See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233453507

Money, the Meaning of Money, Management, Spirituality, and Religion

Article  in  Journal of Management Spirituality & Religion · February 2010

DOI: 10.1080/14766081003746448

CITATIONS READS

24 1,286

1 author:

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Jones College of Business, MTSU
217 PUBLICATIONS   5,122 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sexual Temptation: Substance Abuse, No Sex, Safe Sex, Risky Sex, and STDs View project

Monetary Intelligence Theory View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Li-Ping Tang on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping]
On: 23 May 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 922122895]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792992301

Money, the meaning of money, management, spirituality, and religion

Thomas Li-Ping Tang a
a
Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee
State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA

Online publication date: 11 May 2010

To cite this Article Tang, Thomas Li-Ping(2010) 'Money, the meaning of money, management, spirituality, and religion',
Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 7: 2, 173 — 189
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14766081003746448
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766081003746448

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion
Vol. 7, No. 2, June 2010, 173–189

Money, the meaning of money, management, spirituality, and religion

Thomas Li-Ping Tang*

Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business,

Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA
Journal
10.1080/14766081003746448
RMSR_A_475166.sgm
1476-6086
Original
Taylor
202010
07
ThomasLi-Ping
ttang@mtsu.edu
000002010
&
and
ofArticle
Francis
Management,
(print)/1942-258X
Francis
Tang Spirituality
(online)
and Religion

This article briefly summarizes selected theory and research related to money
and the meaning of money. Research shows that money is considered as a
tool and as a drug. People are subject to all kinds of temptation in the
environment that trigger them to act ethically or unethically. Thinking about
money enhances one’s feeling of “self-sufficiency,” but reduces one’s
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

willingness to help others. The mere presence of abundant money incites the
feeling of “envy” toward wealthy others that provokes unethical behavior.
Having control over money and spending money on others promote
happiness. High love-of-money individuals have low pay satisfaction, low
quality of life, low ethical intentions, and low intention to help others and
become Good Samaritans. Since money is the direct opposite of spirituality
and one cannot serve both God and money, spirituality and religion help
people live fulfilling, meaningful, and purposeful lives. There is hope that our
understanding of spirituality and religion through the lens of money may help
researchers and practitioners move to further research and improved practice.
Keywords: money; the meaning of money; the love of money; money ethic;
Protestant ethic; pay satisfaction; spirituality; religion; the Bible

Introduction
Management scholars have approached business and management from a more
holistic perspective than before in integrating the body (physical), mind (logical
thought), heart (emotions), and spirit (Fry 2003; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003,
2010). These developments are designed to help management scholars, research-
ers, and executives manage human resources effectively and efficiently in the
global market.
There are some reasons for this approach. From the perspective of motivation
theories, globalization, outsourcing, mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, and
technological and economic changes have displaced numerous employees
around the world, caused instability, fear, stress, and impermanence (Pfeffer
2010), and threatened people’s basic survival or existence needs (Maslow 1954;
Alderfer 1969; Doyle 1992; Mason 1992; Poduska 1992; Tang and West 1997;
Tang, Ibrahim and West 2002). People have the need to belong (Baumeister and
Leary 1995), be recognized for their achievement (Herzberg 1987), and make

*Email: ttang@mtsu.edu
ISSN 1476-6086 print/ISSN 1942-258X online
© 2010 Association of Management, Spirituality & Religion
DOI: 10.1080/14766081003746448
http://www.informaworld.com
 174 T.L.-P. Tang

meaningful contributions, develop competence and mastery, find meaning in life,

and satisfy self-actualization or growth needs. Although ethics education and
code of ethics exist, executives continue to engage in scandals and corruption
(McCabe et al. 2006; Parboteeah and Cullen 2010). It can be argued that it is not
a lack of “intelligence” or “brains,” but lack of “wisdom” or “virtue” that caused
these scandals (Feiner 2004, p. 85).
In the process of searching for sustainability, justice, happiness, and a mean-
ingful life, people seek higher power, spirituality, or religion for answers
(Ashmos and Duchon 2000; Weaver and Agle 2002). The field of management,
spirituality, and religion serves to fill the void, helps people find honesty, trust,
hope, integrity, and humility (Gilbert and Tang 1998; Simons et al. 2007), and inte-
grates the body, mind, heart, and spirit in our lives. Money is directly and indirectly
related to all these issues, but has not been examined explicitly in the workplace
spirituality and religion literature. This article attempts to (1) review briefly the
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

theory and research from the lens of money or the meaning of money, and (2) shed
some light on the connections between academic, scientific, and scholarly research
and limited aspects of spirituality and religion on money that may enhance future
theory development and theory testing for researchers and practitioners in the field.

Money and its meaning

Money is considered as the instrument of commerce and the measure of value
(Smith, 1776/1937). Although money is a homogenous, neutral, and objective
instrument, it is “profoundly influenced by cultural and social structures”
(Zelizer 1994, p. 18). Since the meaning of money is in the eye of beholder
(McClelland 1967), researchers have studied the meaning of money from several
disciplines (anthropology, economics, sociology, psychology, and management)
(Furnham and Argyle 1998; Milkovich and Newman 2008).

