Exploring whether Belief in a Just World and Childhood SES
affect the relationship between poverty feeling and intertemporal
choices?
By
1
Exploring whether Belief in a Just World and Childhood SES
affect the relationship between poverty feeling and intertemporal
choices?
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Master Thesis, MSc. Marketing Management
Hand-in date: 26.06.2017
By
Ivan Borislavov Lalev Gronignen, Kraneweg 34a Student number: S2979500
E-mail: ivanlalev@mail.bg; i.b.lalev@student.rug.nl
First supervisor: Mehrad Moeini Jazani
Second supervisor: Prof. Dr. ir. Koert van Ittersum
Abstract: This Thesis explores the moderation effect of belief in a just world and childhood
socioeconomic status on the relationship between financial deprivation and intertemporal choices. The result of research on the main effect were significant and consistent with previous literature. The results of moderation effects were not significant for both Belief in a Just World (BJW) and Childhood socioeconomic status (SES). However, in both cases the results were very close to significant levels. The hypothesized patterns also appeared from the results. Low levels of BJW lead to increased preference for temporal proximity. Also low levels of Childhood SES lead to increased preference for temporal proximity. Since the study was exploratory no solid conclusions could be drawn. However, since the pattern appeared with very small sample (190) future research on this topic might bring significant results.
Key Words: Intertemporal choices, delay discounting, financial deprivation, poverty feeling,
2
Preface
With finishing a chapter of my life is about to come to an end. I would the end of two interesting years of studying in the Netherlands. Living in Groningen and studying in university gave me unique knowledge and experience.
The thesis itself was challenging task. In the course of writing, I learned many new things about human psychology which enriched my understanding of the human nature. My supervisor Mehrad Moeini Jazani was always there to answer the many questions I had during the process and I would like to thank him. I was fortunate enough to be in a group where members helped each other, so I would also like to thank them. I would also like to thank my family for the support during my studies.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8
1. Scarcity, Poverty and Financial Deprivation... 8
2. Intertemporal choices ... 11
3. Belief in a just world theory ... 13
4. Life history theory and Childhood SES ... 14
5. Overview ... 17 METHODOLOGY ... 18 Participants ... 18 Procedure... 19 Results ... 21 Main effect ... 21 Moderator 1 ... 22 Moderator 2 ... 23 Anicllary analysis ... 24 Discussion ... 25 CONCLUSION ... 26 REFERENCE ... 30
Appendix A:SPSS output ... 34
4
TABLE OF GRAPHS AND FIGURES
Graph 1. Belief in a Just World ... 18
Graph 2. Childhood SES ... 18
Graph 3. Main Effect ... 21
Graph 4. Belief in a Just World ... 22
Graph 5. Childhood SES ... 24
Figure 1. Fast and Slow Life History Strategies... 15
5
INTRODUCTION
Poverty is a wide spread phenomenon which still very common even in the developed countries. Some people simply fail to accumulate enough wealth to meet their own or family needs. Many people struggle with everyday life and this has psychological impact on them. According to Farah and Hook (2017) the relation between cognition and poverty is quite clear and it is self-enforcing. People who are poor worry all the time for the consequences of their poverty. They are occupied with constant worries which limits mental capacity and disrupts the search for long term possibilities which to improve current situation. People who feel poor have limited performance in all sorts of mental activities. Quite often their thoughts are only short-term oriented and narrow minded. This results in spiral in which poverty limits
cognitive function and limited cognitive function leads to poverty.
Poverty is perceived by many as a solid situation which is entirely based on facts about the income of the person. However, the human cognition is not entirely based on rational thought and perceptions are not always based on objective facts. Carrie and Meuris (2015), Sharma and Alter (2012), Diener, Eunkook ,Richard and Heidi (1999), Tully ,Hershfield and Meyvis (2015) and many other articles demonstrated than humans actually do not judge whether they are poor or not on solid facts and monetary statistics. Actually, they found that being poor is subjective feeling not bounded by current income. People use social comparison in order to determine whether they are poor. If a person with median income is induced to make a
comparison with high income person he is likely to feel poor, despite he is above the objective poverty level. This allows articles such as Briers and Laporte (2013) use manipulation for inducing poverty or financial deprivation feeling. With a simple social comparison
participants are convinced that they are financially deprived.
6 financial deprivation have to decide about future outcomes they tend to go for an option which would bring the immediate benefits. Bickel, Wilson, Chen, Koffarnus, and Franck (2016) determined financial deprivation causes people to prefer immediate gratification when facing intertemporal task with monetary rewards. The future option should exceed the
immediate by great amount in order to appeal to a person who feels poor.
Dealing with intertemporal task requires elaborate mental process, which might be influenced by factors which still have not been researched. One such factor could be derived from the belief in a just world theory. Initially developed by Lerner (1965) and (1980) it explains that people differ in their opinion of how just the world is. Some individuals consider that they get from life whatever they deserve. Others have the understanding that world is more chaotic place. The belief of how just is the world affects the cognition of a person and influences his choices. That is why this theory might provide an important new insight on what affects the intertemporal choices under financial deprivation. It is possible that, on one hand, people with high belief in a just world are confident in future outcomes and are more willing to wait for increased rewards. On the other people with understating of the world as chaotic place to be impatient.
