The Symbolic Power Of Money (by Alon Nir)
They say money can’t buy happiness. That might be true, but a new study suggests money holds more benefits in store than just the obvious ones. A clever set of experiments by Xinyue Zhou, Kathleen D. Vohs and Roy F. Baumeister suggest that simply handling money can dull physical and emotional pain.
Previous research has shown that social exclusion and physical pain share common underlying mechanisms. This is due to the way we evolved as social animals. In fact, a 2003 study (Eisenberger et al.) showed that the brain produces similar responses to social rejection as to physical pain. Other work (Vohs et al., 2006) revealed that thoughts of money convey feelings of self-sufficiency, thus soothing the uneasiness of social exclusion. Putting these findings together, Zhou et al. propose that money and physical pain are linked to one another, and they set out to examine this connection as well as the connection money has to social distress.
Three pairs of experiments were carried out on university students, looking to see if:
a. social exclusion and physical pain increase the desire for money
b. money can appease this pain, both physical and emotional
c. losing money intensifies these sensations. As it turns out from the study, the answer to all of these hypotheses is yes.
Since I liked the design of the study I’ll describe it succinctly as I introduce the findings. The impatient reader can skip the part in blue.
The first pair of experiments explored if the desire for money increases with social rejection and physical pain. Researchers let groups of four get acquainted with each other, and then split them to individual rooms. The subjects were then told that they were not picked by any of the others as partners for a dyad task, to stem feelings of social rejection (subjects in the control group were told everyone chose them). After this semi-cruel manipulation, the subjects’ desire for money was measured in three different measures (e.g. the sum they were willing to donate to an orphanage) and in all three the participants in the rejected condition expressed higher desire for money, compared to their ‘popular’ counterparts.
In the second experiment, half the subjects were primed to the idea of physical pain with word-completion tasks, while the other half was exposed to neutral concepts. Simply priming the notion of pain also increased the desire for money.
The next pair of experiments investigated if money can sooth pain. Subjects in the one condition were asked to count eighty $100 bills, in order to invoke the feeling of obtaining money, while the other subjects counted 80 pieces of paper (all this under the pretence of a finger-dexterity task). Then, one experiment had subject play ‘Cyberball’ – a computerized ball-tossing game with other players. The participants were lead to believe the players were human but in fact were a simple computer program. Subjects in the exclusion condition weren’t passed the ball and were effectively left out of the game by the other ‘players’. How tragic it must have been for some of them – it’s the grade school playground all over again. After the game ended participants were questioned about their experience, and – as you might have guessed it – those who counted money beforehand felt less social distress over being left out of the game, and maintained higher self-esteem than those who counted paper.
The other experiment of the pair is possibly the most interesting in the bunch. After that same money/paper counting exercise, the poor participants had to undergo a pain-sensitivity task (and all they got in return was partial course credit!). Zhou et al. used another approach – they put subjects’ hands in an immobilizing contraption and then poured hot water on their fingers. After this ‘pleasantness’, subjects rated how painful was this experience. The results indicate that simply counting money significantly reduced feelings of pain in the high-pain condition, and that it made participants feel stronger than those who counted paper.
The last pair of experiments used similar measures to show that thinking about losing money actually intensifies the sting of social rejection (Cyberball) and exacerbate physical pain (hot water again). Subjects in the money-losing condition indeed reported higher vulnerability in both cases.
To sum up, these experiments suggest that having financial resources diminishes pain, both physical pain and emotional pain caused by social rejection. Possibly the most interesting thing to pinpoint is that the method these findings were obtained indicates a general perception of money as a mean to alleviate pain and suffering. This is because money by itself had no value in the experiments as it could not “buy” any passes of the ball nor a release out of the hand constraints. It is also interesting to notice that merely thinking about having or losing money, without any actual change in resources, had the described effects since the experimenters didn’t award (or take) the subjects any money (neither as a part of the experiments nor for their participation).
This study springs several implications to mind. As for me, I wonder if there will ever come a day that a dentist appointment will kick off with a brief game of monopoly (one where the patient always accumulates great wealth) prior to the actual treatment. It just might alleviate the pain.

