Kl:

. _. am.
‘ "awry.“ .u\ #5” . . x 3
‘ i ,4. A «mun. 7x.)

 

A ﬁn.
is?

.g.

ﬁlmmw.
.. .4. Luz,
i}.

 

.(u
.f

3 n
‘W. .
.’.

.u‘lﬂWmmF
.:.!...;.|l. a

£0“.
.a .

 

 

‘ A \ﬁ..:<)\m.$u
v

"3)?!»qu .3 I. u

2:0,? .ILV).

A. uni (3‘.

.5 I. P

3.4.. 1%

 

LIBDARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR AND MARITAL SATISFACTION:
A COLLECTIVE CASE STUDY

presented by

Natasha Kendal

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Family & Child Ecology

MT Maﬁa.

Major professor

Date June, 2003

MSU i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

I DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

it 2173291012325

 

6

ram 112-2095

 

i016 Mir

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRC/DatoDue.p65—p.15

 

FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR AND MARITAL SATISFACTION:
A COLLECTIVE CASE STUDY

By
Natasha Kendal

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to Michigan State University
In Partial fulﬁliment of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2003

ABSTRACT
FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR AND MARITAL SATISFACTION:
A COLLECTIVE CASE STUDY
By
Natasha Kendal
This collective case study examined the relationship between financial
behaviors in families and marital satisfaction. Four White couples in their first
marriage with pre-school children participated in two-hour interviews, stmctured
money-related tasks, and filled out written open-ended questionnaires as well
as a marital satisfaction inventory. All data gathering took place in the couples’
homes. Guiding this study from a theoretical perspective was the dual lens of
Human Ecological theory (Bubolz 8. Sontag, 1993), with special attention paid
to Decision-Making Theory (Pennartz a Niehof, 1999) and Family Systems
Theory (Bowen, 1966), with the emphasis on the Feminist contributions to the
theory (Knudson-Martln, 1994).

Marital satisfaction was found to be important in how couples made
money-related decision in that those who were satisfied with their marriages
exhibited qualitatively different behaviors. This study also demonstrated that
being in debt or in constrained financial circumstances, although stressful both
on individuals and on marriages, is not necessarily an indicator of marital
dysfunction. Participants’ values surrounding money issues was the second
focus of this collective case study. The findings clearly indicate that, at least at

this stage of the family life cycle, family of origin has strong influences on how

couples deal with money. Societal values and pmures, as well as gender and
power issues, were found to be mitigated in their influence by the values of the
families in which spouses spend their formative years. More research is needed
in order to more fully understand the complex interaction of marital satisfaction

and financial behaviors in families.

Copyright by
NATASHA KENDAL
2003

Dedicated with love to
A. and P. -
We did it!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the love, support and
encouragement I have always received from my family. To my parents, Boris and
Galina Schneider, my sister and brother-in-law, Sonya and Sasha Danzig, and
my parents-in-Iaw, David and Marilyn Kendal - Thank you for believing in me.
And, of course, to my husband Aaron Kendal, Esq. for the food, the comfort, and
the support — Thank you.

I want to thank the faculty and stuff from the Department of Family and
Child Ecology at Michigan State University for the years of patient instruction,
mentoring and advice. I especially like to thank Dr. Marsha Carolan for teaching
me the foundations of therapy and research, and always saying “You are almost
there — just keep going”. Your patience and experience made this dissertation
possible, and not nearly as painful as it could have been. To Dr. Robert E. Lee,
thank you for your insights into how therapy works - I think you would be
surprised at all the little hints, phrases and therapy tips your students learned
from you and now teach others. To Dr. Barbara Ames, thank you for your
unfailing professionalism and high expectations — I have always tried my hardest
to meet them. To Dr. Elaine Yakura, thank you for your insurmountable
knowledge of qualitative methodology and your willingness to share it with your
students.

I am grateful for the years of companionship and genuine friendship with
all of my colleagues in the Marriage and Family Therapy program. I have always

thought that the people and the life-long friendships made this program the best.

vi

I would like to acknowledge the support, patience and the mentoring I
received at the Employee Assistance Program. Torn Helma and Pat Sorg, thank
you! And ﬁnally, this dissertation would never be completed without the
knowledgeable support of Robin Pulford and my Writing Center friends — thank

you for the hours of patient editing and all the words of encouragement.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION...
Signiﬁcance of the Problem
Purpose of the Study. .
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Human Ecological.
Values from a Family EcoIogical PerspectIve
Decision Making Theory... .. .
Power Approach to Decision Making
Family Systems Theory...

Feminist Elaboration on Family Systems Theory...........'...'..

Definitions of Key Terms“
Overview of Methodology...
An Overview of the Following Chapters

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................
Gendered messages and power differences... .. ..

Family of origin issues. ..

Societal inﬂuences and MaterIaIIsm/FrugaIIty
Money-related values, attitudes and hidden issues.
Money allocation systems...

Financial behavior and maritaI satIsfactIon

Finances and Divorce...............

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................

Dyadic research methods... .

Qualitative approaches and case study methodology

Procedures. . ..
Researcher: Self as Instrument

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS... .
Couple #1 Patrick and Polly.”

Spending and Saving Behaviors”...

viii

xi

...xii

23

....24
........28
......32
.....35
......39
...43

.46

....... S4
......55
......59
Sample
Data Collection..................
Data Analysis.......

61

....63

64

. ...67
...71

.73

Family of Origin Issues and Receiving Help From Others ............ 79
Money Management and Gender lssues...... ......84
The Spousal Element............ .......86

Couple #2— Adam and Abby” 90
Spending and Saving Behaviors. .. ..91
Family of Origin Issues and Receiving Help” From Others ............ 94
Money Management and Gender Issues... .......100
The Spousal Element........................ 102

Couple #3— Ben and Barbara... ....108
Spending and Saving Behaviors... 1 10
Family of Origin Issues and Receiving Help” From Others... .1 16
Money Management and Gender Issues... .......119
The Spousal Element... .....122

Coup|e#4- Carl and Carol.. .. ......124
Spending and Saving Behaviors... 126
Family of Origin Issues and Receiving Help.“ From Others .......... 132
Money Management and Gender Issues... ....137
The Spousal Element... .....139

Cross- Case Analysis... 142
Data Matrix... .. 142
Answers to Research QuestIons .........149

CHAPTERS
Overview... ......162
Key Findings . 163
Theoretical FoundatIons 163
OtherFindings... .. 167
Genderand Power 168
Receiving Help from Others” .....169
Child Care Arrangements... ...............172
Methodological Issues .........173
Limitations... 175
Recommendations for Future Research .....176
ImplIcatIons ......177
Summary ......178

Appendix1
The Interview Guide... 181

Appendix2
The Written Questionnaire............................ .......186

ix

Appendix3
Informed Consent... 189

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 -Theoretical Framework.....................

Table 4.1 - Demographic information on the study participants...

xi

.71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 -Conceptual map9
Figure 4.1 - Cross-case analysis matrix: advice and personal values... ...148

Figure 5.1 - Revised Conceptual Map163

xii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This dissertation is a qualitative inquiry into how married couples perceive
and understand the multitude of money issues in their families. This inquiry was
based on a case study approach utilizing multiple sources of data that looked at
the issues surrounding family ﬁnances and marital satisfaction. The researcher
incorporated semi-structured open-ended interviews, guided observations,
questionnaires and a quantitative marital satisfaction assessment tool. The first
chapter of the dissertation presents the signiﬁcance of the problem, speciﬁes the
problem under study, and outlines the methodology that was be used.

Signiﬁcance of the Problem

Marital satisfaction is a multi-dimensional variable. Various instruments
intended to measure satisfaction in marriage look at such variables as level of
distress, problem solving abilities, communication problems, role orientation,
issues related to religiosity, raising children, friends, in-Iaws, work, and intimacy,
both sexual and non-sexual (Nelson, Smith & Ybanez, 2002). However, couples
themselves seem to have a very different idea of what troubles them the most: in
a recent telephone poll of married couples about top argument starters, money
was consistently ranked as the number one issue that led to marital arguments,
regardless of the length of marriage or the level of family income (Jenkins,
Stanley, Bailey & Markman, 2002).

Money is also often cited as a number one reason for divorce in this

country (Bach, 2001 ). However, this maybe a simplistic conclusion, as all couples

argue over money, whether or not they divorce later (Jenkins et al., 2002). It is
not just the presence of the money-related arguments that leads to marital
instability and divorce. The theoretical and empirical literature indicates that the
way couples handle arguments over money is more important than the mere fact
that these ﬁghts exist, because money fights rarely occur simply about money. If
ﬁnancial troubles were simply the problem, the solution would consist of getting
some sound financial advice, either from a professional or from a multitude of
printed resources and following the advice given. Rather, money matters are
obviously never that simple, in large part due to the fact “that money and finance
symbolize so much about how we view life, what we think is important, and how
we work together - or don’t - with loved ones. “ (Jenkins et al., 2002, p. 13-14).
Because money is reported to be the most frequent cause of
disagreements between committed partners, financial issues in families and
money-related conﬂicts deserve great attention from professionals who are
trained to support couples and encourage individual and relational growth.
Marriage and family therapists (MFTs) serve a wide variety of families with
diverse problems: addictions, abuse, parenting issues, anxiety and depression,
sexual dysfunctions and many others. Therapists receive extensive training in
family systems, clinical techniques and interventions, cultural and gender
sensitivities, life-span developmental issues, psychopathology, pharmacology
and many other content areas (Nichols & Schwartz, 1998). Unfortunately, family
resource management in general and family ﬁnancial issues in particular are not

required and often absent from the curricula. Lack of training and education

makes it impossible for the therapists to recognize signs of impending problems
in the population they are serving. Often, therapists have to rely on their own
judgment of what constitutes too much debt, unsafe ﬁnancial practices, or
unhealthy spending behaviors. This situation would be unacceptable in other
areas of clinical practice, such as eating disorders or sexual behaviors.

In a survey of 25 Marriage and Family Therapy Programs, Poduska and
Allred (1990) found that only one program required a course in Family Finance,
and two other programs offered it as an elective. Yet today’s families deal with
the dramatically increased complexity of ﬁnances and relationships: the multitude
of choices in ﬁnancial products and services; a sluggish economy and stock
market; issues of divorce and remarriage along with establishing and maintaining
several households; issues of downsizing of the workforce and shrinking savings
and retirement accounts. Given the use, misuse and conﬂict over money,
neglecting to train therapists to recognize and treat money-related problems
seems short-sighted.

Popular publications (for example, “Money,” “Kiplinger’s Personal Finance"
and “Family Money”) offer information related to family ﬁnancial issues, but
contemporary marriage and family professional publications do not demonstrate
any interest in these issues. The index of the seminal text (Nichols & Schwartz,
1998) did not reveal any entries under “money,” “ﬁnance” or “resource
management.” A catalog of the annual 2002 conference of the American
Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) did not list any posters,

seminars or lectures on the subject (American Association for Marriage and

Family Therapy Annual Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, Schedule-at-a-glance at:
http://wwwaamft.org/rem/conferences/Annug|/Anmﬂsched_ule.htm).

There are, however, some notable exceptions to the silent treatment that
the ﬁeld of marriage and family therapy has given to the ﬁeld of family ﬁnance.
These include Jennifer Daw’s article alerting professionals to the importance of
the area of family ﬁnances (1999), Daniel O’Leary and colleagues’ (1998)
treatment plan for couples with ﬁnancial issues, and a popular press book for
couples struggling with money by Natalie Jenkins, Scott Stanley, William Bailey
and Howard Markman (2002) who are noted scholars in the ﬁeld.

Currently, Americans are facing uncertain job markets, a slowing
economy, increased federal spending on the war against terrorism, and a weak
stock market. Downsizing, unemployment, shrinking retirement accounts and
high home foreclosure rates are commonplace. It seems that both young and
mature families are affected by the economy, with older workers are unable to
retire due to drastically reduced retirement savings, and younger workers are
unable to enter the workplace to take over retiree jobs. Likewise, established
middle-class families who have been earning high rates of return on their stock
market portfolios in the 1990s are watching their stocks dramatically decrease in
values (Anonymous, 2003,
http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/beigebook12003/20030423/default. htm).
During the bull market of the 1990’s, many individuals and families overextended
their credit cards, second mortgages and home equity lines of credit, hoping to

pay them back with future earnings. When jobs were downsized and the stock

market fell, families began defaulting on their mortgage obligations. According to
the Mortgage Bankers’ Association, 1.23% of all homes were in foreclosure in
2002, and this rate was the highest one on record (Gongloff, Sep. 2002). There
was no doubt that these difficult economic conditions are putting a great strain on
families.

Purpose of this study

This study presents the voices of four couples as they explored issues of
money, relationships, and meanings ascribed to the interaction of ﬁnances and
marital satisfaction. To date, very little research has been conducted on the
subject of the intersection of marital satisfaction and personal ﬁnance, thus a
qualitative research methodology is an appropriate choice. This methodology is
especially suited to topics that are unexplored and under—researched. This
method invites couples to speak in an open and frank manner in response to
open-ended questions. This study consisted of observations, in-depth interviews
and written questionnaires, the purpose of which was to give the spouses an
opportunity to share with one another and the researcher their own
understandings, values and beliefs.

Although there have been some studies linking disagreement about
finances with communication problems and marital satisfaction (AnioI and
Snyder, 1997), these studies have been quantitative in nature and have failed to
address the many “why’s?” and “how’s?” that therapists and families themselves
might have about this complex area. Speciﬁcally, it does not appear that there

has been research that attempts to understand what meanings spouses

themselves ascribe to their ﬁnancial and marital distress, whether they see a
connection between the two areas of their functioning, how they explain the
connection and how they conceptualize the complex relationships between
money, marital satisfaction, personal competency, and their earning and
spending behaviors.

Possibly, some of the uncertainty, discomfort and silence surrounding
money issues in the families stem from the complicated interplay between the
areas of family ﬁnance and level of marital satisfaction. It is unclear whether
disagreements about money occur before or after marital satisfaction is
beginning to decline. It is also unclear whether dissatisfaction in one area
inﬂuences the other and in what way. It is logical to assume that, like with so
many other domains of dyadic conﬂict, disagreements about money and
dissatisfaction with the relationship as a whole are mutually influencing and may
be inﬂuenced by or exert inﬂuence on a third construct, such as the level of the
emotional maturity, or the values held. This study attempted to begin to untangle
the complicated interplay of causes and consequences of money—related
problems, as well as meanings that couples ascribe to them.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Guiding this study from a theoretical perspective is the dual lens of Human
Ecological Theory (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993), with special attention paid to
Decision-Making Theory (Pennartz & Niehof, 1999) and Family Systems Theory
(Bowen, 1966), with the emphasis on the Feminist contributions to the theory

(Knudson-Martin, 1994).

 

Human Decision-Making Bowen Family Feminist Lens
Ecological
Theory Systems Theory
Theory

 

 

Important Domains

 

1 .
Values/Beliefs;

1. Power approach to
decision-making;

1. Multigenerational
family transmission

1. Balance of emotional
and intellectual systems;

2. Power is ability to make process; 2. Gendered
Macrosystemic decisions affecting 2. Differentiation; messages/bias! gender
inﬂuences. family; 3. Anxiety. roles;
2. Decision-making 3. Balance of
(functions and togetherness and
process). individuality.

 

Conceptual Framework

 

1. Terminal and
instrumental
beliefs; choice of
values (based on
what?); link
decisions to
values;

2. Advertising
and conspicuous
consumption.

1.a. Different types of
power (manifest, latent,
invisible);

1. b. Roles with respect
to decision-making
(detector/selector/effect
0r);

3. Process of making a
decision: recognize
need - identify
alternatives - choose
(limited to resources);
4. Allocation systems:
control vs.
management.

1. Family of origin
issues - transmission of
emotionality/ pathology/
values;
2. Marital satisfaction
and marital conﬂict over
money:
to reduce anxiety
moneyrjob as a leg of
a triangle
over/under
functioning;
3. Marital satisfaction.

1. Emotional vs.
intellectual vs. feeling
system (intuition/
spirituality) approach to
decisions;

2. Gendered messages
from childhood and from
society;

3. Personal
money/couple money.

 

Operational Framework

 

 

1. Differences in
couple’s values
(what does
money mean?)
Where did the
values come
from? How do
they dictate
decisions?

2. How does
society inﬂuence
family decisions?
Directly -
through
advertising or
indirectly - how?

 

1. How do the spouses
perceive power with
respect to money
issues;

2. What are their roles
in making decisions -
who decides that an
action is needed, who
chose action; who
acted;

3. What is the
allocation system used
by the family?

4. When partners see
different alternatives -
how do they decide?
Do they see all the
possible options? Level
of ﬁnancial education.

 

1. Differences in money
styles

2. Conﬂict/agreement
over money

3. Different level of
knowledge/involvement
in family money;

4. Process of conﬂict
and outcome - who
feels better? Worse?

 

1. How do decisions get
made and what
language is used to
describe them. Are
feelings attended to?
2. What are the
messages couples got
about men and money
and women and
money? Continue
getting as adults?

3. Does each spouse
have personal money?
Is there
coercion/Inﬂuence in its
use?

 

Table 1.1 Theoretical Framework

 

       
 

               
  

 
 
 

      
  
   

   
 

   
  

  

   

 

 

    

Ill Illllll’llillillillil .... i ”I ll

 

I H‘i‘i‘iiii‘t F m
“ llll . ms . .
/ l

       

 

 

 

 

 

a r ll I!
I'l'IiIII liiiilii I'lll ii

Legend

Number denote Research Questions

Arrows denote influence; double arrows denote mutual influence
Stripes denote Bowen Family Systems influence

Cross-hatch denotes Human Ecological Theory influence

Figure 1.1. mm

8

The theoretical framework is broken down into four columns:
Column 1: Human Ecological Theory (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993);
Column 2: The Decision-Making Theory (Pennartz & Niehof, 1997) component
to the Human Ecological Theory;
Column 3: Bowen Family Systems Theory (Bowen, 1966);
Column 4: The Feminist Lens on Bowen Family Systems Theory (Knudson-
Martin, 1994).
The framework is also broken down into three rows:
Row 1: Important Domains from each theory that were chosen due to their
pertinence to this study;
Row 2: Conceptual Framework, consisting of crucial concepts from each theory,
which informed research questions for this study.
Row 3: Operational Framework, or concepts from each theory that were further
broken down into operational questions, which became the basis for the interview
guide.

The conceptual map shows the relationship between ﬁnancial behavior
and marital satisfaction in the red central block. Bowen’s Family Systems Theory
(Bowen, 1966) suggests that this relationship will be inﬂuenced by the family of
origin issues, both directly, and indirectly through value formation. Additionally,
feminist-informed Bowen theory (Knudson-Martin, 1994) suggests that the
relationship between ﬁnancial behavior and marital satisfaction will be inﬂuenced
by the issues of gender and power. Inﬂuences of Bowen’s Family System

components are indicated using the striped pattern.

Human Ecological theory (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993) postulates that the
relationship between ﬁnancial behavior and marital satisfaction will be inﬂuenced
by the macrosocietal issues, both directly and indirectly, acting through the
formation of values. Human Ecological theory effects are indicated in the cross-
hatch pattern. The formation of values is dually inﬂuenced by the Family Systems
Theory and the Human Ecological Theory, thus there are two arrows that
connect the Values block to the central research question block. Double-pointed
arrows indicate a reciprocal relationship and inﬂuence, such as the relationship
between gender and power, and that between ﬁnancial behavior and marital
satisfaction. Arabic numbers on the conceptual map correspond to the research
questions, which will be discussed below.

Human Ecological Theory

Human Ecological Theory hypothesizes that humans are both biological
organisms and social beings and that human interactions take place in multiple
environments: the natural/physical environment, the human built environment,
and the socially constructed environment (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Human
ecology, general systems theory, home economics and other disciplines were
synthesized into Family Ecology Theory (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). This theory
integrates human development and family relationships within a family
resource management framework” (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993, p.424). Decision-
making process is integral to our everyday lives. Ten assumptions follow from the
basic premise that the family interacts with its environment and this interaction

constitutes an ecosystem. One of the core assumptions deals with family

10

decision-making. It is “...the central control process in families that directs
actions for attaining individual and family goals” (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993, p.426).
A multitude of decisions is made by family members in the context of formulating
goals and achieving them. The basic decision-making process involves the
following three steps (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993):

1. recognition that a decision needs to be made;

2. identifying and evaluating alternatives;

3. choosing one or more acceptable altemative(s).

Values from a Family Ecological perspective.

Family decision-making is a very complicated process due to a variety of
factors: types of decisions families must make, complexity of alternatives from
which choices need to be made; lack of complete and true information regarding
alternatives and potential outcomes, and conﬂicting values and beliefs held by
family decision-makers.

Values are explicit and implicit concepts that humans hold regarding what
is good and worthwhile (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Values are held by individuals
as well as families as a unit, and originate in the families in which humans grew
up as well as in the social-cultural environment. Social-cultural inﬂuences in
particular have a great effect on values, and these inﬂuences are often invisible,
or possibly only semi-conscious.

Values shape perceptions and inﬂuence the selection of goals as well as
ranking of alternatives (Paolucci, Hall & Axinn, 1977). Speciﬁcally, values serve

as criteria for goal selection and as aids in ranking available alternatives

11

(Paolucci et al., 1977). The family in which an individual has spent his or her
formative years, referred to as Family of Origin (FOO) in Marriage and Family
Therapy literature, is critical in value formation. Since valuing is often taught
implicitly, rather than explicitly, children learn a great deal about what they will
come to hold as important by observing their parents and the parents’
interactions with the environment. Values also serve as directing influences to
goals that families and individuals set as part of the management process
(Paolucci et al., 1977). Thus, individual and family attributes, such as values and
beliefs, help subjects in the process of decision-making to reach outcomes that
are desirable to them (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993).
Decision-Making Theory

Decision-making is central to family management process, which
incorporates various inputs, using numerous processes, including negotiation
with others, in order to produce outputs (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). The process of
making decisions serves several functions, such as to stabilize and maintain
family’s core values and to bring about non-disruptive change or maintenance of
the same routines (Paolucci et al., 1977). Decisions are based on the individual’s
image of an ideal, or desirable state, what should be done to achieve this state,
and what can be done in reality bearing in mind often limited resources (Paolucci
et al., 1977).

Images of desirable states, as well as ideas of what should or can be done
to accomplish them will differ dramatically from one family member to another.

Additionally, different organisms perceive dramatically different available

12

alternatives. These differences depend, in part, on their respective reference
groups, their specialized and general knowledge and their perspective (Paolucci
et al., 1977). For example, one family’s choice of a banking institution may
depend on such factors as: whether they know about and understand the
services and charges that banks offer, whether they have access both to the
physical bank building and/or the virtual bank and whether they have loyalty to a
particular bank or credit union, as well as a multitude of other factors.

Decision making is a process that requires cooperation of several actors:
“detector,” a person who recognized that a decision or an action is needed;
“selector,” a person who chose among the alternatives that are presented to the
family; and “effector,” a person who actually carried out the plans. One person
can meet one, two or all three of these roles (Paolucci et al., 1977). Power
differences are at least in part responsible for the choice of actors to fulﬁll these
roles.

Decision-making in families has been found to be different depending on
whether the individuals involved have been married previously. Persons in
remarriage perceive that they have more equal power in decision-making and
report that their second marriages are more egalitarian than their first marriages
(Crosbie-Burnett & Giles-Sims, 1991; Pyke, 1994). Although Kurdek (1990) did
not ﬁnd a signiﬁcant difference in the perceived decision-making power in
individuals in the first and second marriages, this could be due to the remarried
individuals’ higher standard for sharing power in making choices. The latest

study by Allen and colleagues (Allen, Baucom, Burnett, Epstein & Rankin-

13

Esquer, 2001) concurred with Kurkek’s (1990) ﬁndings of this effect of the life
course stage on decision-making in the families.

Financial decision-making, such as autonomous banking vs. joint bank
accounts also has been shown to be different in the individuals in their ﬁrst
marriage than in subsequent marriages (Allen, et al., 2001). Although ﬁscal
autonomy has been related to poorer marriage outcomes (Blumstein & Schwartz,
1983; Fishman, 1983), it has not been shown to relate to poorer marital
adjustment, lower marital trust, commitment, and emotional closeness in
remarried individuals (Coleman & Ganong, 1989). Other studies (Jacobson,
1993; Lown & Dolan, 1994) have found little relationship between pooling of
one’s ﬁnances and relationship quality and asserted that a choice of ﬁscal
autonomy was not related to the levels of spousal trust.

Allen and colleagues (2001) found that although remarried spouses
preferred more autonomy in relatively external aspects of their relationship, such
as finances, children, and social obligations, they did not want more autonomy in
relatively private aspects, such as affection, communication, and intimacy. The
desire for ﬁscal autonomy can be explained by a variety of factors: (a) remarried
individuals may have acquired unique earning and spending patterns, which they
were often reluctant to change; (b) remarried spouses may have been ﬁnancially
depleted by a previous marriage and/or divorce; (c) remarried individuals often
have ﬁnancial obligation to the ex-spouse and the children from the previous
relationship; and (d) individuals in the remarried group tended to be older than

those in the ﬁrst-married group (Allen et al., 2001).

14

Power Approach to decision making.

A recent text on household decision-making described seven different
decision making strategies (Pennartz & Niehof, 1997). This study will be based
on one of these seven, the Power Approach to making of household decisions.
The Power Approach explains behavior within families by the differences in
family members’ power (Pennartz & Niehof, 1997). Power Approach was chosen
in part because it is consistent with the author’s academic and clinical interests
and also because it lends itself well to the synthesis with Feminist Theory, which
will be discussed later in this chapter.

In recent years, most households in the Western world changed their
operating style from that of “command,” where one member, usually the head of
the household, made all the decisions, while the rest of the household
implemented and/or sabotaged his decisions to that of “negotiation” (Pennartz &
Niehof, 1997). Negotiating in families requires “discussion, arrangement,
consent, compliance, and accommodation of wishes” (Pennartz & Niehof, 1997,
p. 94). Power differences among members of the household will have great
inﬂuence on the extent to which each person’s needs, values and desires are
heard, acknowledged and taken into consideration in the negotiating process.

In contemporary American society, power is often distributed according to
gender and age, with older males often enjoying the most power as well as
access to the most precious and scarce resources (Pennartz & Niehof, 1997).
The differences in the amount of power that males and females, as well as

children and adults receive varies from family to family. Furthermore, the amount

15

of power that a particular individual wields is not always obvious to the outside
observer. For example, an infant is able to organize sleeping, eating, and
working schedules of parents and siblings, as well the channeling of energy and
resources of the entire household without uttering a single word. Additionally, the
phenomenon of the "power behind the throne” is well known and refers to the fact
that while one person may appear to make decisions, he is she may simply act
as a mouthpiece or an agent of another party.

