PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE, RUINED BY STRESS
THE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT OF SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL STRESS MODERATED BY LIFE HISTORY THEORY STRATEGY ON IMPATIENCE
by
Jelte Siegersma
PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE, RUINED BY STRESS
THE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT OF SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL STRESS MODERATED BY LIFE HISTORY THEORY STRATEGY ON IMPATIENCE
Master thesis, Msc, Marketing Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Marketing
Words: 6491 May 18th, 2017 JELTE SIEGERSMA Student number: 2251027 Van Slingelandtstraat 62 9716 GP Groningen Tel.: +31(0)6-46661822 E-mail: jelte.siegersma@live.nl Supervisor: Prof. Dr. B. M. Fennis
ABSTRACT
Consumers’ patience changes when experiencing feelings of stress but it is still unclear if it matters what the source is of the stress. Previous studies demonstrate that consumers show differential reactions when induced with stress, and that this influence is affected by life history. However no clear distinction is made on the origins of the stress, different methods have been used showing contradicting results. Therefore this study focusses on the effects of social and financial stress on impatience by measuring time discounting and if this effect is moderated by the life history strategy. It is common to answer time discounting questions pertaining to money. However, literature also stated that this effect might spill-over to food and thus in addition this is also tested. By means of a field experiment it was tested whether these effects hold and if stress differentially influenced impatience. While the results of this study did not confirm the hypotheses, they did give an indication of the effect. This effect however, was not found when testing for the spill-over effect on food. Although the effects were thought to be clear according to literature, only an effect of Life History strategy was found in the social stress condition. This study shows that future research is needed to find boundaries in stress research. It also gives implications for marketers and retailers who should take into consideration the effects stress had on consumers’ patience. To conclude, this study emphasizes the need to extend stress research since outcomes are not always as straightforward as stated in literature.
Table of content
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Theoretical framework... 7
2.1 Time discounting ... 7
2.2. Stress ... 8
2.3 Life History Theory ... 9
2.4 Resilience against stress... 10
2.5 Conceptual model ... 12
3. Methodology ... 12
3.1. Participants and design ... 12
3.2. Procedure ... 13 3.3. Operationalization of variables ... 14 3.3.1. Independent variables ... 14 3.3.3. Dependent variable ... 16 3.3.4. Control variables ... 17 4. Results ... 18 4.1 Stress manipulation ... 18 4.2 Time discounting ... 19 4.2.1 Money ... 19 4.2.2 Food ... 21
5. Discussion and limitations ... 24
5.1. Discussion ... 24
5.2 Limitations and future research ... 26
5.3 Conclusion ... 26
References: ... 27
Appendix: ... 39
Appendix 1. Introduction ... 39
Appendix 2. Neutral condition ... 39
Appendix 3. Social stress condition ... 39
Appendix 5. Discounting questions... 40
Appendix 6. Manipulation check ... 41
Appendix 7. Life History Theory mini-K... 41
Appendix 8. Dispositional attitude... 42
Appendix 9. Socioeconomic Status ... 42
1. Introduction
“You reap what you sow”, every day consumers are exposed to temptations which, if they cannot resist will decrease their buying power in the future. Choosing the more expensive Starbucks coffee now or saving money for an expensive summer holiday later. If you repeatedly spend your money on a Starbucks coffee you probably cannot go on that expensive holiday later, which you have been longing for. The more people know the balance between present value and future value, the better people are able to resist the Starbucks coffee and save for that expensive holiday (Hershfield et al., 2011; Bartels and Urmnisky, 2015). However, these economic choices are often made under stress. The insight that stress can help explain economic behaviour sparked an interest in the academic community as many economists and psychologist want to understand the relationship between stress and impatience (Haushofer and Fehr, 2014; Urminsky and Zauberman, 2015). One of these studies by Durante and Laran (2016) show that stress positively influences saving behaviour of consumers. This would imply that people who are stressed are more concerned with the future. Another study by Cornelisse et al. (2013) contradicts these findings by showing that stressed consumers tend to fall for the daily temptations more easily when stressed, and thus decrease saving. Main difference between these studies and is the way stress is induced.
stress has on time discounting are still under discussion. It can be concluded that different stress induction methods differentially affect time discounting. This paper will contribute to these findings by using two forms of stress, namely social and financial stress. Literature defines these as two of the most common stressors in adult consumers (Kanner et al. 1981; Keyes, Hatzenbuehler, and Hasin 2011). Social stress is defined as stress that comes from one’s relationship with others and from the social environment in general. Financial stress on the other hand is defined as, stress which is caused by a financial need, or, when a person’s financial outgoings start to exceed their income to a degree that it psychologically threatens their sense of self and identity, their intimate relationships and their self-esteem (Shaw & Gupta, 2001).
Stress however is not the only factor which has a significant influence on time discounting. According to literature early-life influences and the environment might make individuals to respond differently to threatening encounters, like stress (Griskevicius et al., 2013). According to the Life History Theory (LHT) people who face trade-offs differ in how they allocate resources (Figueredo et al., 2004). People have either a slow or fast LHT strategy which translates in different physiological preferences for time horizon, impulsivity and risk reward orientation. Next to these differences the LHT also measure two other constructs, social support and planning propensity. Both of these have been shown to moderate the effects of stress (Cohen and Wills, 1985; Cob, 1976). Because studies are not yet clear about the differential effect of stress and the moderating effect LHT strategy has, the two central question in this study is: Do stressors differentially affect time discounting and is this effect moderated by Life
History Theory strategy?
several studies, consumers are becoming more stressed about their financial situation (PWC, 2016; Forbes, 2016) and also social networking sites have been known to cause more social stress (Steers et al. 2014; Forbes 2015). Knowing how consumers discount is also one of the key drivers in measuring Consumer Lifetime Value which is a key metrics in organisations (Berger and Nasr, 1998).
