of communicating the benefits of their services.
Preface
Writing my master’s thesis has proven to be a great joy, quite in contrast to my expectation. Although there have been stressful moments, especially in my efforts to collect the needed participants, I learned a great deal and found it very interesting to add to existing scientific research.
Table of Contents Abstract……….………...…..3 Introduction……….………...6 Research Framework……….………...8 Risk-seeking Behavior………..………...8 Money………..………..………...9 Priming………..………...10 Susceptibility………11
Possible Controlling Factors….………...13
Method.……….………...15
Participants and Design………15
High on Money: the Influence of a Primed Abundance of Money on Risk-seeking Behavior.
Risk-seeking is an important part of human behavior; it can occur while seeking physical danger (e.g., skydiving), gambling, it even occurs in mundane activities as driving a car (Leigh, 1999). People’s risk-seeking behavior is based on multiple heuristics and cues, such as memory (Ludvig, Madan, & Spetch, 2015). It must come as no surprise that risk-seeking is a thoroughly researched part of behavioral studies.
To quote German philosopher Schopenhauer: “Wealth is like sea-water; the more we drink, the thirstier we become …” (Goodreads, 2016). Money might be the most sought after resource. Many studies have provided proof for the influence of money on human behavior. For example, a primed abundance of money makes people behave more unethical (Gino & Pierce, 2009), and the mere memory of money makes people feel stronger (Zhou, Vohs & Baumeister, 2009). Since money related cues have such an impact on behavior, it can be a reasonable assumption that an abundance of money also influences risk-seeking behavior; people would be less afraid to display unethical behavior and feel stronger, which might influence their risk-seeking behavior.
Since humans tend to be risk averse in general (Ludvig et al., 2015), it might be interesting to find out what drives them to become more risk-seeking in certain occasions. Studying the influence of both a primed abundance and scarcity of money on risk-seeking behavior might provide some interesting insights in human behavior.
risk-seeking, e.g. financial risk-seeking (Reimann, Nenkov, MacInnis & Morrin, 2014). The influence of money on general risk-seeking behavior has not yet been studied very extensively. Therefore, the current study will focus on the influence of an abundance of money on risk-seeking behavior.
How much risk a person is willing to take, varies greatly along humans. Some try to ‘play safe’, while others live for the thrill of risk-seeking. The same may apply to a person’s susceptibility to abundance, one can be greatly overwhelmed by an abundance of money, while another might not be influenced at all. A person’s susceptibility to abundance might have an influence on risk-seeking behavior. Additionally, susceptibility to abundance might act as a moderator in the influence of an abundance of money on risk-seeking behavior. If a person is highly susceptible to abundance, they might display more risk-seeking behavior when primed with an abundance of money than a person who is not highly susceptible to abundance. Therefore, the current study will also focus on susceptibility to abundance.
In this study, a ‘high on money’ effect is proposed, the general expectation is that people display more risk-seeking behavior when primed with an abundance of money, and that this is moderated by a person’s susceptibility to abundance. Therefore, the main research question is: “What is the influence of a primed abundance of money on risk-seeking behavior, and is this influence moderated by a person’s susceptibility to abundance?
The study starts by building a research framework, which discusses existing literature and past research, and builds the main hypotheses on said literature, as found in chapter one. Chapter two presents a methodology, which features both a method- and a research design section. Chapter three features the results section, which presents the findings, conclusions, and features a discussion, the current study’s limitations, implications, and recommendations for further research.
Research Framework Risk-seeking Behavior.
Sayette, Dimoff, Levine, Moreland, and Votruba-Drzal (2012) define risk-seeking behavior as the choice of the less certain outcome. Generally, people are risk averse (Ludvig et al., 2015), however, when under some conditions of loss or prevention, risk-seeking behavior can increase (Scholer, Zou, Fujita, Stroessner, and Higgins, 2014).
Risk-seeking is influenced by the probabilities of gains and losses, as explained by the prospect theory: decisions are made based on the potential value of gains and losses, instead of the value outcome (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Additionally, individuals in a positive mood make more risky choices than individuals who are not in such a mood (Reimann et al., 2014). Risk-seeking behavior is also often influenced by factors such as the size of the reward (Weber & Chapman, 2005), and the number of opportunities available (Redelmeier & Tversky, 1992).