Thus, this study will use the Power Approach to decision making, as well
as the focus on values from a Family Ecological Theory to understand family
ﬁnancial choices and actions.

Family Systems Theory

Another major theory that was used in this study is Murray Bowen’s
Family Systems Theory (1966). Feminist critique of this theory, as well as
feminist elaborations on the theory also will be presented. In this study, Bowen’s
concept of "multigenerational transmission process” will serve a pivotal role.
According to Bowen, this is the process by which "parents transmit varying levels
of their maturity/immaturity to their children” (Bowen, 1966, p. 362), and this
transmitted immaturity leads to dysfunctional behavior and marital dissatisfaction
between two individuals with varying degrees of (im)immaturity. Bowen’s theory
of intergenerational transmission will be used to explain the acquisition of money
styles, attitudes and beliefs by the spouses through their respective families of

origin.

16

Additionally, Bowen’s concept of differentiation (1966) was used to help
uncover why some couples seem to weather financial arguments with better
measure of success than do other couples. Differentiation of self is a concept
that is similar to the more colloquially used term “maturity” and denotes persons
who are able to strike an appropriate balance between sense of self and sense of
connectedness with others, as well as between the use of the emotional and the
intellectual systems (Knudson-Martin, 1994). A differentiated individual is aware
of his or her anxiety levels, the origin of the anxiety and is able to not only cope
with it, but use it as a source of information about his or her reaction to the
environment. For many individuals, one source of such anxiety would be
attempting to strike a delicate balance of togetherness and individuality with
those to whom they feel emotionally close.

Feminist Elaboration on Family Systems Theory

Gender has long been one of the most controversial subjects in Marriage
and Family Therapy (Goldner, 1985). All models of MFT have been criticized for
their treatment of women as, at best, inferior and unimportant, and, at worst, as
root causes of their own, their children’s and their family’s dysfunctions and
unhappiness (Walsh & Scheinkman, 1989). Bowen’s Family Systems theory is
no exception. Speciﬁcally, feminist researchers stated that Bowen placed too
much importance on the maternal line in the transmission of pathological
multigenerational influences, often ignoring potentially serious problems of the
paternal side. Children’s problems were often attributed to their over invested

mothers, who were in turn unable to separate from their own mothers, and so

17

forth. Absent fathers did not get as much attention or censure. Feminist clinicians
and researchers who have followed and expanded upon Bowen’s work, such as
Monica McGoldrick, Elizabeth Carter and Harriet Goldhor Lerner, have corrected
this omission (Walsh & Scheinkman, 1989).

Additionally, Bowenian therapists encourage clients to take a cognitive
approach to problem-solving, control their emotional reactivity, and not express
their long pent-up feelings of anger and frustration (Walsh & Scheinkman, 1989).
The “golden standar ” of a healthy individual, according to Bowen, is the one
who is “autonomous,” “being-for-self,” “intellectual” and “goal-directed” (Walsh &
Scheinkman, 1989) - all characteristics that this society praises in men. By
contrast, traditionally feminine orientation towards others and emotional
identification with them appears pathological and is devalued (Walsh &
Scheinkman, 1989).

There are, however, a variety of concepts within Bowen’s theory that
feminist researchers and therapists embrace. These included a mandate for soul-
searching and change that goes beyond mere symptom reduction, and the
gathering of information on the members of the extended family in order to learn
about them and the patterns of behavior that are present in the family system.

Later elaborations on Bowen’s theory have become more balanced in their
approach to males and females in therapy (Knudson-Martin, 1994). For example,
instead of encouraging a cognitive only approach to problem-solving, a more
balanced use of the emotional and the intellectual system has been advocated.

Instead of relying on individuality in relationships, a balance of togetherness and

18

individuality was emphasized. Indeed, togetherness is seen as a force that
facilitated the development of individuality and vice versa. Instead of focusing on
eliminating anxiety in the situations where the client’s differentiation levels are
being tested, clients are now being coached to attend to that anxiety, learn from it
and manage it (Knudson-Martin, 1994).
Deﬁnitions of Key Terms

Financial behavior

Financial behavior was the term used to describe earning, spending and
saving decisions and behaviors, as well as decisions and attitudes that
accompanied these actions. A continuum of the variation of ﬁnancial behavior
can be constructed, with high materialism on one end, balanced attitudes in the
middle and the attitudes of voluntary simplicity on the opposite end (Koutstaal,
1998). Materialism is the belief that material possessions are important, symbolic
of success, and are essential for happiness. Also, money is seen as a means to
solve problems, achieve goals and lead anxiety-free lives (Koutstaal, 1998). Belk
(1985) operationalized a three-dimensional scale, consisting of envy of the
success of another, possessiveness and non-generosity to deﬁne materialism.

Other examples of ﬁnancial behavior may include: having joint or separate
bank accounts; paying for items only in cash or carrying credit card balances;
buying new or used vehicles; owning a house, renting, or sharing housing with
family or roommates; having and following a budget or spending without a plan

and a multitude of other ﬁscal actions.

19

Financial Problems

A search of existing literature revealed a weak and implicit deﬁnition of the
term “financial problem” (Andersen, 2000). However, the following deﬁnition
seems both ecologically sound and systemic and was used in this study: a
“financial problem is any event, condition, or situation in which the process of
acquisition or expenditure of money, assets, goods, or services causes an
individual in the marital relationship to experience anxiety, dissatisfaction, or
physical distress” (Andersen, 2000, p. 8). Note that according to this deﬁnition,
both acquisition and expenditure of money can produce problematic situations: a
person’s workaholic behavior or erratic employment can lead to as many
problems as his or her spouse’s uncontrollable shopping sprees.
Marital Satisfaction

Marital Satisfaction can be deﬁned as the amount of satisfaction one
derives from his or her marital relationship (Spanier, 1979). In this study, this
construct will be measured both qualitatively and quantitatively. The Revised
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (R-DAS), is a widely used measure of marital
satisfaction. It measures dyadic satisfaction, cohesion and consensus (Busby,
Christiansen, Crane & Larson, 1995). Participants’ self-reports on their marital
satisfaction also will be solicited in interviews and written open-ended

questionnaires. Chapter 3 includes discussion of this instrument in greater detail.

20

Overview of the Methodology

The participants of this study included 4 married couples. In order to gain
a better understanding of the subject under study and to increase the richness of
the data, multiple sources of information were used. These sources included a
quantitative measure of marital satisfaction, Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(R-DAS) (Busby, Christiansen, Crane & Larson, 1995), an interview with couples,
an open-ended questionnaire administered to spouses separately, and an
observation of how spouses cooperate on a money-related task.
Research Questions
The following research questions were based on the theoretical and conceptual
frameworks.

Research Question #1: (Main research question under study)

What is the relationship between ﬁnancial behavior and marital
satisfaction?

Research Question #2: (informed by Human Ecological and Bowen
Family Systems theories)

What are the linkages between values and the ﬁnancial decisions made
by families?

Research Question #3: (informed by Bowen Family Systems theory)

What is the role of the family of origin in the transmission of the money

values, attitudes and beliefs?

21

Research Question #4: (informed by Human Ecological theory)

How does society influence the spouses’ values and the subsequent
decisions about money issues?

Research Question #5: (Informed by Human Ecological and Bowen
Family Systems theories)

How do issues of gender and power inﬂuence money-related values and
decisions, as well as marital conﬂict and consensus?

Overview of the Following Chapters

This dissertation consists of ﬁve chapters. Chapter 1 includes discussion
of the background and the problem under study, describes its signiﬁcance,
. outlines the theoretical background and the methodology that was used. Chapter
2 focuses on scholarship related to money-related issues in the family and the
interaction of these behaviors with marital satisfaction. Chapter 3 further
elaborates the case study methodology, Chapter 4 presents the ﬁndings of this
research project, and Chapter 5 discusses these findings and their implication for

further research and clinical work.

22

CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature

This chapter will focus on the review of the existing literature on the
subject of couples and money. Speciﬁcally, the following areas of scholarship will
be reviewed: gender-speciﬁc messages about money and power differences in
money-related decisions; family of origin and societal inﬂuences on the formation
and continuation of money beliefs, attitudes and values; money-related values,
attitudes and hidden issues. Additionally, money allocation systems and mutual
inﬂuences between conﬂict over money and marital satisfaction will be
discussed.

Lack of communication, sexual problems and money are frequent
presenting problems in the ofﬁces of marriage and family therapists (Daw, 1999).
Money-related problems are often multi-dimensional and are fraught with
emotionality and long-standing conflict. It is often difﬁcult to say whether anxiety
and depression are a response to ﬁnancial difficulties, or whether these negative
emotions led to the rise of ﬁnancial problems (Fitzgerald & Soderquist, 1998).
Additionally, when financial problems occur within a couple relationship, matters
become complicated in an exponential progression, as each spouse brings with
him or her values, beliefs, and emotional reactions which can be difﬁcult to
untangle. While helping individuals and couples engage in the search for insight
to problems and possible solutions, it may be helpful for the therapist to explore

the following research on dimensions of money issues in the family. This review

23

of literature follows the conceptual framework and research questions, presented
in Chapter 1. It also served to inform interview questions.
Gendered Messages and Power Differences

Financial problems are multi-dimensional, and their relationship with
marital satisfaction is not well understood (Poduska, 1993). Any discussion about
money, whether it occurs around the kitchen table, in an ofﬁce of an accountant,
or on a therapist’s couch, will involve issues of power, control and status (Daw,
1999). Spouses may use the ﬁnancial arena to attempt to control or punish one
another, or to bolster their fragile self-image (Smith, 1992). Monetary and non-
monetary contributions to the family’s income, such as salaries and child-rearing
activities, the pattern of money distribution among adult and child members of the
household, and the meanings that each person ascribes to money are very
important to understand, as these are the common antecedents of arguments
(Daw, 1999).

Perhaps the most obvious difference in the way boys and girls are
socialized is in the way they are taught to think about and handle money. Girls
are directed towards passivity in money matters, whereas boys are taught to be
proactive (Ealy 8 Lesh, 1999). These early messages result in two common
gendered money patterns that need to be addressed when working with couples
(Rampage, 1995):

1. Men who earn more than their wives (the vast majority of men) “tend to feel
entitled to make unilateral decisions on spending large amounts of money“ (p.

271).

24

2. Women, even those well-educated and competent, “often do not understand
their family’s ﬁnancial condition, a problem that seems directly correlated to the
amount of resources the family has” (p. 271 ).

In other words, when the family has relatively few assets, such as a
savings account and a house, women report relatively good understanding of the
situation. However, when the situation gets complicated by the addition of
pension funds, stocks, bonds, options, and real estate investments, many women
report being under informed and overwhelmed. This lack of knowledge and
frequent fear and apprehension that accompanies it, often leaves women unable
to ﬁght for their fair share of the settlement during the divorce proceedings, or
leaves them very vulnerable after the death of their spouse (Rampage, 1995).

The situation is even more dire for those few families in which the female
member of the couple earns more than her spouse. These “status-reversed”
couples were interviewed by Tichenor (1999), and the ﬁndings were compared to
the ﬁndings from interviews with those “traditional couples” in which husbands
earned more than their wives. “Status-reversed” husbands earned a range of
income, with an average of $22,000 per year to their wives’ $47,000, and
“traditional” husbands earned $45,000 compared to their wives’ $33,000.
Although the families did not differ with respect to age, length of marriage,
presence or age of children, ethnicity or religiosity, there was a large discrepancy
in the marital satisfaction: 64% of the reversed couples and 13% of the traditional
couples reported being dissatisﬁed with their relationship (Tichenor, 1999).

Several reasons were given for these high levels of dyadic dissatisfaction.

25

1. There was a relatively slower upward mobility of the husbands as compared to
that of their wives. In several cases, when the husbands actually experienced
downward mobility through job loss or layoff, their wives complained that the men
were not living up to their full potential.

2. The spouses did not discuss their respective employment situations and
salaries with each other or their family and friends, for fear of making the
husband feel inadequate. Some couples even chose to socialize with different
groups of friends.

3. High-earning women were still expected to contribute the majority of the
house-keeping and child-care labor, and were feeling resentful of this double
burden.

4. Women’s spending seemed to occur from the joint pool of money, whereas the
man was able to often have a private account and spend money without
permission or even knowledge of his wife.

Some feminist scholars have even suggested that money has gender
(Singh, 1997). This distinction occurs in men’s and women’s minds, as well as in
the ways the society in general treats different sources and uses for money. The
intrapsychic distinction is easily seen when both genders are asked why they
save and invest. Men generally reply that the goals for investments are
“freedom,” “risk,” “speculation," “excitement,” “success,” “prestige,” “power,”
whereas women report that successful investing will bring “ security,” “rainy day

funds” and “future” (Singh, 1997, p. 156).

26

Our society treats money in gender speciﬁc ways, as well: ﬁnancial
markets are associated with maleness, whereas household money is associated
with femaleness. Men are seen as knowledgeable about and responsible for
banking, interest rates, investments, and other money-related activities outside of
the home; women are charged with everyday household expenses, such as
groceries, children’s needs, and gifts (Singh, 1997). Historically, women have
been discouraged from participating in the decision-making regarding the
traditionally male arena of investing and banking, as they were not seen as
possessing a brain that is advanced enough to deal with mathematics and
economics involved (Ealy & Lesh, 1999). Men have been discouraged from
shopping for necessities, as in their naiveté about the costs of running a
household, will most likely spend much more than necessary (Singh, 1997).
Fortunately, with more and more women entering the workforce and becoming
interested in taking control of their ﬁnancial future, the stereotypes about female
incompetence have been slowly dissolving. As their wives spend more time away
from home, men have been fulﬁlling the role of procurers, and many have
become very adept at obtaining the best values.

Clearly, many marriages today have power inequalities. These inequalities
stem not only from income differences, but also from gender differences. The
power and gender differences are important elements in how couples approach
money issues and deserve attention both in research projects and in the therapy

room.

27

Family of Origin Issues

Money-related attitudes and beliefs, as many other beliefs, originate in the
families in which children spend their formative years, and are honed and reﬁned
following the societal ideas of what is good, appropriate and desirable (Poduska,
1993)

Families have a great deal of inﬂuence over the socialization of their
young, and that inﬂuence is clear in the messages children receive about money.
Money is a great source of power in families, since those who are more powerful
control the ability of the less powerful members of the family to access the
resources that are necessary to their survival (Millman, 1991 ). Additionally,
financial resources are often scarce, and allocation decisions need to be made,
putting family members into competition with one another. Ironically, although
financial transactions in the marketplace, such as securities sales, banking, and
business contracts are regulated (and some argue over-regulated) by various
governmental bodies, ﬁnancial transactions within families are not regulated, but
occur with very few explicit rules (Millman, 1991). In other countries and other
times, intra-familial monetary transactions also were subject to rules and
regulations, as evident in the rules of bridal prices, dowries, primogeniture, and
transfer of property, such as land, from one generation to the other (Frolik, 1996;
Millman, 1991; Stum, 1999).

In today’s society, the only principle espoused by many families is treating
their children equally by providing them with equal amounts of money. In fact, the

current law suggests that fair transfer of wealth to heirs means equal transfer

28

(O’Connor, 1996). This often leads to difﬁculties, as siblings usually have
different talents, aspirations and needs (Lustbader, 1996; Stum, 1999). The issue
of fair treatment does not disappear with children leaving the nest, as Americans
who have started rearing their families in the post-WWII generation are preparing
to transfer a large amount of wealth to their grown children. In the next twenty
years, as much as $7 to $8 trillion will be transferred from parents to their adult
children in gifts, trusts and wills (Millman, 1991) — and this transfer process will
be painful and fraught with anger, old grudges and disappointments for many.

Often, the most hurt occurs not during the transfer of valuable property,
but during the division of relatively inexpensive, but emotionally important
objects, such as favorite children’s books, hand-made objects, heirloom pieces.
Whereas valuable property such as houses and cars have titles that have been
speciﬁed in the will, the division of smaller, non-titled property is often overlooked
(Stum, 1999). lntergenerational legacies may be granted great power “to punish,
reward, protect, or correct imbalances” (Stum, 1999, p. 161). Research identiﬁed
five potential goals in the intergenerational transfer of property: “(a) preserve
memories, (b) improve family relationships, (c) be fair to all involved, (d) maintain
privacy, and (e) contribute to society” (Stum, 1999, p. 163)

Money has symbolic value, and it can be construed as tangible “proof” of
parental love, trust, affection and the uniqueness of the parent-child bond (Stum,
1999). This romanticized notion of money often stands in the way of honest and
direct communication about needs and desires, salaries and debts, wills and

bequests. Many competent adults see their inheritance money as special and

29

symbolic of their parents’ lasting love and affection for them, and consider it their
eternal helping hand from those who are unable to provide help and support in
person. The romanticized notions that spouses hold about their parents’
bequests, may get in the way of rational spousal discussions about how the
family may use this money and how it might be divided during the divorce
process, if it comes to that (Millman, 1991).

As evident from the work of Millman (1991), one of the messages about
money that children and adults learn in families is that it is incompatible with love
and affection: one does not request written contracts or promissory notes from
family members, who are to be trusted implicitly. On the other hand, every child
has had at least one experience when the needs of a sibling or a parent had
been met at the expense of their own desires. This dichotomony of expecting
only good outcomes, and having to contend with less than optimal results is often
difﬁcult.

Other messages from families of origin about money issues include:
money is security and/or money is a status symbol; wanting money for yourself is
selﬁsh and unworthy and/or giving to others is a waste of money; being
knowledgeable about ﬁnances is praiseworthy and/or unfeminine; best things in
life are free and/or money makes the world go round and many other often
conflicting precepts (Madanes, 1994). The messages about money we hear in
our families of origin can be explicit: “Pay yourself ﬁrst,” “Never use credit,” Count
your change before you leave the counter,” “Never lend money to friends.”

Oftentimes, however, the messages we receive are a lot more confusing, and it

30

is those implicit messages that usually have the greatest impact on our lives:
“Fathers manage the ﬁnances, and the rest of the household lives off allowance,”
“Children do not need to know how much their parents make and what the
family’s ﬁnancial situation is like,” “Everyone we know owns a house” (Poduska,
1993, pp. 25-6).

In addition to implicit and explicit family rules, there are intuitive family
rules, which are based on the heritage and the legacy that is inherited by each
person. This kind of legacy might include any old scores, or unbalanced Iedgers,
or debts - both monetary and non-monetary - that have not been paid in the
previous generation (Goldenthal, 1993, Poduska, 1993). Children who abide by
their family’s intuitive rules may, for example, have very deﬁnite ideas as to who
contributes towards siblings’ college educations, relatives’ immigration to
America, or the “black sheep’s” gambling debts. As children grow into adults and
form romantic relationships, they bring their respective families’ rules and ledgers
with them, and some attempt to balance these with their partners or children
(Goldenthal, 1993). When these rules contradict, or when spouses act believing
that their rules and those of their spouses are identical, family ﬁnancial conﬂicts
arise.

Although the challenges most adults have experienced in their families of
origin never result in extreme money-related behavior, some develop problems
such as compulsive shopping or gambling (Faber, 1992). One study found that

young people reared in families disrupted by divorce were signiﬁcantly more

31

materialistic and exhibited higher levels of compulsive consumption (Rindﬂeisch,
Burroughs & Denton, 1997).

Several explanations for compulsive consumption have been put forward,
ranging from biological, to psychological and psychoanalytic, to sociological and
macrosystemic, to psychiatric (Faber, 1992). Several studies have found that
compulsive shoppers report feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem, often
making frequent unfavorable comparisons to others, especially their siblings
(Faber, 1992; O’Quinn & Faber, 1989). Several subjects reported that their
feelings of low self-esteem originated in childhood when they were being treated
as different from the other children and always failing to please their parents
(O’Quinn & Faber, 1989). It is possible that children who felt that they did not get
enough loving, or were not lovable enough, grew into adults who use
consumption as a means to self respect and love.

Societal inﬂuences and Materialism/Frugality

Macrosystemic inﬂuences on ﬁnancial knowledge, decisions, and actions
are numerous. In recent years, interest in critiquing the consumer orientation of
our society has been high. Books, articles, web-sites and how-to manuals about
the dangers of living beyond one’s means and how to be frugal are plentiful;
unfortunately, scholarly research of this topic, beyond statistics on the nation’s
saving and bankruptcy rates, is still lacking.

High credit-card debt, worry about lack of savings and a possibility
of bankruptcy or house foreclosure can stress and strain even the happiest of

marriages. And yet more and more Americans ﬁnd themselves trapped in

32

Schor’s (2000) “The New Consumerism” — a pattern of upscaling of lifestyle
norms, acquisition of status goods and services, and a growing disconnection
between consumer wants and needs. Additionally, more people, especially
teenagers and young adults, put special emphasis on the brand and make of the
products they buy, as opposed to its quality, durability or value (Schor, 2000).
Symbolic meaning of acquisitions has become especially important (Schor,
2000)

Indeed, meeting non-material needs, such as admiration, love,
acceptance, and desire for success through material ends has become common.
Unfortunately, spending time in these mega-malls, or shopping on the lntemet,
via TV, or through catalogs, has not made Americans any happier. Some
researchers argue that this is no accident: while busy making shopping lists and
spending time at the mall, most people forgot crucial ﬁnancial principles, such as:
“No-thing (nothing) is worth the relationship” and “You can never get enough of
what you don’t need, because what you don’t need can never satisfy you”
(Poduska, 1993). In other words, as long as consumers choose to focus on
satisfying their immediate urges at the expense of long-term happiness and close
relationships, family ﬁnancial problems will only escalate. Often the same people
who spend on these little “indulgences,” are also debtors. Tolerant attitudes
towards debt, lack of self-control, sensation seeking, external locus of control (a
tendency to blame the external factors for their difﬁculties), use of improper social

reference group, younger age, and higher expected future incomes have been

33

found to differentiate debtors from non-debtors (Fan, 2000; Lea, Webley, 8
Levine, 1995).

Debtors, individuals whose expenditures exceed their income on a
consistent basis, have been found to have different spending pattern from
matched non-debtors: they spend more on luxuries such as car purchases,
household equipment, entertainment, alcoholic beverages, apparel, and food
away from home (Fan, 2000). Non-debtors spend more on necessities, such as
shelter, utilities and food consumed at home (Fan, 2000). Those who scored high
on materialism, the construct that was discussed in Chapter 1, were found to
need signiﬁcantly more income than those who scored lower on materialism, and
to be less willing to share their money and possessions with charities, family and
friends (Richins & Dawson, 1992).

The literature juxtaposes those who are high on the scale of materialism
to frugal consumers, who choose to sacriﬁce short—term satisfaction in order to
achieve their long-term goals, such as saving for a large purchase, retirement,
college fund, or to work less in order to spend more time with family (Lastovicka,
Bettencourt, Hughner & Kuntze, 1999). Frugality is conceptually deﬁned in the
following way: spending with restraint, care in acquisition of goods, resourceful
use of products and services, and limiting the external inﬂuence, relying instead
on own opinions (Lastovicka et al., 1999).

Since these attitudes are so very extreme, it would be reasonable to
assume that spouses who fall on different ends of the materialism-frugality

continuum would report high levels of money-related arguments and strong

34

dissatisfaction with ﬁnances. For example, one spouse may believe that
borrowing in order to make ends meet on a monthly basis is an acceptable
practice, while the other may insist that the family needs to decrease
expenditures instead. While one spouse may pride themselves in choosing
inexpensive clothing from thrift and resale shops, the other may value designer
labels. More research is needed to verify these assumptions about the level of
money-related conﬂict among spouses with different attitudes towards
materialism.

Money-related Values, Attitudes and Hidden Issues

As spouses grow up in very different family systems and are exposed to
varied societal inﬂuences, they will develop a wide range of values and attitudes,
including those about money. Values are relatively permanent beliefs about what
is desirable, worthy or right (Poduska, 1993). When limited resources need to be
allocated in a way that will bring out the best possible outcomes, personal values,
a reﬂection of what is relatively important in life, are used to make these
allocation decisions.

Although many partners ﬁnd that their values are not altogether dissimilar,
their attitudes are often very different. An attitude is a state of mind based on
judgments about the outside world (Poduska, 1993). Attitudes can be optimistic
or pessimistic, charitable or hostile, victim-like or winner-like (Poduska, 1993).
For example, although both parents may value education, one may believe that

public schools are a good choice for their children, while the other may hold that

35

a private religious school is the appropriate choice. In this example, a couple may
have a conflict over attitudes, not values (Poduska, 1993).

Little research has been done on the topic of financial values and
attitudes, probably due to the fact that the intangible personal characteristics are
very difﬁcult to measure. In one study in which ﬁnancial attitudes were an
independent variable, the researcher found that a positive attitude towards
planning was the greatest predictor of cash ﬂow management for the newlyweds
(Godwin, 1994). A newer study (Parrotta & Johnson, 1998) found that ﬁnancial
attitudes and ﬁnancial knowledge are correlated significantly, although not
strongly. Additionally, ﬁnancial attitudes inﬂuence the actual behavior of ﬁnancial
management, without an independent added effect of ﬁnancial knowledge
(Parrotta and Johnson, 1998). Examples of ﬁnancial attitudes used in the study
mentioned above included: “saving is not really important” and “ a written budget
is absolutely essential for successful ﬁnancial management” (Parrotta & Johnson,
1998). Thus, financial behaviors are better predicted by ﬁnancial attitudes than
by the knowledge about the world of ﬁnance.

Spouses’ attitudes about money may differ due to the meaning that is
attached to it. Singh (1997) suggested that there are two different types of
money: marriage money that is personal and private and not subject to laws and
contracts, and market money that is impersonal and subject to contracts and
laws. When a transition from one kind of money to the other takes place, conﬂicts

occur, such as when a couple goes through a divorce process and their private

36

and joint ﬁnancial arrangements become common knowledge to lawyers, judges,
mediators, and others.

Wilson (1999) also made a distinction between economic or objective
money and subjective and personal money. Finance professionals assume that
consumers are rational and will use money as a neutral medium of exchange,
and researchers from the ﬁeld of human ecology and home economics see
money as a scarce resource that provides access to goods and services (Walker
& Garman, 1992). Humans, however, use money in all kinds of irrational ways,
due to emotions and personal meanings they have acquired over a lifetime
(Bazerman, 1999).

As evident from the above discussion on money attitudes and beliefs,
most family money-related disagreements are not solely centered on dollars and
cents. Rather, they are disagreements about values and attitudes held by the
spouses. These arguments also expose money-related hidden issues: control
and power, caring, recognition, commitment, integrity and acceptance (Jenkins et
al., 2002). Whenever couples ﬁnd themselves keeping score, avoiding certain
topics of conversation, reacting to trivial and insigniﬁcant events, or arguing
about the same subject over and over, they are probably dealing with these
hidden issues (Jenkins et al., 2002).