In addition to belief in a just world, another theory might provide a factor which affects people in the state of financial deprivation. Childhood has profound impact on how people behave during their adult life. Quite often the children of poor people retain the status of their parents. That is why it is natural to suspect that experiences during childhood affect decisions regarding money during the adult life. Griskevicius, Ackerman, Cantú, Delton, Robertson, Simpson, Thompson, and Tybur (2013), Mittal and Griskevicius (2014) , Brumbach,
7 which is followed through adult life. Since the life history strategy affects constantly wide variety of decisions, it might also affect intertemporal decision making of financial deprived people. It is probable that people who have faced hardships when they were growing up preserved the feeling of uncertainty and are even more prone to the effects of poverty.
The main purpose of the study is to demonstrate that the factors Childhood socioeconomic status and Belief in a just world influence the relationship between financial deprivation and intertemporal choices. Currently, there is literature to suggest that poverty feeling leads to preference to immediate gratification. However, there is no paper which examines whether Childhood SES or Believe in a just world moderates the relationship. The literature discussing those factors demonstrates that they have an effect on choices that people make in many areas including money management which is fundamental in the research of intertemporal choices. This paper will try to explore whether such moderations exist.
The hypotheses will be tested through one experiment with data collected by online survey. In order to examine the effect of poverty feeling the manipulation of Briers and Laporte (2013) would be adopted. This is the only manipulation in the experiment. Other factors would be examined through the use of well-established measures of those variables. This study would provide new insight on poverty feeling and advance theoretical knowledge in the field.
8
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Scarcity, Poverty and Financial Deprivation
Large number of scientific studies demonstrate that scarcity can have direct influence on behaviour and cognition. Scarcity could be defined as lack of certain resources, such as time and money. Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, and Zhao (2013) and Spears (2011) made the conclusion that sacristy reduces cognitive bandwidth (cognitive capacity and executive function). Shah, Mullainathan, and Shafir (2012) found that scarcity has negative effect on decision making ability. In series of experiments they demonstrated that scarcity leads to attention shifts. Those shifts have behavioral impact and cause actions such as overbrowning (Shah, Mullainathan, and Shafir, 2012). White (2014) demonstrated that scarcity has an effect on reciprocity. Reciprocity is effect observed in any human civilization, according to which if you receive something you are obliged to return the favor to the giver. Shah, Shafir and Mullainathan (2015) determined that scarcity causes people to be less susceptible to classical context effect when they are making economic decisions. This means that under sacristy people base decisions on trade-offs of their needs and rely less on contextual clues. Chemin, De Last, and Haushofer (2013) established that scarcity increases stress. According to their research absence of rain causes increase of the levels of stress hormone cortisol among poor rural farmers in Kenya. The effect is more significant for people who solely rely on farming for their income. Finally, Meuris and Leana (2015) showed that economic scarcity has a profound impact on the work of low income employees. They concluded that the cognitive and behavioral effect of scarcity on low income workers could lead to negative outcomes for the whole organization.
9 resources. The topic of connecting poverty to cognition and behaviour has also been discussed in the academic literature. Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, and Zhao (2013) concluded that
poverty impedes cognitive function. According to the article, poverty-related concerns consume mental resources of the poor and leaving less mental resources for other tasks. Haushofer and Fehr (2014) determined that poverty causes stress and risk-averse and shortsighted decision-making. This limits the attention and fosters habitual behaviors at the expense of goal – driven behavior. Vohs (2013) pointed out that poor people have reduced mental power and “behave in ways that are harmful to health and impede long-term success” Vohs ,2013, p.969). The shortsighted behaviour of impoverished people does not seem rational, but there is explanation for it. While being poor people are constantly battled with thoughts about their situation. This cognitive load affects their decision making, because big portion of the mental resources are directed at thinking about the financial problems.
(Zwane,2012; Vohs,2013; Mani et al,2013) There is wide base of literature to support the idea that poverty causes shortsighted behaviour and concern concentrated on immediate outcome. Poor people are more likely to participate in lotteries (Clotfelter and Cook, 1991). Schechter (2011) observed that impoverished people are likely to purchase luxurious goods, despite their situation. Katz and Hofer (1994) observed that despite the presence of universal healthcare insurance coverage in Canada, poor people are less likely engage in preventive healthcare. As it has been demonstrated, poverty causes certain type of decision making. But what type of concept is poverty in the minds of humans? Scientific literature demonstrates poverty is not a solid objective belief which is stable in the minds of consumers. Evidence suggest that the felling of poverty can be induced and people can be framed to think they are poor (Carrie and Meuris ,2015; Sharma and Alter ,2012; Diener et al,1999; Tully et al,2015) The term “subjective well-being” stretches to a range of phenomena and explains how people
10 In fact, humans have a tendency to evaluate their well-being based on two types of subjective standards - comparing to past situation and to other people (Sharma and Alter ,2012). Diener et al (1999) pointed out that financial well-being is not an exception and it is defined by subjective perceptions. Sharma and Alter (2012) defined financial deprivation as “an
11
2. Intertemporal Choices
Mullainathan and Shafir (2013) found that financial deprivation increases cognitive load and makes people focus on immediate concerns. Spears (2011) demonstrated that poverty feeling reduces behavioral control, consumes mental resources and makes economic decision-making more difficult. Bickel et al (2016) pointed that financial scarcity is associated with attention shift towards short term needs at the expense of long term. In their research Bickel et al (2016) used intertemporal discounting to measure current and future preferences. Soman, Ainslie, Frederick, Li, Lynch, Moreau, Mitchell, Read, Sawyer, Trope and Wertenbroch (2005) explain intertemporal discounting as: “a choice between options whose consequences occur at different points in time. Examples of intertemporal choice include: Receiving $10 today, or $12 in a week, choosing between chocolate cake and fruit for dessert, saving versus spending money now, promising to write a journal article or teach an extra course in the next academic term, choosing a major in college, and deciding whether to smoke a cigarette. In each of these cases, a decision maker needs to trade off the utility (or value) of one out come that is temporally proximal (typically immediate) with another one that is temporally distant’’ (Soman et al, 2005, p 348) . Examples above have a trade- off between proximal outcome (10 dollar, cake...) and distant outcome (12 dollars,fruit..). The temporal distance between the two is called ‘delay’ (Soman et al, 2005, p 348).Soman et al (2005) also explained that the need of self- control exists due to the conflict between short-term and long-term consequences of a choice.