The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone - Especially Ourselves

Fascinating. I enjoyed the quip about the dentist. It reminds me about what a traditional chinese acupuncturist once told me. If I recall correctly, it was that the village physician would NOT be paid when someone was ill and that they WERE paid whilst the person was well. I wonder how that would fix health systems around the world or affect the pharmaceutical company’s bottom line. But then again, come to think of it, how does this relate to the evidence that cheaper fake medication works better than expensive fake medication? ie given that we save money buying cheap. I wonder what would change if a patient was given $10 with their cheaper medication?
Jason, Thank you for your feedback. What evidence are you referring to? Ariely et al. showed quite the opposite, and after a quick check in P/I I refer you to chapter 10. Alternatively, just watch this video:
http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?page_id=223
“… merely thinking about having or losing money, without any actual change in resources, had the described effects…”
I suppose this is the point to a thanksgiving or count-your-blessings exercise. Even if constrained to just a financial context, one compares to worse states, seen or imagined, so that one’s resources seem to loom larger.
DO YOU THINK ABOUT “DOCTOR FOR WOMEN” ?
my English is totally bad
so,I PO my chinese words…..
雖然這是個很早很早就想過的問題,不過因為最近才跟女性友人討論過,後來有一天沒事在網路上查詢相關資訊
才發現這真的是一個值得拿出來討論的問題:
『你會願意讓你的女朋友或老婆,去看婦產科的男性醫生嗎?』
大多數人可能會覺得,這有什麼大不了的嗎?
不過對我來說,那真的是一件很大的事情,你想想,婦女很多疾病都需要作檢查,尤其是很多時候,根據網友的描述,那是一定要做侵入性檢查,或是至少必須讓醫生看到平時不會讓異性看到的重點部位
在我的觀點,連平常都不能說看就看的地方,妳(指女友或老婆)怎麼能給別的男人去看,或是去碰呢?
我真的是超級不能接受的啦,換句話說
一般如果你女友或是你正在追的女人,被別的男人利用大絕招按摩抓龍之類的,你會不動怒嗎?
舉例:林X翰的無X米被一位叫做柯X臣的學長用大絕按摩了,請各位試想林X翰的反應(ㄟ,他拳頭機喔)
別說是他了,就連我剪刀機百式貓都把大炮拿出來了!
也許我們很幼稚,但是我就是不爽自己的女人被別的男人動,一動就要殺害。(沒有憨摸,就沒有殺害。)
當然,有時候遇到女生自己不在意給別人摸,那就真的會負氣
WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY
其實每個男人摸女人的絕招千百種,我完全無法接受的就是「當婦產科醫生」這種,太哭霸了,簡直大BUG
但是,但是
最恐怖的來了,我問了幾位女性朋友,她們竟然說:無所謂吧,這有關係嗎???
然後,很多女網友竟然也說:男的醫生比較好,他們對女性的私處比較會有敬畏的心理,或是有強者面對弱者時的那種憐憫,會比較溫柔
網友們指出,男醫生在作侵入性檢查的時候,都會比較慢,會一邊做,一邊問妳,這樣可以嗎,會不會痛?要忍耐一下喔~這樣會有一點痛是沒辦法的~之類的話……….
我操他媽的這王八醫生!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
是啦,我絕對相信這樣女性是會比較舒服,但是我他媽的心裡超不舒服,負氣到得憂鬱症都有可能。
難道女醫生都他媽的暴龍嗎,都是直接地圖砲炸進去嗎?我不懂
那些女網友說什麼女醫生因為都是女的所以完全不體諒都很粗魯,我認為根本是放屁吧~女生才應該知道女生的感受不是嗎?
妳找暴龍女醫師~那當然不行,但誰說女醫生都很差勁呢?妳就不怕有男醫生簡直在做的時候心態可議嗎?
