Received: 19 October 2022 | Accepted: 22 August 2023

DOI: 10.1111/ajsp.12582

bs_bs_banner Asian Journal of Social Psychology

REGULAR ARTICLE

The market mindset erodes social mindfulness

Huiwen Xiao | Ziqiang Xin

Department of Psychology, Renmin

University of China, Beijing, China
Correspondence
Ziqiang Xin, Department of Psychology,
Renmin University of China, 59
Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District,
Beijing 100872, China.
Email: xinziqiang@sohu.com
Funding information
Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities and the Research
Funds of Renmin University of China,
Grant/Award Number: 22XNKJ01
Abstract
Previous studies have mainly explored the impacts of social mindfulness on
social behaviours (e.g., cooperation), little is known about crucial macro social
environment factors that affect social mindfulness, like the market economy.
With the development of the market economy, people typically acquire the self-­
centred and rational market mindset which may suppress social mindfulness.
Therefore, the current study aimed to examine the causal relationship between
the market mindset and social mindfulness, as well as the psychological
mechanism behind the effect. In Study 1, participants whose market mindset was
activated by recalling market experiences showed lower social mindfulness than
those whose non-­market mindset was activated by recalling other experiences.
Studies 2 and 3 explored the mediation of perspective taking and state empathy
behind the detrimental effect. It was found that the relationship between the
market mindset and social mindfulness was mediated by perspective taking
rather than by state empathy. Together, the present three studies expand the
existing literature on the relationship between the market mindset and social
mindfulness and remind policymakers to pay attention to the adverse effects of
the market mindset on social mindfulness.

K EY WOR DS
market, market mindset, perspective taking, social mindfulness, state empathy

1 | I N T RODUC T ION China's market economy in the past decades, it provides

Not all prosocial behaviours require great effort, and
sometimes just leaving a choice to others is a sign of
benevolence. Social mindfulness is such a low-­cost be-
haviour, which refers to people being thoughtful of
others and considering others' needs and wishes before
making a decision (Van Doesum et al., 2021). Prior re-
search predominantly focused on the impact of social
mindfulness on social behaviours (e.g., cooperation, en-
vironmental performance; Dou et al., 2018; Van Doesum
et al., 2021), while neglecting crucial macro social envi-
ronment factors that affect social mindfulness, that is,
the market economy. Preceding studies demonstrated
that when people engaged in the market economy, they
usually acquired the market mindset (Zaki et al., 2021;
Zaleskiewicz et al., 2020). This mindset typically drives
them to pursue maximized self-­interest, potentially erod-
ing social mindfulness. Due to the rapid development of
an ideal research site. Therefore, the current study aimed
to explore how the market mindset affects individuals'
social mindfulness in the Chinese context.
1.1 | The market mindset and its potential
effects on social mindfulness
The market is universally acknowledged as an effec-
tive mechanism for organizing production and distri-
bution in an economy, with its influence permeating
various aspects of society. Many things that used to be
considered to hold non-­market value now have a price
(Gneezy & Rustichini, 2000). In such a context, the mar-
ket mechanism promotes the maximization of benefits,
optimization of efficiency, competition, and the pursuit
of material interests (Xin & Liu, 2013), all of which are
internalized by individuals as their own market mindset.

© 2023 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Asian J Soc Psychol. 2023;00:1–12.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ajsp | 1


2 |   
bs_bs_banner Asian Journal of Social Psychology
Such a mindset describes a special mental inclination
that encourages people to primarily care about how
much they can get out of their investment and whether
the repayment will be of comparable value. For instance,
certain studies revealed that exposing individuals to
market relations or reminding them of their shopping
experiences facilitated their proportional thinking,
competitiveness, and self-­ i nterest (Bauer et al., 2012;
Zaleskiewicz et al., 2020). In other words, individuals'
participation in the market typically results in the ac-
quisition of a self-­interested and rational market mind-
set (Olga Kuzminska et al., 2022), which may ultimately
influence their prosocial behaviours.
Social mindfulness is a common prosocial behaviour
in daily life that stands apart from other prosocial be-
haviours due to its low-­cost nature. It requires minimal
mental effort to consider options for both self and others
and to forgo one's preferences (Van Doesum, et al., 2013;
Van Doesum, et al., 2017). Social mindfulness is typi-
cally manifested in simple behaviours, such as leaving
or limiting choices to others who share an interest in the
outcome of an interdependent situation. For example,
consider a scenario where you are choosing between a
single piece of chocolate cake and two slices of straw-
berry cake, both of which are available on a buffet table.
Your decision would clearly impact the person behind
you. Depending on your choice, the person behind you
would either have access to only one option (strawberry
cake) or two (strawberry cake and chocolate cake).
As no studies have specifically investigated the cor-
relation between the market mindset and social mind-
fulness, the relevant literature offers two contrasting
perspectives. One optimistic viewpoint is that the mar-
ket mindset may potentially enhance social mindfulness.
Studies indicated that exposure to market interactions in
developing societies fostered the adoption of prosocial
norms and encouraged friendly behaviours among indi-
viduals (Baldassarri, 2020; Henrich et al., 2005; Henrich,
et al., 2010). Conversely, a pessimistic viewpoint is that
the market mindset may hinder social mindfulness. Ex-
tensive research has established that priming individuals
to contemplate money or engaging in market activities
leads to more unethical and individualistic behaviours
and less prosocial behaviours (Falk & Szech, 2013; Vohs
et al., 2006; Zhang & Xin, 2019). By considering evidence
of the two conflicting views, we have found that there is
more evidence suggesting the negative effects of the mar-
ket mindset (Xin et al., 2022; Xin & Yang, 2023). Also,
the majority of studies demonstrating the positive role
of the market mindset in prosocial behaviour are pre-
dominantly correlational rather than causal in nature,
thereby prohibiting the elimination of the influence of
other variables (Xin, 2019). Based on these, we make the
following assumption:
H1. The market mindset would erode social
mindfulness.
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
XIAO and XIN
1.2 | The mediating roles of perspective
taking and state empathy
To gain a deeper understanding of the causal relation-
ship between the market mindset and social mindful-
ness, it is crucial to explore the potential mediating role
of empathy in this relationship. According to Hoffman's
empathy theory (1984, 2001) and Batson et al.'s empathy-­
altruism hypothesis (2007), both cognitive and affective
components, also known as perspective taking and state
empathy, can serve as motivational factors that directly
induce prosocial behaviours. Additionally, Van Doesum
et al. (2013) have emphasized that perspective taking and
state empathy are core elements of social mindfulness.
Specifically, perspective taking entails a cognitive aware-
ness of another person's internal states, whereas state
empathy entails a vicarious affective reaction to another
person. Previous literature has shown that perspective
taking and state empathy not only differ in psychological
components but also have varying effects on prosocial
behaviours (Belacchi & Farina, 2012; Kim et al., 2019;
Singer, 2006). Thus, the current study aims to examine
the functions of the two empathy components (i.e., state
empathy and perspective taking) in the relationship be-
tween market mindset and social mindfulness.
In marketplaces, the pursuit of self-­interest and com-
petition is often prioritized (Werhane, 2019), leading in-
dividuals to become more self-­c entred and less likely to
consider the perspective of others (low perspective tak-
ing). Empirical literature has demonstrated that evoking
the market mindset had a negative impact on individu-
als' focus on others (Genschow et al., 2019), and it also
decreased Fortune 100 managers' willingness to con-
sider their consumers' viewpoints (Van Laer et al., 2013).
Given the above, engaging in market activities may re-
duce individuals' perspective taking. At the same time,
social mindfulness is regarded as a human capacity that
needs the skill of perspective taking, so as to recognize
the needs of others (Van Doesum, et al., 2013; Van Doe-
sum, et al.,2017). Consequently, individuals whose mar-
ket mindset is invoked may have reduced perspective
taking, which can weaken their social mindfulness.
Although individuals possess the skill to recognize
the needs of others in social mindfulness, the actualiza-
tion of such behaviour remains uncertain. According
to Van Doesum et al. (2013), state empathy is also a key
mechanism that determines whether individuals act
with social mindfulness or not, suggesting that social
mindfulness is closely associated with the ability to em-
pathize. Additionally, empirical studies demonstrated
that exposure to money could induce the market mind-
set, resulting in a decline in the capacity and readiness
of individuals to rely on emotional cues (Fiske, 1992;
Fiske et al., 2019; Zaleskiewicz & Gasiorowska, 2017).
Moreover, this market mindset fostered an impersonal,
professional, and work-­ oriented attitude, leading to
a decrease in warmth among individuals (Caruso

MARKET MINDSET ERODES SOCIAL MINDFULNESS
et al., 2013; Vohs, 2015). Taken together, invoking the
market mindset can impede individuals' willingness
to be socially mindful as it temporally reduces their
state empathy, consequently diminishing their ability
to infer the emotions of others.
The current study intended to explore not only the
mediating role of perspective taking and state empa-
thy but also the configuration in which they were in-
volved in the relationship between the market mindset
and social mindfulness. Based on this, two contrasting
assumptions were formulated. The first assumption
was that perspective taking and state empathy run in
parallel, being two relatively independent mechanisms.
This assumption was grounded in the fact that some
studies have found that individuals who observe oth-
ers' suffering activate brain regions associated with
both affective empathy and cognitive empathy (Mas-
ten et al., 2011). Thus, the two processes involved in
the relationship between the market mindset and so-
cial mindfulness may be interrelated but relatively
independent. However, an alternative assumption
suggested that the market mindset influences social
mindfulness sequentially through perspective taking
and state empathy. According to the cognitive theory
of emotions (Oatley & Johnson-­laird, 1987), a person's
emotions are not solely generated by the stimulus itself,
but rather through a process of “stimulus-­evaluation-­
emotion,” which implies that cognition plays a crucial
role. In other words, when an individual becomes self-­
centred and disregards others, they also become indif-
ferent, leading to a reduction in social mindfulness. In
summary, two competing predictions are proposed as
follows:
H2a. Perspective taking and state empathy
would mediate the relationship between the
market mindset and social mindfulness in a
parallel manner.
H2b. Perspective taking and state empathy
would mediate the relationship between the
market mindset and social mindfulness in a
sequential manner.
1.3 | The current research
The current study aimed to investigate how the mar-
ket mindset impacts social mindfulness, as well as the
psychological mechanism that underlies this effect. In
Studies 1 and 2, participants were asked to recall mar-
ket experiences to elicit the market mindset, enabling
us to explore the causal relationship between the mar-
ket mindset and social mindfulness. In Studies 2 and
3, the mediating role of perspective taking and state
empathy in the relationship between the market mind-
set and social mindfulness were further examined. The
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
bs_bs_banner
Asian Journal of Social Psychology
| 3
three studies not only expand the existing literature on
the relationship between the market mindset and social
mindfulness but also offer evidence to contribute to the
ongoing debate about the impact of the market mindset
on prosocial behaviours.
2 | ST U DY 1: T H E E F F EC T OF
T H E M A R K ET M I N D SET ON
SOC I A L M I N DF U L N E S S
2.1 | Method
2.1.1 | Participants
Because there were no relevant previous studies, we
used a medium effect size to determine the sample size
in Study 1. G*power analysis recommended that 140
participants were needed to achieve 80% power, using
one-­way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A total of 179
participants were recruited for this experiment via the
TC lab system and online platforms. Sixteen participants
were excluded because they did not answer the test ques-
tions correctly or took too little time to finish the task
(less than 7 min). Thus, the final sample comprised 163
participants (94 women) with ages ranging from 18 to 35
(Mage = 22.60, SD = 2.64).
2.1.2 | Design
A one-­way ANOVA design was used, with mindset ma-
nipulation (market mindset vs. non-­market mindset vs.
blank) as the independent variable, and social mind-
fulness measured in the SoMi paradigm (Van Doesum
et al., 2013) as the dependent variable. Participants were
randomly assigned to three conditions, with 57 partici-
pants in the market mindset condition which was trig-
gered by recalling shopping experiences, 58 participants
in the non-­market mindset condition which was trig-
gered by recalling watching TV experiences, and 48 par-
ticipants in the blank condition.
2.1.3 | Procedures
After giving written informed consent, participants
were informed that the experiment had four parts. In
the first part, participants learned the rules regard-
ing the SoMi paradigm to enable them to perform
the SoMi task immediately following the second part.
Then, in the second part, participants were randomly
assigned to three conditions: market mindset condi-
tion, non-­m arket mindset condition, and blank condi-
tion. The manipulation was introduced by assigning
different recalling tasks for the first two conditions,
as adapted from Cohn et al. (2014). Participants in the