The next section will describe the relevant concepts by reviewing previous studies and thereby constituting to the hypotheses. The third section explains how these hypotheses are tested and which relevant methods are used. This is followed by the results section. In the fifth section the results will be discussed, limitations will be shown and future implications given.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Time discounting
These results are confirmed by previous research which has attributed time discounting to be a hyperbolic function which changes the perception or valuation of outcomes at different times (Malkoc and Zauberman 2006; Trope and Liberman, 2003; Zauberman and Lynch, 2005). The area under the graph (AUC) is one of the key dependent measures in time discounting (Mazur, 1987). It is a relatively simple method to highlight differences in impatience where a small AUC indicates an impatient consumers and a large AUC indicates a more patient consumer (Meyerson and Green, 2001; Van den Bergh et al., 2008).
2.2. Stress
Lazarus (1966) defines stress as a condition that “occurs when an individual perceives that the demands of an external situation are beyond his or her perceived ability to cope with them”. When individuals evaluate the stressor as a threat, their reactions are likely to be negative (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Metcalfe and Mischel (1999) found that people experiencing high stress levels make use of the so called “hot system” which makes people behave against their long-term interest and fall for temptations. Being in a “hot state” implies that people are under the influence of visceral factors, which influence how goods are valued. Loewenstein (1996) stated that, delaying a reward reduces the value of that reward and this time discounting process may be influenced by visceral factors. Similar results were found by Botti and McGill (2011) who show that stress leads people to perceive they lack control and when people have a feeling the lost control they tend to prefer a sooner reward (Hayden, 2016).
stressed want immediate gratification and are more impatient (Muraven and Baumeister, 2000; Gathergood, 2012; Tice et al., 2001). However, these studies all used different methods of stress induction and some showed contradicting results (Haushofer et al., 2013; Delaney, 2014).
This study aims to reveal that both social and financial stress have a decreasing effect on the AUC of time discounting. Although it should be mentioned that financial stress affects economic choice, because the domain in which the stress in induced matches that in which the decision-making task takes place. Previous studies show that stress has serious implications on how people perceive rewards over time. People experiencing stress are found to be more impatient and prefer a sooner smaller reward over a later larger reward. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
𝑯𝟏: 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑈𝐶 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒.
2.3 Life History Theory
Similar results were found indicating that people with a fast LHT strategy do not plan for the future (Gladden et al., 2009; Figueredo et al., 2007). Contrary to these findings, Griskevicius et al. (2013) reveal that people with a faster strategy have a preference for the present, and thus smaller but immediate rewards. Life history is previously used in studies to explain why people discount long term rewards in favour of short term gains (Hill, 1993). It was revealed that the inability to delay gratification is a function of exposure to an unstable and unpredictable environment (Brumbach et al., 2009). Kruger et al. (2008) found similar results and suggest that individuals who develop in uncertain environments will be more present orientated. However, people often respond in different ways when faced with uncertainty depending on their childhood environment (Griskevicius et al., 2014; Griskevicius et al., 2011; Hill et al. 2013). For example consumers who feel financial uncertainty and grew up in poverty will try to seek immediate gratification, whereas on the other hand people who grew up with enough monetary resources will delay gratification (Griskevicius, 2013).
These findings indicate that having a slow LHT strategy has implications on how people’s future orientation. People who have a fast LHT strategy are more present orientated and think have a short-term mindset. They seek immediate gratification and are more impatient compared to people who have a slow LHT strategy. Hence, the following hypothesis proposed:
𝑯𝟐: 𝐴 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐿𝐻𝑇 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑈𝐶 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒.
2.4 Resilience against stress
mentioned, is long term planning propensity. Planning has been shown to moderate the effect of stress, since it is a well-known stress management technique. Thus people with a slow LHT strategy, would thus feel more socially supported and are more prone to plan.
The LHT also shows that individuals allocate their limited resources differently and that environmental uncertainties may influence this (Figueredo, 2014). An explanations for this can be found in the cognitive-relational theory. The theory states that, stress is a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being (Lazarus, 1991). Appraisals are also determined by personal resources, which can change over time due to coping effectiveness or improvements in personal abilities (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Successful adaptation to stressful events may help individuals develop resilience to future stress (Neff and Broady, 2011). Hence, people who have already experienced stressful situations might be more resilient to future stress.
These findings indicate that having a slow LHT strategy has implications on how people respond to stress. People who have a slow LHT strategy might have more experience in harsh environments, feel more social support and are better at planning. These three factors might show a moderating effect of LHT on the relationship between stress and time discounting. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
2.5 Conceptual model
The argumentation and hypotheses given in this section can be summarized in the following conceptual model. Figure 1. Shows a graphical depiction of the assumed hypotheses.
