To develop money profiles based on money attitudes and investigate differences in work‐related attitudes across money profiles.
Data from 564 university students in the USA were collected and four money profiles based on the Love of Money Scale (LOMS) were identified using cluster analysis.
Achieving money worshipers (23.22 percent) have the highest scores on factors good, respect, achievement, and power. Careless money admirers (30.16 percent) have the lowest scores on factors budget and evil. Apathetic money managers (31.08 percent) have the lowest scores on factors respect and achievement and the highest on budget. Money repellent Individuals (15.54 percent) have the lowest scores on factors good and power and the highest on factor evil. Achieving money worshipers have the highest level of organization‐based self‐esteem (OBSE), the protestant work ethic (PWE), intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, and satisfaction with social and self‐actualization needs, whereas money repellent individuals have the lowest. Apathetic money managers have the highest level of satisfaction with physiological and safety needs.
This convenience sample does not represent the national population in general or student population in particular. Self‐reported data from the same source at one time can inflate relationships between variables and do not provide the cause‐and‐effect relationship.
Researchers and managers understand that people in different money profiles have different work‐related attitudes and importance and satisfaction of human needs and that they may identify human resource strategies to predict and control behavior in organizations.
The four money profiles, replicated in this study, are valid across several cultures.
This research examines the love of money as a moderator and as a mediator of the self‐reported income‐pay satisfaction relationship among university professors…
This research examines the love of money as a moderator and as a mediator of the self‐reported income‐pay satisfaction relationship among university professors (lecturers). Hierarchical multiple regression results showed that the interaction effect between self‐reported income and the love of money on pay satisfaction was significant. For high‐love‐of‐money professors (lecturers), the relationship between income and pay satisfaction was positive and significant, however, for low‐love‐of‐money professors (lecturers), the relationship was not significant. High‐love‐of‐money participants had lower pay satisfaction than low‐love‐of‐money participants when the self‐reported income was below $89,139.53. When income was higher than $89,139.53, the pattern of pay satisfaction was reversed. Further, the love of money was a mediator of the self‐reported income‐pay satisfaction relationship. Income increases the love of money that, in turn, is used as a “frame of reference” to evaluate pay satisfaction.
This research employs institutional characteristics and market‐related factors to predict undergraduate students' tuition at 190 private colleges and universities in the…
This research employs institutional characteristics and market‐related factors to predict undergraduate students' tuition at 190 private colleges and universities in the USA. Results showed that the strongest correlations among variables for college tuition were reputation ranking and SAT scores. Results of a hierarchical multiple regression revealed that the type of institution, academic reputation ranking, the annual expenditures, geographic region, the existence of professional schools, the size of the faculty and the undergraduate student body, and university presidents' pay and benefits are all significant predictors of college tuition. After controlling all other variables, the unique contribution made by reputation ranking is still a significant predictor of college tuition. Research institutions charged their students more than liberal arts colleges, which, in turn, charged more than doctoral granting I institutions. Implications for parents and students, private colleges and universities, human resource management, and the Matthew effect are discussed.