4 |   
bs_bs_banner Asian Journal of Social Psychology
market mindset condition answered eight questions
regarding shopping to recall market experiences, for
example, “Please describe an online shopping experi-
ence that impressed you.” Similarly, participants in
the non-­m arket mindset condition also answered eight
symmetrical questions regarding TV programs to re-
call watching TV experiences, such as “Please describe
a TV program that impressed you.” Participants in the
blank condition did not perform any task before meas-
uring the dependent variable.
When participants completed the second part,
they were asked to perform the SoMi paradigm in the
third part. In the SoMi paradigm, participants were
required to choose one among three or four objects in
a series of different categories, such as apples, candy,
f lowers, and so on. In each category, two or three of
the objects were entirely identical, and the third or
the fourth only differed in a single aspect (e.g., one
red apple and two green ones). The number of cate-
gories varied somewhat in each trial, but participants
always had to keep in mind that they were engaging in
the decision task together with strangers in a dyadic
interaction, and that they made their selection first
and the other person was not able to choose the ob-
ject they selected. Instructions were repeated in each
SoMi trial. A total of 24 SoMi trials (12 target trials
and 12 control trials) were presented in random order
(Mischkowski et al., 2018; Van Doesum et al., 2016).
Choosing one of the identical products would leave
the other person a chance to choose either the same or
a different product, and accordingly the choice was
scored as socially mindful (1); by contrast, taking the
unique product would limit the other person's choice,
and was scored as socially unmindful (0). The final
score was the proportion of socially mindful choices
across all target trials, which constituted the depen-
dent variable. Finally, the demographic characteris-
tics of the participants were collected in the fourth
part.
2.1.4 | Manipulation check
An additional 97 participants were recruited via the
Credamo platform to perform a manipulation check on
the manipulated materials. None of these participants
participated in the follow-­up experiments. After com-
pleting the manipulated materials, participants were
presented with word stem completion tasks, in which
they were instructed to add a character to each of the
following to form words: “花___”, “付___”, “消___”. A
research assistant, who was not aware of the experi-
ment's purpose, coded the participants' responses. If
the completed word was related to the market (e.g., 花
钱 [expenditure], 付款 [payment], 消费 [consumption]),
it was coded 1, otherwise 0. The total score of the three
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
XIAO and XIN
words was used as an indicator of the market mindset.
The assumption of homoscedasticity with Levene's test
showed non-­significant differences across three condi-
tions in the variances on the score of market-­related
words, F(2, 95) = 1.36, p = 0.26, which met the premise
of one-­way ANOVA. Then, a one-­way ANOVA showed
that the score of market-­ related words mentioned
in the market mindset condition (n = 32, M = 1.69,
SD = 1.03) was significantly higher than that in the non-­
market mindset condition (n = 33, M = 1.03, SD = 0.88)
and blank condition (n = 33, M = 1.24, SD = 0.83), F(2,
95) = 4.56, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.09. Also, there was no signifi-
cant difference between the non-­m arket mindset and
blank conditions. This result implied the manipulation
of market mindset was successful.
2.2 | Results
We examined skewness and kurtosis, as well as the
assumption of homoscedasticity with Levene's test
for social mindfulness. The results showed that the
absolute value of skewness and kurtosis was less than
1 (Orcan, 2020). Further, there were no significant
differences across the three conditions in the vari-
ance of social mindfulness, F(2, 160) = 0.76, p = 0.47.
This suggested that the data on social mindfulness
was normally distributed and homogeneous, showing
the data met the premise of one-­w ay ANOVA. Then,
a one-­w ay ANOVA was performed on social mind-
fulness, which showed a significant main effect be-
tween conditions, F(2, 160) = 3.27, p = 0.04, η2 = 0.04.
Notably, individuals who were in the market mind-
set condition (M = 0.31, SD = 0.22) showed a smaller
amount of social mindfulness than those who were in
the non-­m arket mindset (M = 0.41, SD = 0.25) and the
blank conditions (M = 0.41, SD = 0.24). There was no
significant difference between the non-­m arket mind-
set and the blank conditions. Figure 1 displays all rel-
evant information.
The current study was the first attempt to explore
the causal relationship between the market mindset
and social mindfulness, revealing that individuals
whose market mindset was activated through recalling
market experiences showed less social mindfulness.
This implied that evoking the market mindset eroded
individuals' kindness. However, it is possible that par-
ticipants' emotional states, which were triggered by
the manipulated materials, could have confounded
this causal relationship. Additionally, the underlying
psychological mechanism behind the market mindset's
suppression of social mindfulness was not yet clear.
Therefore, Study 2 aimed to eliminate the impact of
emotions on the relationship between the market mind-
set and social mindfulness, and to explore the parallel
versus sequential roles of perspective taking and state