舉例:林志玲有一天去某診所檢查,幫她檢查的如果是男醫生,OK不用說了,你相信他完全專業完全不想入非非嗎!?你說相信我先吐你一臉口水再給你斯巴達踢
所以我真的嚴重懷疑,那些女網友留言搞不好都是男婦產科醫生假扮網友上網憨留的~
還有一種論點,自以為能擊垮我的論點~就是
「婦產科醫生每天遇到那麼多病患,看都看膩了,你以為每個人都林志玲嗎?」
這真的是智障到極限的論點,我大笑一萬萬五千萬聲
妳女友不是林志玲不關我的事,重點是當醫生遇到林志玲的那一瞬間,會不會有變化呢?妳女友不是林志玲不代表其他人女友不是吧?
就像「從前」內湖某間圖書館的某館員每天服務那麼多女性讀者,他老兄還不是平常都很專業,但是遇到某些會特別「貼心」呢?
你說,這只是個案,就只有你這種色情的才會這樣~OK,那我也沒啥好說的
刀拿給你,自己知道懲罰。(還不知道的就去看《快克殺手2》)
他媽的,這世界上有很多球狀物體,是不能亂碰,知道嗎?(很多醫生就算被懷疑也只會裝無辜說:那邊是沒辦法避免的吧?直接變古難紀錄者進去咬死他!)
男人對我來說全都一個樣,除了毛頭孩子、老而不舉的、還有太監及植物人。
This could lead to testing positively reinforcing computer games on patients with depression
SN – yes, this is how the principle the researchers used in experiments #5-6.
Risker.H – of course.
m – what an interesting idea, and besides depression another way to go is chronic pain.
your comment suggests an interesting follow-up study about the long term impact thinking about money (and\or handling it) might have on our mental stability and physical robustness. Off the top of my head, I speculate that there might even be an adverse effect in the long run. People, who according to this study think that financial resources would help them deal with pain, might be disappointed in the long run when they learn their situation hasn’t improved (and if left uncared for, might even worsen).
and another thing m – keep in mind the the findings are valid emotional anxiety due to social rejection. as said, previous research indicates that this rejection shares a common mechanism with physical pain. If you want to treat depression with this feeling of money, one should examine first the connection between depression (and in general other reasons for emotional stress) and pain.
What a wonderful topic. Could these observations reflect cultural and/or anthropological evolution of money? Does money in itself have any power or value? Or does our society empower money to hypnotic levels? In a different culture salt or bananas might hold equivalent value. So maybe for now in our “jungle” money has so much importance and implications that it can easily posses healing powers almost like an elixir. Would the implications of a true pandemic or widespread nuclear holocaust or pending doom from a variety of sources instantly change its potency Is this rational or irrational? Or just a reflection of how much power we have all placed in this thing called money!
Jim – you raise a few different issues in your comment. with your permission, I’ll address only the first – the cultural perspective.
All of these experiments were conducted on Chinese students. Half of the experiments had a “social exclusion” condition, to examine the connection between social acceptance\rejection and money. From what I know, and don’t take my word for it since I’m not that savvy when it comes to anthropology – traditionally, Chinese culture was much more collective in nature, and I assume that to a great extent this is true today too. This stands in contrast to western cultures that are more individualistic, where people know they are the only ones responsible for their own future. I assume, therefore, that because of this collective nature of the Chinese people, the students strongly reacted to social exclusion, hence making the impact of money more significant. Hope this answers your query.
I think the preception of money is something to do with culture, i dont mean chinese prefer money than anywhere else, but I think for some of them they may have the feeling of ‘need it’ more, cos the chinese is dramaticaly developing and many ppl used to have tough life now become rich, and the government has been encouraging ‘economic’ comes the first…..due to these reasons, it may make the symbol of money power in many chinese people today. Well I agree with Alon, the collective culture maybe also the reason, though maybe it doesnt call ‘collective culture’ in China today.
Anyway, I appreciate the study, once again it has proved the power of perception
Analysing personal desire for money, I think “social exclusion and physical pain increase the desire for money”, because one thinks that as soon as he/she has lots of money, he/she will be able to show the people that rejected him/her that they made a mistake. That they should have been friends with the individual and they are huge loosers that they have not done so, because there is no way back
… BTW, I am from EU (not Chinese)
It would be interesting to run the same experiment with US-born students, this time having them count stacks of Chinese (yuan) currency, and comparing results.
What do you think of the RIAA in their law suits using anchors for damages?
