Pseudo-Set Framing

Kate  Barasz; Leslie  John; Elizabeth A. Keenan; Michael I. Norton

Article | Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Pseudo-Set Framing

by Kate Barasz, Leslie John, Elizabeth A. Keenan and Michael I. Norton

Abstract

Pseudo-set framing—arbitrarily grouping items or tasks together as part of an apparent “set”—motivates people to reach perceived completion points. Pseudo-set framing changes gambling choices (Study 1), effort (Studies 2 and 3), giving behavior (Field Data and Study 4), and purchase decisions (Study 5). These effects persist in the absence of any reward, when a cost must be incurred, and after participants are explicitly informed of the arbitrariness of the set. Drawing on Gestalt psychology, we develop a conceptual account that predicts what will—and will not—act as a pseudo-set and defines the psychological process through which these pseudo-sets affect behavior, concluding that over and above typical reference points, pseudo-set framing alters perceptions of (in)completeness, making intermediate progress seem less complete. In turn, these feelings of incompleteness motivate people to persist until the pseudo-set has been fulfilled.

Keywords: framing effects; Gestalt psychology; judgment; decision making; perception; Judgments; Decision Making; Perception; Behavior;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Barasz, Kate, Leslie John, Elizabeth A. Keenan, and Michael I. Norton. "Pseudo-Set Framing." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146, no. 10 (October 2017): 1460–1477.

Two experiments, including one incentive compatible study, examine the impact of cutting pay for executives versus employees in response to COVID-19 on consumer behavior. Study 1 explores the effect of announcing cuts or no cuts to CEO and employee pay, and shows that firms’ commitment to paying employees their full wages leads to the most positive consumer reactions. Study 2 further examines the effects of announcing employee and CEO pay cuts: though announcing CEO pay cuts in tandem with employee pay cuts can help mitigate the negative effects of employee pay cuts, consumers respond most positively to firms which prioritize paying employees regardless of their strategy for CEO pay. These positive perceptions are mediated by perceptions of financial pain to employees. We discuss the implications of our results for firms and policy-makers during economic crises.

Article | Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | August 2020

Does Spending Money on Others Promote Happiness? A Registered Replication Report

Lara B. Aknin, Elizabeth W. Dunn, Jason Proulx, Iris Lok and Michael I. Norton

Research indicates that spending money on others—prosocial spending—leads to greater happiness than spending money on oneself (e.g., Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008, 2014). These findings have received widespread attention because they offer insight into why people engage in costly prosocial behavior, and what constitutes happier spending more broadly. However, most studies on prosocial spending (like most research on the emotional benefits of generosity) utilized small sample sizes (n < 100/cell). In light of new, improved standards for evidentiary value, we conducted high-powered registered replications of the central paradigms used in prosocial spending research. In Experiment 1, 712 students were randomly assigned to make a purchase for themselves or a stranger in need and then reported their happiness. As predicted, participants assigned to engage in prosocial (vs. personal) spending reported greater momentary happiness. In Experiment 2, 1950 adults recalled a time they spent money on themselves or someone else and then reported their current happiness; contrary to predictions, participants in the prosocial spending condition did not report greater happiness than those in the personal spending condition. Because low levels of task engagement may have produced these null results, we conducted a replication with minor changes designed to increase engagement; in this Experiment 3 (N = 5,199), participants who recalled a prosocial (vs. personal) spending memory reported greater happiness but differences were small. Taken together, these studies support the hypothesis that spending money on others does promote happiness, but demonstrate that the magnitude of the effect depends on several methodological features.

Keywords: prosocial spending; Generosity; well-being; replication; Happiness; Behavior; Spending;

Citation:

Aknin, Lara B., Elizabeth W. Dunn, Jason Proulx, Iris Lok, and Michael I. Norton. "Does Spending Money on Others Promote Happiness? A Registered Replication Report." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 119, no. 2 (August 2020). View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard Read Now

Lower-income individuals are frequently criticized for their consumption decisions; this research examines why. Eleven preregistered studies document systematic differences in permissible consumption—interpersonal judgments about what is acceptable (or not) for others to consume—such that lower-income individuals’ decisions are subject to more negative and restrictive evaluations. Indeed, the same consumption decisions may be deemed less permissible for a lower-income individual than for an individual with higher or unknown income (Studies 1A & 1B)—even when purchased with windfall funds. This gap persists among participants from a large, nationally representative sample (Study 2) and when testing a broad array of “everyday” consumption items (Study 3). Additional studies investigate why: the same items are often perceived as less necessary for lower- (versus higher-) income individuals (Studies 4 & 5). Combining both permissibility and perceived necessity, further studies (Studies 6 & 7) demonstrate a causal link between the two constructs: a purchase decision will be deemed permissible (or not) to the extent that it is perceived as necessary (or not). However, because—for lower-income individuals—fewer items are perceived as necessary, fewer are therefore socially permissible to consume. This finding not only exposes a fraught double standard, but also portends consequential behavioral implications: people prefer to allocate strictly “necessary” items to lower-income recipients (Study 8)—even if such items are objectively and subjectively less valuable (Studies 9A & 9B)—which may result in an imbalanced and inefficient provision of resources to the poor.

Faculty & Research

Pseudo-Set Framing

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors