Monday, November 4, 2019

The Psychology of Greed





Is greed the driver of a booming stock market and explosive budget deficit? Can greed ever be a good thing?

Frequently, various measures of the performance of the world’s largest economy—the United States— make the news. I see blurbs telling me of stunning multiyear highs for the S&P stock index, incredibly low unemployment, and budget bursting deficits. And I wonder about greed.

Is greed the major reason why everyone seems to join the party and ignore the day when debt payments must be paid?

Meanwhile, wise individuals assess their level of greed balanced against their appetite for risk. And some consider the virtue of generosity and their social obligations.

What is Greed?

Greed is a desire to get more and more of things regardless of personal needs. Greed may be situational, but it may also be dispositional—a personality trait. Greed is usually linked to goals of getting more food, money, and material things. The Cambridge Dictionary lists related words like avarice, materialism, and rapaciousness.

Beyond the dictionary list, researchers (for a summary, see Bruhn & Lowery, 2012) find that regardless of national culture, people seek to satisfy five needs: security, shelter, sustenance, sex, and self-expression. Values are related to perceptions of need. In the United States, values include material comfort, wealth, competition, and individualism.

Ambition is a benign term for socially acceptable greed. Greed is ambition beyond the norms of a culture. High levels of greed interfere with personal, corporate, and national well being.

Greed is a biopsychosocial motivational force that appears to be a part of human nature. It isn’t surprising to see some tout the values of greed despite general religious teachings condemning greed.

Greed: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

If I were a famous researcher, I think I would like to write a piece for a major news outlet called Greed: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly because, I believe the answer to the question, “Is Greed a Double-Edged Sword?” (Zhu and others, 2019) is yes. On the one hand, people with high levels of greed aim for higher levels of social status and the associated benefits, which includes a variety of material goods.

The “good” of greed for an employer can be the respect for those in authority who are in a position to control the advancement of the greed-driven employee, not to mention the high job performance. Greedy people want more and never seem to be satisfied— these are the two elements of greed described by Seuntjens, Zeelenberg, van de Ven, & Breugelmans (2019).

The “bad” of greed include the lack of performance when employees view their organisation as not distributing benefits in a fair manner and destructive competition. Greed is also linked to a willingness to take bribes and break rules (e.g., Seuntjens et al., (2019). Bruhn & Lowery (2012) identify the downside using terms like “envy, power lust, exploitation, manipulation, deception, and a sense of entitlement” (p.138).

I also note the work of Gray, Ward, and Norton (2014) demonstrating a “paying it forward effect.” In their studies, people pay forward equality and generosity, though they tend to be less generous. But they tend to excess when paying forward greed and acts of cruelty.

Managing Greedy People and Organisations

Fair play is critical to prevent greed-linked cheating. The findings from Zhu et al. (2019) suggest government and organisational leaders ought to ensure a culturally fair distribution of resources to benefit from the energies of greedy people.

Boundaries are needed at all levels of society to establish acceptable norms for ambition.

Monitor acts of Paying it Forward. It’s important to reward positive acts of kindness and generosity. But it’s equally important to be quick to address the payback of greed and harm, which can quickly lead to harmful relationships and an unsafe culture (e.g., Gray et al., 2014).

Leaders’ public pronouncements of regret may be helpful. Expressing regret about greedy behaviour and unfairness appear to have some impact on strengthening norms about fairness. Conversely, leaders who tout the virtues of greed can influence violations of social boundaries (van der Schalk, Kuppens, Bruder, & Manstead, 2015).

Public exposure of deception is important. National leaders, the press, organisations, and individuals play an important role in exposing the tricks of the greedy who use misrepresentation, lies, and deception to exploit others in their pursuit of goods (Steinel & De Dreu, 2004). A free press and support for whistleblowers are needed to curb measurable harm from the negative effects of greed.

advertisement
See Creating Surveys to help measure attitudes, values, and behavior in organizations.