A relationship between cognitive load and intertemporal choices has been found in scientific literature. Deck and Jahedi (2015) determined that cognitive load causes an
12 working memory is stimulated and cognitive load is created participants are more likely to make short- term impulsive decision and go for immediate gratification. Hinson, Jameson and Whitney (2003) made three experiments which connected working memory and delayed discounting. They manipulated the working memory of the participants by requiring from them to do certain tasks which create cognitive load. They found that under cognitive load the participants would be more likely to have greater delayed discounting for hypothetical
monetary rewards. Results with real monetary rewards were also significant and had the same direction. This means that the cognitive load caused by poverty feeling leads to more
profound short-term orientation. Callan, Shead and Olson (2011) connected personal relative deprivation with delayed discounting. They found that participants who were under
deprivation manipulation were more likely to prefer smaller-sooner rather than larger –latter rewards when they faced delayed discounting tasks. This means that financial deprivation as type of personal deprivation leads preference for smaller-sooner options. Finally, Bickel et al (2016) used narrative of a sudden income change (positive, neutral, or negative) and
examined effects on delayed discounting. They concluded that when participants are framed to think that negative income shock is coming they are more likely to prefer immediate gratification when doing delayed discounting task.
13
3. Believe in a Just world
As the paragraphs above proposes, financial deprivation leads to preference for temporal proximity. However, it is important to find underlying factors that influence the relationship by either increasing or decreasing its intensity. Belief in a just world (BJW) might provide one such factor. Lerner (1965) and (1980) introduced this theory, according to which people need to believe that every person gets what he or she deserves. As Ramos, Correia and Alves (2014) pointed out the belief in a just world is the perception that the world is an orderly place where individuals have the power to decide their own fate. This belief gives people the
perception that the reality they live in is stable, organized and just (Lerner ,1980). Wolfradt and Dalbert (2003) indicated three main functions of the BJW: (1) indicates personal contract and obligation to be fair; (2) gives framework for people to interpret life in a meaningful way; (3) it gives people the confidence that they will be treated fairly and will not be victims of unexpected disaster. This is why belief in a just world could be used to explain very wide variety of behaviour and cognition.
The perception that a person has control and stability over outcomes has profound
14 environment and also found it causes higher commitment and better performance by
employees. This could mean that people who are high in BJW are more likely to follow long term- strategy when facing intertemporal choices. Hafer (2000) supports that claim by demonstrating the high BJW leads to investment in long-term goals. Hafer, Bègue, Choma and Dempsey (2005) confirm the conclusions of Hafer (2000) and found that belief in a just world leads to focus on long term goals. The explanation for this is that people who believe in a just world assume that their actions will certainly lead to corresponding rewards in the future. This means that it is likely that when facing intertemporal choices, people with high BJW would be more likely to be more patient. The logic behind this assumption is that people who believe in a just world have confidence in the fairness of the world and they will get what they deserve in the long run (Hafer et al,2005).
As seen above a list of studies point in the direction to suspect that the belief in just world might have influence on the cognition of a person when he feels poor (poverty manipulation). If a person does believe that the world is just and everybody gets what he or she deserves he would be more likely to think in long term when he is shown intertemporal choices.
H2: Low level of belief in a just world under the condition of financial deprivation leads to increased preference for immediate gratification.
H3: High level of belief in a just world under the condition of financial deprivation leads to increased preference for temporal distance.
4. Life History Theory and Childhood SES
15 childhood environment causes individuals to adopt different strategies in their adult life. People who had very harsh and unpredictable childhood environment tend to develop fast strategy. On the other hand, people who had secure and stable childhood environment tend to adopt slow strategy Griskevicius et al ,2013; Mittal and Griskevicius ,2014; Brumbach et al ,2009; Mittal and Griskevicius ,2016) Those strategies are positioned on a continuum between fast and slow strategy rather than only two options. Different strategies are associated with different decisions and actions that the individuals take. Figure 1 demonstrates some of the differences associated with the two extremes.
Figure 1: Fast and slow life history strategies.
Note: Reproduced from Griskevicius, et al (2013)
16 Griskevicius et al (2013) found out the that people who grew up in lower-socioeconomic environments were more impulsive, took more risks, and approached temptations more quickly. On the other hand, individuals who were raised at higher socioeconomic
environments were less impulsive, took less risks, and approached temptations more slowly. Mittal and Griskevicius (2014) demonstrated that low childhood SES leads to choosing fast life strategy which leads to impulsivity and weak sense of control under uncertainty during adult age. Griskevicius et al (2013) also discovered that during economic crisis people who have been raised at wealthy environment exhibit much less risky and impulsive behaviour compared to people raised at poor environment. Paál, Carpenter and Nettle (2015) determined that childhood socioeconomic deprivation, but not current mood, is associated with behavioral disinhibition in adults. Duncan, Ziol‐Guest and Kalil (2010) found that there is a relationship between childhood poverty and adult earnings and working hours. Mittal and Griskevicius (2016) made the discovery that people who had low childhood SES are less likely to have health coverage compared to those who had high childhood SES. Sirin (2005) found that SES affects academic achievement. Finally Jachimowicz , Chafik, Munrat , Prabhu and Webe (2017) used current SES and intertemporal discounting in their study. They found that low socioeconomic status leads to preference for proximal outcome when people have choices concerning money. Farah and Hook (2017) supported the finding of Jachimowicz et al (2017) and expanded them. They demonstrated that low SES leads to present- mindedness which affects intertemporal choices in favor of immediate gratification which leads to poverty trap. Figure 2 demonstrates how low SES causes people to fall into the poverty trap.