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants and design
In total, 157 Dutch students (68 Female, 89 Male, M age= 21.2 years, SD=2.7) voluntarily participated in an experimental field study. The data was collected in April 2017. Participants were approached on the university complex Zernike. The participants were selected on three criteria. A minimum age of 18 years, fluency in the Dutch language and the approached person had to be accompanied by at least 2 persons, so there would be an audience for the social stress condition. Participants were asked to help in a survey consisting of several smaller studies, related to the master Marketing of the University of Groningen. A three (no stress vs. social stress vs. financial stress) by 2 (slow LHT strategy vs. fast LHT strategy), between subjects factorial design was used with time discounting as the main dependent variable (see table 1.)
3.2. Procedure
As stated before, participants were asked to participate, anonymously, in a study consisting of several smaller studies, gathering information for the master Marketing (appendix 1). When a group agreed to participate, the researcher randomly handed out one of the three different versions of the survey.
Participants were either primed with the neutral (appendix 2), social stress (appendix 3) or financial stress (appendix 4) manipulation task. The financial stress task is similar to the one used by Nelson and Morrison (2005) and Briers and Laporte (2010), where they let participants think of a situation where they were deprived of monetary resources. The neutral task is similar to the financial stress task, but here participants had to think of a neutral situation, in this case the last time they took the bus. The social stress task is the same as used by Durante and Laran (2016), which will be discussed later.
value they equalled to 15 euro’s or M&M’s now vs. a delay. There were five delay conditions; one week, one month, three months, six months and, twelve months.
Following the time discounting task, participants stress level was measured. This was done using the manipulation check designed by Acar-Burkay et al. (2014) (appendix 6), which consist of six questions, to be answered on a 7 point Likert scale. After the manipulation check participants were asked to fill in the mini-K form by Figueredo et al. (2014), which measures LHT(appendix 7).
The remainder of the survey contained several scales to be measured as control variables. Through these scales data was obtained about the participants, personal traits, environmental influences, and demographics characteristics (appendix 8 and 9). The survey was concluded with a debriefing by the researcher. Participants were thanked for their participation and were given the possibility to leave their e-mail address to receive a short summary of the study after this was completed (appendix 10). The duration of the experiment was approximately 10 minutes per group on average.
3.3. Operationalization of variables
3.3.1. Independent variables
Social stress. In this research the social stress level was induced using a similar method as the Trier
they had to do this at the end of the presentation. Upon finishing the survey the experimenter briefed the participants and informed them that they did not have to the pitch.
Financial stress. Financial stress in participants was induced by asking them to vividly think about the
last time they did not have enough monetary resources. They had to write down what they remember and which feelings this gave them (Nelson and Morrison 2005; Briers and Laporte, 2010; Mani et al., 2013). Making participants vividly think back of a financial stressful situations should give them a feeling of financial stress.
LHT. In this study, the Mini-k scale (Appendix 4) was used to measure the LHT scores for each
individual. The scale consists of a 20-item, 7 point Likert-scale (1=strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree), short-form measure of the 199-item Arizona Life History Battery (ALHB) (Figueredo, 2007). The Mini-k was used instead of the full scale due to time reasons, and the possibility that participants would lose focus. The k scale cannot capture the full complexity of the ALHB, although the Mini-k still performs in line with the life history strategy as predicted by evolutionary psychological theory. On the Mini-k, participants were given statements about parental investment by their parents, social support among friend and family, general altruism and long term planning propensity (Figueredo et al., 2004). For example, “I plan ahead”, “I give emotional and practical support to relatives” and “I avoid risks”.
3.3.3. Dependent variable
Time discounting. The area under the curve (AUC) is used to measure impatience between
participants which is one of the key dependent measurements in time discounting (Mazur, 1987). To plot the graph, participants were asked to hypothetically choose between receiving a smaller amount of monetary resources or food now, or a larger amount later. The delay conditions were, as mentioned, one week, one month, three months, six months, and twelve months. Thus, the participants had to make five decisions for each time horizon. The smaller reward was set on €15,- or 15 M&M’s. By also including M&M’s it could be checked whether the impatience effect only pertains to money, or can also be generalized. With these 5 time dimensions the are under the curve (AUC) is calculated according to the method used by Meyerson and Green (2001). In this study only one dependent variable was derived from the time discounting questions.
The area under the curve was calculated by discounting each delay and subjective value for each data point (Myerson et al., 2001). The indicated amounts were adjusted with the following formula:
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 = 𝟏𝟓 ∗ 𝟏𝟓/(𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒎𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕)
This was done to calculate the subjective value, which takes into consideration the time differences. Then the Z-scores were derived and these standardized values were used for the calculations. These standardized values were plotted against the number of weeks for each time horizon, ranging from 1 to 52. From the following data the AUC was calculated with the following formula:
𝑨𝑼𝑪 = (𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒕 + 𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒕+𝟏)/𝟐 ∗ (𝒕𝟏− 𝒕𝒕−𝟏)
Stress. To control whether the manipulation of stress induced the intended effect on the participant
a manipulation test was added (Acar-Burkay et al., 2014). This scale consists of 6 words that give a description about a specific task (see appendix 6). These six items then had to be evaluated on a 7 point Likert-scale (1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree). Questions 1,2 and 5, respectively, Moeilijk, Stressvol and Veeleisend, were then reverse coded in order to increase the Cronbach’s Alpha and make one summated variable out of the six. This was done because these three measured a negative response and 3, 4 and 6 a positive. The Cronbach’s alpha, α = 0,83, N=6, was high enough and thus one variable was computed. From this summated variable the average was calculated to make it easier to interpret the scores. Participants who scored high on this scale were considered to feel more stress than participants who scored low on this scale.