MARKET MINDSET ERODES SOCIAL MINDFULNESS
FIGURE 1 The means of social mindfulness across three conditions in Study 1. Error bars are ±1 SE.
empathy in the relationship between the market mind-
set and social mindfulness.
3 | ST U DY 2 : T H E M E DI AT I NG
ROL E OF PE R SPE C T I V E TA K I NG
A N D STAT E E M PAT H Y BET W E E N
T H E M A R K ET M I N D SET A N D
SOC I A L M I N DF U L N E S S
3.1 | Method
3.1.1 | Participants
We used the medium effect size to determine the sam-
ple size ( f = 0.15). Based on a priori power analysis for a
linear multiple regression test using G*power, a mini-
mum sample of 77 participants was suggested for 80%
power. A total of 136 participants were recruited via
the TC lab system and online platforms. Seven par-
ticipants were excluded because they did not answer
the test questions correctly or took too little time.
Thus, the final sample comprised 129 participants (59
women) with ages ranging from 17 to 32 (Mage = 21.87,
SD = 2.19).
3.1.2 | Design and procedures
Since individuals who were in the blank and non-­market
mindset conditions had a similar performance on social
mindfulness in Study 1, we chose the non-­market mind-
set condition as a reference condition in Study 2. Similar
to the procedures of Study 1, participants were assigned
into the market mindset (n = 67) or non-­market mindset
conditions (n = 62), and were then compared regarding
their social mindfulness. Differing from Study 1, partici-
pants' emotions at the beginning and the end of the ex-
periment were measured by non-­verbal self-­assessment
manikins with one item to rule out the effect of emotions
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
bs_bs_banner
Asian Journal of Social Psychology
| 5
on social mindfulness (Bradley & Lang, 1994). This
consisted of asking participants to choose one of nine
expressions from unhappy to happy. After participants
completed the SoMi paradigm, they were asked to an-
swer two subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index,
which was slightly modified to assess the extent of state
empathy and perspective taking when they chose objects
in the SoMi paradigm.
3.1.3 | Measures
3.1.3.1 | State empathy
State empathy was measured by the adapted empathic
concern subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index
(Zhang et al., 2010). This has six items, two of which are
reverse-­scored. An example item is “I was a little embar-
rassed when I thought the other person had no chance
to choose the unique goods.” All items are rated on a
7-­point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores demonstrating
great state empathy after recoding the reverse items. In
the current study, Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this
subscale was 0.89. Confirmatory factor analysis yielded
fit assessments of χ2/df = 2.62, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95,
RMSEA = 0.11, and SRMR = 0.03, indicating that this
subscale had a good unitary-­factor structure.
3.1.3.2 | Perspective taking
Perspective taking was measured by the adapted per-
spective taking subscale of the Interpersonal Reactiv-
ity Index (Zhang et al., 2010). It has five items with no
reverse-­scoring items. An example item is “Before mak-
ing a goods selection, I would take the position of both
sides.” All items are rated on a 7-­point Likert scale rang-
ing from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with
higher scores demonstrating a greater degree of perspec-
tive taking. In the current study, the Cronbach's alpha
coefficient for this subscale was 0.93. The confirmatory
factor analysis yielded fit assessments of χ2/df = 3.08,

6 |   
bs_bs_banner Asian Journal of Social Psychology
CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.13, and SRMR = 0.21,
suggesting that this subscale had a good unitary-­factor
structure.
To verify that the items measuring perspective-­taking
and state empathy loaded onto two distinct latent con-
structs rather than a single construct, we conducted mea-
surement model analysis to compare a unitary-­factor
model and a two-­factor model. It showed that compared
to the unitary-­ factor model (χ2/df = 7.72, CFI = 0.74,
TLI = 0.68, RMSEA = 0.23, SRMR = 0.11), the two-­factor
model had better fit indicators (χ2/df = 3.14, CFI = 0.92,
TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.13, SRMR = 0.09), suggesting that
the two subscales should be used separately.
3.2 | Results
3.2.1 | Differences in all variables for the
market and non-­market mindset conditions
We also examined skewness and kurtosis, as well as the
assumption of homoscedasticity with Levene's test for
social mindfulness, perspective taking, and state em-
pathy. The results showed that the absolute values of
skewness and kurtosis for all variables were less than
or equal to 1 (Orcan, 2020), suggesting that all variables
were close to normal distribution. Levene's test based on
medians revealed significant differences among mindset
conditions in the variance on social mindfulness, F(1,
127) = 16.57, p < 0.001, and non-­ significant differences
among mindset conditions in the variance on perspective
taking, F(1, 127) = 0.43, p = 0.51, and state empathy, F(1,
127) = 0.41, p = 0.79. The results suggested that the data of
social mindfulness was heterogeneous, whereas the data
for perspective taking and state empathy was homogene-
ous. Therefore, a Welch's independent-­sample t-­test was
performed for social mindfulness, and likewise, stand-
ardized independent-­samples t-­tests were performed for
perspective taking and state empathy.
First, a Welch's independent-­sample t-­test performed
for social mindfulness showed a significant main ef-
fect between conditions, t(105.86) = −2.20, p = 0.03, Co-
hen's d = 0.39. A smaller amount of social mindfulness
was found in the market mindset condition (M = 0.31,
SD = 0.22) than in the non-­ market mindset condition
(M = 0.42, SD = 0.33). Second, when predicting perspective
TA BL E 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations in Study 2.
Variable
1. Prime (0 = non-­market mindset,
1 = market mindset)
2. Social mindfulness
3. Perspective taking
4. State empathy
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
XIAO and XIN
taking, the results revealed a significant effect of mind-
set manipulation, t(127) = −3.35, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.59.
Also, individuals in whom the market mindset was ac-
tivated by market experiences were less likely to think
about others (M = 3.48, SD = 1.46) than those in whom
the market mindset was activated by non-­market experi-
ences (M = 4.35, SD = 1.50). Finally, when predicting state
empathy, the results showed a significant effect between
conditions, t(127) = −2.08, p = 0.04, Cohen's d = 0.37. Con-
cretely, individuals who were in the market mindset con-
dition rated themselves lower in state empathy (M = 3.66,
SD = 1.34) than individuals who were in the non-­market
mindset condition (M = 4.15, SD = 1.34).
To exclude the impacts of emotions on the results,
independent-­samples t-­ tests were performed on emo-
tions which were measured at the beginning and the end
of the experiment across the market mindset and non-­
market mindset conditions (the significance of Levene's
test was great than 0.05). The results revealed there was
a non-­ significant pretest emotion difference in both
conditions, t(127) = −0.06, p = 0.95, Cohen's d = 0.01: for
the market mindset condition, M = 6.61, SD = 1.38; for
the non-­market mindset condition, M = 6.60, SD = 1.43.
Simultaneously, there was a non-­ significant posttest
emotion difference in both conditions, t(127) = −0.07,
p = 0.95, Cohen's d = 0.01: for the market mindset con-
dition, M = 6.43, SD = 1.61; for the non-­market mindset
condition, M = 6.45, SD = 1.49. The results suggested the
impact of the market mindset on social mindfulness was
not influenced by participants' current emotions.
3.2.2 | Mediation analyses
We initially expected that individuals who recalled
market experiences showed less perspective taking and
state empathy (as the above t-­test results demonstrated).
Moreover, correlation analyses showed that perspec-
tive taking and state empathy were positively correlated
with social mindfulness (r = 0.39 and 0.24, respectively;
ps < 0.01), suggesting there may exist potential mediation
models (Table 1). Accordingly, we specified two poten-
tial mediation models using a path analysis framework,
estimated in Mplus (version 8) using maximum likeli-
hood estimation: (a) a mediation model in which the pro-
pensity to rely on perspective taking and state empathy
M ± SD 1 2 3 4
–­ 1
0.37 ± 0.28 −0.19* 1
19.49 ± 7.68 −0.29** 0.39** 1
23.37 ± 8.14 −0.18* 0.24** 0.69** 1