17
Note: Reproduced from Farah and Hook (2017)
Based on the evidence which suggest that childhood SES influences choices which deal with immediate gratification and postponed rewards in could be claimed that in might have a moderating effect on the relationship between financial deprivation and delayed discounting. H4: Low childhood SES under the condition of financial deprivation leads to increased preference for immediate gratification.
H5: High childhood SES under the condition of financial deprivation leads increased preference for temporal distance.
5. Overview of the study
To summarize, the main effect which this paper will research is whether financial
18
Graph 1. Belief in a Just World
The other moderation which is proposed is the established proxy measure used in life history research- Childhood SES. The following graph demonstrated the proposed moderation. Graph 2. Childhood SES
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, we recruited 197 participants to join our online experiment in Participants were paid 70 cents for finishing the survey. All of the participants received the money after they finished the whole survey. After that 7 participants were
Financial Deprivation Temporal Proximity
Belief in a Just World
Childhood SES
19 excluded because they did not complete the survey. Therefore, the final analysis was
conducted on total of 190 participants (male =125, female= 65, MAge = 34.4, SD= 10.374, RangeAge = 20 _ 68).
Procedure
The research was conducted using Qualtirics online platform. Initially, participants had to rate statements of the Belief in a Just World measurement. Next, they were randomly assigned to two conditions –financial adequacy condition or financial inadequacy condition.
Participants had to do several tasks: share their beliefs, write about a situation, choose between temporal options and then give answers about their feelings, demographics and surrounding environment during the time they took the survey. At the beginning they had to agree not to leave the computer until they have finished the survey
The first task that participants had to do was to respond to the measurement of one of the moderators –belief in a just world. This survey used the scale for measurement designed by Lipkus (1991). It is an improved version of the scale designed originally by Rubin and Peplau (1973) and Rubin and Peplau (1975). The reason for this is that it is one of the most widely used and according to Hellman, Muilenburg-Trevino and Worley (2008) it is the most reliable one. Participants had to rate seven statements with a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). No questions were reversed coded.
20 group in contrast had a slider between 0 and 50000 and above dollars. They had to write a short essay reflecting how does it feel to be poor. Participant in this group were in the poverty manipulation condition. Participants who did not write that they feel poor or financially adequate depending on their condition were not included in the analysis. After financial adequacy manipulation, participants completed monetary intertemporal choice task adopted by Van den Bergh, Dewitte and Warlop (2008). This measurement has proven reliability and validity. Participants were asked three question. They had to express their how many dollars are they willing to receive in 3,6 and 15 months compared to 65 dollars now.
For the moderator childhood SES the well-established measurements used by Griskevicius et al (2013); Mittal and Griskevicius (2014) and many other articles was chosen. It is consisted of two separate measurements. The first measurement contains three statements about
21 Results
Our dependent variable (impatience in intertemporal choice) was calculated using participants standardized area under the discounting curve. The AUC is a standardized measure ranging from 0 to 1 in which 0 indicates extreme impatience and 1 indicate extreme patience.
Main effect: Testing the effect of poverty manipulation on impatience
A univariate analysis of variance was conducted to measure the effect of (IV) financial deprivation on (DV) Intertemporal choices. The Univariate Analysis of Variance
demonstrated significant effect of the manipulation on the dependent variable. (F (1,188) = 4,126, p = 0.044). Such as that participants in the inadequate financial condition (M= 0.506, SD= 0.232 ,95% CI mean-difference) demonstrated greater impatience compared to
participants in the adequate financial condition (M= 0.578, SD= 0.256 ,95% CI mean-difference).
22
Belief in a Just World Moderation
Next we examined the moderating relationship of Belief in a just world on the relationship between financial deprivation and impatience. Using Andrew Hays process model 1 we tested the moderation hypothesis and the results were the following:
F(3,186)=1.701,p=0.17,R2=0.0267 .The results indicated that the overall model was not significant under 0.1 or 0,05 threshold. Specifically the hypothesized interaction effect was not significant (b= - 0,0242, t(186)= 0.973, p= 0.33). However, to examine the pattern of data and to say whether it was in line with our hypothesis we looked at difference between our experimental conditions (financial adequacy and financial adequacy) at different levels of our moderator. When analyzing the pattern, we can see that for low belief in a just world leads to more impatience (b= -0,1068, t(186)= -2.119, p=0.04 ) when we compare it with average (b= -0,0722,t(186)= -2.025, p=0.04 and high believe in a just world where the results are not significant (b= -0,0376,t(186)= -0.748, p=0.46). Graph number 3 demonstrates the pattern.