Values and attitudes towards money can represent issues of control and
power. This can occur in a relationship when one spouse uses money to control
and dominate the other and/or when someone is particularly sensitive to being

controlled because of their upbringing or earlier relationship experiences (Jenkins

37

et al., 2002). Any decision, big or small, can bring up issues of power as
discussed in the ﬁrst part of this chapter. An interesting deﬁnition of power
emerged from study by Cohen (1998): families in which women had higher
incomes and more signiﬁcant occupational status (as compared to other
participants) consumed more housekeeping services (such as cleaning and
laundry services) and spend a larger proportion of the family’s income on meals
away from the house. Thus, women in these families had more power and
inﬂuence to persuade their husbands that the money spent on maid services and
restaurant meals is money well-spent. Additionally, this difference was found to
be signiﬁcant even when the husbands’ incomes were taken into consideration:
in other words, the disparity in the purchasing of services depended on the
women’s income, and not their husbands’ (Cohen, 1998).

Issues of caring and recognition were address by Hochschild (1991) in the
concept she called “economy of gratitude,” which is “a vital, nearly sacred,
bottom-most, largely implicit layer of marital bond. It is the summary of all felt
gifts.” (Hochschild, 1991, p. 499). Economy of gratitude is an accounting of gifts
given and received by the spouses from each other, and comparison of the
received gifts to those the spouses wanted to receive. For example, a busy
working mother may want to receive child-care assistance, whereas her
executive husband may want to give extra income for the children’s college
education. In this instance, the couple will not recognize each other’s basic
contributions and extra “gifts” to the household economy. Eventually, when the

work-home and money-childcare tension becomes serious, the spouses will feel

38

that their partner does not even care for them. In other words, not showing
gratitude has a direct negative effect on marital satisfaction. One team of
researchers (Zvonkovic, Greaves, Schmiege & Hall, 1996) found that different
couples constructed the wives’ roles as participants in the paid work force within
a context of their personal situation and opportunities and constraints, as well as
within the value frameworks they have learned in their ﬁrst families.

Issues of commitment are very real for many couples. Whenever
discussions about separate and joint bank accounts or prenuptial agreements
come up in a relationship, one or both of the spouses are dealing with issues of
commitment to the relationship. Discussion of relational trust and commitment in
an open way, rather than through other topics, such as banking or prenuptial
agreements, is a much more productive and, in the long run, relationship building
endeavor (Jenkins et al., 2002). Hidden issues of integrity occur in relationships
when partners do not trust each other completely and question each other’s
intentions, values and actions. For example, those raised agnostic may not be
used to tithing, which can appear to their religious spouses as selﬁsh and
unworthy (Jenkins et al., 2002).

Money Allocation Systems

Although married people enjoy a better standard of living, higher net
worth, and higher salaries than do single, divorced or cohabitating couples
(Waite, 2000), having to share financial joys and sorrows with another person
inevitably leads to conﬂicts. One of the common areas of conﬂict is the allocation

of all too scarce ﬁnancial resources in such a way that the most people benefit.

39

The most recent evidence indicates the following patterns of allocation systems
(Pahl, 2000):

1. Pooling arrangement, where both spouses deposit all earnings into one
account and both have access to it, considering all money “theirs” (50% of the
sample);

2. Allowance system, where ﬁnances are managed either by a wife or by a
husband (16% of the sample). Husband-controlled systems are more common in
unhappy and abusive marriages (Pahl, 1989).

3. Independent management system, where spouses each have bank accounts
and each pay their own expenses (small, but growing proportion of the sample).
Second and subsequent marriages tend to have independent management
system (Fleming, 1997).

These different patterns of allocation of resources can be explained by a
variety of factors: practical (who can get to the bank during business hours);
psychological (who is better at accounting and math); socio-economic variables
(in the working classes, women tend to have more control); and ideological
(different beliefs about sharing of responsibilities in a marriage) (Pahl, 1989).

Additionally, couple characteristics also are important: when the money is
very tight, women generally manage all the funds. As the family’s income
Increases, employment status starts to play a prominent role: as the husband’s
status begins to rise, he is more likely to control the money (that is make all the
important allocation decisions), while leaving the actual management of the funds

to his wife (Fleming, 1997; Pahl, 2000). For example, in such a family, a husband

40

will decide how much should be allocated for the family’s groceries and
provisions, and the wife would then manage the funds in an appropriate way.

Three types of control exist:

1. Direct control, where money is actually withheld by spouses. This method is
used in only 10% of the surveyed households, and is associated with low marital
satisfaction (Fleming, 1997);

2. Indirect control, which is achieved by psychological or emotional domination,
forcefulness in decision-making, and criticism of one another (Fleming, 1997);

3. Self-control, where spouses control their own urges with various degrees of
success. Studies found that self-control was exercised more by the women, who
typically believe that they spend their husbands’ incomes (Fleming, 1997).

Even when households have adequate income, individuals living within
them may still be poor. In general, men have more spending money and women
tend to deprive themselves, regardless of the allocation system used by the
family (Pahl, 2000). Men tend to hide money more than do women, and this is
especially true of secondary or extra incomes, although this tendency has been
decreasing in the recent years (Pahl, 1989). Generally speaking, household
allocation decisions and accounting has been found to be inconsistent, since
different parts of the domestic economy are likely to be subject to different rules
and procedures. However, these inconsistent rules are reﬂective of the character

of the individuals involved and the quality of their relationship (Pahl, 2000).

41

Another researcher, working with a New Zealand sample (Fleming, 1997)
found that there were three organizing principles that governed the way couples
managed their ﬁnances:

1. The principle of gendered division of responsibilities. This principles is
commonly seen in traditional couples, with strong division of responsibilities, both
ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial, based on gender roles. Males tend to have a lot of
authority, especially in the spheres outside of the home, while females often
occupy dependent roles;

2. The principle of common ownership. This principle is seen in couples who
believe that their incomes and expenses are common to both of them, and that
they are both responsible for the family’s welfare. These spouses are
characterized by a high degree of mutual trust and good communication skills.

3. The principle of individual financial autonomy. This principle is often applied in
families where both spouses earn income, and have separate areas of ﬁscal
responsibility, such as the husband paying for the mortgage and child support to
the children from a prior marriage, and the wife pays for groceries and insurance.
These families are characterized by respect for each other and are usually seen
as a partnership of equals.

Although Principles 1 and 2 and 2 and 3 can be combined in certain households,

Principles 1 and 3 are mutually exclusive (Fleming, 1997).

42

Financial Behavior and Marital Satisfaction

The mutual inﬂuence between the satisfaction with one’s marriage and
financial behavior is the core of this research project, and the existing literature
on this subject will be discussed in this subsection. Marriages may lead to
ﬁnancial conﬂict as two different people with often divergent values and opinions
are forced to join their ﬁnancial and labor resources in order to achieve a
common goal. Spouses are often seen as one joint legal entity, as in cases of
house ownership, taxation, and cooperative business ventures (Swenson, 1997).

Conflicts are relatively conscious disagreements between two or more
parties (Kirchler, Rodler, Holzl & Meier, 2001). Discussions are a part of the
decision-making process and center around the partners’ incongruous desires
(Kirchler et al., 2001). Although conﬂicts about the same topic can be very
stressful, especially if the issue in question remains unresolved again and again,
disagreements are usually concluded by a decision, which is acceptable to the
partners to a variable degree (Kirchler et al., 2001). Thus, conﬂicts and decision-
making process are not synonymous. Although individuals and families make
dozens of ﬁnancial decisions daily, ﬁnancial conﬂicts, fortunately, are more
atypical.

Theory suggests several different types of conﬂicts, according to whether
partners’ goals are in accord with each other: partners may construct the reality
in the same way, but disagree on attributes of particular options or they may
have very different ideas of what is desirable (Kirchler et al., 2001). For example,

a relatively minor conﬂict will arise when the spouses have agreed on the basic

43

attributes they are looking for in a new car, but disagreed on the details of the
purchase. In contrast, the spouse who grew up in a household where the
vehicles were used to communicate one’s business successes and borrowing
heavily on auto purchases was acceptable, will experience a high degree of
conﬂict with a person who is used to modest and previously owned vehicles.

Unlike conﬂicts that occur in non-intimate relationships, those which occur
within a marriage are often mitigated by the degree of love and harmony in the
home (Seymour & Lessne, 1984). The decisions that spouses make and the
conflicts that they have with one another occur in an emotionally charged
environment, and the role of these emotions cannot be ignored (Park, Tansuhaj,
& Kolbe, 1991). These emotions manifest themselves in a variety of ways (Park
et al., 1991):

- those members of the family who are willing to maintain a long-term
affectionate relationship will not be likely to use harsh uncompromising conﬂict-
resolution skills;

- the more intimate the members are, the more likely they are to use
cooperative methods, such as bargaining, joint decision-making or logical
persuasions; conversely, the less intimate and affectionate partners are, the
more likely they are to use coercion and authority;

- the individual with the greatest need for affection and intimacy is most
likely to use non-confrontational methods of conﬂict resolution;

- the extent to which family members agree on their values and goals will

determine the degree of conﬂict in the household.

44

Thus, happy and unhappy couples use qualitatively different conﬂict
resolution and decision-making strategies. It is unclear whether they are happier
because they know and use cooperative strategies to resolve problems, and thus
spare each other the guilt, the anger and the fear of the authority that comes with
coercive strategies, or whether they use those positive strategies because they
are satisﬁed with the relationship and do not want to jeopardize its future. This
case study addresses some of the complexities of these issues.

No standardized instrument exists at this time to facilitate the
measurement of relational conﬂict over ﬁnances (Koutstaal, 1998). Snyder (1981)
developed a 22-point subscale of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI) entitled
disagreements-over-ﬁnances subscale. This subscale is broken down into four
dimensions: perceptions that one’s spouse managed money poorly; ﬁnancial
insecurity as a major source of marital distress; ﬁnances being discussed calmly;
and the extravagancy of one’s spouse. Although the MSI has a dimension of
marital ﬁnancial arrangements, it is very lengthy and difﬁcult to score, and for that
reason was not used in this study. Koutstaal (1998) reported that previous
studies divided money-related conﬂict into three categories: difﬁculty talking
about money; inequality in the amount of power and inﬂuence in the issues of
ﬁnances; and the perception of being ﬁnancially insecure or out-of-control with
respect to money.

Research ﬁndings into the relationship between conﬂicts over money and
marital satisfaction have concurred that the two are strongly related. Snyder

found that disagreements over ﬁnances correlated strongly and positively with

45

global relational dissatisfaction (1981). Koutstaal (1998) found that adding
conﬂict over money to the regression equation predicting marital satisfaction
improved the predicted variability by 40-46%. Additionally, this finding held true
for both husbands and wives, and agreed with other similar studies (Aniol &
Snyder, 1987). Although conﬂicts over money eroded marital satisfaction,
happiness with one’s ﬁnances improved it (Koutstaal, 1998).

When marriages with low levels of satisfaction were examined with
respect to the common money-related themes, the researcher found that women
in these relationships report that their husbands earn less, manage money
worse, and control money more than the husbands of women with higher dyadic
satisfaction levels (Fleming, 1997). This study seems to suggest a causal link:
women become less happy as their spouses perform money-related tasks poorly.
The opposite conclusion presents itself in the following cross-cultural study:
Stack and Eshleman (1998) found that marriage has a positive effect on
happiness through two intervening variables, the promotion of ﬁnancial
satisfaction and the improvement of health. Clearly, ﬁnancial conﬂict and marital
satisfaction have a complicated non-linear relationship.

Finances and Divorce

A wide variety of ﬁnancial problems were found to be significant predictors
of divorce (Andersen, 2000). These problems included: lack of satisfaction with
one’s ﬁnancial situation, lack of satisfaction with one’s spouse as breadwinner,
perceiving one another’s spending as foolish or unwise, and the worsening of the

financial situation (Andersen, 2000). However, none of these variables, together

46

or separately, predicted more than 5% of the variance of probability of divorce
(Andersen, 2000). Thus, ﬁnancial problems by themselves seem to be an
inadequate predictor of relational distress and divorce (Andersen, 2000). A
reasonable explanation as to why the ﬁnancial factors were not more predictive
of divorce was proposed by the author of the study: “Since divorce is a costly
process, one or both spouses might have reasoned that if they were
experiencing ﬁnancial difﬁculties maintaining one household, how were they
going to afford the additional costs of running two households and paying legal
expenses?” (Andersen, 2000, p. 71). Other explanations of weak predictive
ability of ﬁnancial factors also are possible.

In an almost 45-year-old classical work on divorce adjustment, Goode
(1956/1965) asked recently divorced women to name the main cause(s) of their
divorce. Complaints that the ex-husband was an inadequate provider were
ranked as the number one reason for divorce, both in terms of percent of
responses and percent of respondents (Goode, 1956/1965). The complaint of
mismanagement of funds through gambling or spending too much on
entertainment, ranked eighth out of twelve possibilities (Goode, 1956/1965). On
the surface, the above figures are impressive. However, several questions
remain: Do the divorcing husbands perceive the reasons for the divorce any
differently than their ex-wives? If this study were repeated now, 45 years later,
would the results be any different? Do people who stay married experience the

same or different kinds of ﬁnancial problems?

47

Another research study from the 19605 (Levinger, 1966) measured two
more independent variables: gender of the divorcing individuals and their socio-
economic status. Levinger’s study combined the two problems of Inadequate
support (from husband) and poor handing of family money into one category
labeled “ﬁnancial problems.” He found that more wives (36.8%) than husbands
(8.7%) complained about money problems as a cause for divorce. Lower-status
wives were much more likely to complain about financial issues than middle-
status wives (40.2 % vs. 21.9%, respectively; Levinger, 1966). This study seems
to adequately answer the question of whether the two genders perceive reasons
for divorce differently: men emphasize financial problems as strongly as do
women. This conclusion seems logical for the 19605: when discussing support or
non-support, both spouses were most likely to allude to husband’s earning
power, which the wife is more likely to criticize.

When Goode’s classic work was repeated in the 1970’s, researchers
found that ﬁnancial problems, although still cited as reasons for divorce, receded
in importance, and issues of mental and emotional fulﬁllment were given heavier
weight (Kitson & Sussman, 1982). Another group of researchers who attempted
to duplicate Goode’s ﬁndings in the 1970s concluded that the reason ﬁnancial
factors receded in importance was that women participated in the labor force in
larger numbers, and thus also contributed to the ﬁnancial well-being of the
household and, presumably, shared in some of the power of decision-making
(Thumher, Fenn, Melichar, & Chiriboga, 1983). Thus, another question was

answered: do stated reasons for divorce change from decade to decade? The

48

research has shown that although money problems were still an issue, they
diminished in importance. It is also possible that partners who were divorcing in
the 1950s and 1960s cited ﬁnancial problems as reasons for divorce because
they were considered legally acceptable grounds in the fault-based system that
existed prior to the 1970s, thus possibly inﬂating the importance of ﬁnances as
reasons for divorce.

Amato and Rogers (1997) used archival data from 1980 to 1992 to
determine which variables increased the possibility of divorce. Four marital
problems were found to be statistically signiﬁcant predictors of divorce: inﬁdelity,
drinking or drug use, spending money foolishly and “irritating habits” (Amato &
Rogers, 1997). Spending money foolishly increased the odds of divorce by 45%,
compared to an increase of 100% for infidelity, 49% for drinking or using drugs,
and 39% for irritating habits (Amato & Rogers, 1997). Thus, in the 1980’s and
beyond, ﬁnancial problems, although not the strongest predictors, were
nevertheless signiﬁcant predictors of divorce.

A more recent study which reviewed the prominent theories in the ﬁeld of
divorce suggested modiﬁcations to the hypothesis that wife’s independence, as
measured by the ﬁnancial and other resources, was positively related to marital
dissolution, whereas husband’s resources were inversely related to marital
dissolution (Ono, 1998). In other words, traditional theory suggested that when
women had enough independent resources, they chose not to stay in unhappy
marriages; when husbands had a large number of ﬁnancial resources, women

may have decided to remain in less-than-optimal marriages to continue receiving

49

access to those resources (Ono, 1998). The Ono study (1998) adapted the
existing theory with the ﬁndings that the relationship between husband’s earnings
and marital disruption is modiﬁed by wives’ work: when the wives had no
earnings, lower wages obtained by the husbands were predictive of marital
dissolution. When the wives did have income, lower husbands’ earnings were not
a significant predictor of marital dissolution (Ono, 1998).

Financial distress has been found to have a negative effect on emotional
and physical health, as well as marital satisfaction (Koutstaal, 1998; Taylor &
Overbey, 1999). For example, both parents and adolescents have been found to
show higher-than-average rates of depression in households with high ﬁnancial
stress (Clark-Lempers, Lempers, & Netusil, 1990). Financial stress and conﬂicts
about money are especially common in families where one person describes
himself or herself as being a “saver,” while the spouse ascribes to the “spender”
philosophy (Taylor 8 Overbey, 1999). Couples with saver/saver orientation
experienced signiﬁcantly less conﬂict than saver(self)/spender(spouse) couples.
The amount of conﬂict that spender(self)/saver(spouse) and spender/spender
couples exhibited fell between the above two groups (Taylor & Overbey, 1999).
Thus, individuals who save more and marry those who support their spending
orientation report less money-related conﬂict than those who marry persons who
exhibit different spending tendencies.

Once economic stressors occur, a family is facing problems on multiple
levels: affective stage of problem perception, cognitive stage of decision-making,

and behavioral stage of decision implementation (Rettig, 1993; Paolucci, 1977).

50

Both men and women were found to engage in behavioral adjustment strategies
in response to perceived emotional stress, rather than as an outcome of
cognitive decision-making processes (Rettig, Danes, & Leichtentritt, 1997). It is
evident that for many families, once economic or ﬁnancial distress occurs, marital
distress soon follows.

Aniol and Snyder (1997) examined two groups of couples: those who
sought marital counseling and those who sought help with their ﬁnancial
problems through a local credit counseling agency. They found that two groups
were remarkably similar: both experienced higher levels of global relational
dissatisfaction, more difﬁculties in problem-solving communication, and more
disagreements about ﬁnances than did couples in their control group (Aniol and
Snyder, 1997). Approximately one third of couples seeking ﬁnancial counseling
had general relational distress higher than the mean of couples entering marital
therapy (and by implication, much higher than the distress levels in the general
population). One third of couples seeking marital counseling reported levels of
financial difﬁculties exceeding the mean level of difﬁculties of spouses who
sought help with their debts (and much higher than the average levels in the
general population; Aniol & Snyder, 1997).

Thus, there exists a pool of couples who are experiencing strong relational
and ﬁnancial problems, and who make a choice to pursue either marital therapy,
credit counseling, or both. Those who choose marital therapy may recognize that
their money problems are affecting other areas of their dyadic functioning, such

as parenting or their sexual intimacy. Possibly, their levels of distress have

51

compromised their ability to collaborate as married partners. Those who chose
ﬁnancial counseling may have done so because they are unable or unwilling to
acknowledge relational problems behind their spending behaviors, or because
money worries have precluded them from using their emotional resources.
Marital therapy may have been unavailable or unaffordable (Aniol & Snyder,

1 997).

Although it is clear that many families in marital therapy have strong
financial conﬂict, little attention has been given to training of therapists in money
issues, as discussed in Chapter 1 (Aniol & Snyder, 1997; Poduska & Allred,
1990). O’Leary and colleagues (1998) have made an effort to provide the
practitioners with the tools to help couples presenting with strong ﬁnancial
conflict. Their behavioral deﬁnitions of ﬁnancial conﬂict include:

“ 1. arguments over the amount of money spent by one partner;

2. arguments over how money is spent;

3. critical comments about partner not making enough money;

4. arguments over how money is to be saved;

5. feeling of being left out of decision-making regarding money;

6. suspicious that the other partner is secretively spending money;
7. arguments over the need to save money for retirement;

8. arguments over “legitimate” methods of reporting income for tax
purposes;

9. arguments over the need to shop for the best possible price on an

item.” (O’Leary, Heyman, & Jongsma, 1998, p. 92).

52

Guided by the conceptual framework and research questions, these
behavioral manifestations were used as an aide in constructing an interview
guide for the open-ended couple interviews and written questionnaires, which will

be discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

53

CHAPTER 3
Methodology

This study addressed the link between couples’ financial decisions and
behaviors and their marital satisfaction. More speciﬁcally, couples were asked to
analyze and report on:

1. Their ﬁnancial behavior and its effects on marital satisfaction;

2. Their values and beliefs with respect to money issues and the origins

of those beliefs;

3. Societal inﬂuences on their values and decisions;

4. The role of gender and power conﬂicts in their ﬁnancial decisions.

Although a quantitative tool was incorporated for triangulation, the
researcher relied heavily on qualitative approaches, which seek to develop
theories, concepts, and understandings from patterns in the data, rather than
collecting data to test preconceived models or theories (Creswell, 1998).
Qualitative research methods are particularly well-suited for areas of inquiry that
are under-researched, and are used to understand and describe the
phenomenon in question before valid hypotheses can be made (Creswell, 1998).
Additionally, qualitative methods are well-suited to researching complex events
and situations, where the full context may not be fully known.

Qualitative methods, when employed correctly and successfully, are
respectful of the people and phenomenon under study, and have received
positive evaluations from feminist researchers who strive to represent human

diversity, include the researcher as a person, and create a connection between

54

the researcher and the participants (Avis 8. Turner, 1996). The participants are
treated as experts on their condition or circumstance, and their lived experience
is highly respected (Daly, 1992). While working on this project, the researcher
attempted to include the participants in a process of data gathering and
knowledge generation in a non-hierarchical and a non-judgmental way by inviting
comments on the participants’ experiences and sharing the collected data with
them.
Dyadic Research Methods

Qualitative methods are well suited to using a family or a couple as a unit
of analysis (Daly, 1992). In a relatively new type of research analysis, the dyadic
analysis, the researcher is interested in the interactive properties on the
relationship, in addition to the individual processes that may be present
(Thompson & Walker, 1982). Dyadic research must include: conceptualization of
the problem from a relational perspective, use of subjects who are long-term
intimate partners, use of measurements that are applicable to one or both
members of the dyad, examination of patterns of interactions, and interpretations
and implications drawn about the relationship between the individuals
(Thompson 8. Walker, 1982). This study addressed all the above criteria for
relational research by using married couples, relational assessment tools, such
as the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and by the interpretation of the results
from the systemic standpoint.

Although research using individuals as a unit of analysis is interested in

such concepts as values, beliefs and opinions, dyadic research focuses also on

55

relational norms, rules, power differences, spouse inter-dependence,
complementarity and reciprocity (Thompson & Walker, 1982). Additionally, data
may be gathered from one or both individuals involved in the relationship. In this
study, data were gathered from both spouses, both conjointly and individually.
Individual characteristics (such as values and beliefs) and relational dimensions
(such as power differences and complementarity) were assessed.

Qualitative approaches and case study methodology

A collective case study is classified as an intensive mixed methodology
research method because it utilizes both qualitative and quantitative avenues of
inquiry (Sprenkle & Moon, 1996). This study utilized qualitative methods of in-
depth interviews, observation of completion of a task, and analysis of open-
ended written questionnaires. It aimed to understand the relationship between
financial behavior and marital satisfaction. Measuring marital satisfaction as
accurately as possible was very important, thus a quantitative tool was utilized in
order to increase trustworthiness.

This formal case study utilized the triangulation method of data gathering
by using both quantitative and qualitative measures. A formal case study is
designed to advance the knowledge in a particular field, unlike its informal
counterpart, clinical case study, whose aim is to assist the clinicians to
conceptualize their cases in a more systemic way (Moon & Trepper, 1996). In
recent years, the case study approach has been regaining its popularity in such
disciplines as sociology, psychology, education and family therapy (Moon &

Trepper, 1996).

56

A case study is characterized by three elements: in-depth approach to
data gathering; use of a small number of purposefully selected cases; and clearly
defined boundaries of the phenomenon under study in time and space (Creswell,
1998; Moon & Trepper, 1996). Multiple sources of information rich in detail and
context, such as observations, interviews, audio-visual recordings, and archival
documents, may be utilized (Creswell, 1998; Yin, 1989). One or more cases may
be studied at the same time (Creswell, 1998). Studies which analyze multiple
cases, as this project did, are referred to as collective case studies (Stake, 1995).
In choosing cases to study, Creswell (1998) proposes a selection based on
whether the cases offer different perspectives on the same problem, process or
event and cases that are unusual, or ordinary and accessible. This study
analyzed cases that were accessible and offered different perspectives on the
phenomena in question. Although all couples represented the same family life
stage - that of ﬁrst-time married parents with young children in the home — their
occupations and incomes varied dramatically, from under $5,000 to over
$100,000 annually. The diversity of participants allowed the researcher to assess
the phenomenon of money management in couples with very different amount of
resources to manage.

One of the hallmarks of the case study approach is the use of multiple
methods of data collection, both qualitative and quantitative (Moon & Trepper,
1996). Use of several sources of data increases conﬁdence in the gathered
material, and promotes increased trustworthiness. Additional techniques to

increasing reliability in case study methodology include: persistent observation

57

(e.g., repeated listening to the audio tape of the interview), use of research
protocols (e.g., having and following an interview guide), and using multiple
observers (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Moon 8. Trepper, 1996; Yin, 1989).
Validity in case study methodology is assured by such techniques as:
observing in naturalistic setting, triangulating data methods and sources,
prolonged engagement in the setting, and discussing emerging conceptions of
the case/theory with colleagues (Moon & Trepper, 1996, p. 406-7).
In this study, the following techniques were used to ensure validity and
reliability:
1. persistent observation by listening to the audio tape of the interview several
times, and transcribing it verbatum;
2. use of research protocols, such as following an interview guide and cue cards
for prompting;
3. observing and interviewing in a naturalistic setting of a couple’s home;
4. triangulating data sources, by using a quantitative tool, an observation of
completion of a task, an in-depth interview, and written questionnaires;
5. using quotes when reporting findings and checking perceptions and
conclusions with participants via a follow-up telephone interview;
6. monitoring potential researcher biases, by frequent mentoring and consultation

with the research advisor and colleagues.

58

Procedures
Researcher: Self as Instrument

The self of the researcher is crucial in any kind of research undertaking.
This is especially the case in qualitative research, when the researcher becomes
the tool (Creswell, 1998). My interest in the topic of family ﬁnances started with a
clinical observation that although many couples in therapy alluded to money
problems, most were uncomfortable discussing the issue further. After further
exploration, it became evident that there may a parallel between the financial
problems and the the greater process of their marriage. This parallelism was
noted by Schnarch (1991) in terms of sexual issues and marital processes.
Schnarch (1991) called this parallel the “sexual crucible,” and it serves as a
metaphor for the sum total of the couples’ relationship, with all its positive and
negative aspects. I began to think about a “ﬁnancial crucible,” a concept that
substituted a couple’s ﬁnancial behavior for their sexual expression.

In addition to clinical inﬂuence, I had an opportunity to teach
undergraduate classes in Personal Finance. At that point, two things became
evident to me: Personal Finance is an increasingly complicated ﬁeld, and many
otherwise intelligent and emotionally stable people can behave very differently
around money. It soon became evident that money-related stressors and
concerns weigh heavily in almost everyone’s mind: many of my clinical
colleagues and friends were highly interested in getting help or advice with their
own, or the signiﬁcant others ﬁscal behavior. Thus, the idea of an in—depth

exploration of couples who have ﬁnancial issues (read: most couples) was born.

59

During the initial stages of project development, I was very concerned
about the secretive nature of money issues in the families and whether this
secrecy would make couples hesitant to discuss the matter with me. I attempted
to recruit families with and without marital and ﬁnancial problems, but the ﬁnal
sample consisted of relatively happily-married spouses with few disagreements
about money issues. This issue will be discussed further in the “Limitations”
section of Chapter 5.

I found that interviewing couples in their own home was both interesting
and challenging. One of the challenges was to work while young children were in
the home. Although I offered to reimburse for the cost of child-care, only one
couple actually hired a baby-sitter (and the baby-sitter, being about 8 years of
age, was ineffective in keeping the active toddler under control). In other cases,
children either napped, watched TV, or colored and played nearby as the
interview took place. Although the information about parent-child interactions
afforded by this arrangement was interesting, it was not part of the study and at
times made the audio tapes of the interviews difﬁcult to hear.

Interviewing in the participants’ homes allowed me to observe the
everyday arrangements of their living quarters: from freshly vacuumed floors and
spotless kitchens to open and overﬂowing cupboards; from neat living rooms to
an over-abundance of books, videos, and DVDs; from family portraits to old
Valentine’s Day ﬂoral arrangements. l was careful to be complimentary of each

family’s home and was provided with proud details such as length of home

60

ownership and narratives about the extended family in the photographs
displayed.
Sample

In a study with few participants, such as this case study, protection of the
confidentiality of collected data is paramount. All materials collected from the
participants, including audio tapes, questionnaires, and ﬁeld notes were kept in a
locked cabinet. The researcher and the advisor were the only people who had
access to raw data with identifying characteristics of the participants.

All participants were apprised of the conﬁdentiality of the information they
chose to share, and all signed informed consent forms, a copy of which can be
found in Appendix 4. In order to further facilitate honest disclosure, the spouses
did not have access to each other’s written questionnaires. The completed
questionnaires were returned to the researcher in a sealed envelope before the
researcher left the spouses’ home.

A purposive sampling of four couples was used in this study. As discussed
in Chapter 2, couples who are married for the ﬁrst time differ substantially from
remarried couples on several key aspects, such as decision-making and degree
of autonomy (Allen et al., 2001; Crosbie—Bumett & Giles-Sims, 1991; Pyke,
1994). This study analyzed couples married for the first time with at least one
child in the home in order to minimize family life-cycle stage discrepancies and to
better focus on the core issues of marital satisfaction and ﬁnancial behavior.

In order to reach a wide variety of participants, this study was advertised

in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Michigan State University Federal Credit

61

Union served as the main advertising site for this study. Over 300 ﬂyers were
distributed by the bank tellers through the credit union’s three local ofﬁces during
the four-week data collection period. Other non-clinical sites included the
Michigan State University Human Resource Development ofﬁce, Michigan State
University Child and Family Care Resources, and the Child Development
Laboratories. In all cases, potential participants were provided with contact
information and a summary of the project and were asked to contact the
researcher via a telephone number or by e-mail.

All participants were asked to complete an informed consent form, and all
were made aware that the participation in the study was voluntary, and could be
discontinued at any time. For participating in this study, all couples received a
copy of a recently published book on couples and money: Jenkins, N.H., Stanley
S. M., Bailey W. C. & Markman, H. J. (2002). You paid how much for that? How
to win at money without losing at love. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Data Collection

Data collection took place in several stages in the participants’ home.
First, a marital satisfaction tool was administered but not yet scored. The Revised
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (R-DAS), was used to measure marital satisfaction
(Busby, Christiansen, Crane & Larson, 1995). This tool was chosen due to high
reliability and validity, ease of administration and scoring (both take only about 5
to 10 minutes), and frequent use in the ﬁeld of Marriage and Family Therapy.
This scale provides an overall measure of marital satisfaction. The R-DAS is a

14-item instrument with three subscales:

62

1. Dyadic Consensus, which measures the extent of agreement between
partners on decision-making, values, and affectional expression;

2. Dyadic Cohesion, which measures the extent to which couples share
common interests and activities;

3. Dyadic Satisfaction, which measures the amount of tension in the
relationship, as well as the probability of a spouse terminating the relationship.

The range of possible total scores is 0-69. The mean scores for non-
distressed and distressed couples were 52.3 and 41.6, respectively. Raw scores
of less than 48 have been used to identify poor dyadic adjustment (Crane, Busby
& Larson, 1991).

The R-DAS is increasing in popularity due to the ease of administration
and scoring. The internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach’s alpha coefﬁcient)
is 0.90; internal consistencies for the subscales are lower, but within an
acceptable range. Convergent validity with its precursor, the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale, was found to be 0.97 (Busby, Christiansen, Crane & Larson, 1995).

After the R-DAS had been administered, a warm-up task used for
observation was presented in the form of a question (“What would you do with a
$20,000 windfall”?) and the couple was asked to come to a mutually satisfactory
solution, as the interviewer watched and recorded impressions. Upon completion
of the task, the couples were invited to comment on their experiences, emotions,
and thoughts about the task. The information obtained from the observation of
the task was incorporated into the in-depth interview, which took place next. The

interviewer was able to probe further speciﬁc instances that were mentioned in

63

the warm-up task. Couples were be interviewed together; an open-ended
interview pattern, following an interview guide was used (Appendix 1). All
interviews lasted approximately 2 hours. The interview guide was created using
the conceptual framework, discussed in Chapter 1. Every effort was made to give
each spouse an equal opportunity to participate in the.

After the interview had been successfully completed, the written
questionnaire was administered to both spouses with instructions to work on it
separately, in order for them to have an opportunity to disclose secretive or
sensitive information. The written questionnaire requested that the participants
report on basic demographic information, such as age, occupation, education,
income, and ages of children. Questions about hiding income and expenses also
were asked. Spouses returned the completed questionnaires directly to the
researcher in a sealed envelope, prior to the researcher leaving the home. At no
time did the spouses have access to one another’s answers. The written
questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2.

After data analysis was completed, follow-up letters were sent to all
participants. The letters thanked them for their participation and brieﬂy described
the results of the study. The letters were phrased in very general terms in order
to maintain anonymity of the participants.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was undertaken in several stages and was done manually,

without the use of qualitative data analysis software. First, the interview tapes

were transcribed verbatim. Secondly, the transcripts were edited while listening

64

to the original tape in order to “clean up” the text and clarify several passages
where the tapes became inaudible. Next, the data gathered from observations
and written questionnaires were analyzed and organized in a table format, which
will be presented in Chapter 4. This matrix format allowed easy “at-a-glance”
comparisons between couples on such key characteristics as age, occupation,
and income. Written questionnaires and observations provided vivid data that
was subsequently used to provide context and richness for the gathered data.
Field notes, which were taken immediately after the researcher left the
participants’ homes, were analyzed holistically and were used as an additional
source of observational data.

Next, analysis of the transcripts took place. Upon repeated readings of
the transcripts and ﬁeld notes, themes and categories within each case began to
emerge. Initially, ten codes were used in coding transcripts. Initial codes
included: Spender/saver orientation, current ﬁnancial status, attitude towards
debt, family of origin information, money management, communication/spousal
element, help from others, conﬂict, “keeping up with the Joneses,” and personal
values. Upon further analysis, several codes were collapsed and others were
expanded as needed. For example, “current financial status” was expanded to
reﬂect not only the present situation of income, expenses and debts, but also
past and present situations, when mentioned. “Money management” was re-
coded to reﬂect gender and power issues. Early memories and mentioning of

sibling relationships and money attitudes were included into the “family of origin”

65

category. The “conﬂict” category was expanded to include lack of conﬂict or the
resolution of conﬂicts. The ﬁnal list of codes and sub-codes is presented below:

Group 1: Spender/saver orientation, Attitude Toward Debt, “Keeping up
with the Joneses”

Group 2: Family of Origin (including sibling information and early
memories) and Help from Others

Group 3: Money Management, including Gender and Power components

Group 4: The spousal Element and Conﬂict/Conflict resolution

Group 5: Personal Values

Group 6: Contextual Variables

Each case was analyzed according to this pattern. The information
gathered from each couple is presented in a narrative fashion in Chapter 4,
taking the form of four stories, one for each of the couples studied. In these
stories, I will allow couples to speak to the reader through direct quotes blended
with my observations and analysis. After the within-case examination was
completed, data were analyzed according to similarities and differences found in
different couples. These ﬁndings will be presented with respect to the original

research questions in the second part of Chapter 4.

66

CHAPTER 4
Findings

This study explored the relationships between marital satisfaction and
financial behaviors. From in—depth interviews, observations, and analysis of
written questionnaires of the four participating couples, the data revealed how
different families arrange their ﬁnancial lives and how family upbringing and
societal inﬂuences shape the relationship between marital quality and ﬁnancial
behaviors. The first part of this chapter will present a data matrix of the pertinent
demographic data that is designed to assist the reader in placing these stories
into the context of the couples’ lives. The second part of this chapter will present
the within-case analysis of the ﬁndings in the narrative format in the form of four
stories - one for each of the participating couples. Finally, the cross-case
analysis will be presented and similarities and differences between cases will be
discussed.

The analyses presented below are the combination of four methods of
inquiry: interviews, written questionnaires, and observations of the environment
(field notes) and of the structured task. Observations of the surroundings in which
the interviews took place were an important source of data, which both
contradicted and conﬁrmed the couples’ self-reports. For example, one couple
who lived on governmental assistance had furnishings and modern audio-visual
equipment; another’s living room showed numerous pictures of friends and
relatives, but none of the couple themselves, not even on their wedding day.

Instead of the pictures, the prominent spot on the entertainment center was

67

occupied by a two-week old ﬂoral arrangement. When reporting the results of the
study, whenever possible, I quoted what I saw and heard from the participants. I
attempted not to assign my personal values to their reports and refrained from
making assertions until the very end of the chapter in the cross-case analysis
section.

The data gathered from written questionnaires was summarized in a table
(Figure 4.1), which reviews the demographic characteristics of the participants.
Names and other identifying information have been changed to protect the
interviewees. Pseudonyms of couples can be found in the columns, and
demographic and other pertinent information can be found in the rows. This side-
by-side format allows comparison of the couples.

The narrative analyses of the lives of the four couples is presented in the
identical format in order to demonstrate consistent findings and facilitate
comparisons between families. Each couple was assigned pseudonyms starting
with the same letter, and then that letter was carried over to their last name:
Patrick and Polly P., Adam and Abby A., Barbara and Ben B., and Carol and Carl
C.

Each narrative has six parts beginning with an opening quote - chosen to
encapsulate an important parameter of the relationship or the couple’s financial
situation. An introduction, describing the couple’s lives and their home is next;
four thematic sub-sections follow. These sub-sections emerged from the merging

of the codes, as described in Chapter 3. These sub-sections are: Spending and

68

saving behaviors, family of origin and receiving help from others, money
management and gender issues, and the spousal element.

The last part of this chapter presents the cross-case analysis of the data
collected. This analysis is presented in the form of answers to the original
research questions, as discussed in Chapter 1. First, a data matrix summarizing
two particular aspects of the gathered data (the advice given to other married
couples by the participants and their personal values with respect to money) will
be presented. The second part of the cross-case analysis will present answers to

the research questions.

69

 

88.5 88.82 cones

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

225 833m 36 83a
m: .3» 88.6» 88.3 88.8% 83% ”88.
”.28 ”.5 38.3.» 233m «:88 ”3.2 ”3.2 88.5
88.58 “:5 “as 8m 38.8» ”8.2” 83: 88.2
“.65 .0885 :05 .0885 ”com ”883‘ ”Ea—Z 6883 0885 C368.
0885 355 3:53 g ”.65 .2503 £95 £05 .0885 .555 355 .3 5:28
3:8? Sea 88.8» 385:3 «885.35 2.5835 Sec 5.8 £0885
Eﬁ a 88.: a -8868 88.85 See «3.3 82$ 88.3 83.3 See..—
a—Sﬁm . «83
use 8-8 8 Bias
3. $23 8 8 2. on 8 X 2-2 5oz
amaze: 5802:: 858
2: 6m 05 Ba c8858_ .25 89.968
232 8oz 282 8oz 3% 85> 30.. 85> 8523 885 5.58
Lease—83 Languages 838% gm 383m
.55 <8 63% 5% .35 sec .898 :83 89838
9.82
.283
82m
32 8.2. 886m 856m cosmon— onon owe—.8 owo=8 .6 .264
88303 88.28m 83.808 83.2.05 382 .882 58?: 28m 8.3:
aware“:—
SR 3 as» 3. c8» n 3% 4 a amen:
EB.“ a 9:qu
68.» e 8m @585 a: 8m a... e2 «.6 8m .283 9a Ag 3 8m a 2:6
an an a a mu 8 2 3 mg;
m
v 29.8 s 29.8 288 m 388 N 288 s 288 _ 288 3.523
.25 =5 83.8. 8m N 288 32 as? has 688 8.2 Es

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

udy participants.

70

rmation on the st

 

 

 

Table 4.1. Demographic info

Couple #1 - Patrick and Polly P.

Patrick and Polly met under unusual circumstances:

Patrick: I worked at the bank.

Researcher: and you (to Polly) bounced checks?

Polly: yeah!

Researcher (incredulous at having guessed): l was just joking.

Patrick: That’s exactly what happened.

Polly: I was like, where is all my money going? I never have any money.

So, he came over and balanced my checkbook.

Patrick: On our ﬁrst date, she invited me over to balance her checkbook.

Polly: I still have that checkbook.

Patrick, 26, is a student at a local Community College where he

studies residential construction, like his father and grandfather. Polly, 25, is a
junior in college where she studies Kinesiology. The couple has been married for
four years. They have two children: a 5 year-old son and a 2 year-old daughter.
The family has a comfortable 3-bedroom apartment on a lake that is clean,
orderly, and inviting. The sliding door in the dining room overlooks a small private
lawn and the lake. Children’s toys, blankets and videos are arranged in the living
room area, along with ofﬁce equipment (computer, printer, copier/fax machine)
and audio-visual electronics (TV, VCR/DVD, stereo). Family portraits and small
decorative touches adorn most of the wall space. The family appears calm,
friendly and relaxed. They talk easily, laugh often and are very attentive to each

other and the needs of the children.

71

On the day when I visited their home, the family had just finished their
“family night” meal of pizza bought in the neighborhood pizza parlor for $4. They
also rent two-for-one videos on that night. Two important things happen during
the weekly “family night” - the family gets together for some quality fun time, and
the parents get to take advantage of some good prices, as Patrick proudly states:
“We’ve done the whole family night for $15!”

Both spouses work part-time while attending school and share parenting.
Patrick and Polly are proud of the fact that they arrange their busy schedules in
such a way that the children are rarely left in day-care or with baby-sitters. Since
Polly works between 3-4 hours a week, and Patrick works 10-16 hours per week,
the couple has very limited ﬁnancial resources. In addition to relying on their
income from part-time employment, their student loans, and ﬁnancial support
from parents and grandparents, the couple was able to qualify for governmental
help with medical care, housing, and food, adding up to approximately $1,500
per month in beneﬁts (see Table 4.1 for further demographic details).

Patrick and Polly state that they are facing very difﬁcult ﬁnancial
circumstances, since their money never covers all the expenses they accrue, and
they are forced to rely on outside support. Although the couple does not have
any credit card debt at this time, they do carry over $15,000 in student loans, in

addition to being responsible for the lease on one of their vehicles.

72

Spending and Saving Behaviors

The spending and saving behaviors of the P. household were coded into
three separate yet connected categories: general reports of spending vs. saving,
reported feelings about debt and being in debt, and attempts to maintain the
appearance of a middle-class life-style.

Both Patrick and Polly report that they enjoy spending money as a form of
entertainment, although Patrick has a strong proclivity to save for “dire
emergencies or something [the family] decided to save for.” Although their
resources are very limited, they have many newer electronics and toys for the
children. When asked whether they would classify themselves as spenders or
savers, they replied:

Patrick: I would say both, I really would.

Polly: We’d like to be savers, but I think we are spenders.

Patrick: We’ve actually done pretty good. I’ve managed to keep putting

money away, you know, parts of whatever we bring in...

Polly: He is a saver.

Patrick: I managed to put stuff away and still have enough to get us by, so

that we have money to spend.

Although both spouses agree that they enjoy shopping and buying items,
their tastes for things differ: while Polly enjoys hunting for bargains on items she
may or may not need, Patrick buys items for the home that he thinks the family
will need, such as “gadgets, cameras, TVs,” as well as items that are advertised

on televised infomercials. Although Patrick purchases household goods and

73

electronics, he “has a guilty conscience” when it comes to spending money. He
rarely buys items of clothing for himself, even if someone else, such as his
mother-in-law, is paying the bill.

Polly states that she will “sometimes drive to every store to ﬁnd a good
deal.” If she is unable to ﬁnd a “good deal,” she will not buy an item in question,
making Patrick happy. Patrick believes that his time that would be spent
shopping around for a better price is more valuable than any savings he may
realize. For that reason, he is more prone to impulse purchases. Polly considers
him “gullible” and “easily sucked in” by advertising, and the couple has decided
that Patrick will only buy items featured on infomercials with Polly’s knowledge
and approval.

Polly states that she often ﬁnds exceptional prices on items that the family
does not need at the moment (and may never really need). In those cases, she
will purchase one or several of the items as gifts for future use.

Polly: If something is a good deal, I just can’t not buy it! It just makes me

mad not to buy it.

Researcher: Can you give me an example?

Polly: Like we have a box of gifts like if [their 5 year-old son] was going to

a birthday party or something...

Patrick: It is not a box, it is a tub!

Polly: It is getting bigger and bigger, it’s board games or puzzles that I

found for like $2 or something, that were super-cheap. That’s the only

thing I ever get in trouble for. He is always like “the gift-giving box is too

74

big,” because if I ﬁnd a good deal, and our kids do not need it, well, he’ll

get invited to some birthday party some time, and some kid will need it. I

have one for adults, also, they are just really cute things that I do not

need, but I can’t pass up a good deal.

Although she is willing to spend money on items of non-immediate
necessity, Polly occasionally hesitates to spend on items that she and Patrick do
need, if they are unable to ﬁnd a price range that suits them: “We are looking for
tennis shoes right now, and we were mad, because we could not ﬁnd them for
cheaper than $50 and we refused to buy them. Some things I will just buy, and
some I will not.”

The couple reports that on occasions such as these, one of the relatives
will take them shopping and cover the necessary expenses. Support from
parents and grandparents can sometimes reach thousands of dollars and will be
discussed in the theme of “family of origin issues and receiving help from others.”
Receiving this support makes the young spouses, especially Polly, feel guilty
about some of their spending habits, such as eating out and taking vacations.

Polly: We were talking about it the other night, and we are mad, because

we feel that we can’t really treat ourselves and like go out to dinner, or like

go out, like we are taking this vacation, and we are feeling so guilty, we
don’t want to tell anyone that we are taking this vacation, because we
really don’t have any money. And yet it’s something that we should be
allowed to do, take our kids on vacation [to Disney World]. But we feel bad

doing that, because we don’t have any money.

75

Researcher: When you say that you are feeling guilty, and you do not
want to tell, who are you referring to?

Polly: I feel bad telling Nana and Papa because they have bailed us out so
many times.

Researcher: His grandparents?

Polly: Yes, the ones who have bailed us out. I feel bad telling his parents, I
really do not know why. I feel bad telling my mom because she gives us
so much money. I do not know why I feel bad.

Patrick: See In that aspect, I do not really care.

Polly: I do care.

Patrick: It is our vacation. In some things, I have a guilty conscious when it
comes to spending money and buying things, and in other things, I guess I
am kind of selﬁsh and I could not care less about what everyone else
thinks, like in this kind of thing, I know that it is something that us as a
family needs, we’ve never been on a family vacation, and I do not see any
reason why we should not be able to. We have put together savings, we
really have not gone overboard with a whole lot of spending and over-
doing it, and when chance arises, who would not take a vacation.

Saving money is more important to Patrick than it is to Polly, although he

is not always sure why he feels the strong need to save, rather it is “something I

know we have to do, it’s something in me, I know we need to be saving.” Patrick

puts money into the savings account without Polly’s knowledge, although he

willingly and proudly shares the information about the account balances when

76

asked to do so. Polly appears to be grateful for his protective, although
somewhat paternalistic, attitudes towards the family and his need to care for
them. The family will be able to enjoy a Disney World vacation in a few months
due to Patrick’s diligence in putting money aside even though the family’s
financial circumstances are very constrained.

Researcher: So having that cushion of savings, what does that mean to

you?

Patrick: What does that mean? That means I don’t think about it. That

means I put it away, and forget about it.

Researcher: Sleep better at night?

Patrick: No, because the only thing I think about is what’s in the

checkbook. The savings account is just numbers right now, I mean I know

it’s there, but I really don’t think of it as cash, something I can go to, if I

can’t do with what’s in the checkbook, then I need to ﬁgure something else

out.

Along with a strong positive attitude towards savings, Patrick also has a
strong negative attitude towards debt. Polly shares his “hate” for the lease the
couple have on their truck, and the pride in “staying off from under the credit
cards, not letting [themselves] get into that trap.” This attitude parallels that of
Patrick’s grandparents, who, as typical for their depression-era generation, have
been strong proponents of living within one’s means and saving for a rainy day.
This inﬂuence will be further discussed in the theme of “family of origin issues

and receiving help from others.”

77

Because of relying on limited ﬁnancial resources, the P. family is not able
to shop as often as they want or to buy all the items they wish to purchase. This
puts them in a disadvantaged position compared to some of their classmates
who are either employed or are supported by their parents, and are able to afford
better quality clothing as well as trips and entertainment. The couple reports that
their friends and relatives, especially siblings, are materialistic. Polly reports
being very “mad” about this: “I would love to have enough money to buy those
fun shock shoes [aerobic shoes] that we want, or I’d love to buy new aerobic
clothes, and I never can, because they are so expensive.” When she gets too
upset about the situation, she calls on her mother who then takes the couple out
shopping. On those shopping trips, Patrick may or may not buy anything for
himself. He says “Not being able to ‘keep up with the Joneses’ does not bother
me. Even in high school... I was the cheapest of all the kids. I have never really
been a very stylish person. I have never really cared, and I still don’t. If my
clothes ﬁt, and I am comfortable, I do not really care.”

Occasionally, Patrick does wish to spend money, and he may feel some
guilt or reservation about this. Polly, on the other hand, reports that she is
content with using shopping as a form of both entertainment and therapy,
especially after being solely responsible for the parenting of two young children
or after being overwhelmed with school demands.

Patrick: I have my moments, I want to go spend some money,

Polly: Don’t say it like it is a bad thing.

Patrick: I do like spending money.

78

Polly: We sometimes say: “I feel like spending money today”...

Researcher: What does spending money do for you?

Patrick: I don’t know, I think it is a release, because I know right now we

don’t have the money, but I want to act like we do.

Polly: (laughs). We want to pretend. But what’s funny is that we never end

up buying anything.

Patrick: No. We’ll actually go shopping, and we’ll say “let’s go spend some

money and have some fun,” and we’ll go out and come back empty-

handed... I think most of it, part of it, is just to get out of the house.

In conclusion, although restrained by modest incomes and the necessity
to rely on parental support and governmental assistance, the P. family reports
that they enjoy attempting to emulate the lifestyles of their middle-class relatives
and friends. They enjoy shopping and spending money for the entertainment and
diversion value it provides, and they generally prefer to get as many objects as
possible for the dollar spent, as opposed to pursuing brand name merchandise.
The couple seems to strike a balance between comparison-shopping and
impulse buying, managing to both evaluate various options and to satisfy their
need to spend money.

Family of Origin Issues and Receiving Help From Others

Both Patrick and Polly come from divorced households. They report being
close to biological parents, step-parents, as well as to Patrick’s grandparents.
The main lessons learned from their families are: “spend money,” “learn to ﬁnd

good deals,” and “take care of your family.” Polly stated that although she was

79

young when her parents divorced, her ﬁrst money memories were positive, and
she always felt that there was enough money to satisfy her needs. Patrick’s ﬁrst
memories were different: he remembers that money had been very tight while he
was growing up, and he felt guilty when he needed to spend even a small
fraction of those limited resources on school clothing, or other necessary items.

While he was growing up and to the present time, Patrick’s grandfather
and father were in residential construction and they lived comfortably. Polly’s
mother earns close to a minimum wage as a secretary for a small business, while
her step-father is also self-employed. Both spouses state that all of their
relatives, regardless of the amount of earned income, enjoy shopping and
looking for good deals:

Patrick: But my grandmother is worse than she [Polly] is when it comes to

bargain shopping.

Polly: Oh, yeah.

Patrick: She would spend the whole day just going to six different stores...

Polly: Kroger, Meijer, she would drive to the Upper Peninsula to get

something cheaper.

Polly: His mom likes to think that they have money, but his step-dad is a

preacher, so they have no money.

Patrick: Even before that, they liked to spend their money.

Polly: Yeah, so when their income dropped to like 1/8th of what they were

making, they still spent just like before, they kind of don’t like to admit that

they don’t have any money.

80

The younger generation, Patrick and Polly and their siblings, prefer to spend on
name-brand items, much to the annoyance of the struggling young couple:
Patrick: My brother is awful, he won’t buy anything unless it has a name
on it.
Researcher: Like a designer label?
Patrick: Yes, I think he alone kept Abercrombie and Fitch in business.
Polly: He is to the point where it is annoying now. Like we get annoyed
with him.
Researcher: Why?
Polly: Just because it is such a waste!
Patrick: Because he is one of those people that would spend his money
and then complain about not having any....
Polly: Yeah. Like his sister, oh, my gosh! She makes $40,000 a year, but
complains that she has no money... I don’t know, it is weird, and then she
will go out and buy $3,000 of leather furniture, or like her bedroom suite
that she spent $5,000 on! We are like, What? Who the heck goes into your
bedroom? What the heck do you care if you have a bedroom suite for?
You know, for someone who does not have a lot of money, she sure has a
lot of money.
The families in which Patrick and Polly grew up continue to have a strong
inﬂuence on both of them. Patrick admits that his basic personality is very similar
to that of his grandfather: “l have a lot of his characteristics, very, very

overprotective, [like when] he did not want me to drive without a muffler. Polly

81

learned from her mother to always ﬁnd the best possible deals, sometimes
regardless of whether the family needed the item in question. Her mother simply
hid the spending from her husband, and now Polly “forgets” to record the
expenditure in the checkbook.

