JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL.

14,93-99 (1993)

Research The meaning of money: Extension and

Note
exploration of the money ethic scale in a
sample of university students in Taiwan
THOMAS LI-PING TANG
Department of Management and Marketing, Middle Tennessee State University, V.S.A .

Introduction
The meaning of money is ‘in the eye of the beholder’ (McClelland, 1967, p. 10). To some
people, money is a motivator (cf: Lawler, 198l), to others, money is a hygiene factor (cf:Henberg,
Mausner and Snyderman, 1959). Recently, there is a renewed interest in the meaning of money
(cf: Furnham, 1984; Tang, 1988, 1990a, 1992; Yamauchi and Templer, 1982). People’s attitudes
toward money may have significant impacts on their perceptions of work-related tasks, the
reward system, and their intrinsic motivation on a task which, in turn, may influence their
work-related behavior, task performance, job satisfaction and morale, and the effectiveness
of the organization (Lawler, 1981; Opsahl and Dunnette, 1966, Tang and Baumeister, 1984).
Therefore, people’s attitudes toward money as well as other related attitudes may be of interest
to researchers and practitioners in the field of organizational behavior.
Recently, Tang (19Wa, 1992)developed a Money Ethic Scale(MES) and examinedthe meaning
of money in a sample of full-time employees in the United States. Six major factors were identi-
fied.These factors and related findings are discussed briefly as follows.
Factor 1 - Good (nine items) represents the idea that money is good, important, valuable,
and attractive, i.e. positive attitudes toward money. This factor is significantlyrelated to people’s
endorsement of the Leisure Ethic (LE, Crandall and Slivken, 1980). The second factor - Evil
(six items) deals with the negative attitudes towards money, such as: Money is evil, shameful,
and useless. Evil is positively correlated with the endorsement of the Protestant Work Ethic
(PWE, Mirels and Garrett, 1971) and is negatively correlated with age, income, and satisfaction
of work as measured by the Job Descriptive Index (JDI, Smith, Kendall and H u h , 1975).
Factor 3 has four items which focus on the concept that money represents one’s Achievement
in the society, e.g. money represents one’s achievement and money is a symbol of success.
Achievement is negatively associated with satisfaction of work, promotion, co-worker, super-
vision (JDI), and overall life satisfaction. Factor 4 - Respect also has four items, e.g. money
makes people respect you in the community and money is honorable. Respect is negatively
correlated with pay satisfaction.
Further, how people Budget their money is related to Factor 5 (three items), e.g. I use my
The author would Like to thank Ya-Lin Tseng and Owen Hsieh for their assistance in data collection and A. Farnharn
and M. B. Hein for their commentson earlier drafts of this paper.
Address all correspondence to Thomas Li-Ping Tang, Box 516, Department of Management and Marketing, College
of Business, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, U.S.A.

089&3796/93/01 OO93-O7$O8.50 Received8 April 1991

0 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 9 July 1992
94 T.L-P. TANG