Money.
As mentioned previously, the mere memory of money or wealth can make people feel stronger (Zhou et al., 2009). This might result in people feeling more secure in their ability to achieve gains and evade losses, which influences their risk-seeking behavior according to the prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).
Consistent with other studies (Lea & Webley, 2006; Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006), the term money as used in this research refers to the ‘idea’ of money, and thus not to possessions or properties.
Abundance. Abundance is defined as “a large amount of something: an abundant amount of something” (Merriam-Webster, 2016). When primed with an
abundance of money, people are significantly more self-sufficient than people primed with scarcity of money (Vohs et al., 2006). Money also fosters a person’s perception of their competence (Zhang, 2009), and the mere memory of money results in higher task persistence (Vohs et al., 2006). Also, money makes individuals feel more strong (Zhou et al., 2009), increases performance (Boucher & Kofos, 2012), and makes people put in more effort (Vohs et al., 2006). When dealing with an abundance of money, individuals even tend to be more unethical in decision making (Gino & Pierce, 2009).
This focus could lead to people thinking more rationally about obtaining their goals, and thus taking less risk in their subsequent actions. Since scarcity can be considered as the opposite of abundance, it will be used as the control condition.
Since there are limited resources and funds available for this study, letting participants handle physical money is simply not possible. However, priming methods offer a reliable and valid alternative for measuring the effects of money on risk-seeking behavior: Shah (2015) states that through priming, especially through the use of an episodic recall task, a scarcity mindset can be activated.
Priming.
The concept of priming first came to light in a study by Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971), who found that implicit memory cues influenced their participants’ performance on a task. This was confirmed by van Koningsbruggen and Stroebe (2011), who found that priming people with alcohol related cues influenced performance on a cognitive task.
Priming is caused by spreading activation; by priming people with an abundance of money, an unconscious association is made, and tasks performed shortly after inducing the prime will be influenced by this activation (Reisberg, 2005). Fennis and Stroebe (2016) define episodic memory as “… memory about a specific event that occurred at a particular place and time…” These memories about specific events are what participants are to write down in the episodic recall task used in the experiment, which is adopted from the works of Roux et al. (2015).
So far, we have found that risk-seeking behavior is influenced by the prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), a theory that suggests that decisions are made based on the potential value of gains and losses. As explained previously, both an abundance- and scarcity of money influences human behavior in a great amount of ways. For example, an abundance of money makes people feel stronger (Zhou et al., 2009), and scarcity of money makes people think more careful about their choices (Shah, 2015). Therefore, it is likely that both a primed abundance, as well as a primed scarcity of money also influences a person’s judgment on potential gains and losses, and could thus influence a person’s risk-seeking behavior. With the use of an episodic recall task (Roux et al., 2015), this mindset of an abundance of money can be activated.
The findings above show that a primed abundance of money makes people more goal-oriented and influences them to work harder, even more unethical, to achieve goals. Therefore, it seems plausible that when primed with an abundance of money, people will display more risk-seeking behavior than when not primed with an abundance of money. This leads to the first hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: A primed abundance of money positively influences risk-seeking behavior.
Susceptibility.
The motivational system developed by Gray (1990), measuring approach and avoidance motivation, might help to determine a person’s susceptibility to abundance. The system spans over two dimensions: (1) the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), which is mainly driven by anxiety and (2) the Behavioral Approach System (BAS), which is driven more by impulsivity. Forsyth (2009) states that a high BAS sensitivity comes with self-promotion, reward- and opportunity-seeking, action, movement, and increased energy. On the other hand the author states that a high BIS sensitivity is associated with loss of motivation, danger-avoidance, and self-protection.
A high BAS sensitivity can show itself in more efforts to achieving goals, and positive attitudes when one is exposed to cues of reward, non-punishment and escape from punishment; individuals with a high BAS sensitivity are goal-oriented (Carver & White, 1994). In contrast, individuals with a high BIS sensitivity are more driven by anxiety, and are sensitive to cues of punishment, nonreward, and novelty: these individuals are more goal-aversive (Carver & White, 1994).