Money vs. spirituality

Grouzet et al. (2005) arranged 11 goals across 15 cultures in a circumplex with
2 dimensions: (1) intrinsic vs. extrinsic, and (2) self-transcendent vs. physical.
On the vertical dimension, spirituality is the highest goal near self-transcendence,
whereas hedonism is the lowest value next to physical self. Financial success and
physical health/safety goals are close to hedonism. Money and spirituality are
opposite to each other, in general.
First, let us focus on the love of money. Among Hong Kong professionals, the
love of money (subjective attitudes toward money) is directly or indirectly
(through pay dissatisfaction) related to unethical intentions, but money (objective
income) is not (Tang and Chiu 2003). Among American adult consumers, those
who want to be rich (Factor Rich of the Love of Money Scale) are likely to
consider “questionable consumer activities as acceptable” (Vitell et al. 2006,
p. 121). In a study of Malaysian evangelical Christians, those who have the most
positive attitude toward money (considering money as their success and a
 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 175

motivator) are “less critical of unethical practices” (Wong 2008, p. 186). In a

panel study (Tang and Chen 2008), ethics intervention reduces American
business students’ unethical behavior intention on theft only; psychology
students without intervention have no significant changes on unethical inten-
tions. Further, the love of money (measured before ethics intervention) directly
predicts unethical intention (measured after intervention) for business students,
but not for psychology students. The indirect path from the love of money to
unethical intention through Machiavellianism (Love of Money → Machiavel-
lianism → Unethical Intention) exists for business students, but not for psychol-
ogy students; for male students (business and psychology combined), but not for
female students; and for male business students, but not for female business
students. Since only some limited aspects of evil are examined, these empirical
results offer some tentative support for the proposition suggested in the Bible that
“the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Timothy, 6: 10).
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

Second, American adult consumers’ intrinsic religiosity is a significant deter-

minant of ethical beliefs (Vitell et al. 2006). Less religious people in Malaysia
consider unethical scenarios more acceptable than those more religious ones
(Wong 2008). Using Time 4 data of a four-wave panel study, Tang and Tang
(2009, 2010) classified business students as “good apples” and “bad apples”
based on their unethical behavior intention. Good apples tend to have a slightly
higher level of intrinsic religiosity (Time 1 data) and a significantly lower level
of Machiavellianism (Time 2 data) than bad apples. Good apples consider
making ethical decisions significantly more important than making money,
whereas bad apples consider both equally important. After the ethics interven-
tion, good apples become more ethical, but bad apples become less ethical. This
might lead some to argue that ethics cannot be taught in a business class. Good
apples’ intrinsic religiosity directly reduces unethical intention before ethics
intervention (Intrinsic Religiosity → Unethical Intention). For bad apples, the
impact is indirect (Intrinsic Religiosity (Time 1) → Machiavellianism (Time 2)
→ Unethical Intention (Times 3/4)) that is stronger after the ethics intervention
(Time 4) than that before the intervention (Time 3). Intrinsic religiosity prevails
differently, for good and bad apples. There is hope to open bad apples’ hearts and
reduce their unethical intentions through religion. Taken together, intrinsic reli-
giosity reduces (Tang and Tang 2009), whereas the love of money enhances
unethical intention (Tang and Chen 2008). People with high intrinsic religiosity
tend to have low love of money. Furthermore, money obtained from enacting a
passion or through hard labor is considered sacred; money obtained without labor
(gambling) is considered evil (Belk 1991). Outright dishonest money, “the prof-
its from a prostitute,” cannot be used for religious purposes (Zelizer 1994, p. 89).
Let us turn next to the meaning of money in the literature.

Money as tool and as drug

Money is best seen as both a tool and a drug (Lea and Webley 2006). People want
money because it serves as a tool to obtain biological rewards that satisfy their
 176 T.L.-P. Tang

needs (Lea and Webley 2006) and also are interested in what money can buy.
However, the utility of money is metaphorically like that of a drug: Drug addicts
require larger dosages to maintain the same level of “high” (Mason 1992).
Following the notion that the rising tide lifts all boats, people raise the standard,
want more money, consume more, and acquire bigger and better products or
services in order to maintain the same level of utility of money. Much as a drug,
money becomes a functionless, powerful, addictive, and insatiable motivator
with many bad consequences, e.g. workaholism, compulsive gambling and
buying, and unethical behavior (Dickerson 1984; Black 1996; Harpaz and Snir
2003; Tang and Chiu 2003). One may ask the question: How does the presence
of money influence one’s feelings, emotions, and behavioral intentions?

The presence of money

Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

Thinking about money activates feelings of self-sufficiency (Vohs et al. 2006) and
gives people a sense of strength, efficacy, and confidence (Zhou et al. 2009); there-
fore, they want to be independent (free of dependency and dependents), reduce
requests for help, donate less money to charity, and keep a large physical distance
between themselves and others. The presence of abundant wealth (with visible
$7000 in real $1 bills on two tables) causes a significantly higher percentage of
participants to engage in and a much larger magnitude of cheating for personal
gains than without such abundance of money. “The presence of abundant wealth
provokes feeling of envy toward wealthy others” that, in turn, enhances the propen-
sity to engage in unethical behavior (Gino and Pierce 2009, p. 142). Asking people
to count 80 $100 bills (compared to counting 80 pieces of paper) diminishes the
physical pain. Remembering monetary loss leads to worse pain (Zhou et al. 2009).
Interestingly, it is the anticipation of pain that heightens the desire for money (Zhou
and Gao 2008). People with high value toward money become more private, self-
centered, socially isolated, have higher psychological stress, lower happiness,
poorer mental and physical health, are less open to others, and are less concerned
for humanity and spirituality than those without across cultures (Kasser 2002).
Based on exchange theory, utility of money and self-esteem can compensate
each other: Money, as a tool, enhances self-esteem (Zhang 2009). For example,
many use money to buy luxury items in order to impress others, gain respect,
status, face (Hwang 1987), reputation, and enhance self-esteem (Wong and
Ahuvia 1998). Social rejection (low self-esteem) leads to increased spending
(Baumeister et al. 2008). Some money attitudes (power, distrust, and anxiety) are
related to compulsive buying (Roberts and Jones 2001). On the other hand, a
feeling of high self-esteem (earned high status, job title, and praise) can be used
to compensate for underpayment (Greenberg and Ornstein 1983; Shamir et al.
1994). People report higher satisfaction when they receive money and are asked
to spend money on others (a gift for someone else or charitable donation) rather
than on themselves (pay a bill or buy a gift for themselves) (Dunn et al. 2008).
Spending money signifies power and control over money and self-
determination that enhance satisfaction (Ryan and Deci 2000; Gagne and Deci
 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 177