money very carefully and I pay my bills immediately in order to avoid interest or penalties.
Old people, females, low income, and hard working (high PWE) individuals tend to perceive
that they budget their money carefully. This factor is also positively related to overall life
satisfaction. Finally, Factor 6 (four items) reveals that money is Freedom and Power: Money
gives you autonomy and freedom and money means power. This factor is related to the endorse-
ment of Work Ethic, Leisure Ethic, and a low level of satisfaction in work, pay, co-worker,
and overall life satisfaction.
It appears that people’s attitudes toward money can be categorized into three components:
the affective component (good and evil), the cognitive component (achievement, respect, and
freedodpower), and the behavioral component (budget). Tang (1992) suggested that more
research is needed to fully establish the construct validity and the nomological network of
associationsin which the MES exists.
Recently, Taiwan, Republic of China, has been recognized as one of the four little dragons
in Asia. Due to its economic growth and development, Taiwan has become the 15th largest
trading nation in the world (as of the end of 1990) with total trade amounts to US$121 billion.
Further, Taiwan is the world’s second highest in foreign exchange reserves (The Republic of
China on Taiwan in the 1990s, 1991). Therefore, the importance of studying Chinese people’s
attitudes toward money cannot be ignored. The major purpose of the present study was to
further validate, replicate, and explore the MES scale in a sample of university students in
Taiwan.
Several studies have examined different cross-cultural issues related to Chinese and American
samples (e.g. Hess, Chang and McDevitt, 1987; Ma, 1986; Tang, 1990b; Tang and Baumeister,
1984). Although several cross-cultural differences have been found, there are also many similari-
ties in these two different cultures.
In a material-oriented society such as United States, almost all people work for their money.
For most people, the more money they have, the better. Those who have money may enjoy
their feelings of achievement, respect, and freedodpower. It is plausible that for those who
value money and want to have more money, their thoughts may be controlled by money and
the reward system (cf. Lawler, 1981). Therefore, they may experience external locus of control
(cf. Rotter, 1966): They may become the pawns (slaves) rather than the origins (masters) of
money (cf. decharms, 1976). Moreover, Tang (1988) found that factor achievement of the
MES scale was not correlated with need for achievement (n Achievement) (cf. Steers and Braun-
stein, 1976) in an U.S. sample. Need for achievement is defined as behavior toward competition
with a standard of excellence (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark and Lowell, 1953). Thus, it is
plausible that the cognitive components of people’s attitudes toward money (i.e. achievement,
respect, and freedodpower) will be related to Rotter’s (1966) external locus of control in a
Chinese sample.
Furthermore, factors ‘achievement’, ‘respect’, and ‘freedodpower’ are negatively correlated
with several measures of work satisfaction and life satisfaction in general (Tang, 1992). These
findings can be explained by the discrepancy notion which suggests that job or life satisfaction
is a function of a comparison between what one receives (i.e. reality) and what one would
like to receive (i.e. expectations) (Lawler, 1981). Lawler (1981) stated that ‘feelings of underpay-
ment tend to be stable and difficult to eliminate, while feelings of overpayment are very transitory’
(P. 12).
In a given situation, most people feel that they are underpaid and they want more money.
A high desire to see money as symbols of achievement, respect, and freedodpower will be
related to different signs of stress: depression, anxiety, and irritation (cf. Caplan, Cobb, French,
Van Harrison and Pinneau, 1975).
 MONEYETHIC 95

Although the ideology of the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) originated in the West, the Virtues
of industriousness, ambition, and an ascetic life that condemns laxity and laziness (Weber,
1904-1905/1958) are also strong values in the Chinese culture (Haet al., 1987; Ma, 1986;
Tang and Baumeister, 1984). In the U.S.sample, Tang found that PWE was positively correlated
with factor ‘evil’. Further, Chinese students have stronger endorsement of the PWE than their
U.S.counterparts (Tang and Baumeister, 1984). Therefore, it is predicted that the positive
relationship between PWE and factor evil will be found in a Chinese sample. The following
hypotheses are tested.
Hypothesis 1: External locus of control will be related to the cognitive components of
the Money Ethic Scale.
Hypothesis 2. Symptomsof stress will be related to the cognitive components of the Money
Ethic Scale.
Hypothesis 3. Protestant Work Ethic will be related to the factor evil.

Subjects
A total of 68 undergraduate students (25 female and 43 male students) from two psychology
classes at National Taiwan University (NTU), Taiwan, Republic of China, volunteered to com-
plete an attitude surveyduring class. The mean and standard deviation of these full-timestudents’
ages were 20.13 and 0.88, respectively.

Measures
Each subject was asked to complete the Money Ethic Scale (MES, Tang, 1992), the PWE
(Mirels and Garrett, 1971; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69), the Leisure Ethic (Crandall and Slivken,
1980; alpha = 0.66), Type A personality (Vickers, 1975; alpha = 0.83), and the locus of control
(Rotter, 1966; a forced-choice format). A 7-point Likert-type scale was used for these measures.
Three additional 4-point Likert-type measures were employed to assess subjects’ psychological
strain: depression (alpha = 0.09), anxiety (alpha = 0.71), irritation (alpha = 0.40) (Caplan el
al., 1975). All these measures were translated into Chinese and regarded as possessinga satisfac-
tory degree of cross-languageequivalence (Tang, 1990b).

Results
The results of a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the six factors of
Money Ethic Scale using sex as the independent variable showed that there was a significant
sex difference [F (6, 57) = 3.04, p = 0.012, Wilks’ lambda = 0.751. Further univariate F-tests
showed that male students tended to score significantly higher on factor ‘achievement’( M =3.09)
than did female students ( M =2.38) [F(1,62) = 4.52, p = 0.0381. Male students also rated factor
‘respect’ significantly higher ( M =4.15) than did female students ( M =3.38) [F (1, 62) = 5.99,
p = 0.017. Other results failed to reach significance. Due to the small sample size, all subjects
were combined in subsequent analyses.
Table 1 shows the mean score and standard deviation for each of the MES factors (i.e.
ranging from 1-7) so that subjects’ relative agreement with each factor can be identified. Pearson
% T.1,-P. TANG

product-moment correlations, the Cronbach's alpha, and the nomological network of the MES
are also presented. Separate step-wisemultiple regressions were employed to test the hypotheses.
All nine variables (i.e. sex, age, Work Ethic, Leisure Ethic, Type A personality, locus of control,
depression, anxiety, and irritation) were used to predict each of the six factors of the MES
scale. Table 2 shows the beta weight of each predictor, multiple R, and R square for each
of the six factors.
It was predicted that external locus of control (hypothesis 1) and symptomsof stress (hypothe-
sis 2) will be related to the cognitive components of people's attitudes toward money. Results
of step-wise multiple regressions showed that achievement was related to irritation, external
locus of control, sex (male), and the Work Ethic. Respect was predicted by irritation, sex
(male), Work Ethic, and external locus of control. Freedodpower was related to external
locus of control. Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported by the present data, whereas hypothesis
2 was partially supported.

Table 1. Mean, standard deviation, and correlation of the Money Ethic scale
~

Factor
Variable M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The Money Ethic Scale (7-Point Likert-type scale)
1. Good 5.57 0.70 (79) -33* 43t 35* 08 at
2. Evil 2.81 0.72 (55) 05 12 29t -12
3. Achievement 2.75 1.35 (82) 65t 15 51t
4. Respect 3.84 1.28 (79) 07 70"
5. Budget 4.59 1.30 (70) -01
6. Freedodpower 4.63 1.04 (55)
Other measures
7. Age 20.13 0.88 -02 -09 -12 -04 -32* 04
8. Work Ethic 84.54 11.58 13 33* 11 20 12 05
9. Leisure 47.03 8.47 -13 -06 03 -20 -10 -16
10. TypeA 41.73 9.31 -27$ 18 -06 01 41t -12
11. I-E 12.91 4.02 23t -12 31* 24* -18 31*
12. Depression 14.53 2.01 03 20 21# 11 03 03
13. Anxiety 7.79 2.63 -03 244 14 23# -01 10
14. Irritation 5.25 1.43 28$ -07 45t 32* -12 24$
N = 68. All decimalshave been omitted for correlations.
Reliability coefficient(Cronbach'salpha) for each factor is presented in parentheses.
*p<O.OI.
t p <0.001.
$p<0.05.

Hypothesis 3 dealt with the Protestant Work Ethic and the factor evil. Results showed that
evil was predicted by the Protestant Work Ethic and anxiety which supported hypothesis 3.
Further, factor good was related to irritation. Budget was related to Type A personality and
young age.
Finally, the pattern of correlations among the six factors of the Money Ethic Scale reported
in the present study (see Table 1) was very similar to that of the original study reported in
Tang (1992) with the following exceptions: The present data showed that factor evil was signifi-
cantly correlated with factor budget. Further, the significant correlations between budget and
good and between budget and freedodpower suggested in Tang (1992) failed to reach signifi-
cance in the present study. All the differences were associated with the factor budget.
 MONEY ETHIC 97

Table 2. Stepwisemultiple regression for factors of the Money Ethic Scale

Variable (beta weight)
MES factor 1
~~
2 3 4 R R2
1. Good Irritation 0.275 0.075
(0.27)
2. Evil Work Anxiety 0.392 0.154
(0.31) (0.24)
3. Achievement Irritation I-E Sex Work 0.622 0.386
(0.44) (0.33) (0.25) (0.27)
4. Respect Irritation Sex Work I-E 0.555 0.308
(0.32) (0.31) (0.32) (0.29)
5. Budget TWA Age 0.480 0.23 1
(0.37) (-0.26)
6. Freeclodpower I-E 0.300 0.090
(0.30)
I-E A high score indicates external locus of control. The alpha is set at p < 0.05. The first variable is included
if its R* is significant. Other variables are included if the increment in R‘ is significant when that variable is added
to the equation.

Discussion
The results of the present study showed that those Chinese students who value money felt
that they were controlled by external factors and had a high level of irritation, a symptom
of stress. Further, Chinese students showed signilkant sex differences on achievement and
respect, whereas full-time employees in the U.S.sample did not. This may be explained by
(1) the possible reduction of sex role stereotypes in the U.S. culture (but less change in the
Chinese culture) for the last two decades (cf. Brenner, Tomkiewicz and Schein, 1989) and (2)
the differencesof their status and work experience in these two samples.
Further, Chinese students believed that Work Ethic was related to one’s achievement and
respect in the community. These findings seem to support the notion that Chinese people esteem
effort and they may have the belief that hard work leads to success (Hess er al., 1987).
The significant relationship between Protestant Work Ethic and factor evil was replicated
in the present study. However, there are some differences between the present Chinese sample
and the U.S.sample. For example, Protestant Work Ethic was not related to budget and freedom/
power in the present study, but it was in the U.S.sample. Further, age and budget was negatively
correlated in the Chinese sample, but was positively correlated in the U.S. sample. Further,
the correlations among six factors of the Money Ethic Scale for the Chinese sample and the
U.S.sample were almost identical except factor budget.
These findings probably can be explained by the financial differences in these two samples.
American workers have an average income of US$23,210 a year. In Taiwan, most younger
full-time college students do not have jobs and they receive money from their parents. They
are very careful using their parents’ money. Older students may feel that they deserve some
hjoyment from their work and may become less careful in spending their own money. Due
to the experiences and time pressures in work and in school, older students may also develop
their harddriving and competitiveattitudes (i.e. Type A personality).
Further, although the use of credit cards and checks is gaining popularity in Taiwan, most
people still use cash. Thereby, Chinese students may not have the experience of ‘paying their
98 T. L-P. TANG

bills’. One item of the budget factor in the MES scale was that ‘I pay my bills immediately
in order to avoid interest or penalties’. This item seems appropriate for the U.S. sample, however,
it may mean different things to these Chinese students. Therefore, this item may not be a
cultural-free item. The lack of experience in these Chinese students may contribute to the results
of the present study.
Chinese students (N= 68) in the present study were younger and more homogeneous (age:
M = 20.13, S.D.= 0.88) than those workers in the American sample (N= 249) (age: M = 35.04,
S.D.= 10.84). Thus, the small sample size, restriction of range, and statistical artifact may
explain the possible differences in these two studies. Further, it is also possible that the relation-
ship between age and factor budget may not be linear and the relationship may vary at different
income level. Future research should focus on a large sample with a large range of income
levels and age in order to test this hypothesis.
It is interesting to note that Leisure Ethic was not related to any factors of the MES,while
significant results have been found in the American sample. It is possible that Chinese students
at NTU may have paid less attention to their leisure activities. It is also possible that people
in the Chinese society in general are more work-oriented and less leisure-oriented than are
those in the United States (cf. Tang and Baumeister, 1984). Future research should test this
hypothesis directly. Finally, due to the small sample size (i.e. a major weakness) of the present
study, the reliability measures of evil (0.55) and freedodpower (0.55) are lower than that of
the U.S.sample, 0.69, 0.71, respectively. Depression is not related to any of the factors of
the MES scale which is probably caused by the low reliability of the depression scale in the
sample.
In conclusion, there are similarities and differences concerning people’s attitudes toward
money in the Chinese sample and the U.S.sample. People’s attitudes toward money are consistent
with their inner values, the ‘frame of reference’, their culture, and their own experience in
the society. Based on the results of the present study and the U.S.sample, it appears that
those who do have lower cognitive expectations of money (achievement, respect, and freedom/
power) may have a happier and less stressful life than those who do not. Future research
using longitudinal data will help us achieve a better understanding of our attitudes toward
money and other aspects of life.

References
Brenner, 0.C., Tomkiewicz, J. and Schein, V. E. (1989). ‘The relationship between sex role stereotypes
and requisite management characteristicsrevisited’, Academy of Management Journal, 32 (3), 662-669.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R. and Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job Demands
and Worker Health: Main Effects and Occupational Direrences, US.Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Washington, DC.
Cranddf, R.and Slivken, K. (1980). ‘Leisure attitudes and their measurement’. In: Iso-Ahola, S. E. (Ed.)
Social Psychological Perspectives on Leisure and Recreation, Thomas, Springfield, IL, pp. 261-284.
deCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing Motivation: Change in the Classroom, Irvington, New York.
Furnham, A. (1984). ‘Many sides of the coin: The psychology of money usage‘, Personality and Individual
Darerenre, 5 (9,501-509.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work, Wiley, New York.
Hess, R.,Chang, C. M. and McDevitt, T. M. (1987). ‘Culturalvariations in family beliefs about children’s
performance in mathematics: Comparisons among People’s Republic of China, Chinese-American, and
Caucasian American families’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 (2), 179-1 88.
Lawler, E. E. (198 1). Pay and Organization Development, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Reading, MA.
Ma, L. C. (1986). ‘The Protestant ethic among Taiwanese college students’, Journal of Psychology, 120
(3), 219-224.
 MONEYETHIC 99

McClelland, D. C. (1967). ‘Money as a motivator: Some research insights’, The McKinsey Quarterly,
10-21.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A. and Lowell, E. L. (1953). The Achievement Motive,
Appleton-Century-Crofts,New York.
Mirels, H. and Garrett, J. (1971). ‘The Protestant ethic as a personality variable’, Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 36,4044.
Opsahl, R. L. and Dunnette, M.D. (1966). ‘The role of financial compensation in industrial motivation’,
Psychological Bulletin, 66 (2), 94118.
The Republic of China on Taiwan in the 1990s (1991, June). Board of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Economic
Affairs.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). ‘Generalizedexpectanciesfor internal versus external control of reinforcement’, Psycho-
logical Monographs, 80, No. 1 (Whole no. 609).
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M. and H u h , C . L. (1975). The Measurement of Satisfation in Work and
Retirement, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.
Steers, R. M. and Braunstein, D. N. (1976). ‘A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in work
settings’, Journal of VocationalBehavior, 9,251-166.
Tang, T. L. P. (1988, April). ‘The meaning of money revisited The development of the Money Ethic
Scale’. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Convention of the Southwestern Psychological Association,
Tulsa, OK. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 306 494).
Tang, T. L. P. (1990a, April). ‘Attitudes towards money: Workers’ view’. Paper presented at the 36th
Annual Convention of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Dallas, TX.(ERIC Document
Reproduction Service ED 318 984).
Tang, T. L. P. (199ob). ‘Factors af€ecting intrinsic motivation among university students in Taiwan’,
Journal of Social Psychology, 130 (2), 219-230.
Tang, T. L. P. (1992). ‘The meaning of money revisited’, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 13,197-202.
Tang, T. L. P. and Baumeister, R. F. (1984). ‘Effects of personal values, perceived surveillance, and
task labels on task preference: The ideology of turning play into work’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
69(1), 99-105.
Vickers, R. (1975). ‘Subsetting procedures for the Sales Type A Personality Index: A short measure of
the Type A personality’. In: Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S.,French, J. R.P., Van Harrison, R.and Pinneau,
S . R . Job Demands and Worker Health: Main Effects and Occupational Direrences, U.S. Department
of Health, Mucation, and Welfare, Washington, DC,pp. 218-219.
Weber, M.(1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (Parsons, T., translator), Scribner’s,
New York (Originally published in 1904-1905).
Yamauchi, K. T. and Templer, D. I. (1982). ‘The development of a money attitude scale’, Journal of
Personality Assessment, 46 (S), 522-528.