Carver and White (1994) divided the BAS into three categories: (1) BAS Reward Responsiveness, which is about a person’s reactions to winning and obtaining goals; (2) BAS Drive, which is about the willingness to put in effort into obtaining their goals; and (3) BAS Fun Seeking, which is about the search for fun, and determines if someone tends to be impulsive. Together, these three categories make up a person’s total BAS sensitivity.
being more sensitive to cues of reward and goal-oriented, in contrast to a low BAS sensitivity. Based on these findings, the second hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 2: A high BAS sensitivity positively influences risk-seeking behavior.
The BIS is suggested to be at the opposite end of the BAS (Gray, 1990). Therefore, if a high BAS sensitivity positively influences risk-seeking behavior, a high BIS sensitivity could negatively influence risk-seeking behavior.
Next to the hypothesized direct influence of a high BAS sensitivity on risk-seeking behavior, this susceptibility could also function as a moderator. When a primed abundance of money positively influences risk-seeking behavior, this influence could be strengthened by a high BAS sensitivity. The primed abundance could influence a participant’s judgment about their competence and increase their task persistence, while a high BAS sensitivity could motivate them even more to obtain their intended goals. Therefore, the third hypothesis is:
H3: A primed abundance of money positively influences risk-seeking behavior, and this is moderated by a person’s susceptibility to abundance.
Possible Controlling Factors.
Gender. Multiple studies found that males seek more risk than females (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999; Cestac, Paran, & Delhomme, 2011). However, Byrnes et al. (1999) found that this varied widely among different topics, and some of gender’s influences might be moderated by age. Therefore, gender will also be taken into account as a possible confounding factor, also in combination with age.
Mood. Habib, Cassotti, Moutier, Houdé, and Borst (2015) found empirical evidence for the influence of negative incidental emotions on risk aversion, they found that fear increases risk-averse choices, while anger decreases risk-averse choices. Boldak and Guszkowska (2013) found that moods varied across different groups of skydivers, whom mostly scored high on risk-seeking. The skydivers were divided into different groups based on sensation seeking, risk-seeking and avoiding. This could imply that a person’s mood influences their risk-seeking behavior, the prime reason for including mood as a confounding factor.
MV: BAS Sensitivity IV: Abundance of Money DV: Risk-Seeking Behavior Method
Figure 1 – The Conceptual Model
Participants and Design.
Ninety-one persons (37 female; 54 male; Mage = 34,59 years, SD = 13,96) participated in this experiment in change for a piece of candy. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions, in which they either participated in the abundance of money condition or the control condition (scarcity of money). The study used a two (abundance of money vs. scarcity of money) x two (high BAS sensitivity vs. low BAS sensitivity) between-subjects factorial research design.
of all three subgroups of the BAS scale: BAS Drive, BAS Reward Responsiveness, and BAS Fun Seeking. Abundance of money, the independent variable, was manipulated by priming participants through an episodic recall task, adopted from the study of Roux et al. (2015). Participants were primed with either an abundance of money, or scarcity of money – which served as a control variable. The dependent variable, risk-seeking behavior, was measured using the Balloon Analogue Risk Test (BART), as developed by Lejuez et al. (2002).
Procedure.
An examiner approached ninety-one random people in the city center and surrounding areas of Zwolle, a medium-sized city in the Netherlands with a population of approximately 125.000 inhabitants. These people were asked to participate in a short experiment, taking only a few minutes, in exchange for a piece of candy; the ability to choose from a ‘partymix’ bag of mini-sized candy bars which consisted of Twix, Mars, Bounty, Snickers, and Milkyway. The examiner explained to each participant that the research was part of his master’s thesis, and asked if the participant was willing to fill out a few questions, a variety of tests and scales on paper, and perform a test on a computer. It was also explained to every participant that the different parts of the study were unrelated to each other, and that they could leave their email address if they wanted to know more about the goals of the experiment and its outcomes. Both the survey and the computer test were in Dutch, since all participants spoke Dutch as their primary language and thus preventing translation errors and issues.
research. The synopsis stated that all data would be stored anonymous. The first page also featured a unique participant number, which allowed the researcher to link the paper questionnaires to the BART scores. All surveys with the abundance of money prime condition (Appendix 1.1.A.) featured an A as the first letter of the unique participant number, followed by a number between 001 and 050. All surveys with the control condition (Appendix 1.1.B.), the scarcity of money prime, started with an S as the first letter of the unique participant number, again followed by a number between 001 and 050.
their fifteen rounds, a summary of the participants’ accomplishments (Appendix 1.3.5) was given.