2005). It may generate a short-term and temporary relief, and help fight depres-
sion or boredom (Mason 1992). Some people use money to buy affection or love;
but money lacks the necessary attributes for conveying intimacy (Burgoyne and
Routh 1991), although we know that when money is a consideration, love may
not be real (Goldberg and Lewis 1978).
Further, time is money. Time and money can compensate each other in some
situations, but time is irrevocable, cannot be stored, exchanged or loaned
between people, or relived. Therefore, we all need to use our time wisely, and set
a goal (Locke and Latham 1990). Focus on what is important in our lives and do
only one thing at a time with the highest level of concentration. Money cannot
buy everything.
The law of diminishing marginal utility explains the relationship between
money and other scarce resources: for example, social support (Kreuzbauer and
Chiu 2008), time, and happiness. The issue of time and money in particular taps
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

on the Protestant Work Ethic construct. The Protestant Ethic belief (Weber
1904–05/1958) gives people a sense of religious responsibility, an attitude
toward work as a desirable duty, and a feeling of obligation toward one’s job or
calling from God. Knowing that they are doing what God wants makes their lives
meaningful. God is best served by “laboring through hard work, frugality,
and perseverance” (Cherrington 1980, 34). Benjamin Franklin (1748/1961,
pp. 185–187) focused on industry and frugality and stated: “waste neither time
nor money, but make the best use of both.” Wealth is “the result of virtue and the
proper display of character” (Cherrington 1980, p. 35). Waste of time is the most
terrible of all sins. Only continuous hard work is the proper use of one’s time.
However, we should have time to relax on Sundays.
The connection to time and money may relate to activities that help others, for
it takes time to perform organizational citizenship behavior, help others, or serve
humanity. When thinking that time is money, people volunteer less (DeVoe and
Pfeffer 2007a, 2007b). People with genuine intrinsic motives to help others offer
assistance to others (the Good Samaritan); whereas those with high love of
money offer help to others with a string (extrinsic motives) attached (Tang et al.
2008).
In the motivation literature, money is considered a motivator, for most people
(Lawler 1971; Harpaz 1990; Jenkins et al. 1998). On the positive side, no other
incentive or motivational technique comes even close to money (Locke et al.
1980). Money leads to movement. Whatever gets paid gets done. Still, some
argue that pay-for-performance programs may not work always (Kohn 1993).
For example, when people are rewarded for finding insect parts in a food process
plant, innovative employees “brought insect parts from home to add to the peas
just before they removed them and collected the bonus” (Milkovich and Newman
2008, p. xiii). In such cases, people find ways to beat the system in order to earn
money which leads to unethical behavior. In addition, men with high love of
money allocate significantly more money to the highest position than those
without (Tang 1996), supporting the tournament theory in compensation. In our
society, those who have talent ascend to the top and become CEOs or top
 178 T.L.-P. Tang

executives. This ascendancy and the resulting abundant wealth provokes the feel-
ing of envy toward wealthy others (Gino and Pierce 2009), and the executives’
rationalization of “winner take all” and corrupt behavior.
The perception of unfair compensation leads to poor performance, increased
turnover and absenteeism, and lower commitment to organizations. Underpaid
people may steal in the name of justice (Greenberg 1993, 2002; Cohen-Charash
and Spector 2001). Since positive feedback, salary, unexpected bonus, self
determination, competence, and personal growth do not undermine intrinsic moti-
vation (Deci et al. 1999), but performance-contingent reward does (Deci 1971;
Kohn 1993; Gagne and Deci 2005), the challenge to compensation managers is
not just “what” to pay and “how much” to pay, but also “how” to pay employees.
Since the mere idea of money reduces suffering and pain (Zhou et al. 2009),
people demand money to compensate severe hardship, boring and monotonous
jobs, and poor working conditions, from the perspectives of compensation and
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

labor unions (Laws and Tang 1999; Milkovich and Newman 2008). Fair and just
compensation systems with internal equity, external competitiveness, individual
differences, and pay administration reduce pay dissatisfaction. However,
removing job or pay dissatisfaction only relieves the pain, but does not enhance
intrinsic motivation (Herzberg 1987). Money is a hygiene factor because
satisfaction with money goes back to zero and the zero point escalates. Those
living from pay check to pay check expect to get paid at the end of month to
maintain their standard of living and lives. Even for the rich, after a pay raise,
people raise the standard, increase consumptions, and want more money in order
to achieve the same level of utilities of money.
But the impact on people appears to be even more profound. Performing a
task in anticipation of a reward, under surveillance, or with a time limit leads to
a decrease of intrinsic motivation (Tang and Baumeister 1984). Motivation also
depends on how one defines the nature of the task. “Turning play into work”
undermines intrinsic motivation (Lepper and Greene 1975). Those who endorse
the Protestant Work Ethic have higher intrinsic motivation performing a task
labeled as “work” than those who do not. The effect is reversed if the activity is
labeled as “leisure.” “Turning play into work” increases intrinsic motivation
among persons who truly value work (Tang and Baumeister 1984). If one consid-
ers one’s work as a calling from God and discovers the purpose of life, one is
motivated by the labor of love. The labor of love sparks creativity, whereas time
pressure undermines creative thinking (Amabile et al. 2002; Tang, in press).
Expertise, creative-thinking skills, and motivation contribute to creativity (Tang
et al. 2010), but money does not (Amabile 1998). When people are paid fairly
with sufficient resources and support, they can take their minds off money and
focus on the tasks on hand (Kohn 1993).

One step removed from “cash”

Most people look to the social context to determine what is ethically right and
wrong, obey authority figures, and do what is rewarded in organizations (Treviño
 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 179

1986). Getting Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Princeton students to contemplate their
own ethical values by “recalling the Ten Commandments or signing an honor
code” eliminates cheating completely, while offering “poker chips” to redeem for
cash doubles the level of cheating (Ariely 2008, p. 24). Accessibility of moral
identity (recalling or reading a list of the Ten Commandments) strengthens the
motivation to act morally (Aquino et al. 2009). The Ten Commandments and
poker chips signify the differences between sacred values and secular values.
There are several important lessons here. First, individuals are influenced by
contextual ethical cultures and values at the organizational and country/geopolit-
ical entity levels (Gerhart 2009). Second, people are subject to all kinds of
“temptation” in the environment that triggers them to behave either ethically or
unethically. Third, “when cheating is one step removed from cash,” people tend
to rationalize and justify their dishonesty easily. “Such latitude is the force
behind the Enrons of the world” (Ariely 2008, p. 24).
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

Measures and research on money attitude

There are numerous money-related constructs (Zuckerman 1983; Belk 1985;
Richins and Dawson 1992; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2004); some have rarely
been used in empirical studies (Wernimont and Fitzpatrick 1972; McClure 1984;
Prince 1993; Fank 1994; Iwata 1994). Several very well-developed scales have
been widely used and cited (Yamauchi and Templer 1982; Furnham 1984; Tang
1992, 1995; Lim and Teo 1997; Mitchell and Mickel 1999; Srivastava et al.
2001; Tang and Chiu 2003; Rose and Orr 2007). Tang (1992) developed the
Money Ethic Scale (MES) with Affective (Good and Evil), Behavioral (Budget),
and Cognitive components (Achievement, Respect/Self-Esteem, and Freedom/
Power).
Research shows that older people and females assert that they budget
money carefully. High-income individuals consider money as their achieve-
ment and less evil. People with high Protestant Work Ethic budget money care-
fully and see money as evil and power. People with economic and political
values consider money as achievement, respect, and power; whereas those with
social and religious values are less likely to associate money with achievement
and power. Religious values are negatively correlated with money as good and
respect. People who value money as achievement experience low levels of
satisfaction with work, promotion, supervision, co-worker, and overall life
satisfaction. If one considers money as power, one has lower satisfaction with
work, pay, co-worker, and overall life satisfaction. Those with high work
satisfaction feel that money is not evil. Individuals with high skills to budget
their money are satisfied with their life. High income is significantly related
with satisfaction with work, pay, and promotion. Tang and his associates
expanded constructs to include Good/Rich, Motivator, Evil/Unethical, Non-
Motivator, Make Money, Budget Money, Give Money to Charity, Importance,
Power, Respect, Success, and Equity (Tang 1993, 1995; Tang et al. 2005;
Tang, Sutarso, et al. 2006).
 180 T.L.-P. Tang

Let us focus specifically on the love of money. The inspiration to study love
of money can be traced back to some of the oldest philosophies: Plato (427–347
BC) stated, “Poverty consists, not in the decrease of one’s possessions, but in the
increase of one’s greed.” According to Socrates (470–399 BC), “Contentment is
natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty.” “Whoever loves money never has
money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income” (Eccle-
siastes 5:10). Early philosophers lived extremely austere lifestyles refraining
from sensual pleasures and the accumulation of material wealth (Kasser 2002;
Giacalone et al. 2008).
The Love of Money Scale (LOM), a subset of the Money Ethic Scale
(MES), is one of the most well-developed and “systematically” used measures
of money attitude (Mitchell and Mickel 1999). The LOM construct is defined as
one’s attitudes toward money, meaning of money, aspiration for money (Easter-
lin 2001), not need, greed, or materialism (Belk 1985). It is a multidimensional
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

individual difference variable and a second-order latent construct with many

first-order constructs (Tang and Chiu 2003; Tang and Chen 2008). The MES or
the LOM Scale has been applied in empirical studies around the world (Urbain
2000; Tang, Furnham, and Davis 2002; Du and Tang 2005; Gbadamosi and
Joubert 2005; Tang, Sutarso, et al. 2006; Vitell et al. 2006; Wong 2008;
Sardžoska and Tang 2009). It has been published and cited in many languages
zoca[rn]

(e.g. Chinese, English, French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, and Russian), cited
in influential reviews (Mitchell and Mickel 1999; Lea and Webley 2006;
Mickel and Barron 2008; Zhang 2009) and numerous books (e.g. Furnham and
Argyle 1998; Rynes and Gerhart 2000; McShane and Von Glinow 2008;
Milkovich and Newman 2008; Milkovich et al. 2011).

Research findings
Research suggests that children from poor economic backgrounds value money
highly and overestimate the size of a coin than their affluent counterparts
(Bruner and Goodman 1947). In Singapore, people with financial hardship are
obsessed with money (Lim and Teo 1997). In dual-career families, both pater-
nal and maternal money anxiety have a significant impact on college-level
youths’ money anxiety (Lim and Sng 2006). These findings lead to the exami-
nation of the relationship between income and the love of money. The income
to the love of money relationship is negative among highly paid professionals
in Hong Kong (Tang and Chiu 2003), non-significant among adequately paid
males and Caucasians, but positive among underpaid females and African-
Americans (Tang, Tang and Homaifar 2006). Females and African-Americans
tend to have lower pay than their male and Caucasian counterparts, respec-
tively, in the US. Objective income and financial experiences shape one’s love
of money.
In America, money is how we compare ourselves; “keeping up with the
Joneses” is a feature of monetary behavior (Furnham and Argyle 1999). Adams’
(1964) equity theory suggests that satisfaction depends on the outcomes of a
 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 181