23
Childhood SES Moderation
Next, the effect of childhood SES was measured by two separate measures. Using Andrew Hays process model 1 we tested the moderation hypothesis and the results were the following: There result for the first measurement using the 3 statements of Griskevicius et al (2013) indicated that the overall model was not significant: F(3,186)=1.429, p = 0.24, R2 = 0,0225. Andrew Hays process model 1 was also used for the second measurement. The result for the question for annual childhood income was the following not significant: F(3,186)= 1.861 ,p= 0,14, R2= 0,0291. Despite the results were not significant, they were very close to be
significant. The hypothesized interaction effect was not significant: (b= - 0,0264, t(186)= 1.149,p= 0,25) . However, to examine the pattern of data and to say whether it was in line with our hypothesis we looked at difference between our experimental conditions (financial adequacy and financial adequacy) at different levels of our moderator. Analyzing the pattern, we can see that low household income during childhood leads to increased impatience (b= - 0,1139, t(186)= -2.270,p= 0,02).The effect decreases at average childhood household income levels (b= - 0,0731, t(186)= -2.042,p= 0,04) and it is not significant at high childhood
household income levels (b= - 0,0322, t(186)= -0.634,p= 0,52). Graph 4 demonstrates the pattern.
24
Ancillary analysis
The effect of financial deprivation on the current mood of the participants was measured through two PANAS variables. A univariate analysis of variance was used to determine the effect of financial deprivation on positive mood and the results were significant- (F (1,188) = 10,886, p = 0.001). The same thing was done with negative mood and result were not
significant- (F (1,188) = 0.837, p = 0.361). An analysis of covariance was run in order to determine whether positive mood is a covariate in the relationship between financial
deprivation and intertemporal choices and the results of the overall model were not significant – (F (2,187) = 2.112, p = 0.124).
25
Discussion
As the results of the ANOVA ran between IV financial deprivation and DV intertemporal choices demonstrate that the main effect, which was hypothesized is there. We can reject the H0 and claim that financial deprivation will lead to increased preference for temporal
proximity. As discussed in the literature review, this is not a new scientific discovery and it is in line with the scientific literature published prior to this study. As Bickel et al (2016)
showed when people feel poor, they warry about it and go for immediate gratification. The significant results of the main effect allowed us to go a step further and measure whether the two moderators would have significant effect.
The overall model of moderation of belief in a just world did not have significant effect. Nevertheless, the results showed that further research is needed. This is because the pattern which was hypothesized was there and was not far from being significant. As H2 predicted participants which were low in belief in a just world were demonstrated less patience and more likely to go for the immediate option. People with moderate levels of belief in a just world were more patient than those who had lower rate. The results for people which are high in their belief in a just world were highly insignificant (p=0.46) compared to participants in low or moderate levels. This might mean that only people who believe that the world is unjust place to some extend are likely to be influenced by their belief when dealing with delayed discounting. However, as it was pointed out the overall results were not significant and we cannot reject the null hypothesis and make claims based on the data.
26 On the other, the other measure which was also used by Griskevicius et al (2015) and
Griskevicius, et al (2013) which was based on question about childhood household annul income was close to be significant (p= 0,14). This means that if the experiment is replicated with more participants it might be significant. The patter which was proposed by H4 was evident if we use the second measure. Participants who had harsh childhood and were impoverished when they were growing up were more impatient compared to those who had moderate annual childhood household incomes. The results for participants who had grown up in rich environment was not significant.
CONCLUSION
This paper was an explorative study which contained some hypothesis which were never researched before. The first part of the study – the main effect was not a novelty. The results were significant results and consistent with prior literature. Financial deprivation does lead to preference for temporal proximity. The novelty came from the moderators. Because, this study is the first to examine the effects of BJW and childhood SES as moderators, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, both BJW and one of the measurements for childhood SES came very close to be significant with results of p=0.17 and p= 0,14
respectively. Interestingly, both moderators demonstrated patterns which were hypothesized by H2 and H4. Low levels of BJW and Childhood SES lead to increase in preference for temporal proximity. This means that further research in that area has high potential for finding significant results.
27 and Dalbert (2003) concluded BJW gives the notion to people that they will get what they deserve and confidence that they will be treated fairly by others in future situations. This means that people who are high in BJW should be more patient when dealing with delayed discounting. However, the pattern demonstrated that actually low BJW is closer to have significant result. The reasons for that might be that the effects BJW in case financial deprivation are triggered only if a person is not certain that he will be treated well by others (Low BJW).
The life history theory which is behind childhood SES is also overarching. Many researches in the past decades demonstrated that childhood has profound impact on adulthood life. It affects impulsiveness, risk taking and dealing with uncertainties during adult life. The
previous research and the results of the second measurement demonstrate that it is very likely that theory has an effect on the relationship proposed by H1. Despite, this research did not bring the expected result it gave some base for future research. It is likely that the theory will hold in future studies.
The population used for this study was consisted only by participants recruited by
Amazon. com's Mechanical Turk. According to Berinsky, Huber and Lenz (2012) this gives high external and internal validity of the data which is obtained. They demonstrate that the population recruited by Mturk gives one of the fairest representation of the general US population. That is why the reason why the results were not significant probably was not due to the population.
Limitations
28 should be conducted. If more people were used as participants, significant moderating
relationship might appear.
Online experiments are not without its flaws. Participants of the study were not under full control and other factors might have intervened. There is no complete picture of all the factors that have influenced the decisions of the participants. In terms of the first measurement, it is probable that some refinement is needed for Childhood SES. This is because the two
measurements gave very different pictures. Some articles such as Mittal and Griskevicius (2014) used only the second measurement to prove their hypothesis. This means that it might be the more reliable one. An interesting future research will be the use of the BJW
measurement scale developed by Lipkus, Dalbert and Siegler (1996). This scale differentiates between BJW for self and BJW for others. Probably it the two separate measures are used a more detailed picture would appear. The two different scales might also bring significant results.