Over the years that the couple has been married, Patrick and Polly have
been recipients of multiple thousands of dollars of aid from both sets of parents
and from Patrick’s grandparents. The couple stated that they “get a lot of help.
We have never gone without, there is always been somebody to help us.” While
their parents are more likely to take them shopping, both as a form of
entertainment and as a way to help them manage the costs of living, Patrick’s
grandparents are more likely to help out with large expenses, such as car repairs
and credit card debt, although such help often comes with conditions on how the
money needs to be spent, and how the couple is to arrange their fiscal affairs.
The spouses seem not to resent the power their family members have over their
ﬁnancial decisions, but accept the help with gratitude and abide by the conditions
with which the help was given.

Polly: When we ﬁrst got married, we had big time debt, both of us...

Patrick: Yes.

Polly: That’s why we don’t do the credit card thing, actually it was a part of

the agreement, they [his grandparents] bailed us out of like $12,000 in

credit card debt, and we were not allowed to have a credit card for...

Patrick: Yes, this was right after we got married, and we did not get a

credit card just last year.

82

Researcher: So, part of the agreement with you was that they will pay it off

if you will be responsible from now on.

Polly: We were not allowed to have a credit card for a long time, and then

we got a debit card, because that just comes out of your checking

[account].

This ﬁnancial help from the older generation is accepted even when the spouses
know that the money is given without the consent of the giver’s spouse, such as
in the cases when Polly’s mom sends them cash without the knowledge of her
step-dad, or when she takes them shopping and charges the purchases on her
own credit card.

Although Polly’s step-dad is not as generous as her mother, he is a very
sawy ﬁnancier, always watching the market and the interest rate trends. He
owns his own business, and appears to be doing very well, although the couple
seems to be somewhat bafﬂed by his ﬁnancial success, and implied that he is not
always forthcoming in disclosing all his sources of income (either to them or to
the government). His contribution to the ﬁnancial well-being of the P. household
was serving as a co-signer on the mortgage note for Polly’s first house, which
allowed her to live in the house for free, while offsetting the mortgage with the
rent payments for the spare bedrooms. Polly subsequently sold the house, and
now she and Patrick rent an apartment. Polly and Patrick admit that they have a
lot to learn about the ﬁnancial world, and they take notice of how Polly’s step-

father arranges his ﬁnancial affairs and learn from him.

83

In addition to relying on family members for monetary support, Patrick and
Polly and their two children rely on the federal government for help in covering
basic living expenses. They basically “live off of student loans,” and have already
accumulated about $15,000 in debt. Additionally, their three-bedroom apartment
on a lakeshore, which probably rents for about $900—$1,000 per month, costs
them $16 per month because of Chapter 8 housing subsidy for which they
qualiﬁed. They also receive Medicaid beneﬁts and about $450 in food stamps
monthly. The spouses expressed some bewilderment that they were able to
qualify for these support services, but they expressed positive feelings about
these aid dollars.

Money Management and Gender Issues

As evident from the opening quote, Patrick is responsible for most of the
money management in this household. Polly does not ﬁnd this to be a hardship,
because the spouses are most often together when purchase decisions are
being made: “Most of the time I do not have a clue what we have, unless I go and
write a check... .Like if we are down to a couple of hundred bucks in the account,
he will tell me, you know, and most of the time we are together. I would never just
go out and buy the farm just by myself.”

The spouses have only one bank account, and both have full access to all
the money in that account. Money management gives Patrick a sense of control,
which he really likes: “I like to play with the numbers. To me, it is the knowledge
thing - I know that I know how to do it, and I know that I can do it, and I feel

smarter than her when I do it, and that does not happen very often.” When Polly

84

wants something that the spouses do not have money for, Patrick attempts to
control her with guilt [get the item] “if you really need it” — but otherwise, he “does
not say “no” often enough.” When a large purchase, such as a vehicle, needed to
be made, they first decided jointly how much they could afford to spend, and then
proceeded to walk out of several establishments that were not willing to accept
their terms. Patrick believes that a large part of his job as a money manager is to
hide, or perhaps shelter, a portion of their income in a savings account. Although
this money is technically not hidden from Polly, the balance of that savings
account comes as a pleasant surprise to her.

As discussed earlier, both spouses are very frugal with their income,
always looking for the best possible prices on items they need. Although they
shop without a list, they usually buy similar items from week and to week, and
often have a high degree of agreement as to what they need. Budgeting is very
difﬁcult for them, since their incomes are very irregular, and they ﬁnd that
worrying about deviating from the budget that is not working well is too stressful
for them. According to them when they had limited ﬁnancial resources, they
tended to agree about money issues. Interestingly, their major money ﬁghts
occurred when both worked full—time and had “more money to ﬁght over.”

Patrick agreed that he manages money for several reasons: he enjoys
doing it, he is good at it, he believes it is a man’s job and that Polly lacks the
ability to manage funds appropriately. Traditional gender roles are important to

the P. family. Patrick is feeling that not fully providing for his family is “eating him

85

alive.” Polly seems amused by his attitudes and states that she is not against
working while Patrick stays home with the children.
The Spousal Element

Both Patrick and Polly scored their marriage as very satisfactory. While
working independently, they both scored 52 on the R-DAS (with the cut-off for
distressed marriages at 42). Their strong relationship and the satisfaction they
find in each other is evident in their frequent and easy laughter, their light-hearted
teasing and in the attitude that they are united against the troubles in the world,
including ﬁnances. Their plans for the future are considerate of each other, and
they have a strong feeling that they complement each other’s strengths and
make up for each other’s deﬁcits. These young partners learned to rely on each
other early in their marriage, and they have understood that communication is
key to any successful relationship.

Communication about the relationship appears to be constant and sincere.
The spouses express conﬁdence in each other’s commitment to the marriage
and feel that they can broach delicate subjects with each other if those
conversations are likely to lead to the improvement in the relationship quality.

Patrick: Yeah, it really confuses me why they do [why other people ﬁght

about the money], too, because I really see as not being that big of a deal,

but... maybe it is just because we never had enough to ﬁght about.

Polly: I think you deﬁnitely have to talk about it [money], just like

everything else, you can’t just have your view, and then have their view

86

and expect it to be okay, you deﬁnitely have to... I am sure we had

different views when we first got married.

Patrick: Still do.

Polly: But one person would enlighten the other about the other side of it.

Patrick: We still have different views on a lot of things, you know, and

sometimes we come to agreements, but it is not without talking about it.

Polly: And it is not going to get you anywhere to yell at the other person

about it, because they just ignore you, you would have to just sit down

with them, and go “Look, here, this is why it is better this way” and then
they can go “Oh, okay.” Rather than (Yells) “LOOK, IT IS BETTER THIS

WAY” (laughs).

Researcher: So, it sound like it strengthens your marriage rather than

weakens it.

Patrick: I think so.

Polly: Yes.

The strategy used most often for conﬂict resolution in this household
seems to be humor. Spouses laugh easily and often. They ﬁnd each other’s
company pleasant. Additionally, Patrick admits to being very easy-going, and on
rare occasions when he does get mad, he ﬁnds that ﬁnding something to do
around the house provides him with ample opportunity to calm down and put the
current disagreement into perspective: “I would stop and think: is this really that

big a deal, if not, let it go.”

87

Money as an object of ﬁghts is very bafﬂing to this young couple. They are
at a loss as to why so many of their friends choose to ﬁght over money issues.

Patrick: Money is a root of all evil, all it does is cause problems, it you let

it. Money is there as a way for people to negotiate in society, and that is its

fullest effect, that’s all it does, and if you let it go beyond that, if you let to

determine how you live your life, and what you are going to do with your

life, and who you live your life with, and how you react to things, and all of

the some kind of psychology case.

Polly: So many people do that. I do not get it.

Patrick: Yeah, what is it — number one reason for divorce?

Polly: I just think that it is the weirdest thing to ﬁght about, because it has

nothing to do with him or I, it has nothing to do with how we feel about

each other, it’s out of our element that we are ﬁghting about, it would be

like ﬁghting about “It’s snowing” — who cares! We have no control over the

weather, why are we fighting? It has nothing to do with him or I, it is this

thing.

Researcher: So it is the two of you against “it.”

Patrick: Hmmm.

Polly: And even if you have it, who is to say tomorrow you are not going to

lose your job? You don’t have control over it. It, I mean, you can be stable,

and you can have a job, and you can have a savings, and blah, blah,

blah...that’s great, and that means that you took control over it but, I do

88

not know I just do not think that it should be something that should even

be in a marital relationship.

Patrick: It is one of those non-negotiable aspects of a relationship.

Polly: It should be something out of your relationship.

This couple seems to have a contradictory attitude towards money. On the
one hand, they seem to enjoy it, on the other, they seem to minimize its
importance. For example, after long awaited graduations, they are considering
accepting low-paid Vista positions. The student status of this couple may be a
factor in their attitude towards money. They seem to have a belief that their
present actions are not as important as their attitudes and future actions, when

they start their full-time careers.

89

Couple #2 - Adam and Abby A.
Abby: [describing Adam’s parents’ new house] They can bowl from one
side of the house to the other!
Adam: It is not that big!
Abby: They could skate from one side of the house to the other. Sorry, I
did not say that!
Adam: It is not THAT big! I mean it is like 2,500 square feet or something
like that.
Abby: Their kitchen is as big as our downstairs.
Researcher: (to husband) It sounds like you are getting defensive about
that. What’s that all about?
Abby: I just pick on him a lot.
Adam: She likes to harass me about my parents.

Adam, 30, and Abby, 28, are a graduate student couple with a two-and-a-

half year old son. On the afternoon when I visited their home, their son slept

while we chatted in the kitchen. Adam and Abby are relatively new to our

university town and have just started their second year of graduate studies. Both

spouses are in Education, Adam specializing in Sciences and Abby in Special

Education. Prior to starting her graduate education, Abby worked as a teacher for

several years, while Adam has been a student all his life.

Prior to moving to the university community, they had a “real estate

shopping blitz” and purchased a nice, although small, house close to school. The

house has three bedrooms, an attached garage and a lovely kitchen with a view

90

of the backyard and a large city park beyond it. The furnishings are modest, and
the kitchen has not been remodeled in a long time, but the house appears well-
kept, and a piano occupies a place of honor in the living room. The interview took
place on one of the coldest and snowiest days in February, and the walkways
and paths around the house, as well as one of their two vehicles, were covered
with snow and ice.

The spouses support themselves “quite well,” according to Abby, by
working for the University in various teaching and research capacities, in addition
to fellowships they received as incentives to attend the graduate school they
have chosen. Additionally, their son’s expensive part-time day-care is covered by
the University’s support program for student-parents. Their annual income,
including $500 in interest income, is well over $43,000 with Adam contributing
about 40% and Abby about 60%, even though he works about 40 hours to
Abby’s 20 hours per week. This difference can be explained by Abby’s fellowship
funding. This couple is the only one in the sample where the husband earns
signiﬁcantly less money than does the wife. Abby and Adam are not the highest
earning couple of this small sample, but they are the only couple who have
indicated that they have enough non-retirement savings to receive interest
income.

Spending and Saving Behavior

In the A. family, Abby is appears to be the saver, and Adam is a spender.

The basic spending plan in the A. household seems to be “spend as little as

possible, save as much as possible.” Abby freely admits that this pattern is not

91

likely to change once the spouses begin their professional careers; as she puts it,
“we will simply have more to be uptight with.” The most recent purchase that
caused disagreements and even arguments between these two mild-mannered
people was a purchase of a second vehicle.

Researcher: the car was a difﬁcult choice, because it was whether to

buy or not to buy. Who had which position?

Adam: I wanted to buy and Abby wanted to wait a year.

Abby: Yeah.

Researcher: How come you won?

Adam: That’s a good question.

Abby: Because I felt guilty because I am like the bad one (laughs). I felt

guilty because I am uptight with the money, and I am always like “no, you

can’t get that.”

Although the spouses had enough money to pay for the new vehicle out of
their savings, they decided to take out a loan, partially because they did not want
to empty their savings account, and partially because vehicle loan rates were
very favorable at the time of purchase. However, Abby still feels that having
another payment is a “set-back,” as she is always concerned about “getting
ahead” financially, constantly putting money away into savings in order to have a
bigger down payment on the next house, or to “just be secure if anything should
happen”

Abby: Adam [had good reasons for purchasing the car] because he knew

that he had to have them, good kinds of reasons. I was like...it is a one-

92

car garage, and now he is scraping all the time, we are graduate students

and we need to be saving our money, and we do not need another

payment, you know, that kind of thing.

Researcher: So, you worry about it as an expenditure, whether or not you

can cover it?

Abby: No...

Adam: No, we have the money in the bank to buy it, if we wanted to. We

could have bought it outright.

Abby: Yeah, we could have bought it outright, we would not have money

in our bank account any more, but...l do not know, I always have to feel

like we are getting ahead in terms of money, and that to me is like a

set-back. And I feel like, we are so young, we have one child, who needs

two cars, you know, we live by the University, that kind of thing.

Unlike Abby, Adam appears to be comfortable spending money, although
he never purchases items without prior discussion with Abby and extensive
research. His favorite objects to research and purchase are technology items,
such as computers, DVD players and Personal Digital Assistants (Palm Pilots
and the like). Although Abby admits not knowing anything about technology and
what is currently available on the market, she nevertheless feels that Adam’s
purchases are “wasted money” and wishes that he either refrain from buying
altogether, choose something cheaper or slightly older, or avoid buying “all the

bells and whistles.” Adam feels that “buying back down the technology food

93

chain just does not pay off in the long run,” and that sometimes compromising
with Abby on the purchase price of an item costs the family more in the long run.

The issue of what is necessary and unnecessary in the household is
another issue that these spouses are still negotiating. Abby prefers repairing
items that are broken, while Adam prefers replacing them with newer and better
versions. While Abby expresses “righteous indignation” over other people’s
decisions to be wasteful with their money, she freely admits that clothes are her
big weakness, and that if she could, she would have “a closet full of petite suits.”
Family of Origin Issues and Receiving Help from Others

Both Adam and Abby come from intact homes and both have siblings.
Their parents are professionals whose career choices inﬂuenced those of the
couple. Abby’s parents are both professors, and Adam’s mother is a speech
pathologist for a school district, his father an administrator with a background in
Social Work. Both sets of parents are ﬁnancially secure at the present time,
although Abby and Adam report that while they were growing up, they never got
absolutely everything they wanted.

Both spouses report receiving an allowance when they were little. Abby’s
money was spent on school supplies and other “serious stuff,” as well as to offset
a portion of expensive ballet shoes she needed. Since her father had a nine-
month appointment at the University (her mother did not work while the children
were little), the children did not get their allowance in the summer, which seemed
very unfair to them at the time, although Abby reports that now she fully

understands her parents” reasons for making that rule. Abby feels that she

94

comes from a very privileged background, although she was required to
contribute to the ﬁnancial well-being of the household:

Researcher: What lesson did they [your parents] teach you by doing that

[asking to pay for ballet shoes]?

Abby: That I can’t just have whatever I want, you know, that l have to

contribute to the house. I had to give 25% of whatever I earned on a job,

which made me really mad, but now I am like “You go do it!”

Researcher: So, when you got a job, 25% of that went to the upkeep of

the house?

Abby: Yeah, and until I moved out of the house, then I did that.

Adam also remembers getting a small allowance, which was “preciously
hoarded until I got enough to get a Star Wars ﬁgure or something like that.”
Adam reports that his parents “moved economic categories” and are now earning
much more than they did when he was little, and family meals consisted of “tuna
casserole a lot, and chicken more than meat and those sorts of things, like
macaroni and cheese.” Although there was no feeling of deprivation, Adam
reports that his parents limited his spending because they believed that having
everything is not healthy for children’s growth and development. Both spouses
agree with this parenting strategy for their toddler.

Abby: Certainly, you know your parents can afford [things], they just say
"no.”
Adam: ...I guess I just think that now there are a lot more things for kids to

spend serious money on. So, you know, I did not have as many games for

95

the Atari as my friends did, that sort of thing, but I certainly had enough to

keep glued to the thing for longer than was probably healthy.

Adam’s parents’ afﬂuence seems to be a point of contention between
spouses, as evident from the opening quote. Abby feels that they and afﬂuent
people like them need to contribute more heavily to charity, instead of living in
ostentatious homes and overspending on unnecessary items.

Abby: I also feel like if you have that much money, you have a

responsibility, I don’t know, I think they can give like 50% of that stuff to

charity. But, I don’t know, it is hard for me to see this kind of spending and
think “Wow, these people can do a lot of good with their money,” but it is
not my business, oh my gosh, see, I know it is not my business. I am just
seeing all that, and it is like - what if that house was a little bit smaller, and

I don't know, some homeless people could be housed. Something dumb.

Adam feels somewhat defensive about his parents’ money-related
decisions, and appears quite proud of their ﬁnancial success and their new
$400,000 house in an afﬂuent suburb of a large metropolis. He insists that they
don’t spend “that much” and the house is not “that big.” Although he does not
know exactly what their salaries are, he does know that they are currently
working with a ﬁnancial consultant to help them invest wisely. His parents are
generous with their gifts to all of them.

Adam: Well, Abby and my mother do not get along largely because my

mother likes to give gifts and Abby does not like to receive gifts, and she

does not like [our son] to receive gifts, I mean...

96

Abby: Well, there is reasonable and then there is unreasonable.
Researcher: [to Abby] So your mother-in-law and you disagree as to what
is a reasonable and an unreasonable gift.

Adam: Right.

In order to resolve this difference between Abby and her mother-in-Iaw,
the spouses decided that their child will only be allowed to keep three toys per
occasion, such as Hanukkah or his birthday. Any toys beyond that number will be
donated to charity, no matter how expensive or nice the toys were (when Abby
mentioned that she does not want her child to play with plastic toys, her mother-
in-law started buying expensive wooden toys). The giver of the donated gifts is
not to be informed of the gift’s fate.

Researcher: What do you do [with the toys]?
Adam: Well, in order...
Abby: Appease me and his mother, poor Adam!
Adam: (laughs) in order to appease Abby what we did is we decided on
three toy per holiday rule, which... So, ﬁrst Abby tried to get my mother to
back off, and my mother got hysterical and would not back off of doing
gifts, and it was really rude of A. to even suggest such a thing. And so
instead, without telling my parents or anybody else...well, I guess your
parents know, right?

Abby: (nods).

Adam:...we basically either return or usually donate anything beyond

three gifts, three toys that we get in one “sitting.”

97

Abby believes that allowing her son to only have three toys and donating
the rest of the gifts, will prevent him from growing up spoiled: “I am worried
because I saw a lot of spoiled kids, and I saw how that happened, how they got
everything they wanted, and their parents did not say “we really need to get a
poor child something, and you have to realize that you have a lot of toys and you
need to think about giving some away and I think that should start really early.”
Adam agrees with his wife on this issue, although he appears unhappy that his
parents are kept in the dark about this decision and that they are unknowingly
donating a lot of money to children’s charities. There appears to be lack of parity,
as Abby’s parents, who do not place as much of a value on gift-giving, are
familiar with the situation.

Researcher: Is [your son] the only grandchild?

Abby: Yeah, but my parents don’t do the grandchild thing, and it is really

hard to explain and it would take too long, so, but I still love them, and I

still think that they are good parents.

Adam: (laughs)

Abby: So basically, like I said, one gift for the birthday and for them

Hanukkah is a children thing.

Adam: For them usually it is not a toy or something, like they got him a

quilt, right?

Abby: Well, one year, but they have given him some toys.

Adam: they have?

Abby: Like the toys from when l was little.

98

Adam: Those aren’t gifts, those are like “Oh, you are visiting, and he

likes to play with this one, so take this one with you.”

Abby: My parents usually give some toy or another, just one gift.

Adam: I am just trying to think what birthday gifts they have given him...

Abby: Gosh, I don’t know [sounds like she wants to move on to another

topic].

As evident from the previous quotes, both spouses defend their parenting
decisions and their parents’ current ﬁnancial choices. Despite the differences
between the two set of in-Iaws, the spouses have worked out a strategy to
remain united in their values. This matter will be discussed further in the section
on the Spousal Element.

In addition to receiving generous and useful gifts (toaster/convection oven,
VCR) from Adam’s parents, the spouses used to receive generous ﬁnancial gifts
from Adam’s grandmother. Before she became ill, she divested her estate on a
yearly basis, giving away close to $70,000 to children and grandchildren. Thus,
Adam received several annual gifts of $10,000. This money was spent to offset
some of Adam’s college expenses before he was married, and was used as a
down-payment on the house and to help pay for vehicles after his marriage to
Abby.

Both Adam and Abby report that they learned about trust and
communication from their families of origin. Abby says that she learned to “stay
off the credit cards, and consult with each other if it is a big purchase or, decide

what kind of people you are, and know what kind of people you are.” Adam

99

agrees and adds that although his parents do have separate accounts where
they keep money from “extra” jobs, he firmly believes that relationships where
the wife has her income and the husband has his, particularly where those are
not equal, I don’t think it is probably disastrous.”

Money Management and Gender Issues

In the A. household, Abby manages the money on the day-to-day basis.

Researcher: Ok, tell me a little bit about management of money in the

family: who writes checks, who balances the checkbook [husband laughs],

who worried about money [he laughs again]?

Abby: I do all of those...Well, I am kind of the organizer, so I do all the

money stuff, and ﬁgure out what has to go to what account, and that’s

about it.

The decision to allow Abby to control the ﬁnances and worry about money
was made because she is more organized and is “a worrier” by nature. When
Adam was single, he admits that the bills were not always paid on time, and not
because he did not have the necessary funds, but because he was not organized
enough to pay the bills by their due date. He was so delinquent at one point, that
his phone was disconnected. Now that Abby is in charge of the ﬁnances, the bills
“go out early.” Abby admits that, just like her mother, she is “a control freak” and
enjoys taking care of the family’s purse.

There is a high degree of agreement about everyday expenditures and

how the money needs to be managed.

100

 

Researcher: If anybody wanted to make a purchase, is there an amount
beyond which they cannot go without consultation or can they go ahead
and spend whatever and then you talk about after it is done?

Abby: No, we don’t talk about it after it done, but if it is like, what?

Adam: I would say...

Both: $20! [laugh]

Adam and Abby use their credit cards frequently because of all the extra
beneﬁts they receive from using them, but the balance is never carried over from
one month to the next. The A. family does not have student loan debt, but do
have a mortgage on the house and a new car loan. Both spouses have access to
all of the family accounts, including the currently poorly performing mutual fund
accounts.

Researcher: [to Abby] So, you said that you ﬁgure out how much goes into

checking and how much into savings, do you talk about it? Or do you just

know?

Adam: No, she I trust her.

Abby: I just do it, and then I get out enough cash so that we can live for

two weeks on the cash, and if something is coming up, I try to get enough

for that.

Large and infrequent purchases are discussed and intensively researched
before purchasing decisions are made. Both spouses, and especially Adam, are

very knowledgeable about the ﬁnancial world and take interest rates, rebate

101

offers, and the state of the economy into account when making personal ﬁnancial
decisions.

As discussed earlier, Adam and Abby donate many of their toddler’s toys
to charity. They also donate occasional small amounts of cash, such as $10 or
$20 to various charities which happen to interest them.

The Spousal Element

Adam and Abby’s five-year old marriage is characterized by shared values
on money issues and parenting, mutual support and complementarity, high levels
of trust, along with some competitiveness and conﬂict. They seem to have strong
communication skills and agree with each other often. When disagreeing, which
happens very infrequently, they use logic, persuasive arguments and tears to
make the other person understand their point of view.

Abby: I don’t think that we ever are going to agree on a point, I mean I

really don’t, I think we are just different like that, and I think part of that is

really good.

Researcher: How do you negotiate that? You have very different

perspectives on some things, but it does not seem to be interfering with

your marriage. How do you work that out?

Abby: I felt that it was kind of starting to interfere with our marriage in the

car thing, and that’s why I was so upset about it.

Researcher: What did it mean to you marriage-wise? What meaning were

you ascribing to it?

Abby: There was a big argument.

102

Researcher: “He does not love me any more?”

Abby: No, no, no! Just that I did not want to have a big argument in our

marriage.

Researcher: 80, it was something that was standing between the two or

you, and you did not like that?

W: That’s correct. I think I said exactly that.
Adam seems to be concerned with ﬁnding a win-win solution and an easier way
to find solutions and compromises for future disagreements.

Adam: I am still trying to negotiate having some sort of general decision-

making strategy, where you are not sort of fighting each ﬁght in isolation,

but it is a part of a larger strategy...

Abby: Because it is always the same thing, like I am always saying “I don’t

think we need it because we still have one that’s good, and

Adam: [I want us to] establish some norms as what counts as good

evidence for your position...on a basic level.

The spousal complementarity seems to work best with these spouses’
basic temperament. Abby seems to be a natural-born worrier, and Adam has a
more laid-back attitude to life, such that Abby appreciates his view on events and
his calming inﬂuence on her.

Abby: The thing is that I like to worry about everything from here all the

way into the future, and there has to be a point at which Adam says “You

know, we decided what we decide what we are doing, we have this gift

rule, and we are just going to keep it like that, and as he matures, we will

103

deal with it, as it happens.” Then, I try to calm down and say “yes.”

Because I can’t worry about everything, I mean I can try really hard to

worry about everything...

Adam: My general theory is that most problems go away on their own

accord, if you leave it alone long enough [everyone laughs].

Abby: That’s not my theory. That’s why I married someone to say that.

Researcher: Do you really believe that?

Abby: No, but I like it. It makes me feel better, I like it, I like it.

The spouses have divided household chores in a way that suits their
interests. Each parents their toddler as their school and work schedule allows,
and Adam usually cooks and Abby appreciates his culinary skills. Occasionally,
when Adam knows that there isn’t any ready-made food at home, he expresses
an interest in going out to eat, but he usually has to overcome Abby’s natural
antipathy for spending money.

Adam is the only husband of the four men I interviewed who earned
signiﬁcantly less money than did his wife. There is a hint of competitiveness
around the issue of salaries and fellowship funding received, although both
spouses deny that gender differences are at the root of the problem.

Researcher: So, do you pretty much earn the same amount of money?

Adam: Not any more. We did the ﬁrst year, actually I earned more the ﬁrst

year, but not anymore.

Researcher: How does that

Abby: How did you earn more the ﬁrst year?

104

 

Adam: Because of that fellowship.

Abby: Ok, yeah, that’s right.

Researcher: How does that work for you, does that bother you?

Adam: No.

Abby: I was always like that [earned more money], even before we moved

here.

Adam: Right, she was working full-time and I stayed home with our son,

and I taught a couple of nights, but basically, I did not have any income.