comparison between (1) one’s own output and input ratio and (2) the other’s
output and input ratio. Equity theory fails to examine individual differences.
Several studies incorporate the Love of Money in examining the income to pay
satisfaction relationship. Income is positively related to pay satisfaction for high
love-of-money individuals, but not for low love-of-money participants (Tang
et al. 2004). In an expanded model of pay satisfaction, Tang et al. (2005) exam-
ined income, pay satisfaction, the love of money, and pay comparison involving
a direct path and an indirect path. Since American professors have significantly
higher income than their Spanish counterparts, one may expect that income
leads to higher pay satisfaction for Americans than for Spanish participants. In
fact, for Americans, high income leads to pay dissatisfaction that can be
explained by the indirect path: income enhances the love of money that is used
as a frame of reference to evaluate pay equity comparison satisfaction that in
turn is used to consider pay satisfaction. For the Spanish sample, income is
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

positively, but non-significantly, related to pay satisfaction. When specific pay

equity comparison standards (deserved pay and other people’s pay) are incorpo-
rated in a separate analysis, the love of money is positively and significantly
related to high pay equity comparison “standards” (deserved and other’s pay)
that are significantly higher than their self-reported income for American
professors, but not for their Spanish counterparts (Tang and Luna-Arocas 2010).
Americans compare themselves with the rich, whereas Spanish people do not.
Taken together, pay satisfaction does not depend on objective income, but on
(1) the extent to which income enhances the importance of love of money, (2)
how love of money is used as a standard to evaluate pay equity comparison
satisfaction, (3) how love of money is used to select their pay equity comparison
standards in a social comparison, and (4) national culture. Mental health profes-
sionals with high love of money tend to have high withdrawal cognition and
high voluntary turnover 18 months later, regardless of intrinsic job satisfaction
(Tang et al. 2000). Similarly, the number one predictor of management
professors’ pay is the number of times professors have changed their jobs
(Gomez-Mejia and Balkin 2002). The love of money strongly affects one’s
satisfaction and action.
In a study of income and quality of life, or life satisfaction, Tang (2007) incor-
porated the love of money and job satisfaction. When examined alone, income is
not related to quality of life. For the whole sample, high income is related to low
quality of life when the love of money, job satisfaction, gender, and marital status
are controlled in the analysis. Specifically, (1) when love of money is related to
low job satisfaction and (2) job satisfaction is also positively related to both
income and quality of life, then, income leads to low quality of life for full-time,
high-income, and male employees. If these two conditions do not exist, then,
income is not related to quality of life for part-time, medium- and low-income
employees, and females. People with materialistic values have low subjective
well-being (Kasser and Ryan 1993; Csikszentmihalyi 1999; Giacalone and
Jurkiewicz 2003; Giacalone et al. 2008). It’s not money, but the love of money
or the money motives that cause low happiness (Srivastava et al. 2001).
 182 T.L.-P. Tang

Research implications
Many people want to be rich. Religiously, this may not be problematic. Those
who are good steward of their talents, time, and money enjoy abundant wealth
and grace, following “the Parable of the Ten Talents” (Matthew 25:14–30).
However, “greed” is not good (Sloan 2002). Even in the Bible, we see statements
that address this overemphasis on greed. “For what profit is it to a man if he gains
the whole world, and loses his own soul?” (Matthew 16:26). Religious orienta-
tions tell us that spirituality or religion may be in direct opposition to money.
“You cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24). Such concerns are not
only seen within a Christian tradition; other religions or traditions in different
cultures may offer similar values and beliefs (Kriger and Seng 2005).
Business researchers will need to fully explore the complex relationship of
money and more spiritual issues (Pfeffer 1998). Only very limited constructs
related to money and the love of money have been explored in this article. It is
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

pivotal to expand these constructs, explore all the boundaries, and engage in
further theory development and theory testing in the future. For example, future
researchers need to investigate possible differences and changes of “meaning of
money, spirituality, and religion” across (1) age, gender, income levels, career
stages, and life course/cycle (see Cozzolino et al. 2009) using longitudinal data
and (2) cultures, regions, countries, levels of economic development and the
values associated with them (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2004).
More critically, the relationship of money, spirituality and religion must
embrace the why, what, how, who, where, and when to help us create managers
and executives in organizations who have not only “intelligence” (brain) but also
“wisdom” (spirit) (Feiner 2004; Tang and Chen 2008; Tang and Tang 2010). The
relationship between money and spirituality or religion must be understood
within the context of how it impacts living a fulfilling, abundant, meaningful,
purposeful life and becoming a happy, productive citizen in and out of organiza-
tional life (Giacalone et al. 2008).
In line with the focus on deviant, antisocial and unethical behavior, future
research must seek to understand whether religion and spirituality curb unethi-
cal behaviors, reduce corruption that the love of money may instigate, and
enhance ethical and moral intentions for managers in general and top-level
executives and CEOs in particular (Tang and Chiu 2003; Chen and Tang 2006;
Ariely 2008). While traditional beliefs systems across different religions and
spiritual communities would lead us to believe that this is true, the evidence
(particularly across different types of antisocial, deviant, and unethical activity)
is sketchy at best.
Finally, and in line with the core of religious and spiritual belief, future
research must ascertain whether money related issues can be balanced with spir-
itual and religious ideology and concerns to create a prosperous, sustainable, and
creative business environment that is effective, efficient (Amabile 1998), and not
simply bottom line-driven. Ultimately, the issue is whether money issues can be
balanced with the spiritual and religious aspects of life so that we make the world
a better place to live for everyone. Further research and the goal of improved
 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 183

practice (Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan 2007) need to be framed in this more tran-
scendent context.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Robert A. Giacalone, late Fr. Wiatt Funk, Fr. Mark
Sappenfield, and Robert Dray, M.D. for their suggestions and inspiration and Michael
Walker and Whitney Sewell for their assistance and honor his parents, late Professor
Kuan Ying Tang and late Fang Chen Tang, and his wife, Theresa Li-Na Tang, for their
wisdom, support, and encouragement.

