If you're sad and shopping, watch your wallet: A new study shows people's spending judgment goes out the window when they're down, especially if they're a bit self-absorbed.

Study participants who watched a sadness-inducing video clip offered to pay nearly four times as much money to buy a water bottle than a group that watched an emotionally neutral clip.

The so-called "misery is not miserly" phenomenon is well-known to psychologists, advertisers and personal shoppers alike, and has been documented in a similar study in 2004.

The new study released Friday by researchers from four universities goes further, trying to answer whether temporary sadness alone can trigger spendthrift tendencies.

The study found a willingness to spend freely by sad people occurs mainly when their sadness triggers greater "self-focus." That response was measured by counting how frequently study participants used references to "I," "me," "my" and "myself" in writing an essay about how a sad situation such as the one portrayed in the video would affect them personally.

The brief video was about the death of a boy's mentor. Another group watched an emotionally neutral clip about the Great Barrier Reef, the vast coral reef system off Australia's coast.

On average, the group watching the sad video offered to pay nearly four times as much for a sporty-looking, insulated water bottle than the group watching the nature video, according to the study by researchers from Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford and Pittsburgh universities.

Thirty-three study subjects - young adults who responded to an advertisement offering $10 for participation - were offered the chance to trade some of the $10 to buy the bottle. The sad group offered to trade an average of $2.11, compared with 56 cents for the neutral group.

Despite the big difference, participants in the sad group typically insisted that the video's emotional content didn't affect their willingness to spend more - an incorrect assumption, said one of the study's co-authors.

"This is a phenomenon that occurs without awareness," Jennifer Lerner, a Harvard professor who studies emotion and decision making, said in a phone interview. "This is really different from the idea of retail therapy, where people are feeling negative and want to cheer themselves up by shopping. People have no idea this is going on."

The researchers concluded sadness can trigger a chain of emotions leading to extravagant tendencies. Sadness leads people to become more focused on themselves, causing the person to feel that they and their possessions are worth little. That feeling increases willingness to pay more - presumably to feel better about themselves.

"Because the study used real commodities and real money, results hold implications for everyday decisions," according to the authors of the study, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, and presented Saturday at a meeting of the Society for Social and Personality Psychology.

Edward Charlesworth, a Houston-based clinical psychologist who was not involved in the study, suggested the misery-is-not-miserly phenomenon is rooted in a culture that encourages people to buy to feel better.

"Certainly, the advertising industry knows that," Charlesworth, citing as an example a 1970s McDonald's fast-food jingle, "You deserve a break today."

Charlesworth frequently sees clients in his clinical practice who overspend to deal with difficulties.

"It's not necessarily that you go to the mall and go on a shopping spree," said Charlesworth, author of a book on stress management. "It's often more subtle - you spend a bit more on something than you normally would. But if you magnify that over the course of a year, or a lifetime, those little things add up."

Personal shoppers, who make a business of prowling the aisles for others, say they frequently see clients stray from their budgets when they're feeling blue.

"At that point, cost isn't usually a factor," said Kalyn Johnson, of New York City-based Style by Kalyn Johnson. "They say, 'If I can have these wonderful shoes, I'll look better, and feel better.'

"But on the back end, I've seen buyer's remorse. This kicks in after they realize that new pair of shoes, or iPod, or whatever, didn't make them feel better, and then there's that sense of, 'Oh my God, why did I spend money on this?"'

The study released Friday was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health. Besides Lerner, the other study authors were Carnegie Mellon's Cynthia Cryder, Stanford's James Gross, and the University of Pittsburgh's Ronald Dahl.

如果你在傷心時(shí)購物，當(dāng)心你的錢包：一項(xiàng)新的研究表明人們?cè)谇榫w低落時(shí)，尤其是當(dāng)他們只關(guān)注自己時(shí)，花錢的判斷力就會(huì)化為烏有。

參與這項(xiàng)研究的人員，在觀看過一段由研究人員提供的傷感影片后，與那些觀看中性色彩的影片的人員相比，多花了近4倍價(jià)錢去買一瓶水。

這就是為眾多心理學(xué)家所知道的所謂的“傷心不吝嗇”現(xiàn)象，廣告商和店老板也是一樣，在2004年在一次相似的試驗(yàn)中被記錄下來。

這項(xiàng)由4所大學(xué)的研究人員參與的研究在周五公布，更進(jìn)一步回答了是否短暫的悲傷能夠?qū)е掠袚]霍錢財(cái)?shù)膬A向。