Abby: He does not do any cool macho-man money thing.

Researcher: So, it does not bother you, it is just not necessarily a gender

thing.

Adam: Nope.

Their R-DAS scores are in the “satisﬁed” range - Adam scored 55, with a
score of 53 for Abby. This score may have been somewhat lower, had R-DAS
asked speciﬁc questions about the relationship with the in-laws. Most of the
conflict in this marriage seems to be related to the issues with the parents-in-law
on both sides. Both Adam and Abby criticize each other’s parents, although Abby
seems to be critical more often, and her comments are sometimes quite
venomous (and she appears to be aware of this, as on several occasions she
attempted to take back the harsh and critical words that had just left her mouth).
Despite the differences in their backgrounds, both spouses seem genuinely

loving towards their own extended family members and defend them valiantly in

105

front of their spouse. When it comes to confronting a parent-in-law on issues
such as gift-giving, the partners present a very united front.

Although at ﬁrst both were uncertain how sure how money issues worked
to strengthen their marriage, the A’s came to understand that they have
managed to arrange their ﬁnancial lives in such a way that their marriage
prospers:

Abby: I don’t know if [money] strengthens our marriage, but it does not

hurt it.

Adam: Well, certainly does in a sense that say, if I handled part of the bills,

you would be upset with me a lot of the time [laughs].

Abby: Oh, I see what you mean.

Adam: So, the day-to-day thing I think works well.

Abby: I see what you mean.

Both: [laugh].

This couple seems to have a common value about the importance of
money in their lives. They believe in giving back to their communities, both by the
fruits of their labor and by sharing the gifts their son receives from their families.
Their only consistent area of disagreement is understanding the difference in
their own and their parents’ lifestyles. This is the second student couple in this
sample, although their ﬁnancial behaviors and attitudes are very different from
Patrick and Polly’s: this couple is not waiting to begin their careers to save large

sums money or to plan for the future. Rather, they consider graduate studies to

106

be their career, and their actions now are not any different than they were before

their began their studies or after graduate studies will be over.

107

Couple #3 — Ben and Barbara B.

Barbara: I transferred departments a number of times, and there was

an opening there, so he got a job at the [same place]. He actually likes

being able to go to lunch together every day and, you know, we don’t do

that stuff anymore because I work half-time, but he used to come down

and say “Hi” in the ofﬁce or we’d go to coffee or something.

Ben: Without having to call.

Barbara: Some people can’t do that. Most people think we’re nuts: “I

couldn’t stand having my wife that close,” but we really like it.

Barbara and Ben, at 37 years of age, are the oldest couple in this sample.
Their only child, a 16-month-old boy, was born after years of unsuccessful
attempts, expensive treatments and “ lots of heartache.” Both spouses are
computer specialists at a local university, and they work in the same ofﬁce.
Although they are in the same family life cycle stage as the other couples in the
sample (that of the ﬁrst marriage with pre-school child[ren] in the home), they
belong to a different cohort. The other couples in the sample talk about siblings
finishing high school and entering college, this couple talks about siblings retiring
from primary jobs and beginning second part-time careers. Several couples in
the sample became parents at a very early age (and perhaps not entirely
intentionally), but Barbara and Ben tried to conceive a child for many years. Their
attitude towards their much-awaited son is very much colored by these facts, and

their ﬁnances are affected by the expense of many years of infertility treatments.

108

Originally they planned to work almost full-time after the birth of their child
and use day-care for the remaining three days per week. However, this
arrangement left Barbara depressed and “miserable,” and after some re-
arranging of their ﬁnances and work schedules, they decided that Ben would
continue working full-time, and Barbara would switch to half-time employment.
Wrth this arrangement, Barbara is able to stay home with their son in the
mornings and then drop him off at day-care for several hours in the afternoon,
and Ben picks him up on his way home from work. Barbara appears very happy
with this schedule because she is able to provide most of the parenting on the
daily basis, relying on day—care only when absolutely necessary.

The B. family lives in a large contemporary house in the country, with
spectacular open views and a variety of wildlife. They have recently begun a
renovation project to continue ﬁnishing the basement to add another bedroom on
the walk-out lower level, which is still in progress. Their house is full of toys and
personal items, and a prominently displayed plaque: “This house is clean enough
to be healthy, and dirty enough to be happy.” Although not at all dirty, the house
was rather disorganized and chaotic, with lots of personal items on the surfaces
of tables and chairs and overﬂowing kitchen cabinets.

On the weekend afternoon when I visited the family, their son was
napping, and an 8-year-old “mother’s helper” from the house next door was
watching TV (as one of the incentives for participation in this study, I offered to
reimburse any baby-sitting costs, if the families chose to hire a baby-sitter).

About an hour into our interview, the child woke up and demanded all of his

109

parents’ attention. The spouses appeared quite used to the noise and the antics
of their toddler. They proudly stated that their parenting philosophy is to “let him
do whatever he wants unless it is basically dangerous.” They stated that this
relaxed attitude towards parenting works well in their family.

Spending and Saving Behaviors

Unlike the other study participants, Barbara and Ben profess remarkably
similar spending philosophies - they are both very frugal people who do not
consider themselves materialistic. The spouses have a high degree of agreement
over what they believe to be necessities (groceries, clothing, items for the baby),
and what they truly do not need. They own two vehicles: a very old van, which
has not had air conditioning for several years, and a light truck. The vehicles
were chosen for their utility, rather than their ability to impress the neighbors or
co-workers.

The largest expense in this family by far is their mortgage. This couple is
very proud of their home, even thought they were not able to remain
geographically close to their family members.

Ben: But on the flip side I would not trade that [being close to family] for

what we have out here. I really do like being out here. I grew up in the

city, and you know, where you lived in a subdivision and houses all looked

the same, and they sat one on top of the other - we did not care for that.
Both families in which Barbara and Ben grew up considered home ownership to
be a marker for not only ﬁnancial, but life success, as well. In that respect, the B.

family is a great success.

110

Although frugal by nature, this family does occasionally have a difﬁcult
time covering all of their monthly expenses. When this occurs, they rely on credit
cards, which are not always paid off monthly. Consequently this family carries a
credit card balance, but there does not seem to be a great deal of worry about
this or other debts, such as mortgage, home equity line of credit, personal loans.
Rather, there is a sense that as long as their jobs are somewhat secure, they will
climb out of the debt hole sooner or later.

Researcher: So it is the inconvenience and the stress that get to you

sometimes more than the lack of money.

Barbara: Yeah. We have the credit card if we ever need it. If we have to

use it a lot, we ﬁgure, well we’ll get out of this someday.

Ben. Uh huh.

Researcher: So you’re pretty secure that your jobs are going to be there

and you will just pay for [expenses] as it comes.

Barbara: For the most part...

As evident from the previous quote, Barbara in particular is not overly
concerned with credit card debt. The increased child-related expenses,
accompanied by the reduction in Barbara’s working hours, have caused the
family to save very little. Even after taking into account saving about $400 to
$500 monthly in day-care costs, the family experienced about a $1,000 monthly
shortfall after Barbara reduced her work hours. However, they are conﬁdent that

the situation is temporary.

111

Despite their basic orientation towards not spending excessively, the
family overspent on Christmas presents during the previous holiday season.
Their justiﬁcation for that was that they were not going to “drive the state” to see
their extended family, and therefore they needed to spend more on presents for
each other and their son. When they realized that they had gone over the allotted
amount, Barbara’s only reaction was “Oh, well, don’t do it again next year.”

Ben is a little more cautious. He expresses a desire to have a larger
savings account to provide a cushion of comfort in case of an emergency.

Barbara: If we have a $20,000.00 loan, we might just put it in the bank

because it might just make Ben feel better.

Researcher. You like to have a little cushion of comfort in the bank.

Ben: I do, yes.

Barbara. If we had $10,000 or $20,000 in the bank doing nothing, like an

emergency fund. We don’t have that, but he would be happier.

Ben: I don’t know, but we had $5,000.00 savings in the bank before [our

son] was born, which was nice because we could use that when she was

off and she wasn’t getting paid [alluding to the unpaid maternity leave].

Researcher: Uh huh.

Ben: So. That helped. Put us at ease...Well we still have it. We still have

at least a house payment that we could use, you know, if things got tight.

Ben is particularly concerned about not being able to cover basic
household expenses, as well as losing the house should they fail to make a

mortgage payment on time.

112

Ben: For the most part, it [money] is here and gone, you know — it is nice

to have, everyone likes to have money.

Researcher: You speciﬁcally mentioned that you like to have a cushion.

Benzldo.

Researcher: What does that represent to you - having a cushion?

Ben: Just being able to meet our needs - whether it be food, pay the bills,

you know. I am the one to think that if we cannot make the mortgage, our

house will be gone the next day — that kind of thing. You know, that

comfort. And even then, I would like to have a little more of a cushion than

we have, but with ﬁnances the way they are, we are going to build on it.

The B. family compares their decisions to those that have been made by
their friends in similar situations. Some of their family friends decided not to keep
one parent at home while their children are young, but instead rely on day-care
for help in parenting. Barbara and Ben think that these couples do not truly
understanding what a great gift was given to them and that their priorities are all
wrong. One family in particular had a difﬁcult time transitioning to parenthood
because the husband “was not willing to give up his toys, and made his wife
return to work full-time” over her protests and despite postpartum depression.
According to Barbara, “she has never gotten over that or forgiven him.” The B.
spouses chose not to associate with this family any longer.

In order to allow Barbara to work half of the time, the spouses rely on

“hand-me-downs” from their families, and simply going without for as long as

113

possible. Although their home had a comfortable “lived-in” look, the furniture and
the furnishings were not brand new or spotless.

Ben: Things that we bought most recently were the two appliances

upstairs and the rocker and the futon were bought while we were together.

We didn’t have to have the latest and greatest. And if we buy something,

we want it to last.

Barbara: And this wonderful couch is a hand me down from Aunt Kay.

Ben: We get a lot of hand me downs We bought our bed new but we’d

been talking about buying a new bedroom set for eight years.

Once the decision to buy an expensive item is made, the family takes a
long time to evaluate all the possible options and ﬁnd the best price. The
reputation of the manufacturer is the most important factor in the decision-making
process, because Barbara and Ben hate to spend money over and over on the
same item. Instead, they prefer to make a single expensive purchase that would
last for generations to come, preferring quality over a brand name. They believe
that they have enough life experience to know what quality merchandise looks
like and how it should be put together to give years of productive use.

Barbara: ...when we buy something new we make sure it’s something

that we really want and looks like sure it’s going to last. You don’t change

things around once you ﬁnd something good.

Ben: We don’t want to keep buying it...

Barbara: It’s not necessarily a label as much as it’s reputation. We spend

a lot on it but we plan on keeping it for a long time and we don’t plan on

114

replacing it.

Unlike some women for whom shopping is a pleasure and a form of
recreation, Barbara does not enjoy shopping for clothing. It appeared to me that
both spouses preferred comfort style: both wore old tom-up jeans with well-worn
t-shirts, and their child was attired in a t-shirt, a diaper and was barefoot. Barbara
discussed having to buy clothes because she changed sizes drastically after
giving birth (she lost weight), and this occasion, which would send many new
mothers on gleeful shopping binges, brought her nothing but headaches. Other
kinds of expenses, such as on entertainment books, seem downright frivolous to
her.

Barbara: Our needs? I think all of our needs get taken care of. My wants

are..., like right now I very much need new clothes and I know...

Ben: Wants get put aside.

Barbara: I have catalogs lying right here to remind me that I need to order

new clothes because I have lost so much weight since I had [our son] that

they just hang on me... then I feel like we’re just too broke and I can just
hold on a bit longer. But that’s my fault, that’s not your fault. Right now
there’s some books I’d like to order and I’m putting that off because I feel
books are kind of frivolous. l have other books I can read.

In conclusion, Barbara and Ben have a remarkable degree of agreement
about their spending values. They prefer to spend on durable, quality goods, as
well as family gifts and family occasions (such as having company over for dinner

and card games). When they need to use credit to make ends meet, they feel

115

conﬁdent that they will be able to repay their debts in a timely manner. Finally,
Ben is slightly more concerned about having a savings account and a “cushion of
comfort” than Barbara.
Family of Origin Issues and Receiving Help from Others

As stated previously, Barbara’s and Ben’s extended family is much older
than the families of other study participants. Barbara’s father is deceased, and
her mother is 85 years old. Her siblings work in skilled blue-collar trades and are
closely connected to the automotive industry. According to Barbara, her mother
favors her sons and is very critical of her and her decisions, including her child-
rearing practices. For that reason, the 8. family does not associate with
Barbara’s mother more than occasionally. Barbara was born “very late” to a
hard-working farming family that was “in the Cold War” stage of their marriage.
She rarely saw her parents either ﬁght or kiss. This was a hard-working
traditional family. Her father farmed and drove a school bus, and her mother kept
the house. Male children were expected to help out on the farm, with girls helping
their mother around the house. The money was always tight, or at least, that’s
the impression with which that the children grew up. Although her parents were
very frugal and “old-fashioned” in their spending attitudes, the children always got
whatever they wanted, and when time came to borrow money for down payments
on their own homes, the money was always available (although it had to be paid
back with interest).

Barbara: Yeah, my parents always had the money. My dad’s parents

grew up in the depression and they lost their farm in the depression so we

116

never went on vacations, we never left our house because my dad was

afraid that he’d lose the farm if he left it, because his dad went away and

they lost the farm... We watched our money tightly. Income wasn’t steady
or stable. We never went without. We always had what we needed.

[We learned not to] spend money frivolously. Watch what you buy. You

buy stuff that’s good... My mother thinks we spend money just crazily.

The way we’ve spent money, it’s just nuts. She thinks we overspend and

this house is just too big and you know, I think part of it’s just jealously that

she didn’t have it. She never really liked the house that they live in. Not
that she’d sell it. She just liked to complain.

Although Barbara appears to resent some of her mother’s complaining
and criticizing, she admits learning a lot about money management and how to
select quality goods from her parents. She also admits that all of her needs and
occasionally, her wants, were satisﬁed.

Barbara: [I was taught] to get every dollar out of it. When you went to the

store, you didn’t buy brand name unless you really did have brand

preference. You bought whatever was cheapest...You didn’t buy pre-
made stuff, you bought all the ingredients to make things...l never went
without. I probably had a lot more than a lot of kids at my school in a lot

of respect. It just did not seem like it at the time. When I needed braces, I

got braces. If I needed clothes, I got clothes. If we went to the store and if

I saw something I wanted, I usually got it. I did not have an allowance.

My mom didn’t really believe in allowances. I really didn’t have assigned

117

chores but everybody was expected to help out.

In contrast to Barbara’s mother who charges her children interest on home
down payment loans, Ben’s mother “loves to give gifts.” She enjoys taking
everyone out to dinner and gives her children and grandchildren generous gifts. It
appears that she enjoys being able to be somewhat free with money now since
the ﬁnances were very tight when the children were growing up. Ben reports that
his parents divorced because his father was “too wishy—washy." After the divorce
and his three younger brothers lived with their mother, who “rented” the trailer in
which they lived from dad. Because of that rental agreement, his dad only paid
$50 a week for the support of his four sons. Of course, money was always very
tight, although at times his dad resented even contributing that much to the
upbringing of his children.

Ben: Oh yeah, money was tight and things like that...l think I remember

one conversation my mom and dad had about the money and how it went

and my dad thought my mom was just spending the money just kind of
recklessly. So she made a deal. She said, you just sign the check and
you take the kids for one week and I’ll sign over the check that you give
me for child support. And so after the deal, my dad came back and made
the comment, “Boy, those kids sure eat a lot.”

Barbara: Four boys, they sure do.

Ben: So he never complained after that. You know what he was like [to

wife]. She would say, well you know the kids need shoes and things like

that. He’s like, so where are spending all the money on? So it was pretty

118

tough from that aspect. My mom would work whatever she had to make

ends meet. I remember that. My dad was almost too laid back.

Now that all her children are grown with their own children, Ben’s mother
enjoys entertaining them and their wives and occasionally “the boys” would all go
in on a large ticket item for her, such as a new television set.

In summary, Ben and Barbara learned their habits of thrift and choosing
quality goods over the latest brand names from their families of origin. Both of
their families struggled ﬁnancially while children were growing up and every
penny earned by every family member was important. Now, that Barbara and
Ben are well-earning professionals, they rely of the same values of thrift in order
to pursue their value of keeping Barbara at home parenting their son as much as
possible.

Money Management and Gender Issues

In the B. household, Ben is in charge of the money management. All the
financial records are kept in a roll-top desk, neatly organized by month on a
computerized spread sheet.

Ben: What I do is to keep track of all the bills that come in. How much,

when they are due, how much is owed, whether or not I paid them off.

Check number, whether I wrote a check for it etc.

Researcher: Is this a software package that you use or is it...

Ben: Well, it’s just a spreadsheet.

Researcher: Uh huh.

Ben: That gives me a glance of you know, what I’ve got for bills to pay for

119

the month and things like that - which major outgoing cash-ﬂow kinds of

things.

Barbara: And occasionally I do pay the bills, I just have trouble keeping

up with it.

Researcher: It looks like a very well organized system. Check numbers

and... How long would you keep something like that?

Ben: I haven’t thrown any away.

[Laughter].

The family does not really have or follow a budget. Ben would simply
tabulate all the expenses and say "Hey, we’re out of money.” Since both spouses
get paid only once, this usually happens too early in the month for both Ben and
Barbara. Major purchases (cars, furniture and others) are carefully deliberated by
the couple, and the decision may take months, if not years. The purchase takes
place as late as possible, such as when the previous vehicle broke down beyond
repair. The B. family is not overly concerned about long-term savings, such as
retirement and college funds: the retirement contributions are automatically
deducted from their salaries and their son’s college fund contains the monetary
gifts he has received thus far. Generally, the money management attitude in this
family seems to be: “as long as we keep our expenses reasonable, and make
sure the bills are paid, we will be fine.”

Barbara admits that she does not know much about the current state of
family ﬁnances, although she is the one who spends the most money, mostly

because she has some time during the week-days to run errands, buy groceries,

120

and the like. Both spouses reported that their mothers were in charge of paying
the bills in the house, although it appeared that although Barbara’s mother paid
the bills, her father was really the one who made most of the money-related
decisions. This does not appear to be the case in this family, where all the
decisions and the outcomes of those decisions are shared.
Researcher: So, before you went out and shopped [for Christmas
presents], you talked about the approximate limits on how much you can
spend.
Barbara: I do not think we talked about limits for each other, and if we did,
we both ignored it...
BenzNou.
Barbara: Cause I do not remember what it was. We spend a lot on [our
sonLtoo.
Researcher: I am just trying sort of think about when people agree to such
as extent as you do, they must use some pretty nice persuasion
strategies. How do you persuade each other to come to an understanding
or do you just naturally agree?
Barbara: No, we don’t always naturally agree. Usually, I would have
something on my mind for a couple of weeks, you know, I would be
thinking about it, and argue for six weeks in my head and then I will ﬁnally
tell him about it about it and he would be like “yeah, that makes sense.”
Because his mother always says that we think about stuff too much,

because we would be making a decision about something and we will not

121

make our decision as quickly as she would make her decision and she
always says “This baby is going to be in so much trouble! You people just
do not want to make a decision." If we need to make one quick, we make
one quick, but if we have time, we certainly like to think about it, and there
is really no hurry, you know.
The Spousal Element
As evident from the previous quote, there is a remarkable degree of
agreement between Barbara and Ben. Not only do they work in the same office,
they do the same job. They do not have a lot of individual friends, but rather have
many friends with whom they socialize as a couple. They have similar interests:
reading, travel, cooking, entertaining, taking care of their garden, and of course,
being parents to their toddler. They rarely ﬁght, and when their life gets too
hectic, and tempers flare, they usually know to give each other time and space to
cool off. Both spouses exhibited a high degree of trust in each other, as well as a
lot of complementarity and mutuality. Barbara and Ben received the highest
score on R-DAS among all the couples in the sample (56 and 57, respectively).
During over 12 years of marriage, they have overcome a lot of hurdles,
including long-term infertility, several miscarriages, and dealing with deaths of
family members. The spouses present a very united front to their families of
origin, and Ben in particular is very supportive of Barbara’s efforts to limit her
mother’s inﬂuence. Additionally, Barbara and Ben agree on their parenting
philosophy, which may appear a little too laid-back to some. During my visit, they

were both very involved with the child, playing, holding and feeding him. Money

122

issues in general, and money fights in particular, are not at all uppermost on their

minds.

123

Couple #3 — Carl and Cam! C.

Carol: [talking about how kids in nearby schools are very materialistic]

Yes. And I'm not, you know I think it has to do with the way you raise your

kids. Um. There are some things that I am materialistic about but I, but I

don't think, I am not bad, I mean if I was [more materialistic], lwould

not marry you [to husband].

Carl: [stunned silence] You wouldn’t?

Carol: No, I would marry someone else and be a millionaire by now.

Interestingly, despite this statement, Carol’s husband Carl is a Certiﬁed
Public Accountant, with a salary of $67,000 and fringe beneﬁts adding up to tens
of thousands of dollars annually (including a retirement plan, a medical insurance
plan, and a brand-new company-purchased Sport Utility Vehicle). Carol is a
Grant Administrator at a local university with a background in accounting, and her
annual salary of over $48,000 make Carol and Carl by far the best-eaming
couple in this sample.

Carol and Carl had a very difﬁcult time scheduling the interview, as Carl
works 60-70 hours per week during the tax season, in addition to the above
mentioned commute to work. In the end, we met between 8 and 10 pm. on a
Friday night, and by that time both spouses appeared tired and ready for their
week—end to begin. Their three-year—old son stayed up with the adults until close
to 10 pm. It seemed that it was very rare for Carl to be home before 8 pm. on

most week-nights. Since Carol also has a full-time job, their child attends full-time

124

child—care. Since no negative comments were made about this arrangement, the
couple appears satisfied with their childcare choices.

The couple lives in one of the more affluent suburbs in the area in a
spacious well-maintained home with easy access to the highway, which Carl
takes to get to his workplace about 90 minutes away. Although the home has a
large dining room, it was completely free of furniture, and was occupied instead
by a large toy truck and other toys. The couple reported that they work so many
hours, that they have very little time for entertaining, and do not use the dining
room at all. After living in the neighborhood for over two years, they do not know
any of their neighbors, and have never either had them over or been invited over
to their homes. Other rooms on the ﬁrst floor included: a large eat-in kitchen, with
neat rows of shoes by the two doors, and clean and sparse cabinets and
countertops; a family room with lots of pictures of family and friends, but no
pictures of the couple themselves; and a formal living room with lots of open
unfurnished space.

During our two-hour interview, the couple’s three-year son watched a
movie in the family room, and did not turn his head from the screen or speak for
its duration. After the end of his favorite movie, he approached his mother with
the request for bathroom help, and then sat at the kitchen table with us and drew
for a while. Both parents were responsive to the boy, but it was his father who

started the bed-time ritual by suggesting a race upstairs.

125

Spending and Saving Behaviors

The C. family fall squarely into the category of spenders. Although I did
not ask speciﬁc and formal questions about the participants’ net worth, incidental
remarks demonstrated that this family is in debt. In addition to having a home
equity loan on their own home, the spouses have also secured one on Carl’s
mother’s house. She put a title to her home in both her name and his name (the
precise reason for this transaction is unclear, but it appears that this was done to
“shelter” the house from her newer husbands). The spouses then used that
house to secure a line of home equity credit. Carol stated that her step-mother
“wanted us to pay off the equity. Which we can't pay that off right now”.

Both lines of credit were taken out to pay off large credit card bills, and some of
the outstanding student loans. It appears that on a month-to-month basis, the
spouses are paying off the mortgage on their home and two home equity lines of
credit. This strategy allowed them to take advantage of the lower tax deductible
interest rates than those that are offered by the credit card companies.

The couple developed a credit card problem several years ago before they
both began their well-paying jobs and were struggling to pay off credit card and
student debt for Carl’s undergraduate education. The couple had different ideas
about how credit card debt should be paid off, with Carol wanting to pay off as
much as possible each month, and Carl insisting that doing so would leave the
family cash poor. Consequently, while Carol was in charge of the family ﬁnances,
she paid the credit card companies great sums of money, but the family ended

up charging again by the end of the month, because the expenses still needed to

126

be covered. When Carol got tired of never getting ahead, she gave up on taking
care of the family’s budget, and Carl took over. His philosophy was very different:
he paid only the minimum amount required, but provided the family with the cash
to cover all of their needs, and possibly some of their wants. He provided the
justification for his methods of budgeting in the following way:

Carl: We were spending the money anyway. The difference was with

you, we didn't have any cash to spend, so we were charging things that

we wanted, which were

Carol: They were not things that we needed. (Laughter).

Carl: Well, some things you need. We need clothes. You gotta buy

clothes.

Carol: Yes (Laughter).

Carl: But I mean, so there's a difference of, I mean, that particular thing, I

would rather have pay down what we can, but not make it so much to the

point that we don't have any cash to spend.

Carol: I would feel much more comfortable being out of debt and then

being able to use cash for everything.

Carl has a much higher tolerance for being in debt than does Carol. When
she gets ready to purchase a large ticket item, she looks for interest-free
financing terms and tries to work the payments into the family’s budget. The two
exceptions to her discomfort with debt were reported by her to be a mortgage on

a home and a car loan. At this time, with a mortgage and two different home

127

equity lines of credit, Carol feels somewhat comfortable about the family’s debt
load.

In addition to disagreements about the handling of debt, Carol and Carl
disagree on what kinds of furnishings they like in their home. One of the longest-
running arguments is the one about a set of furniture Carol bought many years
ago without consulting Carl while knowing that he would not like what she chose.

Carl: All the furniture that we've got down in basement. That desk for him

[indicating a new empty desk, implying that it is for his son]. She called

me up before, we weren't even married yet. She called me up and said

that I found some great... furniture. “You’re not going to like it but it was a

really good deal.”

Carol: [Laughter]. $1,000.00. A couch, a chair, coffee table.

Carl: So what? You knew ahead time lwasn't going to like it. You bought

it anyway!

Carol: [Laughter]. You liked it. We just got this furniture what, just a year

ago. We had the other furniture up until about a year ago.

Carol: I don't care. I never liked it!

Researcher: You actually did not like it.

Carl: NO.

Researcher: Because you weren't consulted or because you didn't like it?

Carl: It wasn’t comfortable. I reminded me... I looked like it belonged

outside on a patio [it was wicker furniture].

128

This pattern of Carol purchasing expensive items without consulting with
Carl has continued to this day, as evident from the discussion about a new desk
that she bought for their son. Carol thought that a $400 desk is a good
investment for a 3-year-old, who will be able to use it for several years to come,
but Carl objected to both the expense and not being included in the decision-
making process. He objects to the necessity of the desk, the price paid for it, and
he does not consider the fact that it was sold with particularly good terms (such
as 90-day interest-free) to be completely relevant.

Carol: [indicating the desk’s temporary location] That's not where it’s going

to be sitting and we have a computer to put on it. His computer and he

needed a desk and I didn't want to buy a cheap desk and then have to

replace it in a couple of years. That's a good desk. lt'll last. It ﬁts him.

Elementary school, middle school, high school. He can use it. It's a good

desk. It's high quality.

Carl: We have a $60.00 TV cart that we bought when we got married.

Nine years ago.

Carol: [Laughter].

Carl: It still works. It’s one of those little put together kits that you ﬁnd for

a three-year-old who's gonna get a marker, he's gonna start marking on it

and he's gonna destroy that desk.

Carol: No, he's not.
Carl has several objections to the most recent large purchase that Carol made,

but most of all he seems to object to the fact that the purchase was made while

129

Carol was out with her mother “just looking around.” He stated “You told me you
were going to go with your mom to look for furniture. You'd never been to that
store and you never said anything about I'm looking for a desk or a dining table."
He then attempts to "turn the tables” on Carol and ask her how she would feel if
he was the one who made a large purchase without her knowledge.

Carl: So what if I go to a bike shop and get a really good deal on a

mountain bike that's a $1 ,000.00.

Carol: You have a bike. He didn't have a desk.

Carl: So? Even if he did...

Researcher: Let's go with that scenario. What would happen if you walk

into a bike shop and you see this gorgeous $1,000 bike?

Carl: I would not buy it!

Carol: [Laughter].

Researcher: Why not?

Carl: Because Ifeel that I should let her know, let her in that decision.

The previous quote summarizes the financial dilemma of the C.
household: Carl feels that Carol should be “let in” on large purchases, but Carol
does not feel that including Carl is necessary. Since he is not included on large
purchases, Carl chooses to sabotage Carol’s careful budget with frequent small
purchases, such as music CD’s.

Carol: It is annoying for me too at times when he buys CDs. See I get

annoyed with little things, he gets annoyed with big things. [Laughter]. I

mean those little things add up. How many CDs do you have over there?

130

[indicating an entertainment center] Couple hundred, two or three

hundred...

Carl: No, there's not two or three hundred over there.

Carol: That's six hundred dollars. That's over a thousand dollars worth of

CDs.

Carl: There's probably $1,000 of CDs, no that's too much. There's not that

many CDs over there. There's not 200. That thing doesn’t hold 200.

Carol: We could count!

Carl: No there’s probably about a hundred, a hundred... about a hundred.

Maybe a little bit more than that.

Generally speaking, when choosing items for their house or their hobbies,
the C. spouses want to pay as little as possible, getting the best service from the
store, and the best performance from the item purchased. Occasionally, Carol
decides to patronize the local stores and chains, although Carl objects to this
practice.

When discussing previous purchases, Carl is very attentive to the
usefulness of items. It sounded like he was displeased that the previous winter
had not been more snowy, so he could get his money’s worth out of a brand new
snow blower! Additionally, any cooking—related item, such as a BBQ grill or the
Pampered Chef articles, fall into a “useless” category for Carl, and he sounds
very critical when he talks about Carol’s decision to purchase them.

Carl: Anything that involves cooking is a useless purchase.

Carol: [Laughter]. I mean it's not, we used it.

131

Carl: We need to use it more...Your Pampered Chef stuff that comes out

of your money.

Carol: [Laugher].

Carl: I will never use that. You barely use that.

Carol: I use them a lot.

Carl: No, you don't.
Family of Origin Issues and Receiving Help from Others

It is possible that differences in early experiences contributed to
disagreements between Carol and Carl. Carl comes from a blue-collar family
which has always struggled with money. When Carl was growing up, he
remembers his friends and neighbors being very similar to him in their ﬁnancial
status. He played outside a lot, and as soon as he was old enough, he got a
paper route. The money from the route and any he got as an allowance was his
to keep, without obligations or strings attached. His father worked for one of the
major auto manufacturers, and his mother stayed home with the children. Dad
liked to play the lottery but this was not described as a gambling problem by Carl.

Carl: My Dad worked for Ford. My mom didn't work. She would do like

hairdressing stuff on the side, every now and then. Once I think all of us

kids got old enough and she went back like part-time, at hair salons not

too far away from the house. Because my dad was in the auto industry,

money was generally tight but you know, he played lottery. ldon’t know

how much he spent but I mean, every night he'd do the lottery. And when

he won, we'd go out to dinner. He’d tell us “Okay I got some extra money,

132

you know, let's go to the store, you guys can get an Atari game. You and

your sister have to agree on it.” So, but I mean it was always. . . It's not

like we went without but it wasn’t like we had a lot of money.

Researcher: Did your parents disagree a lot about the money issues?

Carl: I don't think so. I think my dad was in complete control.

Carl’s father died when Carl was 14 years old, and his two younger
siblings were 11 and 6. Although the official cause of death was stated as natural
causes, his paternal grandfather hired a private investigator who concluded that
the death was a suicide due to heightened stress surrounding money issues and
the impending divorce. Carl stated: when I think back about it, I just remember
thinking why he looked miserable a lot of the time. That’s when he was really
stressing over the money.”

After the death of his father, the life insurance money was mishandled by
his mother, who had been kept in the dark about money issues and was not
savvy with ﬁnances.

Researcher: Was your mom okay [after her husband’s death]? It sounds

like she wasn’t making a lot of ﬁnancial decision while she was married.

How was she able negotiate that transition?

Carl: Life insurance. Which she blew... on stupid things. She could have

been better off you know, he died, she got a new Camaro, Z-28.

Carol: She paid off the house.

Carl: Well, the house was automatically paid off, that was part of Well,

the life insurance paid off the house. K., C. [his siblings] and I got some

133

set aside for us, which I'm sure was mandated by the will, because I don’t

my mom would have the foresight to do it.

After his mother “blevv” the life insurance money, she remained
irresponsible with money, and had a very difﬁcult time covering her children’s
educational expenses. Carl remembers having to rely on credit cards to pay off
his college expenses. He was not able to qualify for the necessary amount of
student loans, because his mother still claimed him as a dependent, and the
government expected her to cover some of his needs. He recalls somewhat
bitterly that even the small sums of money that came his way had a high
psychological price tag.

Carl: [her] Mom [Carol’s] sent her $400 a month. I may have got maybe

$300 a year out of my mom. And that always came at a mental price of

having to listen to her bitch and scream and cry and all kinds of things.

You know, it was a last resort. It was absolutely the last resort. Which

probably explains something. I would rather go without than. . . because

of my parents’ situation through college, I just went without a lot.

To this day, Carl’s mother and her ﬁnancial situation is of great concern to
Carol and Carl. Her newest husband has been reported to be abusive, and he is
not allowed to accompany her to visit the grandchild. She loves to shop,
frequently choosing quantity over quality, and often ﬁnds herself unable to cover
her expenses. When she appeals to Carol and Carl for help, they usually provide
advice (after all, they are both ﬁnancial professionals), but do not give her any

monetary assistance.

134

Carol’s family is very different than Carl’s. She grew up in an afﬂuent
suburb in a home with several siblings and a stay-home mother. She reports
being different from her friends at school because she had to share a small car
with her siblings in contrast to the rest of her peers who drove better cars.
Ironically, she truly does not recognize how having a vehicle designated solely
for the use of the children of the family makes her family rather privileged. Carol
stated: “ We drove a Chevette. My family, we had a Chevette - and that's for the
three of us [her and her two siblings]. Most the kids around here, you go to the
High School parking lot and they are driving BMWs...”

Carol's father worked at the local university, and her mother stayed home
with the children until the couple divorced. After the divorce, Carol’s mother
began working as a dietitian, a career for which she trained before her three
children were born. It appears that Carol’s maternal grandparents were very well
off, and left her mother a large sum of money, which she uses to offer Carol and
Carl a way out of their credit card debt. Although she is not comfortable lending
them the money they need, she does feel comfortable simply giving it, without an
expectation of repayment. The spouses are very grateful for her ﬁnancial help,
although it appears to come with some conditions. For example credit card
repayment is acceptable, whereas taking trips with it is not allowed.

Carol: My family never talked about money. My mom still won't. I know

that she's got money, but she won't [talk about it]. I have no idea how

much money she has. She won't even, she doesn't want to talk, she won't

talk about it.

135

Researcher: But she knows about your ﬁnancial situation enough to offer

help?

Carol: Oh yeah. She's, she was ﬁnancially able to retire. Both my

grandparents, her parents, had a substantial amount of money and I don't

know how much they had and so she got it.

When Carol was in college, she decided to take a year off her studies,
during which she bought a new vehicle. During the next school year when she
resumed her studies, she found that she was not able to come up with several
hundred dollars per month to pay off the car loan. Instead of selling the vehicle,
she turned to her mother for help, who proceeded to send her $400 per month
that Carol needed to cover her auto expenses.

Carol began working at an early age, and has continued working hard
since then. Carol’s childhood is one where there was always enough money to
cover her needs, thus she developed a taste for the most expensive items in the
store. She stated that “When I go to look at clothes, I don't tend look at the
brands but the things that I ﬁnd that I like tend to be the most expensive”. This
is perhaps the main difference between Carol and Carl: Carl believes that no
matter how hard he works, or how lucrative or secure his job is, he will never
have enough money with which to be frivolous. Carol, on the other hand, knows
from previous experience, that there is plenty of money somewhere in the family,

should she need help covering expenses that fall outside of her family’s budget.

136

Money Management and Gender Issues

As mentioned earlier, both Carol and Carl are ﬁnancial professionals.
They are both well acquainted with budgets, ﬁnancial statements, and the
workings of the ﬁnancial markets. They understand not only how to balance a
checkbook, but why it is important to do so on a regular basis. Also, they are
familiar with the intricacies of taxation, and they make sure that they do not pay a
penny more in taxes than absolutely necessary, and that the federal government
does not get an “interest—free loan” of their money due to their failing to withhold
appropriate amounts of money from their paychecks.

Carl does not particularly enjoy his work as a Chartered Accountant, and
he uses this as a reason to avoid participating in the money-related discussions
at home. He states “ that is what I do at work [accounting] and it's the last thing I
want to do when home. It's just, it’s not something that I thoroughly enjoy.”

In this family, Carol is in charge of all the budgeting and money matters.
She decided on the family budget, allowances that each member of the family
gets and how much will go towards repayment of which debt. She uses several
computer programs to help her keep track of the various accounts and many
expenses that this family has.

This family has several checking and savings accounts, and everyone has
access to all accounts, although Carl never has a need to access any of the
accounts, since he either uses his debit card to pay for items of everyday use,
such as gas and groceries, or uses his allowance for personal items, such as

lunches and music CD’s. There is evidently disagreement as to what $35 per

137

week is supposed to cover and what it is not supposed to cover. Note how Carol
refers to the change in the sum as “her upping it.” In this family, consultation
about appropriate spending simply does not happen.

Carol: We get an allowance.

Carl: We each get $35.00 a week to spend on whatever we want. Just

like free money, no questions, no...

Researcher: Is it like for lunches and that kind of thing?

Carl: Pretty much.

Carol: Pretty much for food.

Carl: Lunches...

Researcher: CDs?

Carol: Yeah, it's supposed to be.

Carl: No.

Carol: He is supposed to

Researcher: So that's on top of

Carol: l upped it

Carl: She wanted it to be

Carol: We had $20 a week and l upped to $35.

Carl: She wanted CDs but

Carol: He could save his money and hoard it...

Carl: Your Pampered Chef stuff that comes out of your money.

The only regular savings this family is able to do at this point in time is a

small savings account for the Christmas spending and their vacations, and their

138

retirement funds. Both employers provide opportunity to withhold up to 10% of
their salaries, and both encourage maximum withholding by matching some of
the contributions. It is interesting to note that this family, with a combined income
of $114,000, does not indicate that they have any unearned or passive income.
In other words, all of their income is earned on their jobs, rather than derived
from investments, such as money market accounts, or stock and bonds. Surely,
both spouses cannot fail to appreciate the importance of unearned income for the
present and the future needs of their family. Therefore, I conclude that they have
not taken advantage of the investment opportunities because they spend all of
their income, without an opportunity to put any money away into savings and
investments.
The Spousal Element

Carol and Carl exhibited the least amount of marital satisfaction
among all study participants. Carol scored 44, and Carl scored 41 on the Revised
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (R-DAS). Any score below 48 is considered to indicate
poor dyadic adjustment (Crane, Busby & Larson, 1991). Although there was no
major discrepancy between the spouses’ independent scores on the items on the
R-DAS, both lost signiﬁcant number of points on two separate items when they
indicated that they "almost always disagree” on items “sex relations” and
“demonstrations of affection.” Additionally, Carl noted on the open-ended written
questionnaire that they “went to marriage counseling” nine years prior to the
interview “and we went to counseling for sex problems in our marriage, they have

never been resolved.” His wife noted that they sought marriage counseling two to

139

three years after the date indicated by Carl, and noted that “it was very helpful to
me. The first few years of marriage were very tough.”

Observational and interview data also conﬁrm that this couple’s marriage
is not as satisfying as that of other interviewed couples. Carol and Carl did not
touch each other at all during the two hour interview, and this lack of physical
affection was in direct contrast to every other couple who may have touched
each other’s hands or upper arms or shoulders. However, these spouses were
not against human touch: when their son joined us, his mother allowed him to sit
on her lap for drawing, and his father was affectionate and playful with him.
Another observation that somewhat “proved” that this marriage was not as strong
as the other unions l have met was the absence of the couple’s wedding or other
photos in the family room, although pictures of family and friends were displayed
very prominently.

During the interview, as evident from the quotes in the previous sections,
Carol and Carl argued about their perceptions of the past events, and past
instances of spending and money allocating. These events may have taken place
many years ago, but in the mind of these spouses, they were fresh evidence of
how "wrong” the other person really was. Although a lot of laughter is heard on
tape, the interactions between Carol and Carl were not as light-hearted and
playful as those between other spouses in this study. The resolution of their
money-related conﬂict seems to be for Carl to contribute to the household
financially, and then to distance himself from major purchasing decisions. He

states that he is “very laid back” and does not care about what kind of furniture

140

and other household items Carol chooses. However, if this was true it seems
contradictory that he brought the subject up repeatedly, even sometimes years
after the purchase had taken place.

In summary, denial of the problem is one way this family deals with
money-related conﬂict. Interestingly, when Carol was asked how she managed
financial disagreements within her marriage, she replied that she kept expenses,
especially those with which Carl disagreed, within the family’s budget. This is of
course a strategy based on a generous monthly budget of $6,000 after taxed with

high job security.

141

Cross-Case Analysis

The stories of the four couples who participated in this study and shared
their views on money and marital satisfaction were presented in the previous
section of this chapter. This section will analyze the collected data with respect to
the original research questions. First, a summary of two aspects of the gathered
data will be presented: the advice that participating couples gave to other married
couples and the personal values that each participant holds with respect to
money and its relative importance.

The four couples were similar to each other on many demographic
characteristics. All eight participants were White, and all were raised in the mid-
West. Three couples were Christian, and one couple was of Jewish faith. Two
couples were still working on obtaining their educations, and two other couples
have already began their careers.

Data Matrix

The body of the matrix consists of direct quotes from the participants. The
couples are arranged in descending order of marital satisfaction, beginning with
the most satisﬁed couple (Ben and Barbara), and ending with the least satisﬁed
couple (Carl and Carol). This arrangement was the most practical, as I had
strong evidence of how satisﬁed the couples were with their marriages in the
form of a R-DAS score, which was easily compared from spouse to spouse and
from couple to couple. Additionally, in all four cases, the spouses rated their

marriages very similarly, with the biggest difference of only three points occurring

142

between Carol and Carl. Thus, I was able to easily rank order the four couples
according to marital satisfaction.

The column of quotes of advice given by the participants to other couples
struggling with marital satisfaction or ﬁnancial problems relates directly to the ﬁrst
research question: “What is the relationship between ﬁnancial behavior and
marital satisfaction?” Couples speak in their own words how they manage this
tenuous relationship, and what attitudes and values helped them along. The next
column presents each spouse’s personal values on the subject of money and
success. This section is tied directly to the second, third and fourth research
questions: What are the linkages between values and the ﬁnancial decisions
made by families? What is the role of the family of origin in the transmission of
the money values, attitudes and beliefs? How does society influence the
spouses’ values and the subsequent decisions about money issues?

As each participant expresses his or her personal values, one can
occasionally hear the voices of their parents instructing them in what is important
in life, what is to be valued and devalued, and to what one must aspire. For
example, when Patrick discusses his strong desire to support his family
financially, he is expressing a value that has been important to several
generations of the P. family. When Barbara discusses frugality as a way of life,
she is relying on her mother’s teachings about how to look for bargains and make
the family’s dollar go as far as possible.

At other times, the voices of the media and societal values are more

prominent in the opinions of the participants. For example, when the B. spouses

143

and Carl discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of relying on child-
care in order to continue working full-time to maintain an affluent life—style, they
are continuing a debate that has been in the forefront of society for the past forty
years, ever since women began entering the workforce in large numbers.

When Abby argues her values in regard to the rich donating large amounts of
money to support the needy, and building smaller houses in order to house the
poor, she echoes Polly’s concern that not enough is being done in this society to

increase volunteerism and services to the disadvantaged.

144

 

 

 

 

Who Husband Advice given on money and Personal Values- reﬂection on the
Mlife relationships (research question origin of values (research
#1) questions 2,3,4)
8 3 3 I've heard people have separate But mostly we take it [money
a g 8 accounts. For me, it's such 3 problems and unexpected expenses]
m 'E foreign idea that you know, you in stride, I mean it's - you can't get
3 5 have to rely on one another. The bent out of shape about it!
5 .2 common goal is that you got
3 g married for a speciﬁc reason. You [family friend with a small child] has
8 .: have to have trust there, and all that an in home business and she puts in
E other stuff. And if you can't have a ton of hours. Something that we're
3 trust one another to keep the not willing to give up.
“5 money together and not to spend it
5 all, then all you have left - you really
17; don't have much left, and [maybe
0 then] you have to have separate
é accounts to be able to go out to do
stuff.
(I, Just spend money wisely basically. They [friends who just had a baby
5 Don't spend money frivolously. and “bumped” him in day care to
E Watch what you buy. You buy stuff continue working full-time to maintain

 

 

that's good. My mom taught me to
look at products from all sides and
just because it was cheap, it did not
mean it was the best thing, but
sometimes it was.

I have several friends who have
problems with money in their
marriages and they split the
ﬁnances up. One person's income
goes to these bills and one person’s
income goes to these bills. I guess
whatever works for each individual
couple is ﬁne. They've got to ﬁnd a
way to get through it. I think trust is
a big thing. You've got to learn to
trust your partner.

 

their life-style] don’t really realize
what kind of gift they have been
given.

We value our friends and friendships.

 

145

 

 

 

Adam and Abby

(Next in marital satisfaction)

I think that it is important that the

My general theory is that most

 

 

g ﬁnance not become a power issue, problems go away on their own

4: so for example, the personal accord, if you leave it alone long
account versus joint account issue. enough.
I mean the way my parents do it is
one thing, where you know they [Success is] you know, self-
have this little discretionary thing on satisfaction, self-actualization...
their own, and you know, that’s ...hopefully, with success [will come]
alright, I don't know ifl will do it, but all sorts of things we are interested
if it works for them, I suppose. But in, at least, you know, a living
relationships where the wife has her income. A comfortable income is a
income and the husband has his, part of that package.
particularly where those are not
equal, Idon't think it is probably And I think that having a strategy,
disastrous. and this is something that we, or at

least I am still trying to negotiate, is

Well, it is not a relationship, it is having some sort of general
something else, where, you know, if decision-making strategy, where you
you have... in severe cases, you are not sort of ﬁghting each ﬁght in
split everything down the middle, isolation, but it is a part of a larger
and he makes three times as she strategy...
does, or vice versa, and I mean, I
can't imagine that being healthy. It
has Mo cause resentment.

>. You have to pay off your credit card I always have to feel like we are

g every month and you don't spend getting ahead. I want to feel like we

 

more than you can afford!

Stay off the credit cards, and
consult with each other if it is a big
purchase decide what kind of
people you are, and know what kind
of people you are.

 

are putting money away, and we are
not just treading water, but we are
putting it away, so, I don’t know, we
can have a bigger down-payment on
the house, orjust be secure if
anything should happen - that kind
of thing.

[Success] means that I am feeling
like I am doing real things for real
people, and ...that [the teachers
whom I train] will go out there and be
different somehow or better.

I feel like if you have that much
money, you have a responsibility, I
don't know, I think they [her in-laws]
can give like 50% of that stuff to
charity. It is hard for me to see
this kind of spending and think
“Wow, these people can do a lot of
good with their money. ...what if that
house was a little bit smaller, and I
don't know, some homeless people
could be housed.

 

146

 

 

 

Patrick and Polly

(Next in marital satisfaction)

Life is a ride, you ride it until the

l have a very guilty conscious when it

 

 

x
g wheels fall of and you can't do that comes to spending money. I very
g when you are worried about things rarely buy stuff for myself.
all the time.
I would say having a house [is
[It is] a matter of: you make sure 50009551 and being 110800131”
that you [the husband] provide, you stable, 30d "0:! relying 0" credit
do what you have to do and make cards, "01 relying 0" banks am
sure that your family has what they loans... anybody 9'58. YOU know.
need. That’s the biggest thing I YOU have your €19th Pald Off. YOU
learned from them [father and are free to do What you want Wlth
grandfather]- just make sure your your own money.
family is taken care of.
[Money represents] Freedom.
Don't let money run your life! Freedom 10 do: to 9°---
Money comes and goes, you ain't
gonna take it with you to your
grave, you know, after you are
dead, it goes to somebody else
anyways. [You] need to think
bigger, to take care of your family
(gets distracted to help his daughter
with a toy).
2 Money is a root of all evil, all is does [My husband] calls me “Volunteer
E is cause problems, it you let it. America” because I volunteer

 

Money is there as a way for people
to negotiate in society, and that is
its fullest effect, that’s all it does. If
you let it go beyond that, if you let it
determine how you live your life,
and what you are going to do with
your life, and who you live your life
with, and how you react to things,
[you will turn into] some kind of
psychology case.

 

everywhere, like presently l have
four different places I volunteer for in
a regular basis, like weekly or
monthly, I just like to do that kind of
thing, just because not many people
do it, and I think more people need
to.

And even if you have it [money], who
is to say tomorrow you are not going
to lose yourjob? You don't have
control over it. It, I mean, you can be
stable, and you can have a job, and
you can have a savings, and blah,
blah, blah...that's great, and that
means that you took control over it
but, I do not know I just do not think
that it should be something that
should even be in a marital
relationship. It should be
something out of your relationship.

I think we are successful in every
other aspect, besides ﬁnancially

now. We do everything so that one of
us is always here with the kids, so
that part of it we have covered. As
far as us, we are happy...

[Money] represents happiness.

 

147

 

 

 

Carl and Carol

(Least satisﬁed with their marriage)

Cart

Right, but if you are going to make
that decision [staying home with
children], you can’t be going buying
more expensive houses, new cars.
It's not the attitude, it's the decisions
that [have been] made. There is
nothing wrong with staying home.
but you got to follow through. If one
of you is going to stay home, you
are going to have to give up
something. You can't go out and
buy a new car.

[Success is] being happy. [Opinions
of others] to me personally don't
matter. I mean if you're happy, then
more than likely you are successful.
I mean, you might not be successful
in somebody else's eyes but you
know that's just a matter of personal
opinion.

I'm pretty laid back [about money
issues].

In the system that other couple used,
it's not fair the way, [they split
ﬁnancial responsibilities] because
she buys groceries out of her money
for both of them. I don't know how
much she makes, but it sounds like
he makes a lot more than her. .

 

 

Carol

 

If you have budget problems, I
mean if you have money problems,
then you have to ﬁgure out what
things you really need and kind of
rank them as far as importance and
work towards those needs. I would
also suggest ...budgets have really
helped us, setting a budget. But
some people can't stick to a budget,
and if you set a budget, you have
to be able to be ﬂexible within that
budget.

 

Success is happiness. Yeah, I mean
achieving what you set out to
achieve. Not necessarily happiness
but, if your goal is to graduate from
college and you graduated from
college, then I would say that you
were successful in that.

Well I mean if you're going to split
things like that [disproportional to the
earnings], it would seem only right
that he's going to eat the groceries
that she buys, then he should be
kicking in some of his money.

 

148

Figure 4.1. Cross—case analysis @trix: advice and personal values.

 

Answers to Research Questions

Research Question #1: (Main research question under study)

What is the relationship between ﬁnancial behavior and marital

satisfaction?

As expected, the relationship between financial behavior and marital
satisfaction is very complex. In this study, the three couples who had high marital
satisfaction had the following ﬁnancial behaviors in common:

- Togetherness: either checking in with each other before making purchase
decisions, especially on large-ticket items, or shopping together;

~Shared values: sharing shared similar values with respect to materialism and
spending (Ben and Barbara), or being able to negotiate their differences
productively (Patrick and Polly);

- Negotiation: negotiating common values and beliefs that when extended
families and others challenged their views, they responded by presenting a
united front and articulating common goals (Adam and Abby);

- United attitude: an "us against it” attitude, choosing to blame money itself (as
“the root of all evil”) or temporary ﬁnancial set-backs, instead of blaming one
another for ﬁnancial problems (Patrick and Polly);

- Comfort: enjoying spending time with their spouses and children and found
money issues to be an unpleasant nuisance, rather than an object of obsession
(Ben and Barbara, Patrick and Polly);

- Trust: trusting one another to have the family’s best interests at heart, not to

spend frivolously or foolishly, and not to sabotage each others goals or progress;

149

- Mutuality: agreeing that a family should have only one bank account with both
spouses having full access to the funds. These happily married couples could not
understand why other couples they knew chose to divide the expenses, or have
an allowance system, or act in any way as less than united in the ﬁnancial arena;

The only couple who scored in the distressed range on the Revised
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Carl and Carol) had some qualitatively different
behavior patterns:
- Separateness: Carol did not feel that it was necessary to consult with Carl
before making purchases, even expensive ones, such as furniture;
- No time together: The couple did not spend a lot of time together or as a family.
This is a function of a demanding work environment, which may or may not have
been chosen for its ability to keep Carl away from the home for extended periods
of time;
- Relevant marital problems: This is the only couple who have indicated that they
sought marital therapy for a dyadic issue, which was unrelated to the present
research;
- Larger income: Carol and Carl are the highest earning couple in this sample.
They earn almost 40% more (not including numerous fringe beneﬁts) than the
couple closest to them in earnings (Ben and Barbara). Their relatively high
income isolates them from having to negotiate and agree upon every purchase:
they simply can afford to have their own way.