Notes on contributor
Thomas Li-Ping Tang (Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University) is a Professor of
Management in the Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones
College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University. He focuses his research on
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

work motivation, money attitudes, the Love of Money, behavioral ethics, spirituality,
religion, and cross-cultural issues.

References
Adams, J.S. 1964. Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.
Alderfer, C.P. 1969. A new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 4, 142–175.
Amabile, T.M. 1998. How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76–87.
Amabile, T.M., Hadley, C.N., and Kramer, S.J. 2002. Creativity under the gun. Harvard
Business Review, 80(8), 52–61.
Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V.K.G., and Felps, W. 2009. Testing a
social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations
and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1),
123–141.
Ariely, D. 2008, February. How honest people cheat. Harvard Business Review, 86, 24.
Ashmos, D.P. and Duchon, D. 2000. Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and
measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134–145.
Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497–529.
Baumeister, R., DeWall, C.N., Mead, N.L., and Vohs, K.D. 2008. Social rejection can
reduce pain and increase spending: Further evidence that money, pain, and
belongingness are interrelated. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 145–147.
Belk, R.W. 1985. Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12, 265–280.
Belk, R.W. 1991. The ineluctable mysteries of possessions. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 6, 17–55.
Black, D.W. 1996. Compulsive buying: A review. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 57,
50–55.
Bruner, J.S. and Goodman, C.C. 1947. Value and needs as organizing factors in
perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33–44.
Burgoyne, C.B. and Routh, D.A. 1991. Constraints on the use of money as a gift at
Christmas: The role of status and intimacy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(1),
47–69.
 184 T.L.-P. Tang

Chen, Y.J. and Tang, T.L.P. 2006. Attitude toward and propensity to engage in unethi-
cal behavior: Measurement invariance across major among university students.
Journal of Business Ethics, 69(1), 77–93.
Cherrington, D.J. 1980. The work ethic: Working values and values that work. New
York: AMACOM: A Division of American Management Associations.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.
Colquitt, J.A. and Zapata-Phelan, C.P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory
testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(6), 1281–1303.
Cozzolino, P.J., Sheldon, K.M., Schachtman, T.R., and Meyers, L.S. 2009. Limited time
perspective, values, and greed: Imagining a limited future reduces avarice in
extrinsic people. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 399–408.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1999. If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy? American Psychol-
ogist, 54, 821–827.
Deci, E.L. 1971. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., and Ryan, R.M. 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic reward on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
DeVoe, S.E. and Pfeffer, J. 2007a. Hourly payment and volunteering: The effect of
organizational practices on decisions about time use. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(4), 783–798.
DeVoe, S.E. and Pfeffer, J. 2007b. When time is money: The effect of hourly payment
on the evaluation of time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
104(1), 1–13.
Dickerson, M. 1984. Compulsive gamblers. New York: Longman.
Doyle, K.O. 1992. Toward a psychology of money. American Behavioral Scientist,
35(6), 708–724.
Du, L.Z. and Tang, T.L.P. 2005. Measurement invariance across gender and major: The
love of money among university students in People’s Republic of China. Journal of
Business Ethics, 59(3), 281–293.
Dunn, E.W., Aknin, L.B., and Norton, M.I. 2008. Spending money on others promotes
happiness. Science, 319, 1687–1688.
Easterlin, R.A. 2001. Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic
Journal, 111, 465–484.
Fank, M. 1994. The development of a money-handling inventory. Personality and
Individual Differences, 17(1), 147–151.
Feiner, M. 2004. The Feiner points of leadership. New York: Warner Business Books.
Franklin, B. 1748/1961. Advice to a young tradesman. Benjamin Franklin: The autobi-
ography and other writings. New York: Signet.
Fry, L.W. 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14,
693–727.
Furnham, A. 1984. Many sides of the coin: The psychology of money usage. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences, 5, 501–509.
Furnham, A. and Argyle, M. 1998. The psychology of money. London: Routledge.
Gagne, M. and Deci, E.L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Gbadamosi, G. and Joubert, P. 2005. Money ethic, moral conduct and work related
attitudes: Field study from the public sector in Swaziland. Journal of Management
Development, 24(8), 754–763.
Gerhart, B. 2009. How much does national culture constrain organizational culture?
Management and Organization Review, 5(2), 241–259.
 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 185

Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. 2003. Toward a science of workplace spirituality.
In: R.A. Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, eds. Handbook of workplace spirituality
and organizational performance. New York: M.E. Sharp, 3–28.
Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. 2004. The interaction of materialist and postmate-
rialist values in predicting dimensions of personal and social identity. Human
Relations, 57(11), 1379–1405.
Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. 2010. Toward a science of workplace spirituality.
In: R.A. Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, eds. Handbook of workplace spirituality
and organizational performance (2nd ed.). New York: M.E. Sharp.
Giacalone, R.A., Jurkiewicz, C.L., and Deckop, J. 2008. Organizational ethics and
social responsibility: Materialism, postmaterialism and the power of hope. Human
Relations, 61, 483–514.
Gilbert, J.A. and Tang, T.L.P. 1998. An examination of organizational trust antecedents.
Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 321–338.
Gino, F. and Pierce, L. 2009. The abundant effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of
wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 142–155.
Goldberg, H. and Lewis, R.T. 1978. Money madness: The psychology of saving,
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

spending, loving and hating money. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R. and Balkin, D.B. 1992. Determinants of faculty pay: An agency
theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 921–955.
Greenberg, J. 1993. Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal
moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103.
Greenberg, J. 2002. Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational
determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 89(1), 985–1003.
Greenberg, J. and Ornstein, S. 1983. High status job title as compensation for underpay-
ment: A test of equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 285–297.
Grouzet, F.M., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Fernandez-Dols, J.M., Kim, Y., Lau, S., Ryan,
R.M., Saunders, S., Schmuck, P., and Sheldon, K.M. 2005. The structure of
goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
800–816.
Harpaz, I. 1990. The importance of work goals: An international perspective. Journal of
International Business Studies, 21(1), 79–93.
Harpaz, I. and Snir, R. 2003. Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations,
56, 291–319.
Herzberg, F. 1987. One more time: How do you motivate managers? Harvard Business
Review, September–October, 109–120.
Hwang, K.K. 1987. Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of
Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.
Iwata, O. 1995. Relationships of proenvironmental attitudes with materialism and its
associated attitudes toward money. Psychologia, 38(4), 252–257.
Jenkins, G.D., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., and Shaw, D. 1998. Are financial incentives related
to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 777–787.
Kasser, T. 2002. The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kasser, T. and Ryan, R.M. 1993. A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of
financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 410–422.
Kohn, A. 1993. Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, September-
October, 54–63.
Kreuzbauer, R. and Chiu, C.Y. 2008. The psycho-economics of money and social
support. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 148–152.
 186 T.L.-P. Tang

Kriger, M. and Seng, Y. 2005. Leadership with inner meaning: A contingency theory of
leadership based on the worldviews of five religions. Leadership Quarterly, 16(5),
771–806.
Lawler, E.E. 1971. Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Laws, J. and Tang, T.L.P. 1999. Japanese transplants and union membership: The case
of Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation. SAM Advanced Management Journal,
64(2), 16–26.
Lea, S.E.G. and Webley, P. 2006. Money as tool, money as drug: The biological
psychology of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(2), 161–209.
Lepper, M.R. and Greene, D. 1975. Turning play into work: Effects of adult surveil-
lance and extrinsic rewards on children’s intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 31, 479–486.
Lim, V.K.G. and Sng, Q.S. 2006. Does parental job insecurity matter? Money anxiety,
money motives, and work motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1078–1087.
Lim, V.K.G. and Teo, T.S.H. 1997. Sex, money and financial hardship: An empirical
study of attitudes towards money among undergraduates in Singapore. Journal of
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

Economic Psychology, 18, 369–386.

Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E.A., Feren, D.B., McCaleb, V.M., Shaw, K.N., and Denny, A.T. 1980. The
relative effectiveness of four methods of motivating employee performance. In:
K.D. Duncan, M.M. Gruneberg, and D. Wallis, eds. Changes in working life. New
York: Wiley, 363–388.
Maslow, A.H. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Mason, J.W. 1992. Meaning of money. American Behavioral Scientist, 35(6), 771–780.
McCabe, D.L., Butterfield, K.D., and Treviño, L.K. 2006. Academic dishonesty in
graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 5(3), 294–305.
McClelland, D.C. 1967. Money as a motivator: Some research insights. The McKinsey
Quarterly, 4(2), 10–21.
McClure, R.F. 1984. The relationship between money attitude and overall pathology.
Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behaviour, 21(1), 4–6.
McShane, S.L. and Von Glinow, M.A. 2008. Organizational behavior (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Mickel, A.E. and Barron, L.A. 2008. Getting “more bang for the buck” symbolic
value of monetary rewards in organizations. Journal of Management Inquire, 17(4),
329–338.
Milkovich, G.T. and Newman, J.M. 2008. Compensation (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin/
McGraw-Hill.
Milkovich, G.T., Newman, J.M., and Gerhart, B. 2011. Compensation (10th ed.).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Mitchell, T.R. and Mickel, A.E. 1999. The meaning of money: An individual difference
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 568–578.
Parboteeah, K.P. and Cullen, J.B. 2010. Ethical climates and spirituality: An explor-
atory examination of theoretical links. In: R.A. Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, eds.
The handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (2nd ed.).
New York: M.E. Sharp.
Pfeffer, J. 1998. Six dangerous myths about pay. Harvard Business Review, May-June,
108–119.
Pfeffer, J. 2010. Business and the spirit: Management practices that sustain values. In:
R.A. Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, eds. The handbook of workplace spirituality
and organizational performance (2nd ed.). New York: M.E. Sharp.
 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 187

Poduska, B. 1992. Money, marriage, and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. American

Behavioral Scientist, 35(6), 756–770.
Prince, M. 1993. Self-concept, money beliefs and values. Journal of Economic Psychol-
ogy, 14, 161–173.
Richins, M.L. and Dawson, S. 1992. A consumer values orientation for materialism and
its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,
19(3), 303–316.
Roberts, J.A. and Jones, E. 2001. Money attitudes, credit card use, and compulsive
buying among college students. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(2), 213–240.
Rose, G.M. and Orr, L.M. 2007. Measuring and exploring symbolic money meanings.
Psychology and Marketing, 24(9), 743–761.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68–78.
Rynes, S.L. and Gerhart, B., eds. 2000. Compensation in organizations: Current
research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sardžoska, E. and Tang, T.L.P. 2009. Testing a model of behavioral intentions in the
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

zoca[rn]

