IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v45y2018i1p109-125..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Other People’s Money: Money’s Perceived Purchasing Power Is Smaller for Others Than for the Self

Author

Listed:
  • Evan Polman
  • Daniel A Effron
  • Meredith R Thomas
  • Vicki MorwitzEditor
  • Pankaj AggarwalAssociate Editor

Abstract

Nine studies find that people believe their money has greater purchasing power than the same quantity of others’ money. Using a variety of products from socks to clocks to chocolates, we found that participants thought the same amount of money could buy more when it belonged to themselves versus others—a pattern that extended to undesirable products. Participants also believed their money—in the form of donations, taxes, fines, and fees—would help charities and governments more than others’ money. We tested six mechanisms based on psychological distance, the endowment effect, wishful thinking, better-than-average biases, pain of payment, and beliefs about product preferences. Only a psychological distance mechanism received support. Specifically, we found that the perceived purchasing power of other people’s money decreased logarithmically as others’ psychological distance from the self increased, consistent with psychological distance’s subadditive property. Further supporting a psychological distance mechanism, we found that framing one’s own money as distant (vs. near) reduced the self-other difference in perceived purchasing power. Our results suggest that beliefs about the value of money depend on who owns it, and we discuss implications for marketing, management, psychology, and economics.

Suggested Citation

  • Evan Polman & Daniel A Effron & Meredith R Thomas & Vicki MorwitzEditor & Pankaj AggarwalAssociate Editor, 2018. "Other People’s Money: Money’s Perceived Purchasing Power Is Smaller for Others Than for the Self," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 45(1), pages 109-125.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:45:y:2018:i:1:p:109-125.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucx119
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weiss-Cohen, Leonardo & Ayton, Peter & Clacher, Iain & Thoma, Volker, 2022. "Pension scheme trustees as surrogate decision makers," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    2. Kim, Hyunji & Schnall, Simone, 2021. "Profit for friends, fairness for strangers: Social distance reverses the endowment effect in proxy decision making," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Polman, Evan & Wu, Kaiyang, 2020. "Decision making for others involving risk: A review and meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    4. Kackovic, Monika & Bun, Maurice J.G. & Weinberg, Charles B. & Ebbers, Joris J. & Wijnberg, Nachoem M., 2020. "Third-party signals and sales to expert-agent buyers: Quality indicators in the contemporary visual arts market," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 587-601.
    5. Teng, Lefa & Sun, Chuluo & Chen, Yifei & Lever, Michael W. & Foti, Lianne, 2024. "Partner or servant? The influence of robot role positioning on consumers’ brand evaluations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    6. Kun Zhou & Jun Ye & Xiao-xiao Liu, 2023. "Is cash perceived as more valuable than digital money? The mediating effect of psychological ownership and psychological distance," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 55-68, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:45:y:2018:i:1:p:109-125.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.