3 ms·
>In the first couple of studies, participants read about Joe, who was described as having either a low- or high-paying job. They learned that Joe had won a $200
by xupybd 6y ago
>In the first couple of studies, participants read about Joe, who was described as having either a low- or high-paying job. They learned that Joe had won a $200 gift card which he spent on a flat screen TV. They then rated five statements which measured how “permissible” they thought his purchase was (e.g. “He made a responsible purchasing decision” and “He deserves to buy what he did”). Those who read that Joe had a low income rated his purchase as less permissible than those who read that he had a high income, or who were given no information about his income.
I have no right to make a value judgement on how Joe spends his money in this example. However that is what the study asked participants to do. claiming that people scrutinized low income families based on that part of the study is incorrect. They simply tended to look differently on a spending decision to buy a luxury item based on income. Something the study required them to do.
That said if a friend asked me for on advice on how to spend $200 my answer would depend on their financial position. If they had plenty to spend it doesn't really matter how they spend it. If they have very little I might recommend they spend it on a necessity rather than a luxury. That is not a judgement. It is simply the wiser choice. I suspect this could have been why people answered the way they did.
- rbecker 6y agoI got the impression the researchers already had a conclusion in mind, and structured their experiments around it. That's why they forced the "necessary" phrasing as the only way to express purchasing priorities, and then were shocked, shocked, to find the study participants rated what they would have saved money on as less necessary.
- DougN7 6y agoI think people judge because there is an implicit assumption that the poor in the question is poor enough that they might be getting some sort of assistance. If that’s the case, a luxury purchase is essentially being subsidized by tax payers. And THAT now brings a lot of expectations in (i.e. don’t waste what others sacrificed to give you).
- Rotten194 6y agoIf you read the original study, participants were only asked about one version of Joe, not asked to compare. In another version of the study where an additional third framing, where Joe's income was not mentioned, rich Joe and neutral Joe were rated the same, and poor Joe more harshly. They also did another version of the study where the thing being bought was a backup camera for a used car, and the study was 2x2: along with the income framing, there was also a framing of convenience vs safety (backup cameras are now required on all new cars since 2018 because they significantly increase safety, especially for pedestrians). Participants still rated the permissibility of a safety feature higher for a rich person than for a poor person, and rated the "convenient" camera for a rich person just as permissible as a safety camera for a poor person. https://sci-hub.tw/downloads-ii/2020-06-09/9a/10.1073@pnas.2005475117.pdf https://sci-hub.tw/downloads-ii/2020-06-09/9a/10.1073@pnas.2...