Republic of Macedonia: Differences between the private and the public sectors.
Journal of Business Ethics, 87(4), 495–517.
Shamir, B., Arthur, M.B., and House, R.J. 1994. The rhetoric of charismatic leadership:
A theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research. Leadership
Quarterly, 5, 25–42.
Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L.A., and Parks, J.M. 2007. Racial differences in
sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and
“trickle down” among black and non-black employees. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 92(3), 650–665.
Sloan, A. 2002. The jury’s in: Greed isn’t good. Newsweek, 24 June, 37.
Smith, A. 1776/1937. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.
New York: Modern Library.
Srivastava, A., Locke, E.A. and Bartol, K.M. 2001. Money and subjective well-being:
It’s not the money, it’s the motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80(6), 959–971.
Tang, T.L.P. 1992. The meaning of money revisited. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 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, 14, 93–99.
Tang, T.L.P. 1995. The development of a short Money Ethic Scale: Attitudes toward
money and pay satisfaction revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(6),
809–817.
Tang, T.L.P. 1996. Pay differentials as a function of rater’s sex, money ethic, and job
incumbent’s sex: A test of the Matthew Effect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17,
127–144.
Tang, T.L.P. 2007. Income and quality of life: Does the love of money make a
difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4), 375–393.
Tang, T.L.P., in press. From increasing gas efficiency to enhancing creativity: It pays to
go green. Journal of Business Ethics.
Tang, T.L.P. and Baumeister, R.F. 1984. Effects of personal values, perceived surveil-
lance, and task labels on task preference: The ideology of turning play into work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 99–105.
Tang, T.L.P. and Chen, Y.J. 2008. Intelligence vs. wisdom: The love of money,
Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across college major and gender. Journal
of Business Ethics, 82(1), 1–26.
 188 T.L.-P. Tang

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, 46, 13–30.
Tang, T.L.P. and Luna-Arocas, R. 2010. Does high income lead to high pay satisfac-
tion? Love of money, pay comparison standard, and culture. Paper submitted for
publication.
Tang, T.L.P. and Tang, T.L.N. 2009. Unethical behavior intentions: Does intrinsic
religiosity make a difference? Paper presented at the European Congress of Psychol-
ogy, Oslo, Norway, 7–10 July.
Tang, T.L.P. and Tang, T.L.N. 2010/forthcoming. Finding the lost sheep: A panel study
of business students’ intrinsic religiosity, Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior
intention in a public institution. Ethics & Behavior, 20(5).
Tang, T.L.P. and West, W.B. 1997. The importance of human needs during peacetime,
retrospective peacetime, and the Persian Gulf War. International Journal of Stress
Management, 4(1), 47–62.
Tang, T.L.P., Furnham, A., and Davis, G.M.T.W. 2002. The meaning of money: The
money ethic endorsement and work-related attitudes in Taiwan, the USA and the
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

UK. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(7), 542–563.

Tang, T.L.P., Ibrahim, A.H.S., and West, W.B. 2002. Effects of war-related stress on
the satisfaction of human needs: The United States and the Middle East. Interna-
tional Journal of Management Theory and Practices, 3(1), 35–53.
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, 53(2), 213–245.
Tang, T.L.P., Luna-Arocas, R., and Sutarso, T. 2005. From income to pay satisfaction:
The love of money and pay equity comparison as mediators and culture (the US and
Spain) and gender as moderators. Management Research: The Journal of the
Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 3(1), 7–26.
Tang, T.L.P., Tang, T.L.N. and Homaifar, B.Y. 2006. Income, the love of money, pay
comparison, and pay satisfaction: Race and gender as moderators. Journal of Mana-
gerial Psychology, 21(5), 476–491.
Tang, T.L.P., Austin, M.J., Howard, L.W., and Tang, T.L.N. 2010. Improving critical
thinking skills: Business students’ gender, race, abilities, and motivation. Paper
presented at the 27th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Melbourne,
Australia, 11–16 July.
Tang, T.L.P., Luna-Arocas, R., Sutarso, T., and Tang, D.S.H. 2004. Does the love of
money moderate and mediate the income-pay satisfaction relationship? Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 19(2), 111–135.
Tang, T.L.P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G.M.T., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim, A.H.S., and Wagner,
S.L. 2008. To help or not to help? The Good Samaritan Effect and the love of
money on helping behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 865–887.
Tang, T.L.P., Sutarso, T., Akande, A., Allen, M.W., Alzubaidi, A.S., Ansari, M.A.,
Arias-Galicai, F., Borg, M.G., Canova, L., Charles-Pauvers, B., et al. 2006. The love
of money and pay level satisfaction: Measurement and functional equivalence in 29
geopolitical entities around the world. Management and Organization Review, 2(3),
423–452.
Treviño, L.K. 1986. Ethical decision-making in organizations: A person–situation
interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.
Urbain, C. 2000. L’attitude a l’egard de l’argent: une premiere tentative de validation de
deux echelles de mesure americanines dans un context culturel francais. Recherche
et Applications en Marketing, 15(3), 3–28.
Vitell, S.J., Paolillo, J.G.P., and Singh, J.J. 2006. The role of money and religiosity in
determining consumers’ ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 117–124.
 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 189

Vohs, K.D., Mead, N.L., and Goode, M. 2006. The psychological consequences of
money. Science, 314, 1154–1156.
Weaver, G.R. and Agle, B.R. 2002. Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A
symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 77–97.
Weber, M. 1904–05/1958. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, trans. T.
Parsons. New York: Scribner’s.
Wernimont, P.F. and Fitzpatrick, S. 1972. The meaning of money. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 56, 218–226.
Wong, H.M. 2008. Religiousness, love of money, and ethical attitudes of Malaysian
evangelical Christians in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 169–191.
Wong, N. and Ahuvia, A. 1998. Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in
Confucian and western societies. Psychology and Marketing, 15(5), 423–441.
Yamauchi, K.T. and Templer, D.I. 1982. The development of a money attitude scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 522–528.
Zelizer, V.A. 1994. The social meaning of money. New York: Basic Books.
Zhang, L.Q. 2009. An exchange theory of money and self-esteem in decision making.
Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 66–76.
Downloaded By: [Tang, Thomas Li-Ping] At: 01:56 23 May 2010

Zhou, X.Y. and Gao, D.G. 2008. Social support and money as pain management
mechanisms. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 127–144.
Zhou, X.Y., Vohs, K.D., and Baumeister, R.F. 2009. The symbolic power of money:
Reminders of money alter social distress and physical pain. Psychological Science,
20(6), 700–706.
Zuckerman, M. 1983. Biological bases of sensation seeking, impulsivity, and anxiety.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

View publication stats