“Finally, Thomas also makes the case that the statutory damage maximums in this case (up to $150,000 per song) are unconstitutional “because they are stunningly disproportionate to the actual damages suffered by the RIAA.” In fact, the first line of Thomas’ “Statement of the Case” stresses this point, saying that the record labels “seek $3.6 million in statutory damages under the Copyright Act.”
This number comes from multiplying the 24 songs at issue here by $150,000, although the RIAA has never actually asked for this amount of money. The number is left up to the jury to decide upon, and the first time around, they chose a number just south of $10,000 per track, rather than the $150,000 maximum.”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/riaa-v-jammie-thomas-round-two-an-in-depth-preview.ars
With the statement of the large anchor followed by the jury being allowed to make judgement, could their judgement not be skewed by this initial value raising what would be a rational damages value had this anchor not been set?
hey dan -
not sure you if you saw but the new release of NBA 2K10 has kobe bryant on the cover… but the game maker is giving the public the choice to select which image of him wins in a vote. oddly enough they included a ‘decoy’ of sorts by including an image of him in a NY Knicks uniform. true to form in chapter 1 of your book, the LA image of Kobe that corresponds with the NY image is currently running away with the vote even though it’s not glaringly differnt then the other LA options. looks like your ‘truth about relativity’ in action.
I think the focus on “money” may be a bit misleading. Both money and social interaction provide “comfort”, thereby lessening the impact of a negative event. My guess is that any comfort-providing item will have the same effect e.g. if distressed subjects were given a cuddly teddy-bear instead of money the result would be the same.
Hi Alon, I must apologize, its rather embarrassing but I did mix up the ideas. Shall I try again…
Given Ariely et al work with medication, approximately, more financial loss=less pain; yet this case seems to suggest that financial gain = less pain.
It just struck me that this is just another example where there is a risk of making an apparent rational generalization without considering contextual factors.
I am coming to this discussion very late in the game, but I am intrigued. I have been a physician for 40 years and a healthcare executive and academic researcher. Over that time, I have watched money become an increasing focus in healthcare, both for providers and their organizations. I have simultaneously watched healthcare become much less enjoyable for practitioners, sometimes painfully so.
I have always said, “Well, we taken all the fun (perhaps I should say intrinsic gratification) away, so what else is there to do but focus on money.” The connection to social exclusion and physical pain reframes the problem for me in a very interesting and potentially remedial way. Thanks for this thoughtful work.
Very interesting research!
As extrapolation: AT PARITY OF SOCIAL and PHYSICAL PAIN, the RICHES DO NOT SUFFER AS MUCH AS THE POOR.
The evolutionist psychological explanation is that money means resources to survive. When we are excluded by others and experience social rejection, we are more vulnerable, it is more difficult to survive without others. Having money makes us feel less pain, since we know that we have the resources to survive even without the help of the group.
When we experience physical pain, we are more vulnerable, having money reassure us that we have the resources to survive and consequently, we experience less pain.
Congratulations!
E.F—sums it all up right there ,,took the words right out of my mouth,,cause not knowing if we can survive can give us anxiety and pain,,,but if we know we can survive,, we feel no pain,,, social interactions is different… we never know how someone or a group will react to one individual,,so there is always that question if u be rejected or approved by others.. I think socially, its the not knowing part that can cause pain… so your right without others its more difficult to survive
I just commenced my studies and currently reading Economic Applications for Public Policy. Before i started the study, i always question myself that if human beings are so predictable and easily read, then we should throw all our microecons theories out of the window…and yes, i almost didn’t quite understand econs in the rationale way. after chancing upon this, i think i can throw better appreciate my micro econs theories better, beause behavioural econs can now answer the contradictions i have hanging in my head…i will be out looking for this book.
whoah this blog is fantastic i really like studying your posts. Stay up the great work! You understand, many persons are looking around for this information, you can aid them greatly. |
I truly love your site.. Excellent colors & theme. Did you create this website yourself? Please reply back as I’m looking to create my own site and would love to learn where you got this from or what the theme is called. Many thanks!|
Hello there, I found your site by means of Google at the same time as searching for a comparable subject, your website came up, it appears great. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.