See the Dispositional Greed Scale as a measure of Greed.

Also see the related concept of Altruism and the work of Batson.


References

Bruhn, J. G., & Lowrey, J. (2012). The good and bad about greed: How the manifestations of greed can be used to improve organizational and individual behavior and performance. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029355

Gray, K., Ward, A. F., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Paying it forward: Generalized reciprocity and the limits of generosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031047

Seuntjens, T. G., Zeelenberg, M., van de Ven, N., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2015). Dispositional greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 917–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000031

Steinel, W., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Social Motives and Strategic Misrepresentation in Social Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.419

van der Schalk, J., Kuppens, T., Bruder, M., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2015). The social power of regret: The effect of social appraisal and anticipated emotions on fair and unfair allocations in resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000036.supp (Supplemental)

Zhu, Y., Sun, X., Liu, S. & Xue, G. (2019). Is greed a double-edged sword? The roles of the need for social status and perceived distributive justice in the relationship between greed and job performance. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02021

Saturday, October 19, 2019

Sunk Cost Effect : Psychology of Sunk Cost



The psychology of sunk cost, also called the sunk-cost effect and the sunk-cost fallacy, refers to a finding that people tend to continue investing time, money, or effort into an activity, despite evidence that the increased effort will not likely yield the desired outcome. Work by Kahenman (e.g., 2011) and others document the sunk-cost effect.

In common language, the effect has been called "throwing good money after bad" as when an investor continues to purchase stock despite a precipitous decline in stock price.

In "sunk-cost relationships," one partner may invest considerable effort to win the other back even though friends agree there is little or no hope for restoring the relationship. Focusing on losses means an inability to move forward and recover. 

Rego et al. (2018) looked at the sunk-cost effect in committed relationships. Their first expeirment revealed "the likelihood of participants staying in the relationship was higher when money and effort, but not time, had been previously invested in that relationship." In their next study, they looked at time: "Results revealed a sunk time effect, that is, participants were willing to invest more time in a relationship in which more time had already been invested."



People may hang on to old clothes they have rarely or never worn just because they spent so much on the purchase.

The sunk-cost effect can also be seen in religion. For example, people who have a firm commitment to a religious belief despite evidence that many holding a similar faith no longer hold such a rigid belief because it led them to loss of physical health, emotional health, or relationships. A religious person may vigorously invest time, effort, and money defending a previously held belief. This sunk cost effect has been applied to beliefs that divide Christians (Sutton, 2013, 2016). 

The sunk-cost effect can be seen in politics. Many people invest heavily in a political leader. When evidence reveals flaws, they are more likely to stick with the flawed leader than invest in a new leader with more potential. As can be seen in history, seriously flawed leaders can lead to ruin for the wellbeing--an even deaths-- of millions.

Arkes & Blumer (1985) linked the sunk-cost effect to a desire not to appear wasteful in people who increased their attendance following the high price they paid for a season ticket.

The sunk-cost effect generalizes. The focus of research has been on an individual's irrational behavior; however, Christopher Olivola (2018) found an interpersonal effect. that is, people change their behavior in response to other people's past investments.

Sunk-costs, personality, and biopsychology

Fujino et al. (2016) report on the sunk-cost effect, personality, and biopsychology relationship. 

"Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we investigated neural responses induced by sunk costs along with measures of core human personality. We found that individuals who tend to adhere to social rules and regulations (who are high in measured agreeableness and conscientiousness) are more susceptible to the sunk cost effect. Furthermore, this behavioral observation was strongly mediated by insula activity during sunk cost decision-making. Tight coupling between the insula and lateral prefrontal cortex was also observed during decision-making under sunk costs. " (Abstract)

 


References

Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.

