The present research is conducted to investigate the influence of money priming on social distress induced by social exclusion situation, and how this influence may interact with individual's relationship orientation. Previous literatures on money have presented that money priming makes salient the concept of autonomy and self-sufficiency within human mind and strengthens the confidence that "the problems can be handled". Further studies have also presented that money may even buffer the social distress from social exclusion. The current research was conducted under the assumption that the buffering effect of money on social distress may be varied with regard to one's perspectives towards relationship: the communal and the exchange relationship. The communally oriented individuals focus on other's needs and aims to maintain social connection. For exchange oriented individuals however, net gains and losses should reach equilibrium to achieve autonomy. Under this premise, we expected that the effect of money priming may be more salient among the exchange orientation and less with the communal orientation. To be more specific, we hypothesized that the social distress of communally oriented individuals may not be buffered by money priming, whereas it may buffer the social distress of the exchange oriented individuals.

Two experiments were conducted to investigate whether the relationship orientation moderates the effect of money buffering on social distress from social exclusion. In both studies, the participants were first measured their relationship orientation. Then, they were to recall the past memories of social exclusion. Unexpected by the original hypothesis, in study 1, participants were primed with money-related and money-unrelated condition and were measured the social pain experienced from the recalled memories. The results showed that the communally oriented individuals primed with money perceived stronger social distress over the control condition. Also, exchange oriented individuals primed with money showed no difference between the control condition on perceived social distress. In study 2, after they were asked to recall the past social exclusion, they were treated to different conditions of money: money-loss, money-acquisition, and the control. After the money manipulation, participants were measured their perceived social distress. The results showed that the communally oriented individuals primed with money loss and money acquisition both perceived stronger social distress over the control condition. However, the exchange oriented participants showed no significant difference on perceived social distress when primed with money. Interestingly, both studies showed unexpected results to the original hypotheses. The implications of the role of relationship orientation on money influence and possible explanations on results are discussed.