Fourth, participants were asked to fill out a scale determining their BIS/BAS sensitivity (Appendix 1.4). They filled out the entire scale for measuring their BIS/BAS sensitivity in order to check for differences among BIS sensitivity and BAS sensitivity later on in the study.
Fifth, participants were asked to fill out a scale determining their mood (Appendix 1.5), followed by a scale determining if the participants currently experience abundance or scarcity (Appendix 1.6). This was done in order to be able to check if there were any (side) effects of mood and the current state of abundance or scarcity on the hypothesized relationships.
Sixth, participants were asked to fill out their gender and age (Appendix 1.7), again, in order to check for any (side) effects on the hypothesized relationships.
Seventh, there was a short debriefing (Appendix 1.8) thanking the participants for their participation, and asking them to not talk about their experiences in order to protect the confidentiality and not influence any future participants. The debriefing ended with the option to fill in an e-mail address in order to receive more information about the study and its outcomes once the study was done.
Eighth, participants who completed the experiment were offered a piece of candy, which served as an incentive to partake and as a token of appreciation.
Independent Variables.
differed in one word: abundance and scarcity. Participants were first asked to write down three to four memories of either experiencing an abundance of money, or experiencing scarcity of money (control condition). After writing down their memories of either abundance or scarcity, participants were instructed to write down two of their memories in more detail, by providing thoughts and feelings that they experienced during these moments. They could, for example, mention that they felt sad when they could not go on vacation since they had little money due to having to pay unforeseen taxes (in the scarcity condition). The scarcity of money condition acted as a control group, which allowed for measuring if there was a difference in risk-seeking between the two groups.
Susceptibility to Abundance. In order to assess the participants susceptibility to abundance, the BIS/BAS scale (Carver & White, 1994) as translated and validated by Franken, Muris, and Rassin (2005) was used in the experiment. Participants were asked to fill out the 24-item 4-point Likert scale (α = 0,68), which featured seven questions determining BIS sensitivity, thirteen questions determining BAS sensitivity, and four filler questions. The questions touched upon the subjects of BIS (α = 0,66) and BAS (α = 0,79). The total BAS score consisted of the added scores of BAS Drive (α = 0,73), BAS Fun Seeking (α = 0,66), and BAS Reward Responsiveness (α = 0,71).
The expectation is that the higher a participant scores on their total BAS sensitivity, the more susceptible they will be to abundance. Therefore, it is expected that the lower a person’s BAS sensitivity, the lower the susceptibility to abundance.
Dependent Variable.
Risk-seeking behavior, the dependent variable in this study, was measured by using the Balloon Analogue Risk Test (BART) as developed by Lejuez et al. (2002). This test was administered using Inquisit Lab 5, the BART itself was acquired from the Inquisit test library and translated by the researcher due to a Dutch version of the
test not being available.
The BART allows participants to ‘pump up’ balloons in order to win points, which were shown as monetary values. Per pump, participants received €0,05. The reason points were shown in € format, is so that participants would be more motivated to perform well, and get a high score.
The chance for the balloon to ‘pop’ gets larger with every pump, which means that risk-seeking behavior increases with every pump. After each pump, a participant could choose to either collect their points and carry on with the next balloon, or to pump the balloon again, increasing their points. If the balloon popped, the points acquired in that round would be lost.
For the first balloon, the chance to pop was 1/128. For every pump after that, the chance increased to 1/127, 1/126, and so on. At the 128th pump, the chance for the balloon to explode was 100 percent.
shows that it is acceptable to work with any amount between 11 to 20 balloons, and results are not impacted significantly (Wallsten, Pleskac, & Lejuez, 2005).