MARKET MINDSET ERODES SOCIAL MINDFULNESS
were parallel mediators; and (b) a mediation model in
which the propensity to rely on perspective taking and
state empathy were tested in sequential order.
The estimated parallel mediators of perspective tak-
ing and state empathy are shown in Figure 2. Mediation
analysis indicated that evoking the market mindset had a
negative significant effect on perspective taking (β = −0.33,
SE = 0.08, p < 0.001), which in turn affected social mind-
fulness significantly (β = 0.46, SE = 0.11, p < 0.001). In this
model, perspective taking played a fully mediating role
between the market mindset and social mindfulness. Also,
the standardized mediating effect of perspective taking was
−0.15. Bootstrap analysis results showed that the indirect
effect did not contain 0 between the upper and lower limits
of the 95% bootstrap confidence interval (95% CI [−0.28,
−0.08]). Furthermore, evoking the market mindset had a
significant effect on state empathy (β = −0.18, SE = 0.08,
p = 0.04), but state empathy had a non-­significant effect on
social mindfulness (β = −0.10, SE = 0.11, p = 0.35), implying
the mediation role of state empathy was not established.
Similarly, the sequential mediators of perspective tak-
ing and state empathy are shown in Figure 3. It is seen
that evoking the market mindset had a negative signif-
icant effect on perspective taking (β = −0.33, SE = 0.08,
p < 0.001), which in turn significantly affected social
mindfulness (β = 0.46, SE = 0.11, p < 0.001) and state em-
pathy (β = 0.69, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001). However, evoking the
market mindset had a non-­significant effect on state em-
pathy (β = −0.02, SE = 0.07, p = 0.82), and in addition, state
empathy had a non-­significant effect on social mindful-
ness (β = −0.10, SE = 0.11, p = 0.35).
F I G U R E 2 The parallel mediating role of perspective taking and state empathy after excluding the impacts of control variables in Study 2.
*p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.
F I G U R E 3 The sequential mediating role of perspective taking and state empathy after excluding the impacts of control variables in Study
2. ***p < 0.001.
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
bs_bs_banner
Asian Journal of Social Psychology
| 7
Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1, and showed
that two potential mediation models were not validated,
in addition to showing that the psychological mechanism
behind the detrimental effect of the market mindset on so-
cial mindfulness was mediated only by perspective taking,
rather than by state empathy. However, according to previ-
ous studies, it had been indicated that state empathy could
mediate the relationship between the market mindset and
high-­cost prosocial behaviours like trust (Olga Kuzminska
et al., 2022). To further examine the role of state empathy
in mediating between the market mindset and social mind-
fulness, we adopted a new tool to assess state empathy in
Study 3, as a replication of Study 2.
4 | ST U DY 3 : R E -­V E R I F ICAT ION
TOWA R D S T H E M E DI AT ION OF
PE R SPEC T I V E TA K I NG A N D
STAT E E M PAT H Y
4.1 | Method
4.1.1 | Participants
In accordance with the procedure followed in Study 2, we
used a medium effect size to determine the sample size
(f = 0.15). A power analysis using G*power suggested a
minimum sample of 77 participants for 80% power, using
a priori power analysis for a linear multiple regression test.
A total of 170 participants were recruited via the Credamo
platform. Ten participants were excluded because they did

8 |   
bs_bs_banner Asian Journal of Social Psychology
not answer the test questions correctly or took too little/
long time (less than 7 min, more than 25 min). Thus, the
final sample comprised 160 participants (107 women) with
ages ranging from 19 to 57 (Mage = 31.29, SD = 8.41).
4.1.2 | Design and procedures
Similar to the procedures of Study 2, participants were
assigned to the market mindset condition (n = 81) or the
non-­market mindset condition (n = 79), and then com-
pared their social mindfulness. After participants com-
pleted the SoMi paradigm, they were asked to complete
word stem completion tasks to check the manipulation
effect (“花___”, “付___”, “消___”), as in Study 1. Finally,
they were required to answer two adapted subscales of
perspective taking and state empathy.
4.1.3 | Measures
4.1.3.1 | State empathy
State empathy was measured by the adapted Empathy
Concern Scales (Batson et al., 1987). We programmed a
story in which the participants had just selected a com-
modity with another person in the SoMi paradigm. Then,
participants were asked to evaluate the degree of their
affective experience across four affective adjectives (sym-
pathy, pity, soft-­hearted, and concerned). All items are
rated on a 7-­point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores demon-
strating greater state empathy. In the current study, the
Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this subscale was 0.90.
4.1.3.2 | Perspective taking
The scale which measured perspective taking was the
same as in Study 2. In the current study, the Cronbach's
alpha coefficient for this subscale was 0.95.
To confirm whether the items measuring perspec-
tive taking and state empathy loaded onto one or two
distinct latent constructs, we conducted measurement
model analysis to compare the unitary-­factor model and
the two-­factor model. It showed that compared to the
unitary-­factor model (χ2/df = 2.93, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95,
RMSEA = 0.11, SRMR = 0.04), the two-­factor model had
better fit indicators (χ2/df = 1.73, CFI = 99, TLI = 0.98,
TA BL E 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations in Study 3.
Variable
1. Prime (0 = non-­market mindset, 1 = market
mindset)
2. Social mindfulness
3. Perspective taking
4. State empathy
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
XIAO and XIN
RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.03), suggesting that the two
subscales could be used separately.
4.2 | Results
4.2.1 | Manipulation check
We invited a research assistant who did not know the in-
tention of this experiment to code the responses of partici-
pants to the word stem completion tasks. If the completed
word was related to the market, it would be coded 1, oth-
erwise 0. The total score of the three words was used as an
indicator of the market mindset. The assumption of ho-
moscedasticity with Levene's test showed non-­significant
differences across the two conditions in the variances of
the scores of market-­related words, F(1, 158) = 0.56, p = 0.46,
which met the premise of the independent t-­test. Then,
an independent t-­test showed that the score of market-­
related words mentioned in the market mindset condition
(M = 1.83, SD = 0.95) was significantly higher than that in
the non-­ market mindset condition (M = 1.01, SD = 0.93),
t(158) = 5.50, p = 0.01, implying a successful manipulation.
4.2.2 | Mediation analyses
The correlation analyses showed that perspective taking
and state empathy were positively correlated with social
mindfulness (r = 0.39 and 0.29, respectively; ps < 0.01),
whereas they were negatively correlated with the prime
condition (r = −0.18 and −0.22, respectively; ps < 0.05).
This suggested there may exist potential mediation mod-
els (Table 2).
Accordingly, we tested the parallel mediators of per-
spective taking and state empathy in the relationship
between market mindset and social mindfulness using
a path analysis framework. The estimated mediation
model is shown in Figure 4. Mediation analysis indicated
that evoking the market mindset had a negative signif-
icant effect on perspective taking (β = −0.17, SE = 0.08,
p = 0.03), which in turn affected social mindfulness sig-
nificantly (β = 0.36, SE = 0.10, p < 0.001). In this model,
perspective taking played a fully mediating role between
the market mindset and social mindfulness. Also, the
standardized mediating effect of perspective taking was
M ± SD 1 2 3 4
–­ 1
0.36 ± 0.25 −0.16* 1
3.77 ± 1.58 −0.18* 0.39** 1
3.75 ± 1.50 −0.22** 0.29** 0.77** 1

