New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Cash Rewards Might Make Us Unhappy

A recent study finds that when we can easily quantify a good we tend to be less happy with it, as opposed to those goods that are less easily quantifiable. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Consider the office birthday party and your slice of cake looks slightly smaller than some. Eh, probably no big deal. Now imagine that instead of cake, everyone got cash. And you got three bucks, while some others got four.

Researchers did this experiment. One group of subjects got cake slices of varying sizes. The other group got cash. Everyone could see what others in their group received. And those in the cash group who received less money than others were upset. But for the cake group, where the size of slices was harder to measure, everyone was equally happy. The study is in the Journal of Consumer Research.

In another trial, researchers found that subjects were unhappy when they missed out on a deal that had a specific quantity associated with it, like “buy one, get one free” versus a more vague deal that said, “get a larger bottle at the regular price.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers note that when you can’t easily measure something, you tend to be more focused on the experience that the good offers. They even say that we might be happier in a barter economy. Although it’s easier to carry cash than a lot of trade-able goods. 

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe