The Love of Money, Satisfaction, and the Protestant Work Ethic: Money Profiles Among Univesity Professors in the U.S.A. and Spain

ABSTRACT. This study tests the hypothesis thatuniversity professors (lecturers) (in the U.S. and Spain)with different money profiles (based on FactorsSuccess, Budget, Motivator, Equity, and Evil of theLove of Money Scale) will differ in work-relatedattitudes and satisfaction. Results suggested thatAchieving Money Worshipers (with high scores onFactors Success, Motivator, Equity, and Budget) hadhigh income, Work Ethic, and high satisfaction withpay level, pay administration, and internal equitycomparison but low satisfaction with external equitycomparison. Careless Money Admirers (high Successbut low Budget) had low intrinsic job satisfaction andlow satisfaction with pay level and life. ApatheticMoney Managers (low Evil and low Motivator) hadthe highest intrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfac-tion. Money Repellent Individuals (high Evil and low

Success) had low income, work experience, WorkEthic, and low satisfaction with pay administration.Money does

not provide the same motivation forpeople in all four money profiles. Results are discussedin light of the effectiveness of using money to rewardpeople with different money profiles, intrinsic moti-vation, and unethical behavior.

KEY WORDS: life satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsicjob satisfaction, money ethic, money profiles, paysatisfaction, the love of money, the protestant workethic, U.S.A. and Spain

The Love of Money, Satisfaction, and the Protestant Work Ethic: Money Profiles Among University Roberto Luna-ArocasProfessors in the U.S.A. and Spain Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Journal of Business Ethics

50: 329–354, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Roberto Luna-Arocas (Ph.D., University of Valencia) is aProfessor of Human Resources in the Department ofManagement, Faculty of Economics, at University ofValencia, in Valencia, Spain. His research interestconcerns the meaning of money and strategic issues ofhuman resources management in organizations. Hisresearch has appeared in Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, International Focus, Journalof Economic Psychology, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Personnel Review, International HRJournal, and many other journals. He has published five books, more than 35 journal articles, and 17 bookchapters and presented more than 50 papers around theworld. He has reviewed papers and coordinated specialissues for many journals. He is the Annual ResearchAward winner of the Marketing and ResearchJournal in Spain and is the principal investigator (PI)of a major three-year research and development projectconcerning Strategic Human Resource Managementgranted by the Spanish Ministry of Education.

Thomas Li-Ping Tang (Ph.D., Case Western ReserveUniversity) is a Professor of Management in theDepartment of Management and Marketing, JenningsA. Jones College of Business, at Middle Tennessee StateUniversity, in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, U.S.A. Hisresearch interests focus upon the Love of Money, businessethics, pay satisfaction, and cross-cultural issues. Hisresearch has appeared in Journal of AppliedPsychology, Personnel Psychology, HumanRelations, Journal of Management, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Journal of BusinessEthics, and other journals. He has published more than85 journal articles and presented more than 150 papersaround the world. He has served on the editorial boardof four journals and reviewed papers for 21 journals (e.g.,Academy of Management Journal, Academy ofManagement Review, Human Relations). He hasreceived two Outstanding Research Awards (1991,1999) and the Distinguished International ServiceAward (1999) at MTSU and the Best Reviewer Awardfrom the International Management Division of theAcademy of Management in Seattle, WA (2003).

Introduction

Money is the instrument of commerce and ameasure of value (Smith, 1776/1937). OnJanuary 1, 2002, 12 European Union (EU) coun-tries (305 million people) have adapted one singlecurrency, the Euro. In June, 2003, EU leadersintended to smooth the way for the expansion ofthe EU from 15 to 25 countries in 2004. Theexpanded EU will be an economic superpowerwith 415 million people and an economy ofmore than 9 trillion dollars which is close to thatthe U.S. (Poggioli, 2003). As of December of2003, Euro has increased its value by more than40% for the past two years. Further, the provi-sions of the North American Free TradeAgreement (NAFTA), China’s accession toWTO, and other economic developments haveintegrated the world economy into a single, hugefree market economy. These changes willenhance the flow of money, human resources,technology, and products and services acrossborders.

Managers use money to attract, retain, andmotivate employees and achieve organizationalgoals (Milkovich and Newman, 2002). Pay dis-satisfaction, however, has many undesirableconsequences, e.g., turnover (Hom and Griffeth,1995), low commitment, counterproductivebehaviors, theft, and unethical behavior (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Greenberg, 1993;Tang and Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2002). Thus,researchers and practitioners are increasinglyinterested in managing human resources effec-tively and efficiently, pay, pay satisfaction, and jobsatisfaction, in particular.

In the motivation and satisfaction literature,Herzberg (1987) asked the question: “One moretime: How do you motivate employees?”Herzberg has made a significant distinctionbetween intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.Extent research in the literature, however, hasfailed to include “individual differences” inanswering Herzberg’s question and studying suchorganizational practices as compensation. Thelack of attention to individual differences inreactions to pay is particularly troubling (Barberand Bretz, 2000). One construct that should notbe overlooked is “the meaning of money”

(Barber and Bretz, 2000, p. 45). Very littleresearch has incorporated the meaning of money(the love of money, in particular) in studying paysatisfaction. Attitudes will predict behavior whenthere is a high correspondence between theattitude object and the behavioral option (Ajzenand Fishbein, 1977). For example, mental healthemployees with high love of money tend to havehigh voluntary turnover regardless of theirintrinsic job satisfaction (Tang et al., 2000). Mostof the research has studied U.S. workers(Heneman and Judge, 2000). We know littleabout people’s money attitude in other countries.This is a critical omission in the managementliterature.

The present study

Although money is used universally, “themeaning of money is in the eye of the beholder”(McClelland, 1967, p. 10). We assert that people’smoney attitude may serve as their “frame ofreference” in which they examine their everydaylives (Tang, 1992, p. 201; Tversky andKahneman, 1981) including their satisfactionwith pay, job, and life. The overriding questionsof this paper are listed below: Can we classifyemployees consistently into several moneyprofiles based on their money attitudes? Is itpossible that people in one money profile mayhave a pattern of satisfaction (with pay, job, andlife) that is different from other people in dif-ferent money profiles? More specifically, themajor theoretical and empirical contributions ofthis study are listed below.

First, we will incorporate the love of moneyin studying satisfaction. On the basis of the Loveof Money Scale (LOMS, Tang et al., 2003), weapply a market segmentation approach and classifypeople into several money profiles using clusteranalysis. Second, since attitudes will predictbehavior, thus, we test the hypotheses that peoplewith different money profiles will have differentpatterns of work-related attitudes (i.e., theProtestant Work Ethic) and satisfaction (intrinsicand extrinsic job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, andlife satisfaction). This allows us to study differentaspects of one’s satisfaction from one’s love of

330 Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

money perspective. Finally, researchers around theworld are increasingly interested in testing mea-surement instruments and management theories,developed mostly in the U.S., across cultures. Inthis study, we will test the love of money con-struct, developed in the U.S., in two samples ofuniversity professors (lecturers). We select oneuniversity in North America (NA) (i.e., the U.S.)and one in the European Union (EU) (i.e.,Spain) because both North America and EU areimportant parts of the global economy. Professors(lecturers) are notoriously risk-averse people.Especially after successful tenure decisions, theyrarely change jobs. Professors are also involved ina lot of exchange of knowledge and informationbut not money. We will examine universityprofessors as a unique group of professionalpeople in our society. Results may provideimportant implications and understanding, forresearchers and practitioners, regarding com-pensation strategies (Rynes and Gerhart, 2000)and unethical behavior (Hunt and Vitell,1986; Michalos, 1995; Robinson and Bennett,1995).

Our major research question is: From the loveof money perspective, what kind of people (andpercentage of people in the sample) will have thehighest pay satisfaction? What kind of people willhave the highest intrinsic job satisfaction? Whatkind of people will have the highest life satisfac-tion? Let us examine the constructs that lead tothe Love of Money first.

The Money Ethic Scale (MES)

There are many studies of money attitudes andmeasures (e.g., Furnham and Argyle, 1998). In arecent

Academy of Management Review paper,Mitchell and Mickel (1999) have considered theMoney Ethic Scale as one of the most “well-developed” and systematically used measures ofmoney attitude (p. 571). Tang and his associateshave developed several versions of the MoneyEthic Scale (MES), according to the ABC modelof an attitude (e.g., Tang, 1992, 1995; Tang andChiu, 2003; Tang and Kim, 1999; Tang, Luna-Arocas and Whiteside, 2003; Tang et al., 2003).Definition of factors, test-retest reliability,

Cronbach’s alpha, the nomological network ofcorrelations, and validity of the Money EthicScale can be found in the literature (e.g.,Furnham and Argyle, 1998; Lim and Teo, 1997;Mitchell and Mickel, 1999) and in many lan-guages, e.g., Chinese (Du and Yue, 2002), French(Urbain, 2000), Italian (Tang, 1996), Spanish(Luna-Arocas and Tang, 1998; Quintanilla,1997), Romanian (Tang and Weatherford, inpress), and Russian (Fenko, 2000). The Love ofMoney Scale (LOMS) has been developed basedon the Money Ethic Scale (MES).

The Love of Money Scale (LOMS)

According to Locke (1969), the first question ascientific investigator must ask is not “How canI measure it?” but rather, “What is it?” (p. 334).So, what is the love of money? We argue that“the love of money” does not represent one’s“needs”, instead it reflects one’s “wants” and“values”. “Need” refers to “the objectiverequirements of an organism’s well-being”,whereas “value” is that which a person “actuallyseeks to gain and/or keep or considers benefi-cial” (Locke, 1969, p. 318). Locke (1969) dis-tinguishes between (1) the value of money to aperson and (2) the specific amount of pay anemployee seeks at a given time on a given job(p. 327) and acknowledges that both may changeover time. Thus, the love of money is themeasure of one’s values, wants and desires.

Tang and his associates have examined manymeanings (factors) of money using the multi-dimensional Money Ethic Scale (MES). In orderto make it practical and easy to use, Tang andhis associates investigate the Love of Money Scale(LOMS) based on existing factors of the MES.Thus, the Love of Money Scale (LOMS) is asubset of the Money Ethic Scale (MES). Theyexamine LOMS for the following reasons.

First, “the love of money” can be traced to a“Western” and Judea-Christian expression: “Thelove of money is the root of evil” (Bible: 1Timothy, 6: 10). Those who want to be “rich”are falling into temptation (Bible: 1 Timothy, 6:9). The love of money (an unobservable con-struct) has been used in everyday expression and

The Love of Money 331

in popular literature. Very little empirical researchhas examined this construct.

Second, recent changes have picked up thepace of economic developments and the flow ofmoney in the competitive world marketeconomy. There is a significant increase regardingthe importance of money in the U.S. and aroundthe world (e.g., Harpaz, 1990; Jurgensen, 1978;Lawler, 1971; Opsahl and Dunnette, 1966;Rynes and Gerhart, 2000; Wernimont andFitzpatrick, 1972). Third, the love of moneyconstruct is a “neglected” area in management,business ethics, and management spirituality andreligion. Management Spirituality and Religionis a recognized Division within the Academy ofManagement in the U.S. According toTransparency International’s new CorruptionPerceptions Index, there is a high level of cor-ruption in many rich and poorer countries(http://www.transparency.org./cpi/2003/cpi2003.pe_statement_en.html). The love of money isrelated to the fields of business ethics, spiritu-ality and religion, and management. Fourth, thelove of money assesses the “meaning” (Barberand Bretz, 2000, p. 45) and the “importance” ofmoney (Mitchell and Mickel, 1999, p. 569) andreflects the individual difference (Mitchell andMickel, 1999) of one’s own personal attitudestoward money.

Fifth, media has covered an ever-expanding listof scandals and corruptions, recently. Accordingto Allan Sloan, News Week’s Wall Street Editor,Americans have always loved money. DeTocqueville traced love of wealth to the root ofall that Americans do. “Greed – defined as aninordinate desire for wealth – is not good, and itdoesn’t drive markets” (Sloan, 2002, emphasisadded, p. 37). The real root cause of the corpo-rate scandals and crisis in confidence in corpo-rations is “the overemphasis Americancorporations have been forced to give in recentyears to maximizing shareholder valuewithout regard for the effect of their actions onother stakeholders” (Kochan, 2002, p. 139,emphasis added). It is all related to money andthe love of money.

Sixth, Tang and his associates (2003) havetested the 9-item-3-factor Love of Money Scale(LOMS) based on employees in 26 geopolitical

entities across five continents (N = 5,341) withdifferent languages, cultures, and religions (e.g.,Buddhism, Christian, Confucianism, Daoism,Hindu, Muslim, etc.). They define the Love ofMoney using three existing Factors of the MoneyEthic Scale (MES) (Rich, Motivator, andImportant) and achieve both configural (factorstructures) and metric (factor-loadings) invarianceacross 22 geopolitical entities. Full metric invari-ance is rarely found in cross-cultural managementresearch (e.g., Cheung and Rensvold, 2002;Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). The Love ofMoney Scale (LOMS) reflects the combinednotion that I want to be rich (affective), thatmoney is a motivator (behavioral), and thatmoney is important (cognitive). Since the Loveof Money Scale (LOMS) has been very wellestablished across 22 cultures, researchers mayfeel confident in using the LOMS and testingtheoretical and conceptual relationships andmodels across cultures.

Finally, Tang and Chiu (2003) employed the17-item-4-factor Love of Money Scale (Rich,Motivator, Important, and Success) and foundthat the love of money is significantly and posi-tively related to unethical behaviors in organiza-tions (i.e., Evil), whereas income (money) is notrelated to unethical behavior. (Factor Successreveals the notion that money is a sign of one’ssuccess.) Empirical data support the notion that“the love of money is the root of evil” (Bible: 1Timothy, 6: 10), but money is not (Tang andChiu, 2003). Further, people with high love ofmoney will have low pay satisfaction that leadsto low organizational commitment that, in turn,leads to unethical behaviors (Tang et al., 2002).This path reveals the thinking processes of or therationale for people’s unethical behaviors inorganizations. We will examine a part of this pathin this study.

In summary, the love of money is the rootcause of evil (scandals, corruptions, and uneth-ical behaviors) in our society (Kochan, 2002;Sloan, 2002). The love of money construct isstrongly related to the concept of “greed,” hasmany negative conations, and has been consideredas a “taboo” by people in many societies. Itmeasures one’s “values,” “wants” (Locke, 1969),and “an inordinate desire” (Sloan, 2002) for


money. The love of money, in and by itself, is“not” necessarily good or evil. The love of moneyis of supreme importance conceptually andempirically and deserves researchers’ furtherattention because it helps us understand, predict,and control evil or unethical behaviors.

The present study. We employ Factors Budget,Evil, Equity, Success, and Motivator (Tang et al.,2003) in this study and define these factors asfollows: (1) Factor Budget emphasizes whetherone uses one’s money carefully or not. (2) FactorEvil measures the notion that the love of moneyis the root of all evil. Money may lead to uneth-ical behavior. (3) Factor Equity is directly relatedto internal equity and individual equity. Internalequity deals with the pay differentials at differentorganizational (vertical) hierarchy (Tang et al.,2000). Those who have more difficult andimportant duties and responsibilities should bepaid more than those who do not. Individualequity refers to the notion that given the samejob duties and responsibilities, individuals withhigher quality and quantity of performance(higher merit) should be paid more than thosewithout (Milkovich and Newman, 2002). (4)Factor Success reflects that “in America, moneyis how we keep score” and “income is used tojudge success” (Rubenstein, 1981, p. 34). Somepeople have an “obsession with money as a signof success” (Furnham and Argyle, 1998, p. 148).(5) Factor Motivator stresses the notion: Peopleare motivated to work hard for their money(Gupta and Shaw, 1998; Lawler, 1971). Thesefive factors can be grouped into the affective(Factor Evil), the behavioral (Budget andMotivator), and the cognitive components(Equity and Success).

Money profiles

In a pilot study, Tang, Tillery, Lazarevski, andLuna-Arocas (2000) have identified four moneyprofiles (Achieving Money Worshiper, CarelessMoney Admirer, Apathetic Money Manager, andMoney Repellent Individual) and examinedwork-related attitudes in a sample of citizens(N = 90) in the Republic of Macedonia.

Achieving Money Worshipers have the strongestpositive attitudes toward money (with the highestscores on Factors Success, Motivator, not Evil,and Budget) and the highest active involvementin work activities. Careless Money Admirers aresimilar to Achieving Money Worshipers with oneexception – they do not Budget money carefully.They have the highest external locus of control,the highest involvement, and lowest successavoidance. They have low self-determination andmay be controlled by money and the externalreward systems. Apathetic Money Managers thinkthat money is not Success and is not a Motivator.They have the highest internal locus of control(self-determination) and do not do it for the loveof money (the lowest involvement). They managethe money. Their attitudes toward money aremoderate and balanced. To Money RepellentIndividuals, money is Evil. They have the lowestcompetitiveness and highest success avoidance.They have the most negative attitudes towardmoney. On the basis of this pilot study, we assertthat there will be four money profiles forAmerican professors, Spanish professors, and thewhole sample. In the following paragraphs, wewill review the literature regarding the love ofmoney as related to satisfaction and work ethic.

Money and intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction

For some, money is a hygiene factor (e.g.,Cameron and Pierce, 1994; Herzberg, 1987;Kohn, 1993; Pfeffer, 1998). “The distinctionbetween movement and motivation is still true,and motivation-hygiene theory is still a frame-work with which to evaluate actions” (Herzberg,1987, p. 120). Others consider money as amotivator (e.g., Lawler, 1971; Opsahl andDunnette, 1966). Money is related to bothintrinsic and extrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci etal., 1999; Diener, 2000). The debate has run thegamut from anathema (Kohn, 1993) to additive(Porter and Lawler, 1968) to interactive (Ryanand Deci, 2000) to enhancing (Fang and Gerhart,2002). For example, financial incentives doimprove performance quantity and do not erodeintrinsic motivation. Pay for performance isassociated with more, not less, intrinsic interest


(Fang and Gerhart, 2002). The jury is still outregarding the impact of financial incentiveson performance quality (Gupta and Shaw,1998).

Intrinsic motivation is related to self-determi-nation or freedom from control. When intrinsicand extrinsic rewards are both very high, peoplemay redefine the purpose and the nature ofperforming the task (Tang and Baumeister, 1984)and mistakenly infer that they do that forextrinsic reasons but not for their intrinsicreward, the overjustification effect (Staw,1976). Thus, extrinsic reward underminesintrinsic motivation. Those who value moneymay become the pawns (slaves) rather than theorigins (masters) of money (cf. deCharms,1976).

The insufficient justification effectsuggests that when intrinsic and extrinsic rewardsare both very low, individuals may cognitivelyreevaluate the intrinsic characteristics of anactivity in order to justify their own behavior andfind that the task is not really so bad after all.They do not do it for the money (i.e., lowextrinsic motivation); rather, they do it for thefun of it (i.e., high intrinsic motivation).

On the basis of the four money profiles (Tanget al., 2000), Apathetic Money Managers do notdo it for the money and have a high level ofinternal locus of control (or self-determination).Following the insufficient justification effect, wepredict that Apathetic Money Managers will havehigher intrinsic job satisfaction (Hypothesis 1)and higher life satisfaction (Hypothesis 2) and seeactivities as “play” rather than “work” (Tang andBaumeister, 1984), relatively speaking, than thosein other money profiles.

Hypothesis 1: Apathetic Money Manager willhave high intrinsic job satisfaction.

Life satisfaction

The two most widely known models of paysatisfaction are the equity model (Adams, 1965)and the discrepancy model (Lawler, 1971;Heneman and Judge, 2000). “The idea that netsatisfaction is a function of the perceived dis-

crepancy or gap between what one has and wantsis at least as old as the stoic philosophy of Zenoof Citium around 300 B.C.” (Michalos, 1985,p. 348). The discrepancy model suggests thatsatisfaction is a function of a comparison betweenwhat one would like to receive (i.e., expecta-tions) and what one receives (i.e., reality) (Lawler,1971; Rice et al., 1990). This discrepancy notionis applicable to both life satisfaction and paysatisfaction (see discussion on pay satisfactionbelow). A large discrepancy between the expec-tation and the reality will lead to a high level ofdissatisfaction.

We argue that the Love of Money (FactorsEquity and Success, in particular) reflects one’sown “cognitive standards”, “frame of reference”,or the expectation that will be used to assess one’slife (pay) satisfaction (Tversky and Kahneman,1981). When people have low expectations ofmoney, they experience a small discrepancybetween the expectation and the reality that maylead to a high level of life satisfaction (McNichol,1998). Following Hypothesis 1 and our discus-sion above, among the four money profiles,Apathetic Money Manager (low Motivator) willhave high life satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Apathetic Money Manager willhave high life satisfaction.

Pay satisfaction

“Job satisfaction is an affective (that is, emotional)reaction to a job that results from the incumbent’scomparison of actual outcomes with those thatare desired (expected, deserved, and so on)”(Cranny et al., 1992, p. 1). Pay satisfaction is onlya small part of job satisfaction (cf. Judge, Bono,and Locke, 2000). A great deal of research hasbeen conducted for pay satisfaction (e.g.,Heneman, 1985; Heneman and Judge, 2000;Heneman and Schwab, 1985; Heneman, 1992).The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire(MSQ) (Weiss et al., 1967) measures intrinsic jobsatisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction. PaySatisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) (Henemanand Schwab, 1985) examines pay level, raises,benefits, and pay administration. Research shows


that high-income individuals, in general, tend tohave a high level of pay satisfaction (Pfeffer andLangton, 1993), have positive money attitude,and consider money as a sign of their success(Tang, 1992). Thus, we assert that among thefour money profiles, Achieving MoneyWorshiper who tends to have the most positiveattitudes toward money and high income willhave high pay satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: Achieving Money Worshiper willhave high pay satisfaction.

Equity comparisons

Following our literature review and Hypothesis3, we expect that a large discrepancy between theexpectation and the reality will lead to a highlevel of pay dissatisfaction (Rice et al., 1990).Further, equity theory suggests that peopleconsider their output/input ratio and comparetheir ratio with that of a referent (Adams, 1965).Researchers (e.g., Blau, 1994; Bordia and Blau,1998; Summers and DeNisi, 1990) have studiedthe taxonomy of pay referent categories.Goodman (1974) has defined “Other” assomeone inside or outside the focal organization.

“Because of the importance of social referentsfor anchoring judgments about pay and othercharacteristics of work (e.g., O’Reilly andCaldwell, 1979), both the level of an individual’srewards and the distribution of rewards acrossother organizational members is important”(Pfeffer and Langton, 1993, p. 384). People assessthe adequacy of their rewards through a processof social comparison (Festinger, 1954). “Thevalue of a given reward is not absolute, but isrelative to other rewards with which it iscompared” (Brickman, 1975, p. 191, emphasisadded). What is fair or just is open to interpre-tation. Pay comparisons typically require partic-ipants to provide ratings of self and comparisonothers’ pay and inputs. “The less the discrepancyin pay and inputs between self and comparisonothers, the greater the pay satisfaction”(Heneman and Judge, 2000, p. 67).

Bok (1993), former president of HarvardUniversity and Dean of the Harvard Law School,

asserts: the lucrative rewards of Wall Street, theelite law firms, and the medical specialties act asa magnet to deprive poorly paid but vitallyimportant teaching and public service professionsof desperately needed talent. Achieving MoneyWorshipers are more likely to obtain professionaldegrees in high-skill fields such as business, law,and medicine and receive the greatest economicpayoff in the labor market. Achieving MoneyWorshipers (high-income professors) may teachin the College of Business (in a universitywithout other professional schools). These pro-fessors may have a well-defined external marketand may easily leave academia and obtain higherpaying jobs in business and industry. They havehigher income than those in other colleges in theuniversity (e.g., College of Liberal Arts, Collegeof Education and Human Science) but lower paythan the market in business and industry. Careerchoice (academic discipline) is related to both theofficial and self-reported income and moneyattitude (Tang et al., 2001). People with highincome tend to have high internal equity perceptions.Professors tend to stay at the university after theyobtain academic tenure. Compared to the labormarket, those with long job tenure tend toexperience pay compression and have low externalpay equity perceptions. On the basis of Hypothesis3 and rationale mentioned above, we expect thatamong the four money profiles, Achieving MoneyWorshiper (with high income) will have higherinternal equity and lower external equity per-ceptions than others. We test Hypothesis 4 below.

Hypothesis 4: Achieving Money Worshiper willhave high internal pay equity comparisonsatisfaction in the organization.

The protestant work ethic

One of the most widely studied variables relatedto work is the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE).High work ethic individuals tend to work veryhard (Tang and Baumeister, 1984), believe thattime is money, think that money representsAchievement, that money is Good (Tang andGilbert, 1995), and that they Budget moneycarefully (Tang, 1992). Protestant Work Ethic



beliefs are associated with security, collecting,miserliness and saving, but also to autonomy andpower (Furnham, 1990). “At the heart ofProtestant work ethic is an obsession withmoney as a sign of success (and grace) andhence a powerful psychological indicator ofProtestant work ethic beliefs” (Furnham andArgyle, 1998, p. 148, emphasis added). SinceAchieving Money Worshipers have the highestactive involvement in work activities (Tang et al.,2000), we predict that among the four moneyprofiles, Achieving Money Worshipers will havethe strongest Work Ethic.

Hypothesis 5: Achieving Money Worshiper willhave high Protestant Work Ethic.

Methods

Participants

Data were collected from university faculty in theU.S.A. and Spain. A questionnaire was mailedto all full-time faculty members of one regionalstate university in the southeastern United States.This university has about 18,500 students and715 full-time professors. The response rate in theU.S.A. was 28.95 percent (207 respondents). Wealso have official records for all professors fromthe Office of Human Resource Services. Thesame questionnaire was translated into Spanishusing a multi-stage translation-back-translationprocedure. The survey was distributed torandomly selected faculty of a major publicuniversity in Valencia, Spain that has about20,000 students and 1,000 professors. Data werecollected from 104 professors. The return ratewas 32.5 percent that was very similar to that ofthe American sample (28.95%). Although thereturn rate was low, it was acceptable and rea-sonable. Our data were not atypical.

Measures

We collected demographic variables from theparticipants (e.g., sex, age, education, maritalstatus, annual income, length of service in

organization (in years), total work experience (inyears), and the total number of job changes sincethe highest degree) (Table I). We included the15-item-5-factor Love of Money Scale (Tanget al., 2003), the 4-item Pro-Protestant WorkEthic (Blood, 1969), the 20-item MinnesotaSatisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss et al.,1967), and the 18-item Pay SatisfactionQuestionnaire (PSQ) (Heneman and Schwab,1985) using a 5-point Likert-type scale withdisagree strongly (1), neutral (3), and agree strongly(5) as anchors. For the whole sample, theCronbach’s alpha for these variables was listedbelow: MSQ: intrinsic job satisfaction (0.84),extrinsic job satisfaction (0.80); PSQ: pay level(0.96), benefits (0.92), raises (0.75), and payadministration (0.84). We also measured univer-sity faculty’s pay satisfaction when they (1)compared with colleagues in their own depart-ment, (2) compared with colleagues in theorganization, (3) compared with others at othercomparable organizations, and (4) compared withothers in the labor market. The Cronbach’s alphafor these four items of equity comparison was0.86. Finally, general life satisfaction (r = 0.85)was measured by the following two items: (1)Satisfaction with my personal/family life and (2)satisfaction with my life as a whole these days.We used a 5-point scale with very dissatisfied (1),neutral (3), and very satisfied (5) as anchors.

The differences in these 24 variables betweenthe American and Spanish sample are presentedin Table II. Results of a multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA) suggested that there was anoverall difference between the two samples(F(924, 231)) = 14.81, p < 0.001, Wilks’ lambda= 0.394, partial Eta squared = 0.606). In general,the American sample was older, had more men,higher education, higher income, longer workexperience at the university, and overall experi-ence than the Spanish sample. The Americanprofessors also scored higher on Budget, Equity,Protestant Work Ethic, Benefits, and intrinsic jobsatisfaction and lower on Evil and market equitycomparison than their Spanish counterparts.Results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) ofthe 15-item LOMS, items, factor loadings, andCronbach’s alphas (or correlations between twoitems) are presented in Table III.


TABLE I0Mean, standard deviation, and correlations of major variables0

Variable 000M 00SD 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011

01. Age 42.68 11.23 00.29

* 00.41* 00.63* 00.69* 00.90* 00.17* 00.18* –0.09 00.18* 00.17*02. Sex 0.54 0.50 00.19* 00.35* 00.25* 00.28* 00.08 00.01 00.07 00.18* 00.17*03. Education 20.06 2.83 00.44* 00.24* 00.30* –0.01 00.12 –0.13 00.25* 00.1104. Income 40,254.60 23,233.80 00.44* 00.61* 00.20* 00.23* –0.13* 00.34* 00.22*05. Length 10.06 9.42 00.71* –0.10 00.19* –0.01 00.05 00.0506. Work Exp. 17.72 11.19 00.21* 00.20* –0.08 00.17* 00.2107. Jobs 1.09 1.39 –0.01 00.01 00.14* 00.1708. Budget 3.80 0.78 –0.07 00.13* 00.0009. Evil 2.81 0.71 –0.16* 00.0210. Equity 3.46 0.84 00.15*11. Success 2.81 1.05 12. Motivator 3.55 0.8313. PWE 3.42 0.6614. Pay 3.08 1.0415. Benefit 3.29 0.8816. Raise 2.74 0.8117. Adm. 2.63 0.7518. MSQ-Int 3.96 0.5219. MSQ-Ext 3.05 0.8020. Department 3.19 1.1121. Organization 2.75 1.1122. Other Org. 2.62 1.0523. Market 2.59 1.0524. Life 4.17 0.81

Variable 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024

01. Age –0.06 00.17* 00.12* 00.15* –0.02 00.03 00.17* 00.07 00.07 00.04 00.03 00.01 00.0502. Sex 00.05 00.15* –0.02 –0.05 –0.11 –0.07 00.07 00.01 –0.06 00.03 –0.00 –0.02 00.1203. Education –0.03 00.14 00.08 00.13 00.08 –0.03 00.13 00.04 00.02 00.02 –0.07 –0.15* –0.0204. Income –0.02 00.18* 00.24* 00.20* –0.02 00.11 00.23* 00.17* 00.18* 00.19* 00.15* 00.14* 00.0505. Length –0.10 00.12 00.12* 00.04 –0.07 00.03 00.17* 00.05 –0.01 00.01 00.01 00.01 00.0506. Work Exp. –0.07 00.19* 00.15* 00.13* –0.03 00.05 00.15* 00.04 00.04 00.06 00.05 00.06 00.0707. Jobs 00.13* 00.07 00.04 –0.01 –0.05 00.02 00.01 00.04 00.11 00.11 00.02 00.02 00.0108. Budget 00.06 00.02 00.16* 00.19* 00.08 00.13* 00.24* 00.12* 00.06 00.09 00.10 00.02 00.2109. Evil 00.10 00.08 –0.09 –0.17* 00.03 –0.06 –0.06 –0.06 –0.08 –0.01 00.03 –0.01 –0.0510. Equity 00.14* 00.31* 00.09 00.24* 00.02 00.15* 00.22* 00.18* 00.07 00.04 00.04 00.02 00.0511. Success 00.34* 00.24* 00.05 00.06 00.02 00.14* –0.02 00.07 00.04 00.12* 00.12 00.10 –0.0912. Motivator 00.09 –0.00 00.11 00.04 00.16* –0.02 00.10 00.03 00.13* 00.01 00.08 –0.0313. PWE –0.09 00.06 –0.06 00.08 00.24* 00.10 –0.11 –0.01 –0.01 –0.02 00.1314. Pay 00.57* 00.64* 00.59* 00.23* 00.48* 00.59* 00.57* 00.59* 00.59* 00.1715. Benefit 00.54* 00.55* 00.25* 00.40* 00.37* 00.30* 00.42* 00.41* 00.1316. Raise 00.63* 00.23* 00.60* 00.45* 00.43* 00.52* 00.49* 00.1417. Adm. 00.23* 00.54* 00.44* 00.54* 00.54* 00.56* 00.1218. MSQ–Int 00.55* 00.21* 00.26* 00.16* 00.20* 00.2919. MSQ–Ext 00.46* 00.47* 00.43* 00.45* 00.2220. Department 00.63* 00.49* 00.57* 00.0921. Organization 00.56* 00.57* 00.1422. Other Org. 00.81* 00.1423. Market 00.1124. Life

Note: N = 311. * p < 0.05. Sex: Female = 0, Male = 1.

The cluster analysis

The goal of the cluster analysis is to arrive atclusters of homogeneous people who differ inmeaningful ways and display small within-clustervariation, but large between-cluster variation(Aldenderfer and Blashfield, 1984). In this study,we use hierarchical cluster analyses with Ward’smethod and squared Euclidean distance toidentify the number of clusters in the three-stageprocedure: (1) partitioning, (2) interpretation,and (3) validation and profiling.

Results

Partitioning

Researchers compute solutions for several dif-ferent numbers of clusters and select the numberof clusters based on a priori criteria, practicaljudgment, common sense, and theoreticalfoundations. If a cluster solution is repeatedlydiscovered across different samples from the samegeneral population, researchers may concludethat this solution has some generality. Theagglomerative hierarchical clustering procedurecan be used to cluster a small to moderate


TABLE IIDifferences in major variables between the U.S. and Spain

Item The U.S. Spain 0 Between-subjects

0000M 000SD 0000M 000SD 00F 00p

01. Age 47.08 9.35 33.44 9.94 121.99 0.00002. Sex 0.60 0.49 0.43 0.50 006.93 0.00903. Education 21.06 1.70 18.39 3.47 069.65 0.00004. Income 48,695.97 20,564.74 24,174.06 13,773.89 096.32 0.00005. Length of Service 11.40 9.73 7.00 7.47 012.76 0.00006. Total Experience 21.10 10.10 10.22 8.46 071.33 0.00007. Jobs 1.25 1.48 0.91 1.35 002.90 0.09008. LOMS-Budget 3.91 0.72 3.62 0.76 008.18 0.00509. LOMS-Evil 2.75 0.68 2.96 0.72 004.81 0.02910. LOMS-Equity 3.66 0.79 2.98 0.81 041.96 0.00011. LOMS-Success 2.96 1.06 2.58 1.03 007.13 0.00812. LOMS-Motivator 3.56 0.86 3.61 0.72 000.24 0.62313. Protestant Work Ethic 3.57 0.63 3.20 0.64 018.98 0.00014. PSQ-Pay 3.00 1.08 3.18 0.91 001.73 0.19015. PSQ-Benefits 3.43 0.91 2.94 0.67 019.13 0.00016. PSQ-Raises 2.72 0.86 2.70 0.60 000.06 0.81117. PSQ-Pay Administration 2.63 0.76 2.60 0.70 000.06 0.81018. MSQ-Intrinsic 4.04 0.51 3.82 0.51 010.31 0.00119. MSQ-Extrinsic 3.07 0.82 2.91 0.70 002.48 0.11720. Department 3.14 1.19 3.23 0.93 000.33 0.56921. Organization 2.71 1.16 2.86 1.00 001.02 0.31322. Others 2.57 1.13 2.69 0.88 000.73 0.39423. Market 2.45 1.05 2.76 1.00 004.97 0.02724. Life 4.25 0.77 4.05 0.89 003.31 0.070

Note: MANOVA results: F(24, 231) = 14.81, p < 0.001, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.394, Partial Eta squared = 0.606.

number of cases. We followed the suggestions inthe literature and used a random sample of 65cases from the American and Spanish samples andperformed a hierarchical cluster analysis. Theplots of number of clusters versus fusion coeffi-cient using Ward’s method for these two samplesrevealed a significant “jump” between the four-and three-cluster solutions for the Americansample and also for the Spanish sample (seeFigure 1). We adopt the four-cluster solution.(We also identify four clusters using the wholeAmerican and Spanish samples.)

On the basis of the four-cluster solution, weapplied the QUICK CLUSTER program to theAmerican sample and the Spanish sample sepa-rately. A four-cluster solution has been found


TABLE IIIItems of the 15-item Love of Money Scale

Item Factor loading

Factor 1: Budget 01. I budget my money very well. 0.8802. I use my money very carefully. 0.8703. I pay my bills immediately to avoid interest or penalties. 0.7104. I do financial planning for the future. 0.56

Variance = 17.5%, Eigenvalue = 2.63, alpha = 0.69

Factor 2: Evil 05. Money undermines one’s ethical norms and standards of conduct. 0.7406. People perform unethical acts to maximize their monetary gains. 0.6907. Money is evil. 0.6008. The love of money is the root of evil. 0.58

Variance = 15.0%, Eigenvalue = 2.26, alpha = 0.72

Factor 3: Equity 09. People on the same job should be paid equally (equality). 0.8010. People on the same job should be paid based on merit (equity). 0.7111. Lower-level job with little responsibility should be paid less. 0.58

Variance = 13.05, Eigenvalue = 1.95, alpha = 0.41

Factor 4: Success12. Money is a symbol of success. 0.8913. Money represents one’s achievement. 0.89

Variance = 9.1%, Eigenvalue = 1.36, r = 0.81

Factor 5: Motivator 14. Money is a motivator. 0.8415. I am motivated to work hard for money. 0.81

Variance = 7.0%, Eigenvalue = 1.05, r = 0.66

Note: Item 9 is reverse scored.

Figure 1. Cluster formation with fusion coefficients.

consistently in the American sample, the Spanishsample, and the whole sample that fits the theoryand previous findings (Tang et al., 2000). Quick cluster. Table IV shows results of theQUICK CLUSTER program using the wholesample and the means and standard deviations ofthe four clusters. There were 117 (37.62%) par-ticipants in Cluster 1, 62 participants (19.93%) inCluster 2, 50 (16.08%) in Cluster 3, and 82(26.37%) in Cluster 4. We label them (1)Achieving Money Worshiper, (2) Careless MoneyAdmirer, (3) Apathetic Money Manager, and (4)Money Repellent Individual.

Interpretation

Results of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) sug-gested that Factor Success was the most powerfulmoney attitude in profiling the professors(F(3, 307) = 171.94, p = 0.000). The otherfactors were Factors Budget (F(3, 307) = 81.51,p = 0.000), Motivator (F(3, 307) = 77.34, p =0.000), Equity (F(3, 307) = 15.45, p = 0.000),

and Evil (F(3, 307) = 12.49, p = 0.000). TheF tests should be used only for descriptivepurposes because the clusters have been chosento maximize the differences among cases in dif-ferent clusters. These results define the fourclusters. We will discuss these four clusters fromthe most positive to the least positive moneyprofiles. The last column of Table IV presents theposteriori contrasts of means using the mostconservative method, the Scheffe’s test.

Achieving money worshiper. The largest group inthis study was Achieving Money Worshiper(n = 117, 37.62%). Professors in this cluster hadthe highest score among the four clusters onFactors Budget (4.29), Equity (3.77), Motivator(3.95), and Success (3.52). (The difference inFactor Success between Achieving MoneyWorshiper (3.52) and Careless Money Admirer(3.53) was not significant. Therefore, bothAchieving Money Worshiper and CarelessMoney Admirer had the highest scores on FactorSuccess.) Achieving Money Worshiper did notthink that money is Evil.


TABLE IVMeans and standard deviations of the Love of Money Scale for Four Clusters

Variables Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster paired comparison*

Whole sample Achieving Careless Apathetic Money N = 311 money money money repellent

worshiper admirer manager individualn = 117 n = 62 n = 50 n = 82

Percentage (%) 37.62 % 19.93 % 16.08 % 26.37 %

U.S.A. (%) 45.45% 20.57% 9.57% 24.41%

Spain (%) 26.47% 15.69% 27.45% 30.39%

Success 3.52 (0.62) 3.53 (0.66) 1.96 (0.77) 1.77 (0.61) (1, 2) > (3, 4)

Budget 4.29 (0.42) 2.85 (0.62) 3.75 (0.73) 3.84 (0.67) 1 > (4, 3, 2); 4 > 2

Motivator 3.95 (0.58) 3.72 (0.66) 2.35 (0.80) 3.60 (0.56) 1 > 4; 2, 4 > 3

Equity 3.77 (0.75) 3.34 (0.83) 3.62 (0.82) 3.04 (0.76) 1 > (2, 4); 3 > 4

Evil 2.77 (0.63) 2.99 (0.69) 2.34 (0.68) 3.01 (0.69) (4, 2, 1) > 3

Note: * p < 0.05; Schefffe’s test. The highest and lowest means are in boldface. The lowest means are under-lined.

Careless money admirer. Professors in the CarelessMoney Admirer Cluster had the lowest score onFactor Budget (2.85) and the highest score onFactor Success (3.53). They had positive attitudestoward money but did not handle their moneycarefully.

Apathetic money manager. This was the smallestcluster of the four (16.08%). They had the lowestscore on Factors Motivator (2.35) and Evil (2.34).They scored higher on Factor Equity thanCluster 4. These professors were not stronglymotivated to work hard for their money. Theydid not believe that money is Evil. They areimpartial.

Money repellent individual. Money RepellentIndividual (26.37%) was the second largest groupin this study. Professors in this Cluster had thehighest score on Factor Evil (3.01) and the lowestscore on Factor Equity (3.04) and Success (1.77).They had the strongest negative attitude towardmoney.

Validation and profiling

ANOVA. We used analyses of variance(ANOVAs) to (1) examine variables “not” usedin cluster analysis for external validation, (2)identify the differences among the four clustersusing the Scheffe’s test, and (3) test ourhypotheses and provide answers to our researchquestions (see Table V). Achieving MoneyWorshipers (Cluster 1) had the highest self-reported income (US$50,903.23) than the otherthree groups (Cluster 2 – US$34,640.46; Cluster3 – US$37,990.20; Cluster 4 – US$31,600.87)(F(3, 285) = 7.35, p = 0.000). There was a sig-nificant difference in self-reported incomebetween the American sample and the Spanishsample. Income data were transformed to thez scores for each sample. Results of ANOVAusing z scores showed a similar pattern of results.

Achieving Money Worshipers were older(46.49 years old) than Careless Money Admirer(40.49) and Money Repellent Individual (39.38)(F(3, 287) = 8.18, p = 0.000). Achieving MoneyWorshipers had longer total work experience

(21.55 years) than had Careless Money Admirer(15.48) and Money Repellent Individual (13.85)(F(3, 302) = 9.83, p = 0.000). Achieving MoneyWorshipers had the highest level of the ProtestantWork Ethic endorsement, whereas MoneyRepellent Individuals had the lowest. Resultssupported Hypothesis 5. Achieving MoneyWorshipers had the highest level of satisfactionfor pay level, pay administration, and equitycomparison within the organization, supportingour predictions (Hypotheses 3 and 4).

Differences among the four clusters weresignificant for intrinsic job satisfaction (F(3, 300)= 3.91, p = 0.009, but not for extrinsic jobsatisfaction (F(3, 287) = 2.57, p = 0.055).Further, separate analyses of covariance(ANCOVAs) holding age, sex, education, lengthof service at the university, total work experi-ence, and the number of job changes as controlsshowed that there were significant differencesamong the four money clusters in intrinsic jobsatisfaction (F(3, 230) = 2.92, p = 0.035).Apathetic Money Managers had the highestintrinsic job satisfaction, supporting Hypothesis1. The differences failed to reach significanceagain for extrinsic job satisfaction (F(3, 230) =2.40, p = 0.069).

The effect of the four money profiles on lifesatisfaction was significant (F(3, 305) = 7.65,p = 0.000). Apathetic Money Managers had thehighest life satisfaction, whereas Careless MoneyAdmirers had the lowest, supporting ourHypothesis 2.

Finally, when the total number of job changessince the highest degree was examined, we foundthat professors in Cluster 1 (Achieving MoneyWorshipers) tended to have more job changes(1.33) than those in Cluster 3 (Apathetic MoneyManagers) (0.67); however, the difference onlyapproached significance (p = 0.074). Americanprofessors have changed their jobs (1.24) signif-icantly more often than their Spanish counter-parts (0.82), (F(1, 243) = 4.13, p < 0.05). InCluster 1, there were more American professorsthan Spanish professors. College affiliation wasnot available for Spanish professors. ForAmerican professors in Cluster 1, only 21.8percent of them were in the College of Business.There were no significant differences in job


changes across these colleges in the U.S. sample(F(5, 197) = 0.70, p = 0.63). Most people in theSpanish culture work in the same organizationand live in the same city for most of their lifeand frown upon job changes.

Discriminant analysis. The discriminate analysisallows us to examine quantitative predictors andqualitative (dichotomous) criterion (clusters),identify predictors that are related to the crite-rion, and predict values on the criterion withgiven values on the predictors. We included (1)age, work experience, income, and number ofjob changes, (2) the Protestant Work Ethic, (3)intrinsic job satisfaction, extrinsic job satisfaction,

satisfaction with pay, benefits, raises, and admin-istration, pay equity comparison with others inthe department, organization, other organiza-tions, and market, and (4) overall life satisfactionto predict the membership of the four clustersin a discriminant analysis (chi-square (df = 48)= 100.37, p = 0.000, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.645).

Profiling. Table VI shows that Function 1 sepa-rated Achieving Money Worshiper from CarelessMoney Admirer, Apathetic Money Manager, andMoney Repellent Individual. Achieving MoneyWorshipers had lower satisfaction whencompared with others in the labor market(–0.629), higher satisfaction with pay adminis-


TABLE VMeans and (standard deviations) of external variables for cluster validation

Variables Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster paired comparison*

Achieving Careless Apathetic Moneymoney money money repellent

worshiper admirer manager individual

N = 311 n = 117 n = 62 n = 50 n = 82Percentage (%) 37.62 % 19.93 % 16.08 % 26.37 %

Income US$ 50,903.23 34,640.46 37,990.20 31,600.87 1 > (3, 2, 4)(29,746.33) (16,315.46) (17,119.64) (17,153.45)

z score 0.3394 –0.2018 –0.1475 –0.2145(1.2966) (0.7016) (0.7290) (0.7211)

Work experience 21.55 (10.88) 15.48 (10.20) 17.83 (10.94) 13.85 (10.89) 1 > (2, 4)Age 46.49 (10.90) 40.49 (10.76) 42.12 (10.50) 39.38 (11.88) 1 > (2, 4)Number of jobs 1.33 (1.56) 1.15 (1.50) 0.67 (1.00) 0.93 (1.39) 1 > 3 (p = 0.074)

Work ethic 3.56 (0.61) 3.48 (0.67) 3.27 (0.67) 3.25 (0.69) 1 > 4

Intrinsic 4.22 (0.68) 4.00 (0.75) 4.35 (0.59) 4.19 (0.57) 3 > 2Extrinsic 3.36 (1.11) 3.23 (1.11) 3.15 (1.23) 3.06 (1.24)

Satisfaction-pay 3.29 (1.00) 2.83 (0.98) 2.90 (1.13) 3.07 (1.04) 1 > 2Benefit 3.45 (0.90) 3.13 (0.90) 3.22 (0.87) 3.23 (0.76)Raise 2.82 (0.77) 2.68 (0.76) 2.56 (0.87) 2.79 (0.76)Administration 2.81 (0.70) 2.58 (0.73) 2.47 (0.71) 2.49 (0.75) 1 > 4

Equity-department 3.29 (1.09) 3.14 (0.99) 3.10 (1.19) 3.15 (1.16)Organization 3.05 (1.07) 2.61 (1.07) 2.43 (1.08) 2.64 (1.14) 1 > 3Other organization 2.81 (1.07) 2.56 (1.12) 2.33 (1.01) 2.57 (0.96)Market 2.71 (1.09) 2.67 (1.01) 2.35 (1.03) 2.49 (1.03)

Life satisfaction 4.27 (0.75) 3.81 (0.86) 4.38 (0.72) 4.17 (0.86) (3, 1) > 2

Note: * p < 0.05; Schefffe’s test.

tration (0.507), higher income (0.463), lowerintrinsic job satisfaction (–0.452), higher satis-faction when compared with those in otherorganizations (0.422), higher Work Ethic (0.338),and other variables than had those in other 3Clusters. Function 2 separated Careless MoneyAdmirer from Achieving Money Worshiper andApathetic Money Manager. Careless MoneyAdmirers had higher satisfaction when comparedwith others in the market (–0.580), lowerintrinsic job satisfaction (0.567), lower lifesatisfaction (0.500), and other variables thanAchieving Money Worshipers and Apathetic

Money Managers. Finally, Function 3 separatedMoney Repellent Individual from CarelessMoney Admirer and Apathetic Money Manager.Money Repellent Individuals had low satisfactionwhen compared with others in the department(0.572), high satisfaction with pay raises (–0.555),low work experience (0.541), high satisfactionwith pay (–0.401), and other variables thanCareless Money Admirers and Apathetic MoneyManagers. Results support hypotheses.

The true discriminatory power of the functionwill be found when we test it in a completelyseparate sample that is very costly and time con-


TABLE VIDiscriminant analysis

Standardized canonical discriminant Pooled within-groups correlations between function coefficients discriminating variables and standardized

canonical discriminant functions

Variable Function Variable Function

1 2 3 1 2 3

Age –0.060 00.237 –0.094 Income 0.505* 0.207 –0.001Experience 00.251 00.192 00.541 Administration 0.494* 0.099 0.054Income 00.463 00.031 –0.235 Experience 0.463* 0.388 0.374Job changes 00.256 –0.229 –0.139 Organization 0.423* 0.030 –0.221Work ethic 00.338 –0.375 00.232 Age 0.419* 0.401 0.332Intrinsic –0.452 00.567 00.163 Work ethic 0.384* –0.104 0.310Extrinsic 00.080 –0.186 00.362 Pay 0.343* 0.159 –0.317Pay 00.073 00.130 –0.401 Job changes 0.337* –0.158 –0.014Benefits 00.134 00.139 00.109 Other 0.333* –0.050 –0.275Raise –0.016 –0.321 –0.555 Benefits 0.264* 0.158 0.034Administration 00.507 00.361 00.398 Market 0.226* –0.143 –0.062Department –0.287 00.018 00.572 Department 0.134* 0.053 0.090Organization 00.324 –0.076 –0.377 Life 0.043 0.576* –0.307Other 00.422 00.117 –0.347 Intrinsic –0.095 0.530* 0.069Market –0.629 –0.580 00.284 Raise 0.193 –0.030 –0.339*Life –0.004 00.500 –0.381 Extrinsic 0.139 0.019 0.201*

Eigenvalue 00.292 00.113 00.078Canonical correlation 00.475 00.319 00.269

Functions at group centroidsCluster 1 00.659 00.104 00.001Cluster 2 –0.200 –0.581 00.283Cluster 3 –0.650 00.523 00.345Cluster 4 –0.421 –0.003 –0.397

Note: Coefficients greater than 0.40 are in boldface. Variables ordered by absolute size of correlations withinfunction. * Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function.

suming. In our cross-validated classificationprocess, each case is classified by the functionsderived from all cases except that case. Resultsshowed that 48.2 percent of original groupedcases correctly classified and 37.0 percent ofcross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.Finally, when all the aforementioned variables aswell as the five Factors of the Love of Moneywere included in the discriminant analysis, thepercentage of “grouped” cases correctly classifiedincreased from 48.2 percent to 95.4 percent.Thumbnail sketches of the four clusters are pre-sented in Table VII.

Discussion

Using the Love of Money Scale, we identify fourmoney profiles for the American and Spanishprofessors and also the whole sample: AchievingMoney Worshiper, Careless Money Admirer,

Apathetic Money Manager, and MoneyRepellent Individual. These four money profilesare almost identical to the four profiles examinedin a sample of citizens in the Republic ofMacedonia. These results are quite robust acrosscultures, suggesting the validity of the Love ofMoney Scale and four money profiles. It shouldbe noted that these cluster names are used todescribe four money profiles for this group ofprofessors. Therefore, Achieving MoneyWorshipers, for example, can be used to describea group of professors, relative to only other pro-fessors in this study. We will discuss these fourmoney profiles below.

Achieving Money Worshipers

Achieving Money Worshipers consider money asign of their Success and Budget their moneyvery carefully. They also have higher income,


TABLE VIIThumbnail sketches for the four clusters (money profiles)

Profile: The Love of Money – defining factor Validation variable

Achieving money worshiperFactor success – the highest Income – the highestFactor budget – the highest Work experience – the highest age – the oldestFactor motivator – the highest PWE – the highest

Pay (PSQ) – the highestPay administration – the highestOrganization (pay comparison – the highest)

Careless money admirerFactor success – the highest Intrinsic (MSQ) – the lowestFactor budget – the lowest Pay (PSQ) – the lowest

Life Satisfaction – the lowest

Apathetic money managerFactor evil – the lowest Intrinsic (MSQ) – the highestFactor motivator – the lowest Life satisfaction – the highest

Organization (pay comparison) – the lowest

Money repellent individualFactor evil – the highest Income – the lowestFactor success – the lowest Work experience – the lowestFactor equity – the lowest Age – the youngest

PWE – the lowestPay administration – the lowest

longer work experience, are older, have higherProtestant Work Ethic, higher satisfaction withpay, pay administration, equity comparison withothers in the organization, and overall life satis-faction than others. Professors who have longertenure and are older tend to make more moneyand have higher job satisfaction than their coun-terparts. According to the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model, only those who arequalified and content with the profession willstay, whereas others will leave voluntarily andinvoluntarily. As Achieving Money Worshipersapproach their mid- and late-40s, they havereached their earning peaks and have morerealistic expectations than their younger coun-terparts. In short, Achieving Money Worshipersworship money. They are also rich and happywith their pay. To them, money is a Motivator.

We speculate that Achieving MoneyWorshipers will work best under a reward systemthat reinforces “individual” or team performanceon the job (e.g., merit pay, gain-sharing plans),since they have the highest work ethic, experi-ence, and income as well as pay satisfaction andpay administration satisfaction. Further, they alsohave the highest concern for internal equity andindividual equity. Research suggests: “males,white-collar employees, high performers, achieve-ment-oriented employees, and those who alreadywork under a merit plan” prefer merit pay(Heneman, 1992, p. 98). Thereby, merit pay maywork well with Achieving Money Worshipers.

“Historically, the pay systems of most largeorganizations have been based on jobs and jobevaluation technology. It ignores the difference-making value that is added by people with highlevels of knowledge and performance.Increasingly, human capital is the key capitalfor an organization” (Lawler, 2002, p. 311).Organizations should pay the “person”, ratherthan the job, and develop person-based pay thatwill reward individuals for their skills, knowledge,and competencies related to the external marketvalue.

Achieving Money Worshipers have the secondhighest level of intrinsic job satisfaction, sug-gesting that their high pay does not underminetheir intrinsic job satisfaction. For the wholesample, intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job

satisfaction are significantly and positively corre-lated (0.55) (Table I). Future research needs toexplore the possibility that pay for performanceis associated with more, not less, intrinsic interestin the workplace (Fang and Gerhart, 2002), forAchieving Money Worshipers.

Finally, “human capital must earn a fair returnor like any other capital it will search for a higherrate of return and it will frequently find it”(Lawler, 2002, p. 311). High Love of Moneyemployees’ voluntary turnover was high regard-less of their intrinsic job satisfaction (Tang et al.,2000). The number of job changes is thestrongest predictor of management professors’ payin the U.S. (Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1992). IfAchieving Money Worshipers are not properlyrewarded, they are more likely to quit their jobsand work for the competitors. Our insignificantfinding on the job changes is due to thecombined American and Spanish samples in thatSpanish professors tend to have less job changesthan their American counterparts. Managersmust find the best compensation package toreward and retain Achieving Money Worshipers’human capital.

Careless Money Admirers

Careless Money Admirers have the strongestfeeling that money represents their Success andthat they do not Budget their money carefully.They tend to be younger, have fewer years oftotal work experience, low income, low paysatisfaction, and low life satisfaction. These resultsseem to support previous findings in that FactorBudget is positively correlated with job satisfac-tion and life satisfaction (Tang, 1992, 1995) andthe discrepancy model (Lawler, 1971). A largediscrepancy between the reality (relatively lowincome, 34,640.46) and the expectation (highlypositive attitudes toward money) may lead to thelowest pay satisfaction (2.83). Their high concernfor extrinsic reward leads to the lowest intrinsicjob satisfaction. They admire money, do not havemoney, and are not happy. They exert effort andtry very hard to achieve their goals. People inthis cluster are highly motivated by money.Money is a positive reinforcement.


They have the highest external locus of control(Tang et al., 2000) and may be highly vulner-able to external pressures and opportunities inthe environment to earn money. One possibleimplication is that they may fall into the temp-tation of unethical behaviors in organizations. Wewill examine this issue below.

Ethics are moral principles or beliefs aboutwhat is right or wrong. These beliefs guideemployees in their dealings with other individ-uals and stakeholders and provide a basis fordeciding whether behavior is right and proper(Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Michalos, 1995;Robinson and Bennett, 1995). In the wake ofdownsizing, reengineering, and empowerment,employees have the pressure to perform (push)and the opportunity to make money andconsume products and services (pull). Thesepushing and pulling forces may lead people toengage in unethical behavior in organizations.Research shows that a large percentage offinancial loss, according to loss-preventionexecutives, is attributed to employee theft(38.4%), shoplifting (35.6%), administrative error(19.4%), and vendor theft (6.4%). Firms reportedan average loss of $142.49 per shoplifting,$737.31 per employee theft, and $2,410 perarmed robbery (Mathews, 1997). In the restau-rant industry, internal theft accounts for 7 percentto 10 percent of all sales losses and 75 percentof inventory shrinkage (Drinkard, 1996).

In a paper entitled: “stealing in the name ofjustice”, underpaid undergraduate subjects took(i.e., they stole) more than they were permittedto take for their participation in a laboratorystudy, whereas equitably/fairly paid participantsdid not (Greenberg, 1993). Theft, shoplifting,inventory shrinkage, corruption, and otherunethical behavior are caused by employees’perceived unfair resources allocation, pay dis-satisfaction, and the desire to have more moneyand maximize their financial gains in organiza-tions. “From a procedural justice perspective,perceived injustice will lead to negative percep-tions of the organization and, hence, to coun-terproductive behaviors that will hurt theorganization” (Cohen-Charash and Spector,2001, p. 287). Employees who are committed tothe organization are more like to perform

organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), andless likely to perform unethical behavior.

As mentioned, researchers (Tang and Chiu,2003; Tang et al., 2002) have focused on the loveof money using Factors Motivator, Success,Importance, and Rich. (Factors Motivator andSuccess, in that study, are similar to the factorsexamined in the present study.) The love ofmoney is directly and indirectly related tounethical behavior, whereas income is not. Theindirect path shows that the love of money isrelated to high pay dissatisfaction that, in turn,leads to low organizational commitment that, inturn, leads to high unethical behavior. In plainEnglish, the love of money is the root of evil,whereas money is not. The indirect path impliesthat most employees do not engage in unethicalbehavior directly without any rationale (orreason), but they do it because of the percep-tion of high pay dissatisfaction and low commit-ment (mediators).

The present study did not examine commit-ment and unethical behavior. Based on the resultsof the present study and that of Tang and Chiu(2003) and Tang et al. (2002), we offer thefollowing speculations: The notion that “the loveof money is the root of all evil” may be moststrongly and directly related to Careless MoneyAdmirers who have the lowest intrinsic jobsatisfaction, the lowest satisfaction with their pay,and the lowest life satisfaction among the fourmoney profiles in this study. These factors maylead to different forms of unethical behavior inorganizations. Future researchers may want to testthis hypothesis directly. Managers need tomonitor Careless Money Admirers’ unethicalbehavior closely in an organization. Professorsin this study are less likely to get involved inunethical behavior (theft, shoplifting, corruption,kickback, etc.) because there is no or little moneyand cash exchange involved in their academicwork environment (only transfer and exchangeof truth, knowledge, and information). Professorsdo have less opportunity and pressure than doemployees in other organizations in business andindustry. We encourage researchers to use anewly revised measure of unethical behaviors infuture research (Appendix 1). These items weredeveloped based on our review of the literature


(e.g., Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Michalos, 1995;Tang and Chiu, 2003) and recent events reportedin the news in the U.S.

Apathetic Money Managers

Apathetic Money Managers believe that moneydoes not represent their Success and that moneyis not Evil. Their money attitudes fall somewhatin the middle of the whole spectrum. They havelow income and few job changes, but highintrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfaction.Instead of being controlled by money or theextrinsic reward system (cf. Lawler, 1971), theymay experience “internal locus of control” (Tanget al., 2000), as the origins (masters) of money(cf. deCharms, 1976), and have the feeling thatthe job is not bad at all, i.e., supporting theinsufficient justification effect (Staw, 1976). Withlow income, they turn their attention internallyand find fulfillment in life and on the job. Theirlow desire for money, “waste not, want not”,allows them to have less money but higher hap-piness than others.

A small but growing number of Americans isliving on less and liking it by scaling back, paringdown, and doing without. The “simplicitymovement” has “its roots in 18th century‘Yankee frugality’ and in Henry David Thoreau’surge to ‘simplify’, simplify” (McNichol, 1998,p. 4). This message has appeared in recent books(e.g., Simple Abundance and Your Money or YourLife) and PBS special (Affluenza, Escape fromAffluenza). In a simple, less stressful, and envi-ously uncluttered life, people can live on farless by curbing impulse spending and do thethings that matter to them. Our Apathetic MoneyManagers seem to have adopted these values.

The notion that “the love of money is the rootof all evil” may “not” be applicable to ApatheticMoney Managers who have the highest intrinsicjob satisfaction and life satisfaction. ApatheticMoney Managers seem to be the independentthinkers and are less likely affected by the rewardand control systems in organizations. Money isneither a positive nor a negative reinforcementin their life style. They are the masters of moneyand they manage their money successfully.

Money Repellent Individuals

Money Repellent Individuals have the mostnegative attitudes toward money. They tend tobe young, less experienced, and have low incomeand low satisfaction with pay administration.They believe that money is Evil and that moneydoes not reflect their Success (due to lowincome). Individual equity and internal equityare not important to them. Thus, they are notconcerned about the opportunity to make moremoney and do not want to work for money.Money Repellent Individuals have negativeattitudes toward money, feel bitter about money,have less money, and are not happy. They canbe labeled as the “sour grapes” or “sour losers”in the society. Money is surely not a motivatorfor them (cf. Lawler, 1971) but only a hygienefactor. Tang (1992) pointed out that young andlow-income people tend to believe that moneyis Evil. Thus, the present findings seem tosupport previous results.

Money Repellent Individuals have the lowestWork Ethic endorsement and the lowest concernfor Factor Equity. They may prefer the “egali-tarian” or “equality” approach. Union members,for example, may prefer to use seniority ratherthan job performance in making pay-relateddecisions. Under this system, high performers donot have the opportunity to make more money.It is also possible that Money RepellentIndividuals may want to work on governmentjobs or in a unionized work environment wherethey put in only the required time and effort,perform the minimum job requirements, and donot have strong motivation to perform. Professorsin this study do work at “public” universities. Itshould be noted also that all these professorswork on similar jobs in the same universities, yettheir attitudes are different.

For the past several decades, human resourceresearchers and managers have increasinglyturned to agency theory as a way of describingpay practices in general (Gomez-Mejia andBalkin, 1992). Firms have principals and agents:Principals own the firm, whereas employees areagents of the owner. Agency theory assumes thatan agent is averse to effort and would prefer tobe paid without exerting any more effort than


absolutely necessary. The agent is assumed tobe risk averse. “From an agent’s perspective itwould be best to be paid for the hours actuallyworked, because this would require the leasteffort, and would also ‘smooth over’ any randomfluctuations in output that are beyond theemployee’s control” (Benson and Hornsby, 2002,p. 318). If the outcome is measurable, the prin-cipal can pay the workers for the actual unitsproduced.

For university professors, one of the significantmeasurable outcomes is research productivity.Professors’ research productivity reflects theirtime and effort beyond classroom teaching.Research reveals that length of service does havesignificant impacts on regional state universityprofessors’ research orientation and their attitudestoward rewards influence teaching, whereas rankand tenure do not. Faculty with “20 or more”years of service have the lowest research orien-tation, those with ranks lower than full professor,in particular (Tang and Chamberlain, 2003).Professors in that study may have lost their hopeto be promoted to the rank of full professors andhave higher pay due to, probably, the lack ofupdated research skills, research productivity,and other reasons. Post-tenure evaluation anddevelopment will be needed to reinforce them toengage in research activities and improvingteaching performance that may lead to higherpay. Money probably will not motivate them,unless if summer teaching (i.e., additional incomefor professors) and other perks are threatenedand/or taken away from them. Administratorsfocus on the establishment of standard and onmeasurement and control of behavior (i.e., theagency theory). Some university professors doresist this type of reward system. UsingHerzberg’s terminology (1987, p. 120), MoneyRepellent Individuals may have movement but nomotivation. Managers may use money as the push(negative reinforcement or extinction) (the stick,not the carrot) to motivate these individuals.Money may serve as a negative reinforcement.Organizations with a heavy emphasis on pay-for-performance may not have a lot of MoneyRepellent Individuals because many of them willvoluntarily and/or involuntarily quit their jobsdue to the poor person-environment fit and the

attraction-selection-attrition process. The surestway of getting someone to do something is“KITA” (kick in the pants) (Herzberg, 1987, p.109).

General discussion

In order to motivate people with different moneyprofiles, administrators, managers, and researchersmay want to consider different strategies anddecisions: Money may serve as a positive rein-forcement for Achieving Money Worshipers andCareless Money Admirers, neither a positive nora negative reinforcement for Apathetic MoneyManagers, and a negative reinforcement forMoney Repellent Individuals. Careless MoneyAdmirers may potentially engage in unethicalbehavior, whereas Apathetic Money Managersmay not change their behavior at all and maintaintheir own selected life style.

On the one hand, attitudes and values are verydifficult to change and tend to be quite consis-tent even when individuals change both theemployer and their occupation (Staw et al.,1986). Following these arguments, it may bequite difficult to improve people’s pay satisfactionand life satisfaction in an organization. For somepeople, it is hard to motivate them with money.On the other hand, as people grow older, theirincome level changes. The importance andsatisfaction of needs in life and their moneyattitudes may also change (Furnham and Argyle,1998). It may take some time for people toprogress from deficiency needs (physiologicalneeds) to growth needs (psychological needs)(Harpaz, 1990). It is plausible that CarelessMoney Admirers may become Achieving MoneyWorshipers later in their careers. Future longi-tudinal data may test this hypothesis.

In this study, the nature of the job for uni-versity professors is almost identical. Typically,there is less room to move across universities thanthere is across organizations in business. Thereare also probably wider differences in salary,bonus, incentives, compensation systems, etc.within business organizations than universities.Many professors could make more money inbusiness than in academia. Thus, the samples


examined in the present study are potentiallyrestricted to those individuals who may not valueincome as highly as others in the population(e.g., investment bankers).

Bok (1993) calls attention to an even largerand more important issue: Do we compensatehighly educated people in the United States inways that serve the best interests of the nation?What effect do differences in earnings have onthe career choices of the talented? AchievingMoney Worshipers’ financial success may alsoreflect the Matthew Effect in compensation(Gabris and Mitchell, 1988): “For to him whohas shall be given, and he shall have abundance;but from him who does not have, even thatwhich he has shall be taken away” (Matthew 13:12).

Limitations

Our two convenience samples do not representthe specific universities, university professors ingeneral, and the two nations and are not perfectlymatched. Due to the unique characteristics ofthese professors and the institutions, we do notclaim that our results will be generalizable toother occupations in our society. Our data werecollected at one time from one source (self-reported); therefore, results may reflect thecommon method biases (Podsakoff andMacKenzie, 2003).

Summary

One more time: How do you motivateemployees (Herzberg, 1987)? Our researchprovides the following theoretical and empiricalcontributions regarding the love of money andsatisfaction. It depends on employee’s moneyprofile. Achieving Money Worshipers (38% ofprofessors in our samples), who have the highestProtestant Work Ethic, obtain the highest income

and express the highest satisfaction with pay leveland pay administration. Careless Money Admirers(20%) have the lowest satisfaction with pay leveland lowest intrinsic job satisfaction (the slaves ofmoney). Apathetic Money Managers (16%) havethe highest intrinsic job satisfaction and lifesatisfaction (the masters of money). MoneyRepellent Individuals (26%) have the lowestProtestant Work Ethic endorsement and thelowest satisfaction with pay administration.Money does “not” provide the same power as amotivator for people in different money profiles.It may serve as a motivator for Achieving MoneyWorshipers (38%) and Careless Money Admirers(20%), a hygiene factor for Apathetic MoneyManagers (16%), and a weak (negative) rein-forcement (KITA) for Money RepellentIndividuals (26%). People with different moneyprofiles do provide different patterns of supportfor different motivation theories. Futureresearchers need to replicate these findings inother public and private universities, other non-profit institutions, occupations, regions, andcultures to test the generalizability of the presentfindings and investigate other variables such asturnover, unethical behaviors, and corruption inorganizations. The love of money deserves moreattention in the literature.

Acknowledgements

This research project was completed whenRoberto Luna-Arocas was visiting at theDepartment of Management and Marketing,Jennings A. Jones College of Business, MiddleTennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN37132, U.S.A. Both authors contribute equallyand the names are arranged alphabetically. Wewould like to thank Alex C. Michalos, FatherWiatt A. Funk, and Yuh-Jia Chen for theirsupport and Emily Thormaehlen, NathanHarding and James van Buren for their assistance.


References

Adams, J. S.: 1965, ‘Inequity in Social Exchange’, inL. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, Vol. 2 (Academic Press, New York), pp.267–299.

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein: 1977, ‘Attitude-BehaviorRelations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review ofEmpirical Research’, Psychological Bulletin 84,888–912.

Aldenderfer, M. S. and R. K. Blashfield: 1984, ClusterAnalysis (Sage Publications, Newbury Park).

Barber, A. E. and R. D. Bretz: 2000, ‘Compensation,Attraction, and Retention’, in S. L. Rynes and B.Gerhart (eds.), Compensation in Organizations:Current Research and Practice ( Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco), pp. 32–60.

Benson, P. G. and J. S. Hornsby: 2002, ‘The Viewfrom the Top: The Controversies over ExecutivePay’, in G. R. Ferris, M. R. Buckley and D. B.


Appendix 1

Instructions: There are many hypothetical vignettes (scenarios) for activities at work. Some vignettes maynot be applicable to your situation. If you were in that situation, what is the probability that you will takeaction as suggested in the vignette? Please use the 5-point scale.

1 2 3 4 5Very Low Probability Low Average High Very High Probability

Working on the job, I

01. Use office supplies (paper, pen), Xerox machine, and stamps for personal purposes. 02. Make personal long-distance (mobile phone) calls at work.03. Waste company time surfing on the Internet, playing computer games, and socializing.04. Abuse the company expense accounts and falsify accounting records.05. Fly first class and spend a lot of company money on a business trip. 06. Borrow $20 from a cash register overnight without asking.07. Take merchandise and/or cash home.08. Give merchandise away to personal friends (no charge to the customers).09. Overcharge customers to increase sales and to earn higher bonus.10. Trick people to buy new or additional services.11. Advise customers for unnecessary repairs and services.12. Give customers “discounts” first and then charge them more money later (bait & switch).13. Make more money by deliberately not letting clients know about their benefits. 14. Use low quality inputs in producing products and services and keep profits high.15. Reduce quantity of materials in selling the same brand name product (14 oz. in a 16 oz. can).16. Use creative accounting to hide the company’s true financial status and increase personal gain.17. Manipulate stock prices to earn big personal bonus. 18. Give misleading information to investors for short-term personal profits. 19. Give large contracts/projects to personal friends and relatives.20. Bribe government officials in a foreign country to win big contracts and personal bonus.21. Receive gifts, money, and loans (bribery) from others due to one’s position and power.22. Lay off 500 employees to save the company money and increase one’s personal bonus.23. Use employees’ pension for personal (self-interest) purposes.24. Decline reasonable claims to avoid company’s expenses.25. Delay payment to make the most use of the organization’s money.26. Pressure suppliers to reduce prices.27. Reveal company secrets (proprietary information) for several million dollars.28. Offer low prices to customers and force small businesses in the downtown area to close. 29. Offer “no” severance payments to laid off employees (not required by law in the U.S.).30. Take no action for shoplifting by customers. 31. Take no action for employees who steal cash/merchandise.32. Take no action for the fraudulent charges by one’s company.

Fedor (eds.), Human Resources Management:Perspectives, Context, Functions, and Outcomes, 4thedition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ),pp. 316–323.

Blau, G: 1994, ‘Testing the Effect of Level andImportance of Pay Referents on Pay LevelSatisfaction’, Human Relations 47(10), 1251–1268.

Blood, M. R.: 1969, ‘Work Values and JobSatisfaction’, Journal of Applied Psychology 53,456–459.

Bok, D.: 1993, The Cost of Talent: How Executives andProfessionals Are Paid and How It Affects America(The Free Press, New York).

Bordia, P. and G. Blau: 1998, ‘Pay ReferentComparison and Pay Level Satisfaction in Privateversus Public Sector Organizations in India’, TheInternational Journal of Human Resources Management9(1), 155–167.

Brickman, P.: 1975, ‘Adaptation Level Determinantsof Satisfaction with Equal and Unequal OutcomeDistributions in Skill and Chance Situations’,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32,191–198.

Cameron, J. and W. D. Pierce: 1994, ‘Reinforcement,Reward and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analysis’, Review of Educational Research 64,363–423.

Cheung, G. W. and R. B. Rensvold: 2002,‘Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for TestingMeasurement Invariance’, Structural EquationModeling 9(2), 233–255.

Cohen-Charash, Y. and P. E. Spector: 2001, ‘TheRole of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis’,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes86(2), 278–321.

Corruption Perception Index. (http://www.transparency.org./cpi/2003/cpi2003.pe_statement_en.html).

Cranny, C. J., P. C. Smith and E. F. Stone (eds.): 1992,Job Satisfaction (Lexington, New York).

deCharms, R.: 1976, Enhancing motivation: Changesin the Classroom (Irvington, New York).

Deci, E. L., R. Koestner and R. M. Ryan: 1999,‘A Meta-Analytic Review of ExperimentsExamining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards onIntrinsic Motivation’, Psychological Bulletin 125,627–668.

Diener, E.: 2000, ‘Subjective Well-Being: TheScience of Happiness and a Proposal for NationalIndex’, American Psychologist 55(1), 34–43.

Drinkard, L.: 1996, ‘Silent Theft’, Restaurants &Institutions 106(6), 116–117.

Du, L. Z. and G. A. Yue: 2002, ‘A Summary of

Foreign Research on the Psychology of Money’,Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences)39(2), 61–65 (Chinese).

Fang, M. and B. Gerhart: 2002, Does Pay forPerformance Diminish Intrinsic Interest? A WorkplaceTest Using Cognitive Evaluation Theory and theAttraction-Selection-Attrition Model, Working paper,University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Fenko, A. B.: 2000, ‘The Problem of Money inForeign Psychological Studies’, PsikhologicheskiiZhurnal 21(1), 50–62 (Russian).

Festinger, L.: 1954, ‘A Theory of Social ComparisonProcesses’, Human Relations 7, 117–140.

Furnham, A.: 1990, The Protestant Work Ethic(Routledge, London).

Furnham, A. and M. Argyle: 1998, The Psychology ofMoney (Routledge, London).

Gabris, G. T. and K. Mitchell: 1988, ‘The Impact ofMerit Raise Scores on Employee Attitudes: TheMatthew Effect of Performance Appraisal’, PublicPersonnel Management 17, 369–382.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R. and D. B. Balkin: 1992,‘Determinants of Faculty Pay: An Agency TheoryPerspective’, Academy of Management Journal 35,921–955.

Goodman, P. S.: 1974, ‘An Examination of ReferentsUsed in the Evaluation of Pay’, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance 12, 170–195.

Greenberg, J.: 1993, ‘Stealing in the Name of Justice:Informational and Interpersonal Moderators ofTheft Reactions to Underpayment Inequity’,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes54(1), 81–103.

Gupta, N. and J. D. Shaw: 1998, ‘Let the EvidenceSpeak: Financial Incentives Are Effective!!’,Compensation and Benefits Review 26 (March/April),28–32.

Harpaz, I.: 1990, ‘The Importance of Work Goals:An International Perspective’, Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 21(1), 79–93.

Heneman, H.: 1985, ‘Pay satisfaction’, in K. Rowlandand G. Ferris (eds.), Research in Personnel andHuman Resource Management, Vol. 3. ( JAI Press,Greenwich, CT), pp. 115–139.

Heneman, H. and T. A. Judge: 2000, ‘CompensationAttitudes’, in S. L. Rynes and B. Gerhart (eds.),Compensation in Organizations: Current Research andPractice ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), pp. 61–103.

Heneman, H. and D. Schwab: 1985, ‘Pay Satisfaction:Its Multidimensional Nature and Measurement’,International Journal of Psychology 20, 129–141.

Heneman, R. L.: 1992, Merit Pay (Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA).


Herzberg, F. 1987, ‘One More Time: How Do YouMotivate Employees?’, Harvard Business Review65(5), 109–120 (Originally published January-February 1968).

Hom, P. W. and R. W. Griffeth: 1995, EmployeeTurnover (South-Western College Publishing,Cincinnati, OH).

Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1986, ‘A General Theoryof Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Macromarketing 6,5–16.

Judge, T. A., J. E. Bono and E. A. Locke: 2000,‘Personality and Job Satisfaction: The MediatingRole of Job Characteristics’, Journal of AppliedPsychology 85(2), 237–249.

Jurgensen, C. F.: 1978, ‘Job Preferences (What Makesa Job Good or Bad?)’, Journal of Applied Psychology63, 267–176.

Kochan, T. A.: 2002, ‘Addressing the Crisis inConfidence in Corporations: Root Causes,Victims, and Strategies for Reform’, Academy ofManagement Executive 16(3), 139–141.

Kohn, A.: 1993, ‘Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work’,Harvard Business Review (September/October),54–63.

Lawler, E. E.: 1971, Pay and OrganizationalEffectiveness: A Psychological View (McGraw-Hill,New York).

Lawler, E. E.: 2002, ‘Pay Strategy: New Thinkingfor the New Millennium’, in G. R. Ferris, M. R.Buckley and D. B. Fedor (eds.), Human ResourcesManagement: Perspectives, Context, Functions, andOutcomes, 4th edition (Prentice Hall, Upper SaddleRiver, NJ), pp. 310–316.

Lim, V. K. G. and T. S. H. Teo: 1997, ‘Sex, Moneyand Financial Hardship: An Empirical Study ofAttitudes Towards Money Among Undergraduatesin Singapore’, Journal of Economic Psychology 18,369–386.

Locke, E. A.: 1969, ‘What Is Job Satisfaction?’,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4,309–336.

Luna-Arocas, R. and T. L. P. Tang: 1998, ‘TheEconomic Psychology of Money: Analysis of theMoney Ethic Scale and the Money Attitudes Scale(E.A.D.-6)’, Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de lasOrganizaciones (Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology) 14 (3), 295–313 (Spanish).

Mathews, R.: 1997, ‘Loss Prevention: It’s Later ThanYou Think’, Progressive Grocer 76(2), 70–72.

McClelland, D. C.: 1967, ‘Money as a Motivator:Some Research Insights’, The McKinsey Quarterly,10–21.

McNichol, T.: 1998, ‘The Simplicity Movement:

Living on Less and Liking It’, USA Weekend ( July17–19), 4–5.

Michalos, A. C.: 1985, ‘Multiple DiscrepanciesTheory (MDT)’, Social Indicators Research 16,347–413.

Michalos, A. C.: 1995, A Pragmatic Approach toBusiness Ethics (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).

Milkovich, G. T. and J. M. Newman: 2002, Compen-sation, 7th edition (Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston).

Mitchell, T. R. and A. Mickel: 1999, ‘The Meaningof Money: An Individual Difference Perspective’,The Academy of Management Review 24(3), 568–578.

Opsahl, R. L. and M. D. Dunnette: 1966, ‘The Roleof Financial Compensation in IndustrialMotivation’, Psychological Bulletin 66, 94–118.

O’Reilly, C. A. and D. Caldwell: 1979, ‘InformationalInfluence as a Determinant of Perceived TaskCharacteristics and Job Satisfaction’, Journal ofApplied Psychology 64, 157–165.

Pfeffer, J.: 1998, ‘Six Dangerous Myths about Pay’,Harvard Business Review (May/June), 108–119.

Pfeffer, J. and N. Langton: 1993, ‘The Effect of WageDispersion on Satisfaction, Productivity, andWorking Collaboratively: Evidence from Collegeand University Faculty’, Administrative ScienceQuarterly 38, 382–407.

Podsakoff, P. M. and S. B. MacKenzie: 2003,‘Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research:A Critical Review of the Literature andRecommended Remedies’, Journal of AppliedPsychology 88(5), 879–903.

Poggioli, S.: 2003, June 20, ‘EU Leaders ConsiderDraft Constitution’, National Public Radio’sMorning Edition, NPR News.

Porter, L. W. and E. E. Lawler: 1968, ManagerialAttitudes and Performance (Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL).

Quintanilla, I.: 1997, Psicologia economica (EconomicPsychology) (McGraw-Hill, Madrid, Spain)(Spanish).

Rice, R. W., S. M. Phillips and D. B. McFarlin: 1990,‘Multiple Discrepancies and Pay Satisfaction’,Journal of Applied Psychology 75(4), 386–393.

Robinson, S. L. and R. J. Bennett: 1995, ‘A Typologyof Deviant Workplace Behaviors: AMultidimensional Scaling Study’, Academy ofManagement Journal 38(2), 555–572.

Rubenstein, C.: 1981, ‘Money and Self-Esteem,Relationships, Secrecy, Envy, Satisfaction’,Psychology Today 15(5), 94–118.

Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci: 2000, ‘Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation ofIntrinsic Motivation, Social Development, andWell-Being’, American Psychologist 55(1), 68–78.


Rynes, S. L. and B. Gerhart (eds.): 2000, Compensationin Organizations: Current Research and Practice( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Sloan, A.: 2002, June 24, ‘The Jury’s In: Greed Isn’tGood’, News Week, 37.

Smith, A.: 1937, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causesof the Wealth of Nations (Modern Library, NewYork) (Original work published 1776).

Staw, B. M.: 1976, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation(General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ).

Staw, B. M., N. E. Bell, and J. A. Clausen: 1986, ‘TheDispositional Approach to Job Attitudes: ALifetime Longitudinal Test’, Administrative ScienceQuarterly 31(3), 56–77.

Summers, T. and A. DeNisi: 1990, ‘In Search ofAdams’ Other: Reexamination of Referents Usedin the Evaluation of Pay’, Human Relations 43,497–511.

Tang, T. L. P.: 1992, ‘The Meaning of MoneyRevisited’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 13,197–202.

Tang, T. L. P.: 1995, ‘The Development of a ShortMoney Ethic Scale: Attitudes toward Money andPay Satisfaction Revisited’, Personality and IndividualDifferences 19, 809–817.

Tang, T. L. P.: 1996, ‘Atteggiamenti nei Confronti delDenaro e Soddisfazione del Proprio LivelloRetributivo: Sviluppo di una Versione RidottaDella Money Ethic Scale’, Psicologia e Lavoro26(103), 7–16 (Italian),

Tang, T. L. P. and R. F. Baumeister: 1984, ‘Effects ofPersonal Values, Perceived Surveillance, and TaskLabels on Task Preference: The Ideology ofTurning Play into Work’, Journal of AppliedPsychology 69, 99–105.

Tang, T. L. P. and M. Chamberlain: 2003, ‘Effects ofRank, Tenure, Length of Service, and Institutionon Faculty Attitudes toward Research andTeaching: The Case of Regional StateUniversities’, Journal of Education for Business 79(2),103–110.

Tang, T. L. P. and R. K. Chiu: 2003, ‘Income, MoneyEthic, Pay Satisfaction, Commitment, andUnethical Behavior: Is the Love of Money theRoot of Evil for Hong Kong Employees?’, JournalBusiness Ethics 46, 13–30.

Tang, T. L. P. and P. R. Gilbert: 1995, ‘Attitudestoward Money as Related to Intrinsic and ExtrinsicJob Satisfaction, Stress, and Work-RelatedAttitudes’, Personality and Individual Differences 19,327–332.

Tang, T. L. P. and J. K. Kim: 1999, ‘The Meaning ofMoney among Mental Health Workers: The

Endorsement of Money Ethic as Related toOrganizational Citizenship Behavior, JobSatisfaction, and Commitment’, Public PersonnelManagement 28(1), 15–26.

Tang, T. L. P., and E. J. Weatherford: in press, ‘EthicalDecision Making’, Psihologia Resurselor Umane (ThePsychology of Human Resources) 2(2) (Romanian).

Tang, T. L. P., J. K. Kim and D. S. H. Tang: 2000,‘Does Attitude toward Money Moderate theRelationship between Intrinsic Job Satisfaction andVoluntary Turnover?’, Human Relations 53(2),213–245.

Tang, T. L. P., V. W. M. Luk and R. K. Chiu: 2000,‘Pay Differentials in the People’s Republic ofChina: An Examination of Internal Equity andExternal Competitiveness’, Compensation andBenefits Review 32(3), 43–49.

Tang, T. L. P., R. Luna-Arocas and H. D. Whiteside:2003, ‘Money Ethic Endorsement, Self-ReportedIncome, and Life Satisfaction: University Facultyin the U.S.A. and Spain’, Personnel Review 32(6),756–773.

Tang, T. L, P., T. Sutarso, D. S. H. Tang and R.Luna-Arocas: 2001, Career Choice, Experience, andDemographic Variables as Related to Income, MoneyEthic, Pay Equity Comparison, and Pay Satisfaction,Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofAcademy of Management, Washington, DC.August, 2001.

Tang, T. L. P., K. R. Tillery, B. Lazarevski and R.Luna-Arocas: 2000, Money Profiles and Work-RelatedAttitudes: The Endorsement of the Money Ethic ofCitizens in the Republic of Macedonia, Paper pre-sented at the 25th Annual Colloquium of theInternational Association for Research onEconomic Psychology, Baden, Vienna, Austria,July, 2000.

Tang, T. L. P., A. Akadne, A. S. Alzubaidi, M. G.Borg, B. S. Cheng, R. K. Chiu, C. K. Jen, A. M.Kazem, V. K. G. Lim, E. Malovics, J. E. Osagie,R. Pholsward, E. Sardzoska, A. F. Stembridge, T.Sutarso, T. L. N. Tang, T. S. H. Teo and P. Vlerick:2002, Income, Money Ethic, Pay Satisfaction,Commitment, and Unethical Behavior: A Study of 12Countries. Paper presented at the Academy ofManagement Annual Meeting, Denver, CO,August, 2002.

Tang, T. L. P., T. Sutarso, A. Akande, M. W. Allen,A. S. Alzubaidi, M. A. Ansari, F. Arias-Galicai, M.G. Borg, B. Charles-Pauvers, B. S. Cheng, R. K.Chiu, I. Codoban, L. Canova, L. Z. Du, R. C.Higgs, C. K. Jen, K. Kim, R. Luna-Arocas, A. M.Kazem, V. K. G. Lim, E. Malovics, A. M.


Manganelli, A. Moreira, O. A. U. Nnedum, J. E.Osagie, A. M. Osman-Gani, F. C. Pereira, R.Pholsward, H. D. Pitariu, M. Polic, E. Sardzoska,A. F. Stembridge, T. L. N. Tang, T. S. H. Teo, M.Tombolani, M. Trontelj, C. Urbain and P. Vlerick:2003, The Love of Money: Measurement Invarianceacross 26 Cultures. Paper presented at the 63rdAcademy of Management Annual Meeting, Seattle,WA. August, 2003.

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman: 1981, ‘The Framingof Decisions and the Psychology of Choice’, Science211, 453–458.

Urbain, C.: 2000, ‘L’Attitude a L’egard de L’argent:une Premiere Tentative de Validation de DeuxEchelles de Mesure Americaines Dans un ContexteCulturel Français’, Recherche et Applications enMarketing 5(3), 3–28 (French)

Vandenberg, R. J. and C. E. Lance: 2000, ‘A Reviewand Synthesis of the Measurement InvarianceLiterature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recom-mendations for Organizational Research’,Organizational Research Methods 3(1), 4–69.

Weiss, D., R. Dawis, G. England, and L. Lofquist:1967, Manual for the Minnesota SatisfactionQuestionnaire (Industrial Relations Center,University of Minnesota, Minneapolis).

Wernimont, P. F., and S. Fitzpatrick: 1972, ‘TheMeaning of Money’, Journal of Applied Psychology56, 218–226.

Roberto Luna-ArocasDepartamento de Direccion de Empresas,

Edificio Departamental Oriental, 1-c5,Campus de los Naranjos,

Avda de los Naranjos s/n,University of Valencia,

Valencia 46022,Spain

andMiddle Tennessee State University,

Murfreesboro, TN, U.S.A.E-mail: [email protected]

Thomas Li-Ping Tang,Box 516, Department of Management and Marketing,

Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, U.S.A.

E-mail: [email protected]


Documents

The Love of Money, Satisfaction, and the Protestant Work Ethic: Money Profiles Among Univesity Professors in the U.S.A. and Spain