MARKET MINDSET ERODES SOCIAL MINDFULNESS
F I G U R E 4 The parallel role model of perspective taking and state empathy after excluding the impacts of control variables in Study 3.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
−0.06. Bootstrap analysis results showed that the indi-
rect effect did not contain 0 between the upper and lower
limits of the 95% bootstrap CI (95% CI = [−0.16, −0.01]).
Furthermore, evoking the market mindset had a signifi-
cant effect on state empathy (β = −0.21, SE = 0.08, p < 0.01),
but state empathy had a non-­significant effect on social
mindfulness (β = −0.02, SE = 0.10, p = 0.82), implying the
mediation role of state empathy was not established.
Study 3 replicated the findings of Study 2. Compared
to Study 2, it added a manipulation check, as well as
new tools to measure state empathy. The results showed
that our manipulation check was successful. Meanwhile,
it supported once again the view that perspective tak-
ing was the underlying mechanism between the mar-
ket mindset and social mindfulness, rather than state
empathy.
5 | DI SC US SION
We designed three experiments to examine the influ-
ence of the market mindset on social mindfulness, as
well as to explore the underlying psychological mecha-
nism. It was found that individuals who recalled mar-
ket experiences showed less social mindfulness than
those who recalled watching TV experiences (Stud-
ies 1 and 2) or those in the blank condition (Study 1).
Furthermore, Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that per-
spective taking was the underlying mechanism in the
relationship between the market mindset and social
mindfulness, rather than state empathy.
5.1 | Relationship between the market
mindset and social mindfulness
The present study is inconsistent with the optimistic
perspective, but tends to concur with the pessimis-
tic view, supporting the assumption that evoking the
market mindset has a negative impact on individu-
als' social mindfulness towards others. In fact, as the
marketization process advances, more people are
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
bs_bs_banner
Asian Journal of Social Psychology
| 9
participating in market activities, which leads to the
development of the market mindset. Such a market
mindset emphasizes competition, rationality, logical
thinking, efficiency, and equal exchange, often leading
individuals to prioritize self-­interest as the appropri-
ate behaviour (Fosgaard et al., 2017) and ultimately re-
sulting in individuals behaving unethically or reducing
trust, cooperation, etc. (Brandts & Riedl, 2020; Falk &
Szech, 2013; Vohs et al., 2006; Xin & Liu, 2013; Zhang
& Xin, 2019). Combined with previous research, our
results found that evoking the market mindset not only
hurts prosocial behaviours that require significant ef-
fort (Bartling et al., 2014; Kirchler et al., 2015), but also
inhibits low-­c ost prosocial behaviours such as social
mindfulness (Van Doesum, et al., 2013; Van Doesum,
et al., 2017).
5.2 | Psychological mechanism of the market
mindset's influence on social mindfulness
More strikingly, the present research proposed per-
spective taking as the underlying mechanism for the
negative impacts of the market mindset on social mind-
fulness. As noted by Van Doesum et al. (2021), social
mindfulness is a manifestation of interpersonal be-
nevolence that necessitates fundamental perspective
taking. This form of perspective taking underscores
an individual's ability to recognize the needs of others,
which is regarded as a skill. Theoretically, exposure to
market practices tends to decrease reliance on others
and increase self-­c entredness while diminishing sensi-
tivity to the perspectives of others (Vohs et al., 2008;
Wang et al., 2020). Similarly, perspective taking is criti-
cal to prosocial behaviours (Bensalah et al., 2016; Os-
wald, 2002). Therefore, when people's market mindset
is activated through recalling market experiences, it
blocks them from thinking from the viewpoint of oth-
ers, indicating that evoking the market mindset coun-
ters the capability of perspective taking.
Additionally, the findings revealed that evoking the
market mindset can decrease state empathy, but this