3.3.4. Control variables
This paper includes a number of control variables to control for any substantial influence on relationships. The control variables are based on literature research and will be shortly introduced.
Dispositional Negativity. According to Shackman et al. (2016), dispositional negativity is the tendency
to show increased negative affect, which is a fundamental dimension of personality traits. To control for this variable, the Dispositional Attitude Measure by Hepler and Albarracin (2013) was included.
This scale consisted of a 16-item, 9 point Likert scale (1= very negative and 9= very positive), where a low score would indicate a participant showed increased negative affect. Some examples are, “architecture”, “politics”, and taxes. The analysis of the scale showed that the Cronbach’s alpha was, α = .76, N=16. Thus a sum variable was computed and then the average was taken to create a Dispositional Negativity score.
SES. The Socioeconomic status (SES), measures differences in childhood environment in participants.
People in with poorer childhood backgrounds might respond differently to social or financial stress. According to Brady and Matthews (2002), high SES scores indicate that a participant had a predictable, pleasant and reasonably wealthy childhood environment. Low SES scores indicate that a participant grew up in a more harsh, enduring and unpredictable childhood environment. To control for this the SES scale was implemented in the study. This scale consisted of a 6-time, 9 point Likert scale (1=totally disagree and 9= totally agree). Some examples are, “I grew up in a relatively wealthy neighbourhood” and “I have enough money to buy things I want”. The analysis of the survey showed that the Cronbach’s alpha significant, α = .67, N=6. Thus a sum variable was computed and then the average was taken to create a SES score.
4. Results
4.1 Stress manipulation
To check whether the manipulation task had the desired effect an ANOVA was performed on
the mean scores from the manipulation check. The results showed the manipulation had a
significant effect
(F(2, 149) = 29.26, p = .00). When analyzing the means it wasrevealed that
participants in the social
(M = 3.77, SD = 1.02)and financial
(M =3.38, SD = 1.04)stress condition
indicated to find the task more stressful and difficult than those in the no stress condition
difficult compared to the social and financial stress condition. This analysis indicated the manipulation task was effective.
4.2 Time discounting
To test the hypotheses that increased stress levels will decrease the area under the curve (AUC), thus decreasing time discounting, specifically when a participant has a slow LHT score. Two 2 (no stress vs. social stress) x 2 (slow LHT vs. fast LHT) and two (no stress vs. financial stress) x 2 (slow LHT vs. fast LHT) factorial ANOVA’s were conducted on the measures of the AUC with the two depended conditions, namely euro’s and M&M’s.
4.2.1 Money
4.2.2 Food
and LHT (F(1, 95) =2.29, p = .13). Analysis of the means showed that when inducing social stress combined with a slow LHT score results in, the smallest AUC (see figure 5. And table 5.).
.56, SD = .37). No significant interaction effect could be found between stress and LHT (F(1, 96) =0.67,
p = .42). Inspections of the means showed that when inducing financial stress combined with a fast
5. Discussion and limitations
5.1. Discussion
The aim of this study was to research whether social or financial stress differentially affect impatience in people and if this effect was moderated by LHT strategy. It was hypothesized that social and financial stress both increases impatience and that this effect would be moderated when people have a slow LHT strategy. This was tested by analysing time discounting questions and using two forms of rewards, money and food, to see if there was a spill-over effect to food. A field experiment was conducted in which stress was manipulated and the LHT strategy measured. The stress manipulations did not have a significant effect on the participants’ impatience and LHT strategy was also found not to have a significant effect on time discounting, except in the social stress conditions with food as dependent reward. Despite this being the only significant influence, it helps to show there is in fact an effect. This is confirmed when looking at the plots and the means, where a minimal difference can be seen between the conditions of stress and LHT, although still no interaction effect can be seen. As said, these results are not significant but they give an indication of the effects.
A lack of significant relationships between the variables shows that, despite the hypotheses being derived from previous studies, the effects are not that straightforward. The main difference between this study and previous studies is that in this study stress was manipulated using different methods of stress induction and the effect was hypothesized to be moderated by LHT. The TSST (Kirschbaum et al., 1993) was also used by Haushofer et al. (2013) and as in this study, did not show a significant effect. Thereby contradicting other studies that found a significant effect (Lempert et al., 2012).
study however, shows contradicting results. Although not all significant, this study still gives a good indication of the effects and thus more research is needed to see whether these effects become significant in different situations.
This study also shows that although the literature clearly indicates stress increases impatience, this is not always the case. This is also shown in the study by Durante and Laran (2016) where stress increased savings behaviour, and thus implies consumers are more patient and that people choose for the6 later larger reward. This is confirmed by other literature, which suggests that stress may serve as a function to prepare an organism for the future and prefer a later, larger reward. (Joëls et al., 2011; Henckens et al., 2010; Henckens et al., 2011). Other studies also revealed that the way stress affects decision making depends on individual differences. Some stressors might lead to challenging states where individuals believe they can cope with the stress or individuals believe they are in a threat state where they do not believe they can cope with the stress (Kassam et al., 2009). The results of this study show that LHT strategy is not one of those individual differences. It might be that the socioeconomic status of an individual has an effect, as shown in the analysis and in a study by Griskevicuis (2013).