Fujino, J., Fujimoto, S., Kodaka, F., Camerer, C. F., Kawada, R., Tsurumi, K., Tei, S., Isobe, M., Miyata, J., Sugihara, G., Yamada, M., Fukuyama, H., Murai, T., & Takahashi, H. (2016). Neural mechanisms and personality correlates of the sunk cost effect. Scientific reports6, 33171. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33171

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Olivola, C. Y. (2018). The Interpersonal sunk-cost effect. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1072-1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617752641

Rego, S., Arantes, J., & Magalhães, P. (2018). Is there a sunk cost effect in committed relationships? Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 37(3), 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9529-9

Sutton, G. W. (2016). A house divided: Sexuality, morality, and Christian cultures. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. ISBN: 9781498224888

Note: Sinking boat Image created in Designer.



Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com

   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

   X  @Geoff.W.Sutton


Publications (many free downloads)
  
Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  
ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


If you study sunk-costs and other effects, consider 
  
Creating Surveys on AMAZON








Monday, August 12, 2019

Just World Hypothesis

Cosmic Justice 2024
Geoffrey Sutton & Designer AI


The just world hypothesis, according to Lerner and Miller (1978), “states that people have a need to believe that their environment is a just and orderly place where people usually get what they deserve (p. 1030).”

In Lerner’s view, the just world hypothesis focuses on people who observe others' suffering and interpret the observation in a way that avoids believing that they too could suffer, or at least suffer unjustly. To cope with the discomfort, observers may act to ensure justice happens for the victims or conclude that the victims suffer because of something they have done.

In experimental research, the information provided to participants who observe suffering influences the attitude of the participants toward the person who was the victim.


If there is evidence that what happened to the victim is not likely to affect the observer then, a victim derogation effect ("blame the victim") may be seen.

An empathy effect may reduce victim-blaming as seen in a study when participants were asked to imagine themselves in the victim’s situation.

Religiosity may be a factor.
In one study, those who were more highly religious did not respond differently to victims in different suffering contexts as did those low on religiosity, which may suggest that the highly religious believe justice will prevail—if not in this world, then in the world to come. 

The biblical story of Job appears to represent a struggle to understand why bad things happen to good people. In the New Testament, the disciples asked Jesus to explain a man's blindness by telling them who sinned--the man or his parents. Jesus did not endorse either cause (John 9: 1-12). The story reveals an enduring belief among some religious adherents that people suffer because of personal, family, or even national sin.

Measurement
A few scales have been developed to assess just world beliefs. One example is the Just World Belief Scale by Vondehaar & Carmody (2015). Another is the Global Beliefs in a Just World Scale (Lipkus, 1991).

Other terms
Other terms for the just world hypothesis include just world theory, just world fallacy, and the just world effect. A related phrase is blaming the victim.

Application
Just world theory may explain why people blame the victims of sexual and other forms of physical abuse and various crimes. Rape victims and victims of sexual harassment have been accused of having a responsible role in the harm done to them. People who suffer from an  illness or the effects of substance use disorders may be viewed as suffering as the result of poor choices. The theory may also explain the lack of concern for harm done to prisoners as if they deserve whatever they suffer in prison. 

References

           Furnham A. & Boston, N. (1996) Theories of rape and the just world, Psychology, Crime & Law, 2:3, 211-229, DOI: 10.1080/10683169608409779 

Gravelin, C. R., Biernat, M., & Bucher, C. E. (2019). Blaming the Victim of Acquaintance Rape: Individual, Situational, and Sociocultural Factors. Frontiers in psychology9, 2422. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02422


Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030

Lipkus, Isaac. (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. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90081-L


           Vonderhaar, Rebecca L., & Carmody, Dianne Cyr. (2015). There are no “innocent victims”: The influence of just world beliefs and prior victimization on rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(10), 1615-1632. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514549196

Living Well  BUY ON AMAZON

Links to Connections

Checkout My Page    www.suttong.com

  

My Books  AMAZON          and             GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW me on   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Articles: Academia   Geoff W Sutton   ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton