Journal of Managerial Psychology

The love of money and work-related attitudes: Money profiles in Macedonia

Thomas Li-Ping Tang Kenneth R. Tillery Blagoja Lazarevski Roberto Luna-Arocas
Article information:
To cite this document:
Thomas Li-Ping Tang Kenneth R. Tillery Blagoja Lazarevski Roberto Luna-Arocas, (2004),"The love of
money and work-related attitudes", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 Iss 5 pp. 542 - 548
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 14:50 30 January 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940410543614
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 14:50 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 13 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1443 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Thomas Li-Ping Tang, David Shin-Hsiung Tang, Roberto Luna-Arocas, (2005),"Money profiles:
the love of money, attitudes, and needs", Personnel Review, Vol. 34 Iss 5 pp. 603-618 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480510612549
Karen Meudell, Karen Rodham, (1998),"Money isn’t everything … or is it? A preliminary research study
into money as a motivator in the licensed house sector", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 10 Iss 4 pp. 128-132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596119810222087
Jill Cook, Alf Crossman, (2004),"Satisfaction with performance appraisal systems: A study
of role perceptions", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 Iss 5 pp. 526-541 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940410543605

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:236839 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 14:50 30 January 2016 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
JMP
19,5
542
Received September 2003
Revised March 2004
Accepted March 2004
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 14:50 30 January 2016 (PT)
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 19 No. 5, 2004
pp. 542-548
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940410543614
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
RESEARCH NOTE
The love of money and
work-related attitudes
Money profiles in Macedonia
Thomas Li-Ping Tang and Kenneth R. Tillery
Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA
Blagoja Lazarevski
Sid Paterson Advertising, New York, New York, USA, and
Roberto Luna-Arocas
University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Keywords Money, Budgetary control, Attitudes, Macedonia
Abstract This study examines the love of money and work-related attitudes and identifies four
money profiles based on a sample of citizens in the Republic of Macedonia. Achieving Money
Worshipers (the highest scores on Factors Success, Motivator, and Budget and the lowest on Evil)
had the highest active involvement in work activities. Careless Money Admirers (the lowest score on
Factor Budget) had the highest external locus of control, the highest involvement, and lowest
success avoidance. Apathetic Money Managers (the lowest scores on Factors Success and
Motivator) had the highest internal locus of control and the lowest involvement. Money Repellent
Individuals (the highest score on Factor Evil) had the lowest competitiveness and the highest
success avoidance. Results provide the validity of the Love of Money Scale and the four money
profiles.
Money is an important factor in almost everyone’s life. Money is a motivator to some
and a hygiene factor to others (Herzberg, 1987). Pay has been ranked second in
importance in the USA and the UK and first in Germany (Harpaz, 1990). There has
been a significant increase regarding the importance of money in the USA and around
the world. Although money is used universally, the meaning of money is in the eye of
the beholder and can be perceived as their “frame of reference” in which they examine
their everyday lives (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979).
The present study
This study investigates the money profiles in a sample of students and business
owners in the Republic of Macedonia. The Republic of Macedonia (25,713 square
kilometers, 2.04 million people) is located at the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula
and the cross roads of trade routes that have connected Europe, Asia, and Africa. In
1998, the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was US$1,615. More recently, it has
grown to US$4,400 in 2001 and $5,100 in 2002. Today, Macedonia is considered to be
an intermediately-developed industrial country. The country has $1.2 billion exports
(with Germany 21 percent, Serbia and Montenegro 18 percent, the US 13 percent,
Greece 7 percent, and Italy 6 percent) and $1.56 billion imports (Germany 13 percent,
 Serbia and Montenegro 13 percent, Slovenia 8 percent, Ukraine 6 percent, and Italy 6 Money profiles in
percent).
The reunification of Germany, the restructuring of the former Soviet Union, the
Macedonia
formation of the European Union (EU), the adaptation of a common currency in 12
European countries on January 1, 2002, the expansion of EU from 15 to 25 countries
with 415 million people and an economy of more than 9 trillion dollars, and the
provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have caused many 543
significant changes around the world. For example, a modern and dominant
capitalistic culture (i.e. the US culture) and visible products (Coca-Cola and
McDonald’s) may exert significant impacts on another country’s culture and on
people’s attitudes, behaviors, and consumption. Macedonia, where agriculture and
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 14:50 30 January 2016 (PT)

tourism are the untapped potential, has experienced dramatic changes in recent years.
We know practically nothing about people’s money attitudes in Macedonia. This study
will try to fill this void.

The love of money

There are many measures of money attitudes in the literature (e.g. Furnham and
Argyle, 1998). Mitchell and Mickel (1999, p. 571) have considered the Money Ethic
Scale (MES) (Tang, 1992) as one of the most “well-developed” and systematically used
measures of money attitude. Tang and his associates have developed several versions
of the MES (e.g. Tang, 1992; Tang and Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2000). Recently, Tang
and his associates have selected factors of the MES and developed the Love of Money
Scale (LOMS), i.e. a sub-scale of the MES.

Money profiles
Luna-Arocas and Tang (in press) used factors Budget, Evil, Equity, Success, and
Motivator (LOMS) to identify four money profiles using cluster analysis: Achieving
Money Worshipers (high Success, Motivator, Equity, and Budget) had high income,
Work Ethic, and high satisfaction with pay, pay administration, and internal equity
comparison but low satisfaction with external equity comparison. Careless Money
Admirers (high Success but low Budget) had low intrinsic job satisfaction, pay
satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Apathetic Money Managers (low Evil and low
Motivator) had the highest intrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Money
Repellent Individuals (high Evil and low Success) had low income, work experience,
Work Ethic, and low satisfaction with pay administration. We will replicate the money
profiles in a Macedonia sample and examine several variables.
Internal-External locus of control (LOC) scale measures the extent to which people
believe they have control over their lives. Internals tend to make better job progress,
have higher occupational attainment and earnings, receive higher performance ratings,
seek personal control and exhibit less conformity, and are less likely to consider money
as success than externals (Tang, 1993). High Love-of-Money people may become the
pawns (slaves) of money rather than the origins (masters) of money (see deCharms,
1976). The importance attached to money is the motive to outperform others. Those
who value money are more actively involved in work-related activities so that they can
make money and enjoy achievements and success. They have a low level of success
avoidance. There are differences in money attitudes among full-time employees,
part-time employees, and non-employed students in the USA. We will test the
hypotheses below:
 JMP H1. There will be four money profiles for the Macedonia sample.
19,5 H2. Business owners will have more positive attitude toward money than
students.
H3. Achieving Money Worshipers and Careless Money Handlers will have high
external LOC, whereas Apathetic Money Managers and Money Repellent
544 Individuals will have high internal LOC.
H4. Achieving Money Worshipers will have higher active involvement and
competitive attitudes and lower success avoidance than will Money Repellent
Individuals.
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 14:50 30 January 2016 (PT)

Methods
Participants
We collected data from 30 sophomores (code ¼ 1) in the College of Management, Kiril
and Methodi University and 60 small business owners (code ¼ 2) in Skopje, the
Republic of Macedonia. There were 48 male and 41 female participants (Table I).

Measures
We collected participants’ demographic variables. We employed the 15-item LOMS
(Luna-Arocas and Tang, in press) (Factors Budget, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0:86; Evil, 0.84;
Equity, 0.09; Success, 0.88; and Motivator, 0.78), a 24-item LOC scale (Levenson, 1973)
(a high score ¼ External LOC, 0.68), and work and family orientation questionnaire
(Helmreich and Spence, 1978) (Work Persistence, 0.71; Active Involvement, 0.66;
Competitiveness, 0.69; and Success Avoidance, 0.63) (Table II).

Results
Students considered money more Evil than did business owners
(Fð1; 86Þ ¼ 26:09; p ¼ 0:000). Business owners had higher value regarding money as
their Success (Fð1; 86Þ ¼ 33:55, p ¼ 0:000) and money as a Motivator
(Fð1; 86Þ ¼ 30:67, p ¼ 0:000) than had students. H2 was supported.
The ultimate goal of cluster analysis is to arrive at clusters of people who display
small within-cluster variation, but large between-cluster variation (Table III). The four
clusters in the Macedonian sample (Achieving Money Worshiper (33.71 percent),
Money Repellent Individual (29.21 percent), Careless Money Admirer (21.35 percent),
and Apathetic Money Manager (15.73 percent)) supported H1 (Luna-Arocas and Tang,
in press). Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) suggested that factor Evil was the most
powerful money attitude in profiling the participants (Fð3; 85Þ ¼ 55:28, p ¼ 0:000),
followed by Factor Success (Fð3; 85Þ ¼ 48:41, p ¼ 0:000), Factor Budget
(Fð3; 85Þ ¼ 28:81, p ¼ 0:000), Factor Motivator (Fð3; 85Þ ¼ 24:77, p ¼ 0:000), and
Factor Equity (Fð3; 85Þ ¼ 1:13, p ¼ 0:341). The Apathetic Money Manager (Cluster 1)
had the lowest scores for factors Success and Motivator, a relatively low score for
factor Budget, and a moderate score for factor Evil. Careless Money Admirer (Cluster 2)
had the lowest score for factor Budget, low score for factor Evil, and high scores for
factors Success and Motivator. Money Repellent Individual (Cluster 3) had the highest
score for factor Evil, moderate scores for factors Success, Budget, and Motivator.
Achieving Money Worshiper (Cluster 4) had the highest scores for factors Success,
Budget, and Motivator and the lowest score for factor Evil.
 Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 14:50 30 January 2016 (PT)

Variable M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Age 28.92 11.38 2 0.09 0.94*** 0.29** 0.53*** 0.14 2 0.15 0.10 0.27* 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.26* 0.01 2 0.00
2. Sex 1.46 0.50 2 0.06 2 0.10 2 0.05 2 0.16 2 0.01 2 0.04 2 0.19 2 0.16 2 0.01 0.00 2 0.00 2 0.05 0.04
3. Experience 11.90 10.49 0.29* – 0.07 0.18 0.17 0.01 2 0.29* 2 0.25 0.02 2 0.04 2 0.22 0.20
4. Education 14.35 1.76 2 0.12 0.22 0.07 0.09 2 0.14 2 0.06 2 0.08 0.02 2 0.04 2 0.12 0.00
5. Status 1.67 0.47 0.06 2 0.48*** 2 0.00 0.53*** 0.51*** 0.34*** 2 0.02 0.54*** 0.27** 2 0.23*
6. Budget 13.63 3.85 2 0.17 2 0.03 0.10 0.21 0.24* 0.21* 0.18 0.28** 0.04
7. Evil 10.18 3.82 0.11 2 0.34*** 2 0.39*** 2 0.43*** 2 0.07 2 0.44*** 2 0.39*** 0.46***
8. Equity 11.38 1.63 2 0.01 2 0.15 2 0.17 0.11 2 0.06 2 0.08 0.07
9. Success 7.76 2.36 0.53*** 0.36*** 0.08 0.49*** 0.34*** 2 0.24*
10. Motivator 8.82 1.66 0.55*** 0.12 0.48*** 0.30** 2 0.13
11. LOC 88.30 15.51 0.23* 0.42*** 0.35*** 2 0.30**
12. Persist 12.27 1.98 0.25* 0.25* 0.05
13. Involve 15.08 3.19 0.42*** 2 0.13
14. Compete 7.34 1.86 2 0.21*
15. Avoid 4.96 2.03
Note: n ¼ 90; Experience: n ¼ 60; Status: Student ¼ 1, Employee ¼ 2; LOC: high score ¼ external locus of control; * p , 0:05, ** p , 0:01, *** p , 0:001

deviation, and correlation

Mean, standard
Macedonia

of major variables
545

Table I.
Money profiles in
 JMP Variable M SD M SD F
19,5
Sex Male (n ¼ 48) Female (n ¼ 41)
Budget 14.21 3.87 12.95 3.76 2.40
Evil 10.21 3.81 10.15 3.89 0.01
Equity 11.44 1.70 11.32 1.57 0.12
546 Success 8.17 2.09 7.29 2.60 3.09
Motivator 9.06 1.45 8.54 1.85 2.26
Marital status Married (n ¼ 35) Unmarried (n ¼ 54)
Budget 14.23 3.84 13.24 3.84 1.41
Evil 9.37 3.41 10.70 4.01 2.62
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 14:50 30 January 2016 (PT)

Equity 11.60 1.50 11.24 1.70 1.04

Success 8.31 2.08 7.41 2.48 3.20
Motivator 9.17 1.34 8.59 1.81 2.65
Employment status Students (n ¼ 28) Business (n ¼ 60)
Table II. Budget 13.36 3.66 13.83 3.94 0.29
Mean, standard Evil 12.89 3.81 8.93 3.17 26.09*
deviation, and F-test Equity 11.36 2.08 11.35 1.36 0.00
result of the love of Success 6.00 2.34 8.65 1.82 33.55*
money scale by Motivator 7.61 1.93 9.42 1.12 30.67*
demographic variables Note: * p , 0:001