5.2 Limitations and future research
Due to overbooking of the University lab, this experiment had to be conducted using paper surveys. As a result, environmental influences could not be controlled for. This could have significantly distorted the results. Furthermore, some participants found the questions difficult to comprehend, as in some cases additional information was asked to the experimenter or they discussed the questions. A limitation with the time discounting method used, is that it gives participants a starting anchor, 15 euro’s or M&M’s. Participants might have used this amount as an anchor and multiplied this by two for each time horizon. Another drawback was the limited amount of participants due to time constraints. It might be due to the sample size that the findings only give an indication instead of a significant result. Lastly, the mean age of this research is relatively low, therefore participants might, as indicated in some surveys, have never experienced any forms of mentionable financial stress. Lastly, because a median split was used, participants in this study who were coded to have a fast or slow LHT strategy, only had this compared to the rest of the sample. Future research should take these limitations into consideration when performing a similar experiment. Second, while in this experiment the financial manipulations were made on individual level, it would be interesting whether this also has a connection to income.
5.3 Conclusion
References:
Acar-Burkay, S., Fennis, B. M., & Warlop, L. (2014). Trusting others: the polarization effect of need for closure.Journal of personality and social psychology,107(4), 719.
Arkes, H. R., Herren, L. T., & Isen, A. M.(1988). ―Role of possible loss in the influence of positive affect on risk preference. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 181–193.
Basile, A. G., & Toplak, M. E. (2015). Four converging measures of temporal discounting and their relationships with intelligence, executive functions, thinking dispositions, and behavioural outcomes. Frontiers in psychology, 6.
Barlow, D. H., Sauer-Zavala, S., Carl, J. R., Bullis, J. R., & Ellard, K. K. (2014). The nature, diagnosis, and treatment of neuroticism: Back to the future. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(3), 344-365.
Bartels, D. M., & Urminsky, O. (2015). To know and to care: How awareness and valuation of the future jointly shape consumer spending. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1469-1485.
Berger, P. D., & Nasr, N. I. (1998). Customer lifetime value: Marketing models and applications. Journal of interactive marketing, 12(1), 17-30.
Bielby, J., Mace, G. M., Bininda-Emonds, O. R., Cardillo, M., Gittleman, J. L., Jones, K. E., & Purvis, A. (2007). The fast-slow continuum in mammalian life history: an empirical reevaluation. The American
Naturalist, 169(6), 748-757.
Briers, B., & Laporte, S. (2010). Empty Pockets Full Stomachs: How Monetary Scarcity and Monetary Primes Lead to Caloric Desire. NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 37.
Brumbach, B. H., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2009). Effects of harsh and unpredictable
environments in adolescence on development of life history strategies: a longitudinal test of an evolutionary model. Human Nature, 20, 25–51.
Botti, Simona and Ann L. McGill (2011), “The Locus of Choice: Personal Causality and Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (6), 1065–78.
Burroughs, James E. and Aric Rindfleisch (2002), “Materialism and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (3), 348–70.
Campisi, J., Bynog, P., McGehee, H., Oakland, J. C., Quirk, S., Taga, C., & Taylor, M. (2012). Facebook, stress, and incidence of upper respiratory infection in undergraduate college
students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(12), 675-681.
Centraal Planbureau. (2015). CPB’s short-term forecast June 2015. https://www.cpb.nl/en/number/cpbs-short-term-forecasts-june-2015
Chou, K. L., & Chi, I. (2002). Financial strain and life satisfaction in Hong Kong elderly Chinese: Moderating effect of life management strategies including selection, optimization, and compensation. Aging & mental health, 6(2), 172-177.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological
bulletin, 98(2), 310.
Cornelisse, S., Van Ast, V., Haushofer, J., Seinstra, M., & Joels, M. (2013). Time-dependent effect of hydrocortisone administration on intertemporal choice.
Critchfield, T.S.,and Kollins,S.H.(2001).Temporal discounting: basic research and the analysis of socially important behavior. Journal Applied Behavioural Analysis. 34, 101–
122.doi:10.1901/jaba.2001.34 101.
Delaney, L., Fink, G., & Harmon, C. P. (2013). Effects of stress on economic decision-making: Evidence from laboratory experiments.
Dickerson, Sally S. and Margaret E. Kemeny (2004), “Acute Stressors and Cortisol Responses: A Theoretical Integration and Synthesis of Laboratory Research,” Psychological Bulletin, 130 (3), 355 91.
Durante, Kristina M. and Juliano Laran. "The Effect Of Stress On Consumer Saving And Spending".
Journal of Marketing Research 53.5 (2016): 814-828.
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk. Human Nature, 20(2), 204-268.
Figueredo, A. J. (2007). The Arizona Life History Battery [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http:// www.u.arizona.edu/~ajf/alhb.html
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Schneider, S. M., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R., ... & Jacobs, W. J. (2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to reproductive
strategy.Developmental Review,26(2), 243-275.
Figueredo, A. J., de Baca, T. C., & Woodley, M. A. (2013). The measurement of human life history strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 251-255.
Figueredo, A. J., Wolf, P. S. A., Olderbak, S. G., Gladden, P. R., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wenner, C., ... & Hohman, Z. J. (2014). The psychometric assessment of human life history strategy: A meta-analytic construct validation.
Forbes. New Study Links Facebook To Depression: But Now We Actually Understand Why. www.forbes.com. Accessed May 27, 2017.
Forbes. 11 Trends Shaping The Future Of Retail. www.forbes.com. Accessed May 27, 2017.