The dependent variable was the adjusted average amount of pumps, as advised by Lejuez et al. (2002). The adjusted average amount of pumps is calculated by adding the number of pumps of every ‘successful’ balloon, and dividing them by the number of unpopped balloons. By using the adjusted average amount of pumps instead of the total amount of pumps, the factor of mere (bad) luck is taken out of the equation, and a more reliable view of risk-seeking behavior is displayed.
Controlling Variables.
Mood. In order to check if a participant’s current mood is a confounding factor, a translated version of the Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS), as developed by Mayer and Gaschke (1988), was included in the research. The results from this scale allowed for determining if a participant’s current mood had any effect on their risk-seeking behavior, and on the influence of an abundance of money on risk-seeking behavior.
The BMIS (α = 0,66) consists of 16 items determining a participant’s mood in either a ‘pleasant-unpleasant’, or an ‘arousal-calm’ spectrum. For the pleasant – unpleasant conditions (α = 0,77), items 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, and 16 were added, and added to the reversed scores for items 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 15. The internal consistency of these questions combined, can be considered as good (α = 0,77).
Current state of abundance or scarcity. In order to check for any effects of a participant’s current state of how they experience abundance or scarcity of money, participants were also asked to fill out a four point Likert scale consisting of four items, intended to measure their current state. By reverse scoring the scarcity items, questions 1 and 3, and adding those to questions 2 and 4, a spectrum ranging from ‘currently experiencing scarcity’ (low score) to ‘currently experiencing abundance’ (high score) was made.
Age and gender. Participant’s were also asked to fill out their age and gender. This is done to check if these characteristics are confounding factors.
Plan of Analysis
As mentioned previously, after collection the data was tested for effects and interactions: (1) the main effect of a primed abundance of money on risk-seeking behavior, (2) the main effect of BAS motivation on risk-risk-seeking behavior, and (3) the interaction of BAS motivation and a primed abundance of money and its effect on risk-seeking behavior. These analyses were done with the use of a two-way Analysis of Variance, through using IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac.
Results Data Preparation.
These participants did fill in all the scales, but since they did not properly participate in the priming task these two participants were removed from the dataset.
Although the scores on the BART varied greatly, with the lowest adjusted average amount of pumps being 2,87 and the highest being 66,25, there were no significant outliers. No other wrong, inconsistent, or missing values were found.
Final Sample. The final sample consisted of 89 participants (52 males, 37 females) with a mean age of 33,98 years (SD = 13,477). 45 participants participated in the Scarcity condition, while 44 participants participated in the Abundance condition.
Susceptibility to Abundance. The BAS scores ranged from 2,00 to 3,92 (M = 3,06, SD = 0,41). In order to divide the sample into two groups, and thus create a BAS high condition and a BAS low condition, a median split was performed. All values equal to and lower than the median (Median = 3,00) were assigned a value of 0 (condition: BAS low), while all values higher than the median were assigned a value of 1 (condition: BAS high).
The Shapiro-Wilk test for normality was conducted in order to check if the dependent variable was normally distributed over the groups of the two independent variables. This was the case for the scarcity and the abundance prime as well as the BAS high and BAS low groups (p > 0,05). Second, Levene’s Test of Equality of Variances was conducted and the variances in each group were found to be equal (p > 0,05).
currently experiencing scarcity), while all values higher than the median were assigned a value of 1 (condition: currently experiencing abundance).
Scarcity Prime (control condition)
Abundance Prime Total
BAS high 21 participants Mean = 31,01 SD = 15, 10 23 participants Mean = 27,13 SD = 14,74 44 participants Mean = 28,73 SD = 14,87
BAS low 24 participants
Mean = 30,04 SD = 14,69 21 participants Mean = 27,23 SD = 14,91 45 participants Mean = 28,73 SD = 14,69 Total 45 participants Mean = 30,49 SD = 14,72 44 participants Mean = 27,18 SD = 14,64
Figure 2 – An overview of the distribution of participants and mean scores on the adjusted average amount of pumps in the BART.
Hypotheses Testing.
Hypothesis 1. The main effect for abundance of money yielded an F ratio of F(1, 85) = 1,127, p = 0,291, indicating that there is no significant difference between the abundance of money prime (M = 27,18, SD = 14,64) and the scarcity of money prime (M = 30,49, SD = 14,72). Therefore, hypothesis 1: a primed abundance of money positively influences risk-seeking behavior, was rejected.