10 |   
bs_bs_banner Asian Journal of Social Psychology
feeling does not influence social mindfulness. On the
one hand, research has shown that the market mindset
can prompt individuals to interact with others in a more
indifferent manner (Vohs, 2015; Wang et al., 2020), since
the nature of the market accentuates logic, competency,
and self-­interest over emotions (Gasiorowska & Zales-
kiewicz, 2021). On the other hand, the current study did
not find a correlation between state empathy and so-
cial mindfulness in the mediation model. These results
seem to be in contrast to those of previous studies (Olga
Kuzminska et al., 2022; Van Doesum et al., 2013). This
may be due to the fact that compared with high-­c ost
prosocial behaviour, low-­c ost prosocial behaviour re-
quires less emotional involvement and a more cognitive
role. In other words, it indicates that cognitive empathy
(perspective taking) has a more significant influence
on social mindfulness than affective empathy (state
empathy).
5.3 | Theoretical and practical implications
As a theoretical contribution, the current study ex-
tended the literature on the relationship between the
market mindset and social mindfulness, supporting the
idea of the negative consequences of the market mind-
set while refuting views of its positive effects. From a
practical perspective, the present three studies remind
policymakers to pay attention to the adverse effects of
marketization on low-­c ost prosocial behaviour. Tradi-
tional Chinese culture has always emphasized the im-
portance of “performing good deeds, no matter how
small they may be.” However, this belief has been un-
dermined with the development of the market economy.
Therefore, policymakers should take proactive meas-
ures to mitigate the negative effects of the market mind-
set. Furthermore, since perspective taking serves as a
psychological mechanism, it is crucial to develop and
implement perspective taking intervention programs
(Cigala et al., 2015) to counteract the negative effects of
the market mindset.
5.4 | Limitations and future directions
There are several limitations in this study that can be ad-
dressed by future research. First, although we have con-
firmed a causal relationship between the market mindset
and social mindfulness through recalling shopping expe-
riences, the ecological validity needs verification. Fur-
ther research could investigate the relationship between
the market mindset and social mindfulness via behav-
ioural priming or by exposing participants to a real mar-
ketplace. Second, no intervention that counteracts the
deleterious effects of the market mindset on social mind-
fulness was examined in this research. Therefore, future
studies should strive to find efficacious solutions.
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
XIAO and XIN
6 | CONC LUSION
The three studies of the current contribution explored
the impact of the market mindset on social mindfulness
and its underlying psychological mechanism. Results re-
vealed that individuals who were activating the market
mindset showed less social mindfulness. Furthermore,
perspective taking, rather than state empathy, played a
mediating role in the relationship between the market
mindset and social mindfulness. In summary, the mar-
ket mindset erodes people's social mindfulness via per-
spective taking.
AU T HOR C ON T R I BU T ION S
Huiwen Xiao: Conceptualization; data curation; formal
analysis; investigation; writing –­original draft. Ziqiang
Xin: Conceptualization; formal analysis; funding acqui-
sition; methodology; project administration; supervi-
sion; validation; writing –­review and editing.
F U N DI NG I N F OR M AT ION
This paper was supported by the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities and the Research
Funds of Renmin University of China (no. 22XNKJ01).
C ON F L IC T OF I N T E R E ST STAT E M E N T
The authors have no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y STAT E M E N T
The data are available at our OSF page (https://osf.io/
ck7dv/?view_only=b17b7e466d304ee5a748d8b422cefac5)
E T H IC S STAT E M E N T
The all studies were approved by the Institutional Re-
view Board of Department of Psychology, Renmin Uni-
versity of China.
R E S E A RC H M AT E R I A L S STAT E M E N T
Research materials can be made available upon request
from the corresponding author.
ORC I D
Huiwen Xiao https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4312-978X
Ziqiang Xin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9983-2322
R EF ER ENCE S
Baldassarri, D. (2020). Market integration accounts for local variation
in generalized altruism in a nationwide lost-­letter experiment.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 117(6), 2858–2863. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.18199​34117
Bartling, B., Weber, R. A., & Yao, L. (2014). Do markets erode social
responsibility? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 219–266.
https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju031
Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz,
B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern:
Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 93(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/002
2-­3514.93.1.65

MARKET MINDSET ERODES SOCIAL MINDFULNESS
Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and em-
pathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with dif-
ferent motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55(1),
19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­6494.1987.tb004​26.x
Bauer, M. A., Wilkie, J. E. B., Kim, J. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V.
(2012). Cuing consumerism: Situational materialism undermines
personal and social well-­b eing. Psychological Science, 23(5), 517–
523. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567​97611​429579
Belacchi, C., & Farina, E. (2012). Feeling and thinking of others:
Affective and cognitive empathy and emotion comprehension in
prosocial/hostile preschoolers. Aggressive Behavior, 38(2), 150–
165. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21415
Bensalah, L., Caillies, S., & Anduze, M. (2016). Links among cogni-
tive empathy, theory of mind, and affective perspective taking by
young children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 177(1), 17–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221​325.2015.1106438
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-­
assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-­7916(94)90063​-­9
Brandts, J., & Riedl, A. (2020). Market interaction and efficient co-
operation. European Economic Review, 121, 103318. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.euroe​c orev.2019.103318
Caruso, E. M., Vohs, K. D., Baxter, B., & Waytz, A. (2013). Mere expo-
sure to money increases endorsement of free-­market systems and
social inequality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
142(2), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029288
Cigala, A., Mori, A., & Fangareggi, F. (2015). Learning others' point
of view: Perspective taking and prosocial behaviour in pre-
schoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 185(8), 1199–1215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004​430.2014.987272
Cohn, A., Fehr, E., & Maréchal, M. A. (2014). Business culture and
dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature, 516(7529), 86–89.
https://doi.org/10.1038/natur​e13977
Dou, K., Wang, Y. J., Li, J. B., Li, J. J., & Nie, Y. G. (2018). Perceiving
high social mindfulness during interpersonal interaction
promotes cooperative behaviours. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 21(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12210
Falk, A., & Szech, N. (2013). Morals and markets. Science, 340(6133),
707–711. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien​c e.1231566
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework
for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review,
99(4), 689–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­295X.99.4.689
Fiske, A. P., Seibt, B., & Schubert, T. (2019). The sudden devotion
emotion: Kama muta and the cultural practices whose func-
tion is to evoke it. Emotion Review, 11(1), 74–86. https://doi.
org/10.1177/17540​73917​723167
Fosgaard, M. R., Fosgaard, T. R., & Foss, N. J. (2017). Consumer or
citizen? Prosocial behaviors in markets and non-­markets. Social
Choice and Welfare, 49(2), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0035​
5-­017-­1058-­4
Gasiorowska, A., & Zaleskiewicz, T. (2021). Trading in search of
structure: Market relationships as a compensatory control tool.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 300–334.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0​0 00246
Genschow, O., Schuler, J., Cracco, E., Brass, M., & Wänke, M.
(2019). The effect of money priming on self-­ focus in the
imitation-­inhibition task: A registered report. Experimental
Psychology, 66(6), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-­3169/
a000466
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don't pay at all.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791–810. https://doi.
org/10.1162/00335​53005​54917
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H.,
McElreath, R., Alvard, M., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Henrich,
N. S., Hill, K., Gil-­ W hite, F., Gurven, M., Marlowe, F. W.,
Patton, J. Q., & Tracer, D. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-­
cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-­scale
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
bs_bs_banner
Asian Journal of Social Psychology
| 11
societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795–815. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0140​525X0​5000142
Henrich, J., Ensminger, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Barrett, C.,
Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., Henrich,
N., Lesorogol, C., Marlowe, F., Tracer, D., & Ziker, J. (2010).
Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fair-
ness and punishment. Science, 327(5972), 1480–1484. https://doi.
org/10.1126/scien​c e.1182238
Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy.
In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cogni-
tion, and behavior (pp. 103–131). Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, M. L. (2001). Empathy and moral development: Implications
for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.
Kim, E. K., You, S., & Knox, J. (2019). The mediating effect of
empathy on the relation between child self-­expressiveness in
family and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 29(2), 1572–1581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1082​6 -­019-­
01676​-­2
Kirchler, M., Huber, J., Stefan, M., & Sutter, M. (2015). Market de-
sign and moral behavior. Management Science, 62(9), 2615–2625.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2246
Masten, C. L., Morelli, S. A., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2011). An fMRI in-
vestigation of empathy for ‘social pain’ and subsequent prosocial
behavior. NeuroImage, 55(1), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neuro​i mage.2010.11.060
Mischkowski, D., Thielmann, I., & Glöckner, A. (2018). Think it
through before making a choice? Processing mode does not
influence social mindfulness. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 74, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.001
Oatley, K., & Johnson-­laird, P. N. (1987). Towards a cognitive the-
ory of emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 1(1), 29–50. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02699​93870​8408362
Olga Kuzminska, A., Gasiorowska, A., & Zaleskiewicz, T. (2022).
Market hinders interpersonal trust: The exposure to market
relationships makes people trust less through elevated propor-
tional thinking and reduced state empathy. Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 76(8), 1830–1851. https://doi.
org/10.1177/17470​21822​1126416
Orcan, F. (2020). Parametric or non-­parametric: Skewness to test normal-
ity for mean comparison. International Journal of Assessment Tools
in Education, 7(2), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.21449/​ijate.656077
Oswald, P. A. (2002). The interactive effects of affective demeanor,
cognitive processes, and perspective-­t aking focus on helping be-
havior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(1), 120–132. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224​54020​9603890
Singer, T. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and
mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future
research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(6), 855–
863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubi​orev.2006.06.011
Van Doesum, N. J., Murphy, R. O., Gallucci, M., Aharonov-­Majar, E.,
Athenstaedt, U., Au, W. T., Bai, L., Böhm, R., Bovina, I., Buchan,
N. R., Chen, X. P., Dumont, K. B., Engelmann, J. B., Eriksson,
K., Euh, H., Fiedler, S., Friesen, J., Gächter, S., Garcia, C., …
Van Lange, P. A. M. (2021). Social mindfulness and prosociality
vary across the globe. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 118(35), e2023846118.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.20238​46118
Van Doesum, N. J., Tybur, J. M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2017).
Class impressions: Higher social class elicits lower prosociality.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 11–20. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.06.001
Van Doesum, N. J., Van Lange, D. A. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M.
(2013). Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social
world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1), 86–
103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032540
Van Doesum, N. J., Van Prooijen, J. W., Verburgh, L., & Lange, P. A.
M. V. (2016). Social hostility in soccer and beyond. PLoS One,
11(4), e0153577. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0153577