Managerial implications
There are certain implications for marketing managers associated with this research. The main effect confirms the findings of previous literature based on the relationship between poverty and delay discounting. The managerial implications for that is that people who are in a state of feeling poor might be targeted. This means that marketing campaigns might include social comparisons in order to induce customers to go for immediate gratification. Quite often consumers are in situation to decide between not spending money on a product as part of long term financial strategy or buy on impulse. If a consumer has made social comparison in upward direction prior to decision, he is more likely to go for spontaneous purchase.
29 In terms of the moderator, there are also some implications which stem from it. In current online environment, marketers have very detailed data about consumers. In case in future studies significant results are found about the moderation effect of Belief in a Just World and Childhood SES this might be used in online targeting. Currently, the Big Five model of
30
REFERNCES
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351-368. Bickel, W. K., Wilson, A. G., Chen, C., Koffarnus, M. N., & Franck, C. T. (2016). Stuck in time: negative income shock constricts the temporal window of valuation spanning the future and the past. PloS one, 11(9), e0163051.
Briers, B., & Laporte, S. (2013). A wallet full of calories: The effect of financial
dissatisfaction on the desire for food energy. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(6), 767-781. Brumbach, B. H., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2009). Effects of harsh and unpredictable environments in adolescence on development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20(1), 25-51.
Callan, M. J., Shead, N. W., & Olson, J. M. (2011). Personal relative deprivation, delay discounting, and gambling. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(5), 955. Carrie R. Leana & Jirs Meuris (2015) Living to Work and Working to Live: Income as a Driver of Organizational Behavior, The Academy of Management Annals, 9:1,
Chemin, M., De Laat, J., & Haushofer, J. (2013). Negative rainfall shocks increase levels of the stress hormone cortisol among poor farmers in Kenya.
Clotfelter. C, P. Cook, (1991). Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA,
Cohen, S., Janicki‐Deverts, D., Chen, E., & Matthews, K. A. (2010). Childhood socioeconomic status and adult health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186(1), 37-55.
Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as a personal resource: Dealing with challenges and critical life events. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
Dalbert, C. (1998). Belief in a just world, well-being, and coping with an unjust fate. In Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 87-105). Springer US.
Dalbert, C. (2009). Belief in a just world. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 288-297). New York: Guilford Publications. Deck, C., & Jahedi, S. (2015). The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments. European Economic Review, 78, 97-119.
Diener,Ed,Eunkook M.Suh,Richard E.Lucas, and Heidi L.Smith (1999), “Subjective Well-Being: Three Decades of Progress,” Psychological Bulletin, 125 (2), 276–302
Duncan, G. J., Ziol‐Guest, K. M., & Kalil, A. (2010). Early‐childhood poverty and adult attainment, behavior, and health. Child development, 81(1), 306-325.
31 Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Pers. Individ.Differ. 34: 795–817
Getz, S. J.(2013).. "Cognitive Control and Intertemporal Choice: The Role of Cognitive Control in Impulsive Decision Making."
Griskevicius, V., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & Tybur, J. M. (2011). Environmental contingency in life history strategies: the influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(2), 241.
Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. M.,Cantú S. M., Delton,A.W., Robertson, T.E., Simpson, J.E., Thompson M., and Tybur, J.M. (2013)"When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments." Psychological Science (2013): 0956797612451471.
Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2014). On the psychology of poverty. Science, 344(6186), 862-867. Hafer, C. L. (2000). Investment in long-term goals and commitment to just means drive the need to believe in a just world. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26: 1059–1073
Hafer, C. L., Bègue, L., Choma, B. L., & Dempsey, J. L. (2005). Belief in a just world and commitment to long-term deserved outcomes. Social Justice Research, 18(4), 429-444. Hellman, C. M., Muilenburg-Trevino, E. M., & Worley, J. A. (2008). The belief in a just world: An examination of reliability estimates across three measures. Journal of personality assessment, 90(4), 399-401.
Hinson, J. M., Jameson, T. L., & Whitney, P. (2003). Impulsive decision making and working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(2), 298. Hoover, G. A., & Kimbrough, E. O. (2015). An Experimental Study of the Impact of Social Comparison on Investment. Social Science Quarterly.
Jachimowicz JM, Chafik S, Munrat S, Prabhu JC, Weber EU (2017) Community trust reduces myopic decisions of low-income individuals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:5401–5406. Katz, S. J., & Hofer, T. P. (1994). Socioeconomic disparities in preventive care persist despite universal coverage: breast and cervical cancer screening in Ontario and the United States. Jama, 272(7), 530-534.
Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. The handbook of evolutionary psychology, 68-95.
Lerner, M. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 355–360.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. In The Belief in a just World (pp. 9-30). Springer US.
32 Lipkus, I. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(11), 1171-1178.
Lipkusa, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7), 666-677.
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. science, 341(6149), 976-980.
Meuris, J., & Leana,C. R. (2015)The high cost of low wages: Economic scarcity effects in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 143–158
Mittal, C., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Sense of control under uncertainty depends on people’s childhood environment: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 621.
Mittal, C., & Griskevicius, V. (2016). Silver Spoons and Platinum Plans: How Childhood Environment Affects Adult Health Care Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, ucw046. Mittal, C., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Sung, S., & Young, E. S. (2015). Cognitive adaptations to stressful environments: When childhood adversity enhances adult executive function. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109(4), 604-621.
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New York, NY: Henry Holt
Otto, K., & Schmidt, S. (2007). Dealing with stress in the workplace: Compensatory effects of belief in a just world. European Psychologist, 12(4), 272-282.