研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，傷心的人，當(dāng)他們的悲傷引起更大的“自我集中”時(shí)，更愿意無節(jié)制地?fù)]霍錢財(cái)。這一個(gè)回答可以通過計(jì)算參與研究的人員在寫關(guān)于悲傷的狀態(tài)文章，如描述影片的內(nèi)容影響到他自己時(shí)，有多頻繁使用 "I," "me," "my" and "myself"等詞來衡量。

這是關(guān)于一個(gè)男孩導(dǎo)師之死的短片，另一組觀看的是關(guān)于澳大利亞海岸巨大的珊瑚礁，大堡礁的中性色彩的影片。

根據(jù)來自哈佛，卡耐基.麥倫，斯坦福和匹茲堡4所大學(xué)的研究人員的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，一般來說，看傷感影片的人比那些看自然風(fēng)光影片的人，要多花近4倍的錢在那些華而不實(shí)的瓶裝水上。

33個(gè)研究對(duì)象－給參與研究的年輕成年人每人10美元－給他們一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)去買水，看傷感影片的那一組平均化2.11美元，另一組只花了56美分。

一位論文的共同作者說，不管這個(gè)很大的差別，悲傷的那組參與者，典型的堅(jiān)持說影片的情緒并沒有影響到他們多花錢－一個(gè)不正確的消費(fèi)觀。

哈佛大學(xué)一位研究情感和決定的詹妮弗.勒納教授在電話采訪中說：“這種現(xiàn)象的發(fā)生是無意識(shí)的，這真的與零售療法的觀念不同，那是一種人們感到消極時(shí)希望通過購物使自己打起精神的方法。人們不知道這種事情還會(huì)繼續(xù)”。

研究者得出結(jié)論，悲傷能夠?qū)е聵O度揮霍的傾向。悲傷使人們將精力更多的集中到自己身上，這就導(dǎo)致人們認(rèn)為財(cái)產(chǎn)不重要了。這種感覺使得人們花更多的錢－大概這樣可以使他們感覺好一點(diǎn)。

根據(jù)論文的作者說，“因?yàn)檠芯渴褂玫氖钦驽X和真實(shí)的商品，結(jié)果可以推廣到日常的決定”。論文將要發(fā)表在《心理學(xué)科學(xué)》上，在周六的社會(huì)和個(gè)性心理學(xué)學(xué)會(huì)上發(fā)布了研究成果。

位于休斯敦的臨床心理學(xué)家，沒有參與此項(xiàng)研究的愛德華.查利沃茲也表示，“傷心不吝嗇”現(xiàn)象在一個(gè)有鼓勵(lì)人們購物感覺就會(huì)好的文化基礎(chǔ)上”。

查利沃茲引用70年代麥當(dāng)勞快餐口號(hào)“You deserve a break today”來說明。當(dāng)然了，廣告企業(yè)懂得這個(gè)道理。”　

查利沃茲經(jīng)常在他的診所見到用過度花錢來處理困難的病人。

一本有關(guān)管理的書的作者查利沃茲說：“去超市或瘋狂購物沒有這個(gè)必要，更不可思議的是－你花更多精力在你不常做的事情上。但是，如果你把這個(gè)過程擴(kuò)大到一年活一生的時(shí)間，這些事情就會(huì)堆積起來。”

在過道上來回走動(dòng)以招攬生意的個(gè)體店主說，他們經(jīng)�？匆婎櫩蛡�心時(shí)花錢會(huì)超出預(yù)算。

紐約時(shí)尚的創(chuàng)立者凱琳.約翰遜說：“那時(shí)，費(fèi)用不是主要的。”他們說：‘如果我有一雙漂亮的鞋子，我看起來會(huì)更好，感覺也會(huì)好。’

“但是，過后，我就會(huì)看到買東西的人后悔。這發(fā)生在他們買過一雙新鞋或IPOD或任何不能令他們感覺好的東西之后，然后就會(huì)有一種“天哪，我為什么要花錢買這個(gè)”的感覺。

這項(xiàng)周五公布的研究經(jīng)國(guó)家科學(xué)基金會(huì)和國(guó)家健康機(jī)構(gòu)的批準(zhǔn)。除了勒納之外，其它的論文作者是卡耐基.麥倫大學(xué)的辛西亞.克萊德，斯坦福的詹姆斯.格羅斯，匹茲堡大學(xué)的羅納德.達(dá)赫。