People care about source of money, attach less value to 'tainted' wealth

April 23, 2013 by Yasmin Anwar
People care about source of money, attach less value to 'tainted' wealth
Study suggests money obtained by immoral means is valued less.

( —It's no accident that money obtained through dishonest or illegal means is called "dirty money." A new study from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that when people perceive money as morally tainted, they also view it as having less value and purchasing power.

Challenging the belief that "all money is green," and that people will cross to amass it, from UC Berkeley and Stanford University have found compelling evidence that the source of wealth really does matter. In fact, some people avoid ill-gotten gains – such as profits from unfair labor practices or – for fear of "moral contagion," according to a paper published this week in the online issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

"Our work suggests morality is an important force shaping -making," said Jennifer Stellar, a doctoral student in psychology and lead author of the study. "Though we often think $50 is $50, these results demonstrate that when money takes on negative moral associations, its value is diminished."

The findings help explain the psychology behind such economic trends as socially responsible investing and the boycotting of sweatshop-produced goods. They also shed some light on why companies go to great lengths to avoid the perception that they are accepting money from corrupt investors or are themselves profiting from illegal or , researchers said.

"People possess powerful motivations to view themselves as fundamentally good and moral," said Robb Willer, associate professor of sociology at Stanford University and co-author of the paper. "We find this motivation is so great that it can even lead people to disassociate themselves from money that has acquired negative moral associations."

The first experiment involved 59 college-age participants who were told they could enter a raffle for a $50 cash prize sponsored by one of two corporations. They were then split into an "immoral money" group and a "neutral money" group.

The neutral money group was told that the raffle prize money was provided by the retail giant Target. Meanwhile, the "immoral money" group was told that the source of the prize money was Walmart, and also given information on a 2005 lawsuit by the International Labor Rights Forum that alleged Walmart had failed to meet internationally mandated labor standards. It was suggested that the raffle prize money might be tied to the profits of Walmart's labor practices.

The participants were then given 70 raffle tickets and told they could enter as many of them as they wished as long as they completed the tedious task of writing their names and contact information on each ticket. As predicted by the researchers, those in the "immoral money" group filled out fewer raffle tickets to win the Walmart .

Next, to gauge the value of tainted prize money, participants were asked to estimate how many of eight food or beverage items – such as a gallon of milk, bottle of Pepsi and Snickers bar – they could purchase with the $50. Those in the Walmart group consistently calculated that the $50 would buy them fewer items, compared to the Target group, indicating how they felt psychologically about the money they considered tainted.

In the second study, researchers sought to explain why people devalue morally tainted money. They recruited 140 men and women ages 18-68 through a national research website and paid them a small amount to participate in the study. They also were given the option of earning extra money by completing a series of word categorization tasks and were told the extra earnings would come from Walmart. The same information about the lawsuit alleging substandard labor practices was shown to them.

This time, the researchers used "moral licensing" on half of the participants, a technique in which people are primed to feel on solid moral ground by recounting the good deeds they had done. The researchers speculated that those groomed to feel more moral would consider their standing high enough to afford a little leeway in accepting morally tainted money. They were right. Those participants did the extra work for more money.

The results suggest individuals believe that acquiring morally tainted money threatens their own moral character. But by removing those fears and making participants feel certain in their moral high ground, the researchers are able to diminish the threat of accepting morally tainted money, Willer said.

"Money is often believed to separate individuals from their moral values," Willer said. "However, our results suggest that, for most people, morality is a powerful force that shapes economic decisions and even alters how we perceive the value of itself."

Explore further: Buyer backlash: Why do slogans about saving money increase spending?

Related Stories

Recommended for you

The hand and foot of Homo naledi

October 6, 2015

The second set of papers related to the remarkable discovery of Homo naledi, a new species of human relative, have been published in scientific journal, Nature Communications, on Tuesday, 6 October 2015.

Who you gonna trust? How power affects our faith in others

October 6, 2015

One of the ongoing themes of the current presidential campaign is that Americans are becoming increasingly distrustful of those who walk the corridors of power – Exhibit A being the Republican presidential primary, in which ...

The dark side of Nobel prizewinning research

October 4, 2015

Think of the Nobel prizes and you think of groundbreaking research bettering mankind, but the awards have also honoured some quite unhumanitarian inventions such as chemical weapons, DDT and lobotomies.

How much for that Nobel prize in the window?

October 3, 2015

No need to make peace in the Middle East, resolve one of science's great mysteries or pen a masterpiece: the easiest way to get yourself a Nobel prize may be to buy one.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Apr 24, 2013
Though we often think $50 is $50...

While the nominal value is 50$ The personal value can vary quite drastically (ask yourself what receiving 50$ will mean to a homeless person as opposed to a billionaire).

The value of a sum of money is always measured RELATIVE to how that sum of money can change your life. (As in the above example: The 50$ won't change the life of a billionaire one bit so the perceived value will be very little.)

On the other hand we each attach a certain amount of value to how we view ourselves ethically (most people think of themselves as "the good guy/girl").
A sum of money AND ITS SOURCE will be viewed relative to that. For a homeless person the change in lifestyle afforded by an extra 50$ may outweigh ethical qualms. To a billionaire it may not (unless he's gotten his riches based on illicit gains - in which case the value on personal ethics is so low to begin with that the source doesn't matter)
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2013
Welfare, stolen by the govt, is not tainted?
There is a great scene in Cinderella Man where he pays back the welfare he received.
" As predicted by the researchers, those in the "immoral money" group filled out fewer raffle tickets to win the Walmart cash prize."
And they flock to buy lottery tickets where the revenue is generated from the poor.
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2013
How many people are harmed by an individual or group amassing millions/billions of dollars?
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2013
How many people are harmed by an individual or group amassing millions/billions of dollars?

Zero, unless that group is a govt that steals the money.
Millions benefit by entrepreneurs who earn wealth by providing products and services people are persuaded to buy.
not rated yet Apr 25, 2013
Welfare, stolen by the govt, is not tainted?

Really depends: If you have previously paid taxes then getting some welfare to tide you over rough times isn't tainted. That's what it's intended for, after all: a safety net (just like the police, fire departments, health care, unemployment insurance, etc. ). There when you absolutely need it for as long as you absolutely need it.

But if you talk to people on welfare then you will, almost unanimously, find that they don't feel good about it - and that they will do whatever it takes to get off it sooner rather than later. Not being dependent on someone else is good for self-esteem.

The "stealing by the government" is just that societies, as a whole, have decided that sometimes stuff does happen to individuals that is beyond their control. And that it is in the interest of a society becasue it is an investment in the future of its members instead of just having them drop out (much like schools, really)
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2013
t they don't feel good about it -

But they keep on taking the money and the govt keeps up the addiction.
Heroin addicts probably don't feel good being on heroin either.
If you have previously paid taxes then getting some welfare to tide you over rough times isn't tainted.

This used to be real insurance, not plundered wealth from others as it is now.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.