12 |   
bs_bs_banner Asian Journal of Social Psychology
Van Laer, T., de Ruyter, K., & Cox, D. (2013). A walk in custom-
ers' shoes: How attentional bias modification affects own-
ership of integrity-­ v iolating social media posts. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 27(1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2012.09.002
Vohs, K. D. (2015). Money priming can change people's thoughts, feel-
ings, motivations, and behaviors: An update on 10 years of ex-
periments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4),
e86–e93. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge00​0 0091
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological
consequences of money. Science, 314(5802), 1154–1156. https://
doi.org/10.1126/scien​c e.1132491
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2008). Merely activating
the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behav-
ior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 208–212.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­8721.2008.00576.x
Wang, X., Chen, Z., & Krumhuber, E. G. (2020). Money: An integrated
review and synthesis from a psychological perspective. Review of
General Psychology, 24(2), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892​
68020​905316
Werhane, P. H. (2019). The role of self-­interest in Adam Smith's
wealth of nations. In D. J. Bevan, R. W. Wolfe, & P. H.
Werhane (Eds.), Systems thinking and moral imagination:
Rethinking business ethics with Patricia Werhane (pp. 271–280).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­
3-­319-­89797​- ­4 _15
Xin, Z. (2019). Marketization and interpersonal trust decline in China.
Advances in Psychological Science, 27(12), 1951–1966. https://doi.
org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01951
Xin, Z., Liu, F., & Mu, H. Y. (2022). The instrumental use of sa-
cred values in advertising and its influence. Journalism &
Communication, 29(2), 97–128.
Xin, Z., & Liu, G. (2013). Homo economicus belief inhibits trust.
PLoS One, 8(10), e76671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ​a l.​
pone.0076671
1467839x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12582 by UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Wiley Online Library on [27/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
XIAO and XIN
Xin, Z., & Yang, Z. (2023). Provincial marketization and individual
financial literacy in China. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology,
and Economics, 16(2), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/npe00​0 0173
Zaki, J., Neumann, E., & Baltiansky, D. (2021). Market cogni-
tion: How exchange norms alter social experience. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 30(3), 236–241. https://doi.
org/10.1177/09637​21421​995492
Zaleskiewicz, T., & Gasiorowska, A. (2017). The psychological con-
sequences of money for economic and social relationships. In C.
V. Jansson-­Boyd & M. J. Zawisza (Eds.), The international hand-
book of consumer psychology (pp. 312–326). Taylor & Francis
Routledge.
Zaleskiewicz, T., Gasiorowska, A., Kuzminska, A., Korotusz, P., &
Tomczak, P. (2020). Market mindset impacts moral decisions:
The exposure to market relationships makes moral choices more
utilitarian by means of proportional thinking. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 50(7), 1500–1522. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ejsp.2701
Zhang, F., Dong, Y., & Wang, K. (2010). Reliability and validity of
the Chinese version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index-­C.
Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18(2), 155–157. https://doi.
org/10.16128/​j.cnki.1005-­3611.2010.02.019
Zhang, Y., & Xin, Z. (2019). Rule comes first: The influences of market
attributes on interpersonal trust in the marketization process.
Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 286–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/
josi.12306
How to cite this article: Xiao, H., & Xin, Z. (2023).
The market mindset erodes social mindfulness.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 00, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12582