We investigate external validity across four clusters using ANOVAs and Scheffe’s test
(the lower part of Table IIII). Business owners are Achieving Money Worshipers and
Careless Money Admirers than the others (Fð3; 84Þ ¼ 13:88, p ¼ 0:0000. Scheffe’s test,
p , 0:05). Careless Money Admirers and Achieving Money Worshipers had high
external LOC, whereas Money Repellent Individuals and Apathetic Money Managers
had high internal LOC (Fð3; 85Þ ¼ 7:39, p ¼ 0:0002). In this study, a different measure
of LOC was employed and similar results were found. Careless Money Admirers and
Achieving Money Worshipers had higher active involvement in activities than Money
Repellent Individuals and Apathetic Money Managers (Fð3; 85Þ ¼ 12:14, p ¼ 0:0000).
Achieving Money Worshipers were more competitive than Money Repellent
Individuals (Fð3; 85Þ ¼ 4:93, p ¼ 0:0033). Money Repellent Individuals showed
higher concern for success avoidance than Achieving Money Worshipers and
Careless Money Admirers (Fð3; 85Þ ¼ 8:41, p ¼ 0.0001). H3 and H4 were supported.
The discriminant analysis (chi-square ðdf ¼ 12Þ ¼ 55:98, p ¼ 0:000, Wilks’
Lambda ¼ 0:455) suggested that Function 1 separated Clusters 4 and 2 from
Clusters 1 and 3. Function 2 separated Cluster 3 from Cluster 1. Function 3 separated
Cluster 4 from Cluster 2. Results showed that 95.06 percent of originally grouped cases
correctly classified and 82.7 percent of cross-validated grouped cases correctly
classified.

Discussion
We replicate money profiles in this study. The percentage of people in these four
clusters is similar to results in the literature (Luna-Arocas and Tang, in press). This
study strengthens the external validity of the LOMS and the four money profiles.
Business owners (with income and full-time work experience) do differ from students
(without income) on money as a Motivator and money as a sign of their Success. A large
 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
Money profiles in
Apathetic Careless Money Achieving Macedonia
Money Money Repellent Money
Variables Manager Admirer Individual Worshiper
(n ¼ 89) (n ¼ 14) (n ¼ 19) (n ¼ 26) (n ¼ 30)

Percentage 15.73 21.35 29.21 33.71 547

Student (28) 9 1 15 3
Percentage 32.1 3.6 53.6 10.7
Cluster
Business (60) 4 18 11 27 paired
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 14:50 30 January 2016 (PT)

Percentage 6.7 30.0 18.3 45.0 comparison*

The love of money scale
Evil 10.36 7.74 14.77 7.67 a 3.1. (2, 4)
Success 3.93 a 9.16 7.19 9.17 (4, 2) . 3.1
4. 3. 2;
Budget 12.43 9.89 a 13.00 17.10 2¼1
Motivator 6.79 a 9.68 8.15 9.80 (4, 2) . 3.1
Equity 11.43 11.11 11.84 11.13
Demographic varables
and other work-related
attitudes
Age 24.71 29.53 26.31 33.07
Years of experience 13.50 9.28 14.64 12.30
Education 14.64 13.58 14.41 14.67
Status (Student ¼ 1) 1.31 a 1.95 1.42 1.90 2, 4.3, 1
Locus of control 77.36 a 95.00 82.62 94.10 2, 4.3, 1
Persistence 11.64 11.95 12.23 12.77
Involvement 12.14 a 16.63 13.88 16.57 2, 4.3, 1
Competitiveness 6.57 7.58 6.58 a 8.17 4.3
Avoidance 5.00 3.89 a 6.35 4.33 3.4, 2 Table III.
Notes: a Lowest mean; * p , 0:05; Schefffes test; For each factor (row) of this Table, i.e. factors of the The love of money scale
love of money scale (the upper part of the Table) and demographic variables and other work-related and other variables for
attitudes (the lower part of the Table), the highest and lowest means are in italics the four money profiles

percentage (45.0 percent) of small business owners and only a small percentage (10.7
percent) of students are Achieving Money Worshipers. To them, money is a motivator.
Money Repellent Individuals (18.3 percent of business owners and 53.6 percent of
students) have low active involvement in work-related activities, low competitiveness,
and high success avoidance. Money is not a motivator.
For Careless Money Admirers (30.0 percent of business owners and 3.6 percent of
students), money represents their success. They do not budget their money carefully,
have the highest external LOC, and the highest involvement in work activities. They
try to please others in life (external LOC) and become the slaves of money. Careless
Money Admirers admire other’s money, do not have money, and are not happy. Future
research may examine employees in this cluster regarding pay (commission vs salary)
and unethical conducts.
Apathetic Money Managers believe that money does not represent their success,
money is not a motivator, money is moderately evil, and they do not budget their
 JMP money carefully. They do experience the highest internal LOC and the lowest
involvement in work activities. Internals seek personal control and exhibit less
19,5 conformity. Some students (32.1 percent) and business owners (6.7 percent) are not
interested in the “rat race” and are not motivated by money. Money may have less
power to attract, retain, and motivate these employees. They are the origins (masters)
of money (see deCharms, 1976) and that they are in control. With low income, they turn
548 their attention internally and find fulfillment in life and on the job. Their low desire for
money may lead to higher intrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfaction, supporting the
insufficient justification effect. A small but growing number of Americans is living on
less and liking it by scaling back, paring down, and doing without. The “simplicity
movement” has its roots in eighteenth-century “Yankee frugality” and in Henry David
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 14:50 30 January 2016 (PT)

Thoreau’s urge to “simplify, simplify”. Apathetic Money Managers seem to have

adopted these values in Macedonia.
Finally, the four money profiles identified here are quite unique and interesting. Our
results may help managers identify different motivational programs to motive
employees and achieve organizational goals.

References
deCharms, R. (1976), Enhancing Motivation: Changes in the Classroom, Irvington, New York, NY.
Furnham, A. and Argyle, M. (1998), The Psychology of Money, London, Routledge, London.
Harpaz, I. (1990), “The importance of work goals: an international perspective”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 79-93.
Helmreich, R.L. and Spence, J.T. (1978), “The work and family orientation questionnaire: an
objective instrument to assess components of achievement motivation and attitudes
toward family and career”, JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, Vol. 8
No. 35, p. MS 1677.
Herzberg, F. (1987), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business
Review, September-October, pp. 109-20, (originally published January-February 1968).
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”,
Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp. 263-91.
Levenson, H. (1973), “Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients”, Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 397-404.
Luna-Arocas, R. and Tang, T.L-.P. (in press), “The love of money, satisfaction, and the Protestant
work ethic: money profiles among university professors in the USA and Spain”, Journal of
Business Ethics.
Mitchell, T.R. and Mickel, A.E. (1999), “The meaning of money: an individual-difference
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 568-78.
Tang, T.L-.P. (1992), “The meaning of money revisited”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 13, pp. 197-202.
Tang, T.L-.P. (1993), “The meaning of money: extension and exploration of the Money Ethic
Scale in a sample of university students in Taiwan”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 14, pp. 93-9.
Tang, T.L-.P. and Chiu, R.K. (2003), “Income, money ethic, pay satisfaction, commitment, and
unethical behavior: is the love of money the root of evil for Hong Kong employees?”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 13-30.
Tang, T.L-.P., Kim, J.K. and Tang, D.S.H. (2000), “Does attitude toward money moderate the
relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover?”, Human Relations,
Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 213-45.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Elisaveta Gjorgji Sardžoska, Thomas Li-Ping Tang. 2015. Monetary Intelligence: Money Attitudes—
Unethical Intentions, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Satisfaction, and Coping Strategies Across Public and
Private Sectors in Macedonia. Journal of Business Ethics 130, 93-115. [CrossRef]
2. Elisaveta Gjorgji Sardžoska, Thomas Li-Ping Tang. 2012. Work-Related Behavioral Intentions in
Macedonia: Coping Strategies, Work Environment, Love of Money, Job Satisfaction, and Demographic
Variables. Journal of Business Ethics 108, 373-391. [CrossRef]
3. David J. Burns. 2012. Exploring the effects of using consumer culture as a unifying pedagogical
framework on the ethical perceptions of MBA students. Business Ethics: A European Review 21:10.1111/
beer.2012.21.issue-1, 1-14. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE At 14:50 30 January 2016 (PT)

4. Agata Gąsiorowska, Anna Hełka. 2012. Psychological consequences of money and money attitudes in
dictator game. Polish Psychological Bulletin 43. . [CrossRef]
5. Rafik Z. Elias, Magdy Farag. 2010. The relationship between accounting students' love of money and
their ethical perception. Managerial Auditing Journal 25:3, 269-281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Dan N. Stone, Stephanie M. Bryant, Benson Wier. 2010. Why Are Financial Incentive Effects Unreliable?
An Extension of Self-Determination Theory. Behavioral Research in Accounting 22, 105-132. [CrossRef]
7. Elisaveta Gjorgji Sardžoska, Thomas Li-Ping Tang. 2009. Testing a Model of Behavioral Intentions in
the Republic of Macedonia: Differences Between the Private and the Public Sectors. Journal of Business
Ethics 87, 495-517. [CrossRef]
8. Thomas Li‐Ping Tang, David Shin‐Hsiung Tang, Roberto Luna‐Arocas. 2005. Money profiles: the love
of money, attitudes, and needs. Personnel Review 34:5, 603-618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Gbolahan Gbadamosi, Patricia Joubert. 2005. Money ethic, moral conduct and work related attitudes.
Journal of Management Development 24:8, 754-763. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]