Paál, T., Carpenter, T., & Nettle, D. (2015). Childhood socioeconomic deprivation, but not current mood, is associated with behavioural disinhibition in adults. PeerJ, 3, e964.
Ramos, M. R., Correia, I., & Alves, H. (2014). To believe or not to believe in a just world? The psychological costs of threats to the belief in a just world and the role of attributions. Self and Identity, 13(3), 257-273.
Rubin,Z.,& Peplau,A. (1973).Belief in a just world andreactions to another’s lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 73–93.
Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65–89.
Schechter, D. (2011). Poverty in America: If Poor People Own ‘Luxury’Items, Are They Really Poor?.
Sharma, E., & Alter, A. L. (2012). Financial deprivation prompts consumers to seek scarce goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 545-560.
33 Shah, A. K., Shafir, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2015). Scarcity frames value. Psychological Science, 26(4), 402-412.
Sirin SR (2005) Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Rev Educ Res 75:417–453.
Soman, D., Ainslie, G., Frederick, S., Li, X., Lynch, J., Moreau, P., Mitchell, A., Read, D.; Sawyer A., Trope Y. and Wertenbroch, K. (2005). The psychology of intertemporal
discounting: Why are distant events valued differently from proximal ones?. Marketing Letters, 16(3), 347-360.
Spears, D. (2011). Economic Decision-Making in Poverty Depletes Behavioral Control. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 11, 1-42
Tomaka, J., & Blascovich, J. (1994). Effects of justice beliefs on cognitive appraisal of and subjective, physiological, and behavioral responses to potential stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 732–740. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.732
Tully, S. M., Hershfield, H. E., & Meyvis, T. (2015). Seeking lasting enjoyment with limited money: Financial constraints increase preference for material goods over experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(1), 59-75.
Van den Bergh, B., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. (2008). Bikinis instigate generalized impatience in intertemporal choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 85-97.
Vohs, K. D. (2013). The poor's poor mental power. Science, 341(6149), 969-970.
Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and vice. Marketing science, 17(4), 317-337.
White, A. (2014). The Effectiveness of Reciprocity Appeals in Economic Booms and Busts (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University).
White, A. E., Li, Y. J., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Putting All Your Eggs in One Basket Life-History Strategies, Bet Hedging, and Diversification.
Psychological Science, 24(5), 715-722.
Wolfradt, U., & Dalbert, C. (2003). Personality, values and belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(8), 1911-1918.
34 Appendix A – SPSS Output Main Effect Moderator 1 – BJW Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,1634 ,0267 ,0594 1,7011 3,0000 186,0000 ,1683 Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant ,6181 ,0768 8,0454 ,0000 ,4665 ,7696 BJW -,0102 ,0183 -,5579 ,5776 -,0463 ,0259 Cond -,1671 ,1040 -1,6075 ,1097 -,3722 ,0380 int_1 ,0242 ,0249 ,9727 ,3320 -,0249 ,0734
*************************************************************************
Moderator 2 – Childhood SES
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: AUC
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerb Corrected Model .244a 1 .244 4.126 .044 .021 4.126 .524 Intercept 54.876 1 54.876 928.406 .000 .832 928.406 1.000 FinalDecidedCondition .244 1 .244 4.126 .044 .021 4.126 .524 Error 11.112 188 .059 Total 66.187 190 Corrected Total 11.356 189
35 A) Measurement 1 (3 statements) Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,1501 ,0225 ,0597 1,4293 3,0000 186,0000 ,2356 Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant ,6054 ,0739 8,1925 ,0000 ,4596 ,7512 Childhoo -,0070 ,0176 -,4001 ,6896 -,0417 ,0276 Cond -,1115 ,0967 -1,1533 ,2503 -,3022 ,0792 int_1 ,0101 ,0231 ,4363 ,6631 -,0354 ,0556
*************************************************************************
B) Measurement 2 (Childhood annual household income)
Outcome: AUC
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,1707 ,0291 ,0593 1,8609 3,0000 186,0000 ,1377
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant ,6110 ,0673 9,0725 ,0000 ,4781 ,7438 Childhoo -,0087 ,0162 -,5354 ,5930 -,0406 ,0233 FinalDec -,1782 ,0979 -1,8203 ,0703 -,3714 ,0149 int_1 ,0264 ,0230 1,1491 ,2520 -,0189 ,0718
36
ANCOVA –positive mood
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: AUC
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerb Corrected Model .251a 2 .125 2.112 .124 .022 4.224 .430 Intercept 4.740 1 4.740 79.818 .000 .299 79.818 1.000 Positive .007 1 .007 .117 .733 .001 .117 .063 FinalDecidedConditi on .212 1 .212 3.573 .060 .019 3.573 .468 Error 11.105 187 .059 Total 66.187 190 Corrected Total 11.356 189
a. R Squared = ,022 (Adjusted R Squared = ,012) b. Computed using alpha = ,05
Chi –Squared Gender
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square ,035a 1 ,852 Continuity Correctionb ,001 1 ,974 Likelihood Ratio ,035 1 ,852
Fisher's Exact Test ,878 ,486
Linear-by-Linear Association ,035 1 ,852
N of Valid Cases 190
37
Appendix B: Survey Questions
Intro This marketing research survey has been launched by a well-known research center investigating people's opinion about daily life issues. The survey consists of several
independent parts which together will not take more than a few minutes of your time. We would like to ask you not to leave your PC before completing the survey. Please note that this survey is anonymous and your participation is entirely voluntary. You will be paid only if you complete the survey. I have read and understood the above consent and would like to
participate in this survey. Yes (1)
No (2)
Condition: No Is Selected. Skip To: End of Survey.
BJintro PART 1: Opinion Survey Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Please notice there are no right or wrong answers to these questions. We are only interested in your honest opinion.
BJ1 I feel that people get what they are entitled to have Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly agree (7)
BJ2 I feel that a person’s efforts are noticed and rewarded Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5)
Agree (6)
38 BJ3 I feel that people earn the rewards and punishments they get in this world
Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly agree (7)
BJ4 I feel that people who meet with misfortune have brought it on themselves Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly agree (7)
BJ5 I feel that people get what they deserve Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly agree (7)
BJ6 I feel that people that rewards and punishments are fairly given Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5)
Agree (6)
39 BJ7 I basically feel that the world is a fair place
Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly agree (7)
RM1 Using the slider on the bar, please indicate your monthly income (in US Dollar): ______ 1 (1)
Adequact Writing Based on the income you indicated, our online calculator identified you as an individual who has adequate and sufficient amount of financial resources (i.e., money), relative to others. We would like you to take a few minutes to reflect on how it feels to be financially adequate and to know that you have sufficient money to use at your will or when required in daily life, relative to other people who do not. Consider carefully and vividly how your life is with sufficient amount of money and what the consequences of having
sufficient money to live a good and adequate life are. Please take a few minutes to write your reflections and feelings in the space provided below and as detailed as possible.
RMtext Timing First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4)
PM1 Using the slider on the bar, please indicate your monthly income (in US Dollar): ______ 1 (1)
40 feelings about your lack of financial resources (i.e., money) in the space provided below and as detailed as possible. PMtext Timing First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4)
ThreeMonths Imagine that you can receive $65 Now. How much money do you require instead to wait for three months? Please indicate the amount in the box provided. $65 now = $____ in 3 months.
Nine Imagine that you can receive $65 Now. How much money do you require instead to wait for nine months? Please indicate the amount in the box provided. $65 now = $____ in 9 months.
FifteenMonths Imagine that you can receive $65 Now. How much money do you require instead to wait for fifteen months? Please indicate the amount in the box provided. $65 now = $____ in 15 months.
Demointro Part 3: Habits and Personality Characteristics Welcome to the last section of this survey. In this section, you will answer questions about your daily habits and
personality characteristics.
SES1 My family usually had enough money for things when I was growing up Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5)
Agree (6)
41 SES2 I grew up in a relatively wealthy neighborhood
Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly agree (7)
SES3 I felt relatively wealthy compared to other kids at school Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly agree (7)
SES$ What was your annual household income when you were growing up? 15 000 $ or less (1) 15 001$-25 000$ (2) 25 001$ - 35 000$ (3) 35 001$-50 000$ (4) 50 001$-75000$ (5) 75 001 $ or more (6)
Gender What is your gender? Male (1)
Female (2) Other (3)
Age What is you age?
42 Not at all 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) Extremely 5 (5) Interested (1) Distressed (2) Excited (3) Upset (4) Strong (5) Guilty (6) Scared (7) Hostile (8) Enthusiastic (9) Proud (10) Irritable (11) Alert (12) Ashamed (13) Inspired (14) Nervous (15) Determined (16) Attentive (17) Tense (18) Active (19) Afraid (20) Tired (21) Bored (22) Happy (23) Stressed (24)
Attentiveness Based on your honest judgment, how attentive were you when completing this survey?
______ 1 (1)
43 Yes (1) ____________________
No (2)
MusicTV Were you listening to music or watching TV while completing the survey? Yes (1)
No (2)
WhoSurrounds Were you alone while answering this survey? if not, please briefly indicate whom were you surrounded with.
Yes (1)
No (2) ____________________
Quietness Based on your honest judgment, how quiet was your surrounding environment when you were completing this survey?
______ 1 (1)
Device Which device did you use to fill out the survey? PC (1)
Laptop (2) Tablet (3) Smart phone (4)
other (5) ____________________
SeenBefore Have you ever participated in any survey that involved some parts of this survey or tasks similar to it? If yes, can you specify which part(s)?
Yes (1) ____________________ No (2)
DiffcultyUnderstandi Was there any section of this survey which was confusing to you or that you had difficultly understanding what to do? If yes, please specify.
Yes (1) ____________________ No (2)
DiscountingFeelOrLog When you were answering questions regarding financial decisions in future (the amount of money that you would require in future times), how did you indicate your responses? For example, did you base your responses on your feelings or did you try to respond based on some kind of calculation or logic (e.g., multiplications of any sort,
44 CurrentIncome Please choose one of the following ranges that best indicate your current annual income. Under $15,000 (1) $15,000 to $24,999 (2) $25,000 to $34,999 (3) $35,000 to $44,999 (4) $45,000 to $54,999 (5) $55,000 to $64,999 (6) $65,000 to $74,999 (7) $75,000 to $84,999 (8) $85,000 to $94,999 (9) $95,000 to $109,999 (10) $110,000 to $119,999 (11) $120,000 to $129,999 (12) $130,000 to $139,999 (13) $140,000 to $149,999 (14) $150,000 to $159,999 (15) $160,000 to $169,999 (16) $170,000 to $179,999 (17) $180,000 to $189,999 (18) $190,000 and above (19)
Ethnicity What is your ethnic background? White/Caucasian (1) African American (2) Hispanic (3) Asian (4) Native American (5) Pacific Islander (6) Other (7) ____________________
EducationLevel What is your last educational degree you have achieved? Still attending high school (1)
High School Degree (2) College/University Degree (3) Master's Degree (4)
PhD/ Doctoral Student (5) Doctoral Degree (6)