Forbes. The C.A.L.M Approach To Handling Financial Stress. www.forbes.com. Accessed May 27, 2017.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of economic literature, 40(2), 351-401.
Gathergood, J. (2012). Self-control, financial literacy and consumer over-indebtedness. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 33(3), 590-602.
Gladden, P. R., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2009). Life history strategy, psychopathic attitudes, personality, and general intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 270–275.
Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological bulletin, 130(5), 769.
Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. A., Cantú, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A., Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environment. Psychological Science, 24, 197–205.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2011). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: a life history theory approach. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 100(6), 1015.
Haushofer, Johannes and Ernst Fehr, “On the psychology of poverty,” Science, 2014, 344 (6186), 862–867.
Henckens, M. J., van Wingen, G. A., Joëls, M., & Fernández, G. (2010). Time-dependent effects of corticosteroids on human amygdala processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(38), 12725-12732.
Henckens, M. J., van Wingen, G. A., Joëls, M., & Fernández, G. (2011). Time-dependent
corticosteroid modulation of prefrontal working memory processing. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 108(14), 5801-5806.
Hepler, J., & Albarracin, D. (2013). Attitudes without objects: Evidence for a dispositional attitude, its measurement, and its consequences.Journal of personality and social psychology,104(6), 1060.
Hershfield, H. E., Goldstein, D. G., Sharpe, W. F., Fox, J., Yeykelis, L., Carstensen, L. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2011). Increasing saving behavior through age-progressed renderings of the future self. Journal
of Marketing Research, 48(SPL), S23-S37.
Hill, K. (1993). Life history theory and evolutionary anthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 2(3), 78-88.
Hill, S. E., Rodeheffer, C. D., DelPriore, D. J., & Butterfield, M. E. (2013). Ecological contingencies in women's calorie regulation psychology: A life history approach. Journal of Experimental Social
Joëls, M., Fernandez, G., & Roozendaal, B. (2011). Stress and emotional memory: a matter of timing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(6), 280-288.
Joireman, J., Sprott, D. E., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2005). Fiscal responsibility and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and individual differences, 39(6), 1159-1168.
Kanner, Allen D., James C. Coyne, Catherine Schaefer, and Richard S. Lazarus (1981), “Comparison of Two Modes of Stress Measurement: Daily Hassles and Uplifts versus Major Life Events,” Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 4 (1), 1–39.
Kassam, K. S., Koslov, K., & Mendes, W. B. (2009). Decisions under distress: Stress profiles influence anchoring and adjustment. Psychological science, 20(11), 1394-1399.
Keyes, Katherine M., Mark L. Hatzenbuehler, and Deborah S. Hasin (2011), “Stressful Life
Experiences, Alcohol Consumption, and Alcohol Use Disorders: The Epidemiologic Evidence for Four Main Types of Stressors,” Psychopharmacology, 218 (1), 1–17.
Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K. M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The ‘Trier Social Stress Test’–a tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28(1-2), 76-81.
Kruger, D. J., Reischl, T., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2008). Time perspective as a mechanism for
Lempert, K. M., Porcelli, A. J., Delgado, M. R., & Tricomi, E. (2012). Individual differences in delay discounting under acute stress: the role of trait perceived stress. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 251.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American
psychologist, 46(8), 819.
Lazarus, Richard S. (1966), Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal and coping. New Yo & Springer.
Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, 65(3), 272-292.
MacFadyen, A. J., MacFadyen, H. W., & Prince, N. J. (1996). Economic stress and psychological well-being: An economic psychology framework. Journal of economic psychology, 17(3), 291-311.
Malkoc, Selin A. and Gal Zauberman (2006), “Deferring Versus Expediting Consumption: The Effect of Outcome Concreteness on Sensitivity to Time Horizon,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43
(November), 618–27.
McClure, S. M., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2007). Time discounting for primary rewards.Journal of neuroscience,27(21), 5796-5804.
Mucci, N., Giorgi, G., Roncaioli, M., Perez, J. F., & Arcangeli, G. (2016). The correlation between stress and economic crisis: a systematic review. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 12, 983.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle?. Psychological bulletin, 126(2), 247.
Mazur, James E. (1984), “Tests of an Equivalence Rule for Fixed and Variable Delays,” Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10 (October), 426–36.
Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. Commons, ML.;
Mazur, JE.; Nevin, JA, 55-73.
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.
Neff, L. A., & Broady, E. F. (2011). Stress resilience in early marriage: Can practice make perfect?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(5), 1050.
O’Donoghue, Ted and Matthew Rabin (1999), “Doing It Now or Later,” American Economic Review, 89 (March), 103–124.
Oeppen, J., & Vaupel, J. W. (2002). Broken limits to life expectancy. Science, 296(5570), 1029-1031.
Riis-Vestergaard, M. I., van Ast, V., Cornelisse, S., Seinstra, M., Joëls, M., & Haushofer, J. (2017). The Effect of Hydrocortisone Administration on Intertemporal Choice.
Shackman, A. J., Stockbridge, M. D., LeMay, E. P., & Fox, A. S. (2016). The psychological and neurobiological bases of dispositional negativity. The nature of emotion. Fundamental questions.
Shaw, J., Gupta, N. 2001. Pay fairness and employee outcomes: Exacerbation and attenuation effects of financial need, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74: 299–320.
Sherman, R. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Funder, D. C. (2013). The behavioral correlates of overall and distinctive life history strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 873.
Silverman, I. W. (2003). Gender differences in delay of gratification: A meta-analysis. Sex roles, 49(9-10), 451-463.