Hypothesis 2. The main effect for susceptibility to abundance yielded an F ratio of F(1, 85) = 0,019, p = 0,891 indicating that the effect for susceptibility to abundance was not significant, with BAS high (M = 28,98, SD = 14,87) and BAS low (M = 28,73, SD = 14,69). Therefore, hypothesis 2: a high BAS sensitivity positively influences risk-seeking behavior, was rejected.
Hypothesis 3. The interaction effect between abundance of money and susceptibility to abundance was also not significant F(1,85) = 0,028, p = 0,867. Therefore, hypothesis 3: a primed abundance of money positively influences risk-seeking behavior, and this is moderated by a person’s susceptibility to abundance, was rejected.
Controlling Variables.
0,222, p = 0,639. A Pearson product-moment correlation was run to determine the relationship between a person’s mood, both pleasant-unpleasant and arousal-calm, and their risk-seeking behavior (average adjusted amount of pumps). The results showed that there were no significant correlations between mood and risk-seeking behavior for both pleasant-unpleasant (r = 0,036, n = 89 , p = 0,736) and arousal-calm (r = -0,073, n = 89, p = 0,494) states.
Current State, Gender, and Age. A 2 (Abundance vs. Scarcity) by 2 (BAS high vs. BAS low) ANCOVA on Risk-seeking Behavior, determined by the adjusted amount of pumps, showed no significant effects of the hypothesized covariates current state F(1, 82) = 1,943, p = 0,167, gender F(1, 82) = 1,733, p = 0,192, and age F(1, 82) = 1,912, p = 0,171.
Discussion Summary.
The aim of this study was to find main effects of primes of both an abundance and scarcity of money on risk-seeking behavior, and to find out if these effects were moderated by a person’s susceptibility to abundance. The primes were administered using an episodic recall task (Roux et al., 2015). The dependent variable, risk-seeking, was measured using the adjusted average number of pumps per balloon of the BART test (Lejuez et al., 2002). The moderating variable, susceptibility to abundance, was measured using the BIS/BAS scale as constructed by Carver and White (1994).
One finding of interest is that, although insignificant, the mean scores of the scarcity condition were higher than the mean scores for the abundance condition. This is the opposite of the hypothesized effects, which was that participants in the abundance condition would display more risk-seeking behavior.
Recommendations.
Research recommendations. The current research could be improved in multiple ways. First, some participants stated that they found it hard to find instances in which they had dealt with the assigned condition. In order to improve the prime, another priming method could be used. For example, a task in which participants get a certain amount of money (high for abundance, low for scarcity) to buy products in a grocery-store situation. By giving them too little money to buy all necessary products, participants will be primed with a sense of scarcity of money, whereas participants with more than enough money to buy the necessary products will be primed with an abundance of money.
Fourth, the somewhat low number of participants might have prohibited that the study produced any significant effects. If the study was replicated with a higher number of participants, the results might prove to be significant.
Managerial Recommendations. The current study might be of use in decision making in multiple ways. First, companies which offer risky products (e.g. casino’s, lottery tickets), might benefit from searching other ways of communicating the benefits of their products than showing or priming abundances of money. If the differences of this study could be replicated in a significant way, it might even help to prime target audiences with scarcity of money in order to stimulate more risk-seeking behavior.
Second, preventing risk-seeking behavior may be more successful when using another stimulus than money. This could be relevant for, for example, governments trying to decrease the amount of speeding drivers.
Limitations.
The current study has multiple limitations. First, there was no control for day and time, which might have influenced participants’ performance on the test. Participants may have answered differently in the morning than in the evening, or during the weekend than during the week.
Second, the presence of other people might have influenced participants to perform more risky in their BART task. Since people are influenced by others as well as their surroundings, this might have caused some to try a little harder on the BART than they originally would.
and unrelated prime. The influences of both the abundance- and scarcity of money prime might be similar, which cannot be assessed in this study.
Fourth, the choice to provide every participant with 15 balloons instead of the standard 30 might have negatively impacted the results. Although research shows that by using any amount of balloons between 11 and 20 is still acceptable, the results might have been more accurate when participants would have been presented with 30 balloons.
References
Abundance. (n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2016, from
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/abundance
Boucher, H. C., & Kofos, M. N. (2012). The idea of money counteracts ego depletion effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 804-810.
Boldak, A., & Guszkowska, M. (2013). Are Skydivers a Homogenous Group? Analysis of Features of Temperament, Sensation Seeking, and Risk Taking. The international journal of aviation psychology, 23(3), 197-212.
Burnett, S., Bault, N., Coricelli, G., & Blakemore, S.J. (2010). Adolescents’ heigthened risk-seeking in a probabilisitic gambling task. Cognitive Development, 25, 183-196.
Byrnes, J.P., Miller, D.C., & Schafer, W.D. (1999). Gender Differences in Risk Taking: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367-383.
Carver, C.S., & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.
predicting speeding intention: How risk-taking motivations evolve with gender and driving experience. Safety Science, 49(3), 424-432.
Fennis, B. M., & Stroebe, W. (2016). The psychology of advertising. New York, NY: Routledge.
Forsyth, D.R. (2009). Group dynamics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Gamble, T., & Walker, I. (2016). Wearing a Bicycle Helmet Can Increase Risk Taking and Sensation Seeking in Adults. Psychological Science, 27(2), 219- 294.
Franken, I.H.A, Muris, P., & Rassin, E. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Dutch
BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27, 25-30.
Gamble, T., & Walker , I. (2016). Wearing a Bicycle Helmet Can Increase Risk
Taking and Sensation Seeking in Adults. Psychological Science, 27(2), 289-
294.
Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). Dishonesty in the Name of Equity. Psychological
Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition & Emotion, 4(3), 269-288.
Habib, M., Cassotti, M., Moutier, S., Houdé, O., & Borst, G. (2015). Fear and anger have opposite effects on risk-seeking in the gain frame. Frontiers in
psychology, 6.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 47(2), 263-291.
Lea, S.E.G., & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(2), 161- 209.
Leigh , B. C. (1999). Peril, chance, adventure: concepts of risk, alcohol use and risky behavior in young adults. Addiction, 94(3), 371-383.
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., et al. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk-taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 75-84.
neuroanatomical basis of behavioral inhibition/approach systems (BIS/BAS) in a large sample of young adults: A voxel-based morphometric investigation. Behavioural Brain Research, 274, 400-408.
Ludvig, E.A., Madan, C.R., & Spetch, M.L. (2015). Priming Memories of Past Wins Induces Risk-seeking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 144(1), 24-29.
Mayer, J. D., & Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 102-111.
Meyer, D.E., & Schvaneveldt, R.W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227-234.
Redelmeier, D.A., & Tversky, A. (1992). On the framing of multiple prospects. Psychological Science, 3, 191-193.
Reisberg, D. (2005). Cognition: Exploring the science of the mind. New York: W.W. Norton.
Reimann, M., Nenkov, G.Y., MacInnis, D., & Morrin, M. (2014). The Role of Hope in Financial Risk-seeking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(4), 349-364.
reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 615-631.
Sayette, M.A., Dimoff, J.D., Levine, J.M., Moreland, R.L., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2012). The Effects of Alcohol and Dosage-Set on Risk-Seeking Behavior in Groups and Individuals. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26(2), 194-200.
Scarcity. (n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2016, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scarcity
Scholer, A.A., Zou, X., Fujita, K., Stroessner, S.J., & Higgins, E.T. (2014). When Risk-seeking Becomes a Motivational Necessity. Motivation Science, 1(S), 91-115.
Schopenhauer. (n.d.) Retrieved June 14, 2016, from
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/369014-wealth-is-like-sea-water-the-more- we-drink-the-thirstier
Shah, A. K. (2015). Social Class and Scarcity: Understanding Consumers Who have Less. In: Michael I. Norton et al. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of
Consumer Psychology, 673 – 692.
Vervoort, L., Vandeweghe, L., Vandewalle, J., Van Durme, K., Vandevivere, E., Wante, L., et al. (2015). Measuring Punishment and Reward Sensitivity in children and adolescents with a parent-report version of the Bis/Bas-scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 272-277.
Vohs, K.D., Mead, N.L., & Goode, M.R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314, 1154-1156.
Wallsten, T.S., Pleskac, T.J., & Lejuez, C.W. (2005) Modeling Behavior in a Clinically Diagnostic Sequential Risk-Taking Task. Psychological Review, 112(4), 862-880.
Weber, B.J., & Chapman, G.B. (2005). Playing for peanuts: why is risk-seeking more common for low-stakes gambles? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(1), 31-46.
Zhang, L. (2009). An Exchange Theory of Money and Self-Esteem in Decision Making. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 66-76.
Appendix
This appendix features the survey as handed out to participants, and displays the BART as seen on the laptop used in the experiment. The surveys differed on two points: (1) on the front page, where the abundance condition’s version number started with an A and the scarcity version with an S, and (2) the episodic recall tasked, where the abundance version asked for experiences dealing with an abundance of money and the scarcity version asked for experiences dealing with scarcity of money.
1.1.A. Front page Abundance condition. Versienummer: A ___________________ Goedendag, Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek!
Uw deelname aan dit onderzoek zal slechts enkele minuten in beslag nemen, en u wordt verzocht zelfstandig te werken. Uw deelname wordt gewaardeerd! Met vriendelijke groet, Martijn Nagelhout Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
1.1.B. Front page Scarcity condition. Versienummer: S ___________________ Goedendag, Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek!
Dit onderzoek bestaat uit enkele ongerelateerde deelstudies. Het onderzoek maakt deel uit van een onderzoeksprogramma van verschillende onderzoekers aan de Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Deelname is, vanzelfsprekend, geheel anoniem. Uw gegevens zullen uitsluitend vertrouwelijk worden gebruikt, en niet verder worden verspreid.
1.2.A. Episodic recall task – Abundance condition. Deel 1 van 5
1. Beschrijf hieronder kort drie á vier momenten waarop u een overvloed aan geld heeft ervaren.
2. Beschrijf hieronder twee van deze momenten in meer detail. Probeert u zich goed te herinneren welke gedachten en gevoelens er door u heen gingen terwijl u een overvloed aan geld heeft ervaren.
1.2.B. Episodic recall task – Scarcity condition. Deel 1 van 5
1. Beschrijf hieronder kort drie á vier momenten waarop u een tekort aan geld heeft ervaren.
2. Beschrijf hieronder twee van deze momenten in meer detail. Probeert u zich goed te herinneren welke gedachten en gevoelens er door u heen gingen terwijl u een tekort aan geld heeft ervaren.
1.3.1. BART version number / condition entry.
1.3.3. BART summary screen
1.4. BIS / BAS scale.
In de onderstaande vragenlijst ziet u een aantal stellingen staan waarmee u het eens of oneens kan zijn. Geeft u alstublieft voor iedere stelling aan in welke mate u het er mee eens of oneens bent. Beantwoord alle stellingen, en sla er niet een over. Per stelling is slechts één antwoord mogelijk.
Helemaal mee oneens Beetje mee oneens Beetje mee eens Helemaal mee eens 3. Ik heb het gevoel structureel een tekort aan geld te hebben
☐
☐
☐
☐
4. Ik heb het gevoel structureel een overvloed aan geld te hebben☐
☐
☐
☐
1.7. Age and Gender Wat is uw leeftijd? ___________________________ Wat is uw geslacht? Man☐
Vrouw☐
Deze deeltest is nu afgerond. Hieronder vindt u relevante informatie met betrekking tot de uitslag van dit onderzoek.1.8. Debriefing and contact information.
beïnvloeden, wordt u vriendelijk verzocht om niet over de vragen en opdrachten in het onderzoek te praten.
Mocht u meer willen weten over het onderzoek en de uiteindelijke resultaten, dan kan u hieronder uw e-mail adres invullen om meer informatie te ontvangen. Uw e-mail adres zal niet voor andere doeleinden worden gebruikt.
E-mail adres: _____________________________________________________________________________
Het onderzoek is afgerond. Levert u alstublieft dit formulier in bij de onderzoeker. Hartelijk dank!