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation.
Steers, M. L. N., Wickham, R. E., & Acitelli, L. K. (2014). Seeing everyone else's highlight reels: How Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33(8), 701-731.
Strotz, R. H. (1955). ‘‘Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization,’’ Review of
Thaler, Richard H. (1981), “Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency,” Economic Letters, 8 (3), 201–207.
Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2003), “Temporal Construal,” Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403– 421.
Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it!. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 80(1), 53.
Urminsky, O., & Zauberman, G. (2016). The psychology of intertemporal preferences.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. science, 314(5802), 1154-1156.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2008). Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 208-212.
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.
Zauberman, Gal (2003), “The Intertemporal Dynamics of Consumer Lock-In,” Journal of Consumer
Zauberman and John G. Lynch (2005), “Resource Slack and Propensity to Discount Delayed Investments of Time Versus Money,” Journal of Experiment Psychology: General, 134 (1), 23–37.
Zauberman, G., Kim, B. K., Malkoc, S. A., & Bettman, J. R. (2009). Discounting time and time discounting: Subjective time perception and intertemporal preferences. Journal of Marketing
Appendix:
Appendix 1. Introduction
Appendix 2. Neutral condition
Appendix 3. Social stress condition
Deel 1:
In dit onderdeel moet je terug denken aan de laatste keer dat je de bus hebt genomen.
Beschrijf hieronder in enkele zinnen de laatste keer dat je de bus hebt genomen:
Beschrijf hieronder wat er precies gebeurde in die situatie waarin je de bus hebt genomen:
Beschrijf hieronder welke gedachten en gevoelens er door je heen gingen terwijl je de bus nam:
Deel 1:
In dit onderdeel moet je jezelf voorbereiden om een kleine pitch te houden. Je pitch zal beoordeeld worden en aan de hand van de beoordeling maak je kans op een mooie prijs!
Deze pitch hoef je pas na het invullen van de andere onderdelen te houden.
Het onderwerp van jouw pitch is: “Diefstal is een serieus probleem”, vertel waarom jij denkt dat diefstal een groot probleem is. Je hebt maximaal 1 minuut de tijd voor je pitch. Hieronder heeft u ruimte voor een paar steekwoorden.
Introductie:
❖ Bij voorbaat dank voor het invullen van deze vragenlijst. Voor het invullen hiervan bent u ongeveer 10 minuten nodig. Deze vragenlijst bestaat uit verschillende ongerelateerde deelstudies. Deze maken deel uit van het onderzoeksprogramma van verschillende onderzoekers aan de Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Appendix 4. Financial stress condition
Appendix 5. Discounting questions
Deel 1:
In dit onderdeel moet je terug denken aan een periode in je leven waarin je het gevoel had dat je een duidelijk tekort aan geld had. Neem een moment de tijd om dit moment weer zo levendig mogelijk voor je te zien en beschrijf hieronder in detail wat je je nog herinnert:
Beschrijf hieronder in detail wat je je nog herinnert:
Probeer zo exact mogelijk te herinneren welke gevoelens en gedachten er door je heen gingen terwijl je het gevoel had dat je te weinig geld had en beschrijf deze zo gedetailleerd mogelijk:
Deel 2:
In dit onderdeel moet je aangeven hoeveel euro/ M&M’s je zou willen ontvangen als je er een bepaalde tijd op zou moeten wachten in plaats van 15 euro/M&M’s nu te ontvangen.
Stel je voor dat je nu €15 kunt krijgen. Hoeveel geld zou je in plaats daarvan
willen krijgen als je er een week op zou moeten wachten. €15 nu €_____ over een week. Stel je voor dat je nu €15 kunt krijgen. Hoeveel geld zou je in plaats daarvan
willen krijgen als je er een maand op zou moeten wachten. €15 nu €_____ over een maand. Stel je voor dat je nu €15 kunt krijgen. Hoeveel geld zou je in plaats daarvan
willen krijgen als je er drie maanden op zou moeten wachten. €15 nu €_____ over drie maanden. Stel je voor dat je nu €15 kunt krijgen. Hoeveel geld zou je in plaats daarvan
willen krijgen als je er zes maanden op zou moeten wachten. €15 nu €_____ over zes maanden. Stel je voor dat je nu €15 kunt krijgen. Hoeveel geld zou je in plaats daarvan
willen krijgen als je er twaalf maanden op zou moeten wachten. €15 nu €_____ over twaalf maanden. Stel je voor dat je nu 15 M&M’s kunt krijgen. Hoeveel m&m’s zou je in plaats
daarvan willen krijgen als je er een week op zou moeten wachten.
15 M&M’s
nu M&M’s _____ over een week. Stel je voor dat je nu 15 M&M’s kunt krijgen. Hoeveel m&m’s zou je in plaats
daarvan willen krijgen als je er een maand op zou moeten wachten.
15 M&M’s
nu M&M’s _____ over een maand. Stel je voor dat je nu 15 M&M’s kunt krijgen. Hoeveel m&m’s zou je in plaats
daarvan willen krijgen als je er drie maanden op zou moeten wachten.
15 M&M’s
nu M&M’s _____ over drie maanden. Stel je voor dat je nu 15 M&M’s kunt krijgen. Hoeveel m&m’s zou je in plaats
daarvan willen krijgen als je er zes maanden op zou moeten wachten.
15 M&M’s
nu M&M’s _____ over zes maanden. Stel je voor dat je nu 15 M&M’s kunt krijgen. Hoeveel m&m’s zou je in plaats
daarvan willen krijgen als je er twaalf maanden op zou moeten wachten.
15 M&M’s
Appendix 6. Manipulation check
Appendix 7. Life History Theory mini-K
Deel 3:
Voor de onderstaande stellingen gaan over deel 1, terug denken aan de laatste keer dat je de bus hebt genomen. Graag aangeven in welke mate je het met de volgende stellingen helemaal eens dan wel oneens bent. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden, het gaat hier om jouw persoonlijke mening over de betreffende stelling. Ik vond de bus-taak:
Helemaal mee oneens / Helemaal mee eens
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Moeilijk O O O O O O O 2. Stressvol O O O O O O O 3. Makkelijk O O O O O O O 4. Leuk O O O O O O O 5. Veeleisend O O O O O O O 6. Aangenaam O O O O O O O Deel 4:Voor de onderstaande uitspraken graag aangeven in welke mate je het hiermee eens dan wel oneens bent. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. Het gaat om jouw persoonlijke mening over de betreffende uitsprak.
Sterk mee oneens Sterk mee eens
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Ik kan vaak voorspellen hoe dingen zullen lopen. O O O O O O O
2. Als ik wil weten hoe ik met een bepaalde situatie moet omgaan, probeer ik eerst te begrijpen hoe ik in die situatie terecht ben gekomen.
O O O O O O O
3. Ik zie vaak de zonnige kant van een slechte situatie. O O O O O O O
4. Ik geef niet op totdat ik mijn problemen heb opgelost. O O O O O O O
5. Ik maak van tevoren plannen. O O O O O O O
6. Ik vermijd risico’s O O O O O O O
7. Toen ik opgroeide, had ik een hechte en warme relatie met mijn biologische moeder.
O O O O O O O
8. Toen ik opgroeide, had ik een hechte en warme relatie met mijn biologische vader.
O O O O O O O
9. Ik heb een hechte en warme relatie met mijn eigen kinderen. O O O O O O O
10. Ik heb een hechte en warme liefdesrelatie met mijn sekspartner. O O O O O O O
11. Ik heb liever één seksuele relatie dan meerdere tegelijk. O O O O O O O
12. Ik moet me nauw verbonden voelen met iemand voordat ik me comfortabel genoeg voel om seks met deze persoon te hebben.
O O O O O O O
13. Ik heb vaak sociaal contact met mijn bloedverwanten. O O O O O O O
14. Ik krijg vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp van mijn bloedverwanten. O O O O O O O
15. Ik geef vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp aan mijn bloedverwanten. O O O O O O O
16. Ik heb vaak sociaal contact met mijn vrienden. O O O O O O O
17. Ik krijg vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp van mijn vrienden. O O O O O O O
18. Ik geef vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp aan mijn vrienden. O O O O O O O
19. Ik ben nauw verbonden met- en betrokken bij de samenleving. O O O O O O O
Appendix 8. Dispositional attitude
Appendix 9. Socioeconomic Status
Deel 5:
Voor onderstaande begrippen graag aangeven hoe je hier in het algemeen over denkt. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. Het gaat om jouw persoonlijke mening over het betreffende onderwerp.
Heel erg negatief Heel erg
positief
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9
1. Architectuur O O O O O O O O O 2. Fietsen O O O O O O O O O 3. Camping O O O O O O O O O 4. Kano’s O O O O O O O O O 5. Koude douches O O O O O O O O O 6. Kruiswoordpuzzels maken O O O O O O O O O 7. Japan O O O O O O O O O 8. Schaken O O O O O O O O O 9. Politiek O O O O O O O O O10. Spreken in het openbaar O O O O O O O O O
11. Ontvangen van kritiek O O O O O O O O O
12. Rugby O O O O O O O O O 13. Voetbal O O O O O O O O O 14. Statistiek O O O O O O O O O 15. Belasting O O O O O O O O O 16. Taxidermie O O O O O O O O O Deel 6:
Voor de onderstaande stellingen graag aangeven in welke mate je het hiermee eens dan wel oneens bent. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden, het gaat om jouw persoonlijke mening over de betreffende stelling.
Helemaal mee oneens / Helemaal mee eens
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9
1. Mijn familie had meestal genoeg geld om spullen te kopen toen ik opgroeide
O O O O O O O O O
2. Ik ben opgegroeid in een relatief welvarende wijk O O O O O O O O O
3. Ik voelde me redelijk welvarend vergeleken met andere kinderen op mijn basisschool
O O O O O O O O O
4. Ik heb genoeg geld om dingen te kopen die ik wil hebben O O O O O O O O O
5. Ik hoef me niet te veel zorgen te maken over het betalen van mijn rekeningen
O O O O O O O O O
6. Ik spreek vloeiend Hongaars O O O O O O O O O
7. Ik denk dat ik me in de toekomst geen zorgen hoef te maken over mijn financiën
Appendix 10. Debrief
Tot slot:
1. Wat is uw leeftijd? _____ jaar
2. Geslacht Man: O Vrouw: O
U bent nu aan het einde van het onderzoek gekomen. Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking! Als u benieuwd bent naar de achtergronden van dit onderzoek, noteer dan hieronder uw e-mailadres en dan zal ik u, zodra de resultaten bekend zijn een overzicht toesturen van het doel, opzet en de resultaten.