Although it is difﬁcult to make sweeping generalizations based on a small

sample size, it appears that families who have successfully negotiated the

150

intersection of money issues with marital satisfaction, are couples with higher
levels or relational trust and good communication and negotiation skills. These
couples are not a homogeneous group with respect to age or income, however:
they represent a full range of the youngest and the oldest couples in the sample,
and their incomes range from under $10,000 to over $70,000 annually.

Research Question #2: What are the linkages between values and the

ﬁnancial decisions made by families?

Values that are held by family members have a direct bearing on the
financial decisions they make, as well as on avoiding making decisions, when
necessary. As evident from the data matrix, stated participant values vary
dramatically from person to person and from couple to couple. Additionally, some
money-related values may be so ingrained in individuals, that they are not aware
of them, or choose not to disclose them to their spouses or relative strangers,
such as the researcher. For example, it appeared to me that one of the
participants may have considered herself as undeserving of afﬂuence and
possessions, but she did not disclose this as a value, possibly because she was
not aware of it. Instead, she talked about the importance of supporting various
charities and advocated a socialist approach to division of monetary possessions
and property, where no one individual held too much money or power.

Perhaps the best example of the influence of personal values on families’
financial decisions is the child-care arrangements that the were used by the
families in this study. Although I did not speciﬁcally inquire into child-care

arrangements, all families chose to share, and often in great detail, how they

151

were able to negotiate transition from couplehood to parenthood. Two of the
couples (Ben and Barbara and Adam and Abby) were able to negotiate an
arrangement where their child attended day-care part-time, while the parents
either worked or attended classes. Adam and Abby’s son went to day-care for
about 10 hours per week, and Ben and Barbara’s son attended daily, but only for
a few hours at a time. The spouses divided the rest of the parenting time
between themselves, alternating pick-up and drop-off times, as well as watching
the child while the other parent worked or attended classes. Patrick and Polly
arranged their schedule in such a way that their children were always with either
one or the other parent. They did not rely on outside child—care on a daily basis,
but instead used baby-sitters on the very rare occasions when both of them
needed to be out at the same time. All three of these families suffered
considerable ﬁnancial hardship in order to provide primary parenting for their
young children. Their personal values of the importance of family time and of the
parents being present for their children superceded their desire to maintain a
higher standard of living.

By contrast, Carol and Carl, the most affluent couple in this small sample,
relied on full-time day-care for the care of their three-year old son. Carol dropped
him off in the morning before she went to work, and picked him up right after her
shift ended. I will estimate that their child spent about 50 hours per week at his
day-care center. In the evenings, Carol would bring her son home, feed him
supper, engage him in a playing and reading activity, and get him ready for bed.

During most of the year, with the exception of the tax season, Carl would arrive

152

home just before the boy’s bed-time. Although father and son seemed to be
comfortable with each other and enjoyed playing a bed-time game on the
evening that I visited, I would guess that Carl spends much less time with his
child than do the three other fathers in this study.

Families make a decision to continue working full-time after the birth of
their ﬁrst child for a variety of reasons, including the need for income and/or
beneﬁts, and or mother’s (or father’s) desire to continue working. Both of these
factors appeared to have played a role in the decision made by Carol and Carl:
they felt that they needed both incomes to continue living in the life-style they
enjoyed and continue paying down debt, and they both seem to enjoy the work
that they do. By comparison, the other three families either did not have
enjoyable jobs (Patrick and Polly), or were able to negotiate ﬂexible (Adam and
Abby), or part-time arrangements (Ben and Barbara). Obviously, the relative
values of an afﬂuent life-style and hands-on child-rearing dictated the choice of
work and child-care arrangements.

Another value that has a direct relationship on ﬁnancial decisions in
families is the relative importance of having savings. Several participants (Abby,
Ben, and Patrick) spoke at length about their strong need to save. Some have
indicated that they were saving “for a rainy day", whereas others simply “had a
need to save” or “to get ahead ﬁnancially”.

This proclivity to refrain from consumption, repair an item rather than
buying new, borrow, share or simply go without, is evident in many American

families. Indeed, a very strong trend towards frugal living re-emerged about a

153

decade ago. Strong proponents of this lifestyle are not hippies or other “fringe"
groups, but mothers of young children, who are continually looking to keep their
families’ expenses on or under the budget. In this sample, Adam and Abby could
be considered representatives of this frugal movement, since Abby has a
tendency to repair broken items or not purchase items at all. Also, both spouses
expressed a strong inclination to pay for things in cash as much as possible,
avoid credit card debt at all cost, and save as large proportion of their income as
possible.

Ben and Barbara have a somewhat different attitude: they do not spend
money on clothes or new furniture because they do not appear to enjoy the
process of shopping. When the need arises, they do purchase long-lasting high-
quality items, but they postpone the purchasing as much as possible.

The other two families in the sample appear to enjoy shopping and
spending as a form of entertainment and leisure. Patrick and Polly often take
their children to the mall after a difﬁcult day. They often window-shop, rather than
buy due to their constrained circumstances. Carol and Carl, on the other hand,
are buyers: when they go out to window shop, they come home with purchases.
Thus, the value that individuals place on saving vs. spending has a direct
relationship on the ﬁnancial decisions made by the families.

Research Question #3: What is the role of the family of origin in the

transmission of the money values, attitudes and beliefs?

Perhaps the most startling ﬁnding of this study was the extent to which all

couples relied on their extended families for monetary support. All four couples

154

had strong ﬁscal ties to their parents. These ties included loans for down
payments on houses and debt reduction, outright monetary gifts (ranging from
several dollars for gas to several thousand dollars), and expensive presents. In
exchange, the parents and grandparents of the participants wanted to be
consulted on major purchases, and some even included speciﬁc provisos with
their gifts. For example, Patrick and Polly accumulated over $12,000 in credit
card debt, which was paid off in full by Patrick’s grandparents on the condition
that the couple do not use credit cards ever again. For several years, Patrick and
Polly did not have any credit cards, and after they got one recently, they decided
to use it for convenience purposes only and to pay off the balance monthly.

Other parents may not have been quite that vocal in expressing to their
grown children on what types of expenses their loans of gifts can be used.
Nevertheless, the couple knew that certain types of spending was acceptable
(down payments on property and reduction of credit card debt), and certain types
were not (vacations). Indeed, Patrick and Polly with enough savings to take their
children to Disney World, felt guilty in front of the grandparents for choosing to
spend their money in such a frivolous fashion.

In addition to monetary help, extended families offered advice on ﬁnancial
matters, and education in the matters of banking, real estate, and transportation.
Many times this advice and guidance were welcome, but not always. Sometimes
spouses felt criticized for their choices. For example, Barbara’s mother thought
that the spouses’ house was too large, and that they spend too much on it.

Barbara reported that her mother was critical because she was envious of her

155

daughter’s success and because she had always disliked the house she lived in.
On the other hand, Polly reported being very interested in her step-father’s
ﬁnancial acumen, and wanted to learn from him. She seemed to resent the
power he held over her, but she freely acknowledged that he was by far better at
money management than she was.

Parental values with respect to saving and spending also have a strong
inﬂuence on the couples’ choices. Families who tended to live in poverty or near-
poverty or who were frugal by choice, tended to produce frugal and careful
children (Barbara, Ben, Abby, Patrick). Families who enjoyed spending money
had children who were valuing consumption more than savings (Adam, Carol,
Polly). Carl seemed to be the only exception to this trend. Although his parents
were in the lower-middle class when he grew up, his father had always been
obsessed with money and gambling. As a result, Carl adopted a very laid-back
attitude towards money issues, never monitoring either his own or his wife’s
spending and never showing any interest in the bills or the budget. Interestingly,
he chose a money-related career which allowed him to discuss money and
spending with clients on a daily basis. Additionally, his career is rather lucrative,
although he denied having potential income as a motive for choosing to become
a CPA.

Parental attitudes also seemed to have crossed the generational
boundary. Parents who do not value gifts and gift-giving (Abby), have children
who dislike the idea of "excessive" giving, and deﬁne "excessive” in a much more

stringent ways than do their spouses. Parents who sometimes hide expenses

156

from their spouses (Polly) have children who continually “forget” to record their
own expenses in the check register. Those who are meticulous with record-
keeping produce off-spring who are equally careful with their ﬁnancial records,
despite the fact that the rest of the house is less-than-pristine (Ben). Parents who
use monetary success to evaluate which of their children is doing better in life,
have children who are competitive with their siblings (Carl and Barbara).

Although this study treated the parental unit as monolithic and its inﬂuence
as consistent from one parent to the other, this is usually not the case in families.
Mothers and fathers disagree about what is important to them, and their values
and attitudes are usually different than those held by the previous generation.
More than half of the participants in this study experiences parental divorce,
which may indicate that the parents had some key differences in values and
attitudes. However, for the simplicity of interpretation of the ﬁndings, this study
treated the values held by mothers and fathers as “family of origin values".

In conclusion, strong parental inﬂuence was evident in the multitude of
financial choices that the spouses make: from spending vs. saving decisions,
honesty and disclosure within the dyad, use of borrowed of gifted funds, as well
as financial planning for the future (college and retirement).

Research Question #4: How does society influence the spouses’ values

and the subsequent decisions about money issues?

Although hypothesis generation is not appropriate in a qualitative study
such as this one, I expected that societal inﬂuences (such as advertising, the

media, and the behavior of friends and neighbors) would have a much stronger

157

inﬂuence on the ﬁscal behavior of the participants than was the case. In rare
instances when someone mentioned ﬁnancial choices made by friends, co-
workers or siblings, the comments accompanying were negative (Carol, Carl,
Ben, Barbara, Abby and Adam). The participants thought the other families were
making financial mistakes by beginning renovation projects at inopportune times,
purchasing vehicles that were too expensive, using ATM’s too extensively, not
having a budget, spending too much or on unimportant things, or not pulling their
incomes together into a joint account. The behavior was criticized and not
emulated.

Not one individual mentioned wanting a particular item because it had
been extensively advertised or because their friends had one. Perhaps the only
exception to this was Polly, who was the youngest person in the sample (and
mother to the oldest child). She stated that she gets annoyed and angry at
classmates who can afford new aerobics shoes and outﬁts, which are not in her
family’s budget. Several families showed the opposite behavior: they stated that
they either did not know their neighbors (Carol and Carl),or did not care what
kinds of cars they drove (Ben and Barbara), or what sort of toys they were buying
for their children (Abby and Adam). It is possible that this lack vulnerability to the
inﬂuences of a consumerist society is the result of mature choices made by
knowledgeable individuals. It is also possible that the inﬂuence of advertising has
become such a large part of the collective psyche, that the individuals are not
even aware that they have fallen under the spell. The presence of certain less-

than-necessary items (photocopies, hundreds of music CD’s, rare cooking

158

utensils, hundreds of boxes of tea) in the homes of the participants indicate that
the latter may be the case.

Research Question #5: How do issues of gender and power influence

money—related values and decisions, as well as marital conﬂict and

consensus?

Issues of gender and power were perhaps the hardest to assess. Many
participants did not remember who managed and controlled money in their
families of origin, either because they did not pay attention to such issues as
children, or because their parents divorced early on. In general, the participants
reported that their mothers managed the money in their households by writing
checks, and giving allowances and lunch money and following or being
concerned about following a budget. Fathers appeared to have controlled the
money by deciding on major purchases and monitoring long-term spending
(retirement, college funds). In one family, (Carl’s parents) the father was not only
responsible for making a living, but also about worrying about money. His mother
was kept in the dark about the family’ 3 ﬁnancial situation, and after his father’s
suspected suicide, she was not able to manage the life insurance proceeds in an
intelligent manner.

Many couples reported that their mothers either did not work when they
and their siblings were little, or worked only part-time. Issues of power due to
large income differences in the previous generation were not discussed, possibly
because stay-home mothers were more common 30 or 35 years ago than they

are today. Almost all participants expressed surprise and disapproval of a

159

common current practice of having separate bank accounts for spouses in the
same family. Many stated that this practice is unfair and would breed resentment,
as it is highly unlikely that the spouses would earn exactly the same amounts of
money. All participants chose to pool all of their funds into joint accounts. For
them, doing otherwise would represent a power struggle and serve as a symbol
of lack of dyadic trust.

Perhaps the most important contribution of gender and power issues to
the family ﬁnancial decision-making is the influence that they have on the child-
care arrangement decision. Families with more traditional values are more likely
to rely on mothers to provide most of the care, whereas more egalitarian couples
rely either on both parents, or the parent who is most capable and willing to
provide child care. In three families, fathers were as involved with the everyday
care and parenting of their children as were the mothers. Only in one case (Carol
and Carl), was the father almost peripheral to his child’s development.

In the four couples studied, two women (Abby and Carol) and two men
(Patrick and Ben) managed the everyday financial transactions in the household.
Three families (other than Carol and Carl) consulted each other on all or most
non-routine purchases, or went shopping together. It appeared that the division
of money-related tasks occurred because some spouses were better in math,
enjoyed working with numbers, liked the element of control that budgeting
sometimes delivers, or simply because it was their turn to manage money. In all
cases, all spouses had full access to bank statements, check books, and PIN

numbers for all of family’s accounts and sub-accounts.

160

In conclusion, although issues of gender and power have a strong
inﬂuence on the ﬁnancial decisions of the families, they are rather difficult to
attend to during direct questioning. It is possible that more observation, testing or
examination of artifacts (check registers, budget statements) would need to occur
to make conclusive remarks about the extent to which gender and power

inﬂuence ﬁnancial decision-making.

161

CHAPTER 5
Discussion
Overview

The purpose of this study was to understand: (1) the inﬂuence of ﬁnancial
decisions made by married couples on marital satisfaction, and (2) the inﬂuence
of marital satisfaction on ﬁnancial decisions. Additionally, individual values and
their inﬂuences on ﬁscal behavior, as well as the origin of these values were
explored. Two basic origins of values and beliefs were discussed: those
stemming from the family of origin and those stemming from society. The
elements of gender and power differences received special attention in this
study.

Four couples in their ﬁrst marriage with young children in the home
participated in this collective case study. They were interviewed conjointly in their
homes over the period of about two hours. The participants’ responses mostly
supported the theoretical underpinnings of this research. Discussion of the
findings will be divided into two sections: the ﬁrst section will address the
theoretical foundations of this research and will present the revised conceptual
map; the second section will discuss key ﬁndings. The rest of this chapter will
present methodological issues, study limitations, implications for clinicians and

other professionals, and directions for future research.

162

Key Findings
Theoretical Foundations

Questionnaires and interview questions were constructed and the
participants’ responses were analyzed using Human Ecological Theory (Bubolz &
Sontag, 1993), with special attention paid to Decision-Making Theory (Pennartz
& Niehof, 1999) and Family Systems Theory (Bowen, 1966), viewed through a
Feminist framework (Knudson-Martin, 1994). Power Approach to decision-
making (Pennartz & Niehof, 1999) was not found to be used in a systematic
manner by the study participants. Although gender differences in making
decisions were present, they did not seem to be crucial in how couples made
decisions or discussed them afterwards.

When the original concept map (Figure 1.1) was created and discussed
(Chapter 1), these three theories were given equal weight in their inﬂuence on
the relationship between marital satisfaction and ﬁnancial behavior. However,
this equality of inﬂuence was not substantiated by the research ﬁndings.
Speciﬁcally, the inﬂuence of the family of origin on the values held by the
participants was found to be the strongest among the three possible inﬂuences:
family, society and gender/power differences. The families in which participants
grew up helped shape and form their values more so than did the societal
messages or the gender and power differences that occurred in their families.

This ﬁnding necessitates the revision of the conceptual map.

163

llllllW *

 

 

   

1' FinancialBehai-riorf _ 1.

 

 

‘ was. Satisfaction * ‘ '

 

 

 

Legend:

Arrows denote influence

Stripes denote Bowen Family Systems influence
Cross-hatch denotes Human Ecological Theory influence

Figure 5.1. Revisﬂ Congemual Mag

164

The revised conceptual map (Figure 5.1) reﬂects the ﬁnding that the family
of origin had the strongest inﬂuence on the values that shaped the relationship
between marital satisfaction and ﬁnancial behaviors. The inﬂuences of the
society in which the participants functioned were filtered through the family of
origin lens.

For example, participants reported that the way they deal with pressures
to purchase advertised goods and services is very similar to the way their
parents and even grandparents dealt with the same pressures. Frugal
parents reared careful savers; spenders raised spendthrifts; bargain-hunters
begat other bargain-hunters.

Additionally, socio-economic, demographic, and personal factors
inﬂuenced the ﬁnancial and marital functioning of the families in which
participants spent their formative years. These inﬂuences were not postulated in
the original research question, but rather emerged from the gathered data. For
example, ﬁve out of eight participants reported parental divorce when they were
growing up. Divorced individuals, especially women, generally do not fare as well
economically as do married couples (Waite, 2000). Their children are more often
raised in impoverished circumstances than are children of married couples
(Waite, 2000). Three participants reported feeling that their families’ ﬁnancial
resources were extremely limited because of the divorce, and that their needs
were often unmet due to their parents’ inability to cover the necessary expenses.

Factors other than parental divorce that inﬂuence the children’s values

165

include the quality of their parents’ relationship and the level of their conﬂict. Two
participants speciﬁcally mentioned high levels of marital dissatisfaction that
permeated the households in which they grew up. Conﬂicts, both money-related
and non-money-related, were constant. Thus, children may learn that ﬁghting,
arguing and unhappiness are a normal part of marriage and may bring this value
into their family of procreation. Since these factors of socio-economic,
demographic, and personal variables are so inﬂuential in the development of
values, an additional building block was added to the conceptual map to indicate
their signiﬁcance.

Another change in the conceptual map can be found within the
relationship between marital satisfaction and ﬁnancial behaviors. The original
concept map presented two equal arrows linking these two concepts, signifying
an equally strong influence of the marital satisfaction on ﬁnancial behaviors, and
of financial behaviors on the marital satisfaction. Research data did not
substantiate this equal inﬂuence, but rather indicated that the inﬂuence of marital
satisfaction on ﬁnancial behaviors is stronger than the reciprocal relationship. In
other words, satisﬁed spouses are able to make sound financial decisions that
promote the well-being of the family without jeopardizing the mutual trust and
commitment between them. Patrick and Polly, Adam and Abby, and Ben and
Barbara demonstrated consistently that their love for one another, mutual respect
and high satisfaction with their marriage (and desire not to jeopardize the
relationship they hold dear), made them consult with one another on important

purchases, put each other’s interests ahead of their own, and compromise with

166

one another. Carl and Carol, on the other hand, demonstrated that when
spouses are not very satisﬁed with their marriage, they are more likely to make
ﬁnancial decisions that are inconsiderate of the needs of the other person, and
less likely to take the opinions and needs of the other person into account.

The reverse influence, that of ﬁnancial behaviors on marital satisfaction,
although present, was not as strong. Certainly, sustaining satisfying relationships
in the face of constant money troubles is difﬁcult. But Patrick and Polly, as well
as Ben and Barbara showed that it was not impossible. Despite adverse ﬁnancial
circumstances, these couples were able to maintain a strong sense of
connectedness to one another and commitment to both the relationship and their
children. They chose to see money as a negative external inﬂuence that they
both could rally against, and had a strong “us against it” attitude. If ﬁnancial
behaviors and the subsequent ﬁnancial stability had a strong inﬂuence on marital
satisfaction, Carl and Carol’s marriage should have been one of the strongest,
since this couple earned almost 40% more than the couple with the second
highest earnings. In fact, they had the lowest marital satisfaction of all couples in
this small sample. Thus, the revised conceptual map is demonstrating the
inequality of influence of marital satisfaction on ﬁnancial behaviors (stronger) and
of financial behaviors on marital satisfaction (weaker).

Other Findings

The key ﬁnding of this study, that of the strength of the inﬂuence of the

family of origin on the values and subsequent ﬁnancial behaviors of adult

members, has been discussed in detail in the previous section. This section will

167

discuss other important ﬁndings, including the inﬂuences of gender and power
issues on the family decision-making process, the importance of child-care
arrangements in the lives of the modern American family, and the ever-present
ﬁnancial aid between the generations.

Gender and power.

Perhaps the most challenging area of inquiry was in the area of gender
and power differences. Direct questioning about gender roles and power
inequalities did not produce fruitful results: couples either professed that their
relationships were perfectly egalitarian with no differences based on their gender,
or had little to say in response to the questions. When I attempted to ascertain
the gender differences in their families of origin, two patterns of responses
emerged. Some participants described their families in perfectly traditional
gender terms, with mothers being responsible for child-care and the
housekeeping chores, while fathers worked outside of the home and were
responsible for money management. Other participants stated that they simply
did not remember the gender role distribution in the families or origin, either
because their parents divorced early, or because they were too little to pay
attention to these adult concerns.

Possibly, the younger generation may have become more “progressive”
than their parents, and they do share household tasks and decision-making
power more equally. The observations and inferences that I drew from the
collected data led me to believe that although most couples were not as

traditional as their parents in their orientation, there was still evidence of gender

168

differences. Most women were still responsible for child-care and household
chores, and several men stated that providing for their families ﬁnancially was
more important to them than anything else.

Additionally, it seems that there is some uncertainty and even
incongruence with respect to gender roles in some of the couples I interviewed.
For example, Patrick spent as much time parenting his two children as did Polly,
in addition to doing most of the household cleaning, which would make him a
rather non-traditional husband. On the other hand, he stated unequivocally that
not providing for his family ﬁnancially was “killing him” and that he could not wait
to start working full-time. His wife, although outwardly claiming that she would
like to work full-time, while Patrick took care of the children (egalitarian
orientation), seemed pleased and ﬂattered that someone stronger and more
capable expressed an interest in supporting her (traditional orientation). Thus,
the issues surrounding power differences and gender roles are multi-dimensional
and sometimes difficult to assess.

Receiving Help from Others.

An unexpected ﬁnding of this study was that everyone in this sample
received ﬁnancial aid from their parents or grandparents. This ﬁnancial aid
included cash gifts, large loans (both interest-bearing and interest-free),
expensive household appliances or electronics, or repayment of debts. I
originally expected to find younger couples whose earning capacity is limited by

their school attendance to receive these gifts. In fact, all families reported

169

receiving aid from their families of origin, even thought four participants were at
or near the peak of their earning capacity.

This ﬁnding is consistent with Stanley and Danko’s (1996) ﬁnding of the
existence of substantial monetary gifts that are given by American’s afﬂuent to
their (usually grown and married) children. The researchers found that 46% of
the American wealthy gave at least $15,000 annually to their adult children and
grandchildren (Stanley & Danko, 1996, p. 143). The implications of these “acts of
kindness” were found to be far-reaching for both donors and recipients. Parents
who provide money “have signiﬁcantly less wealth than those parents within the
same age, income and occupational cohorts whose adult children are
economically independent” (Stanley & Danko, 1996, p. 142). The adult children
who habitually receive large gifts of money tend to accumulate wealth more
slowly than those who do not receive ﬁnancial aid (Stanley & Danko, 1996). This
ﬁnding may appear counter-intuitive on the surface, but in fact is quite logical: if
large sums of money are provided whenever needed, adult children never feel
the need to budget their spending or to save for long-term goals or emergencies.
Their children’s tuition (private school and college) is often paid by grandparents,
and they usually do not worry about saving for retirement, as they are likely to
inherit large sums of money before the retirement occurs.

Another problem with relying on parental economic support is its inherent
unreliability. When the aging parents need medical care, their contributions to
their adult children and grandchildren are likely to diminish (as was the case with

Adam); when taxation laws change, it may seize to be proﬁtable to divest estates

170

of cash on an annual basis (as happened with the new Estate Tax Laws in 2001);
when families quarrel or go through divorce, support may be withdrawn; and
when parents eventually die, their estates may be smaller than expected or may
be bequeathed to charities or other family members.

The study participants may not have come from the population of the adult
children of American millionaires, as did participants in several studies done by
Stanley and Danko (1996), but the mechanism of inter-generational giving seems
to be very similar. This ﬁnancial dependency encourages emotional dependency
between the generations: if parents or grandparents pay off a couple’s debt, they
feel entitled to dictate their children’s spending behaviors (Patrick and Polly); if
parents provide gifts or loans towards down payments on the home, they feel
free to criticize the housing choices their children make (Barbara and Ben); if the
older generation gives large monetary gifts, they may also dictate what kinds of
expenses may and may not be covered with "their” money (Carl and Carol).

The ambivalence and anger with which some participants described
receiving ﬁnancial aid from their parents may be indicative of lack of
differentiation (Bowen, 1966) that the participants manifest with respect to their
families or origin. They feel at once trapped by the need for aid dollars, and the
hatred of the dependency that receiving this aid entails. They may feel that their
parents’ gifts and loans cause disagreements with their spouse, or that this
contributes to spoiling of their children. They also may feel that they owe
something back to their parents, and that their parents (along with everyone else)

owe them. This emotional reactivity and ever-present anxiety are further

171

evidence of lack of differentiation, as the participants’ responses were more likely
to be emotional and irrational, rather than well-thought out and calm. This is
particularly evident in the case of Patrick and Polly who gratefully receive
thousands of tax-payer dollars while working only a few hours per week.

Child-care arrangements.

Child-care arrangements, although not the focus of this study, were
mentioned and discussed in detail by all participants. Arranging for the care of
children inside or outside the home, by parents or by professionals has far-
reaching implications on both family ﬁnances and marital satisfaction. The cost of
child-care is often so prohibitive that a parent (usually mother) ﬁnds that after
paying for child-care, she sometimes works for only a few dollars per hour.
Perhaps that is the reason why the two families who chose to provide child-care
themselves were on the lower end of the earning scale. Some women choose to
continue their employment because the family budget requires that they do, or
because they need benefits (such as medical insurance or retirement
contributions), or because they enjoy their jobs. Several participants mentioned
that the decision to continue with employment was made jointly between the
husband and wife, and both acknowledged all the advantages and
disadvantages of an employed spouse. Several others who chose to stay home
to take care of their young children discussed the scheduling difﬁculties this
arrangement entails. These families operated as strong teams when providing
child-care, switching between employment and care-taking roles as the

circumstances dictated.

172

Occasionally, a participant mentioned a female family member or a friend
who had been struggling with parenting choices. Speciﬁcally, there appears to be
some male partners/husbands who are not ready or willing to lower their
standard of living in order to keep one parent in the home. Their wives are
frequently resentful of the husbands” perceived selﬁshness and immaturity, with
marital dissatisfaction often being the end result. All eight participants in this
study acknowledged that they are pleased with the child-care arrangements they
have made, and were prepared to face the ﬁnancial consequences of those
decisions.

Methodological Issues

From the very beginning of this research project I wanted to interview
couples conjointly. As a Marriage and Family Therapist, I was anxious to use my
clinical interviewing skills of empathy, neutrality and curiosity in a new arena -
that of social research. I wanted to interview couples together in order to assess
their marital complementarity, satisfaction and the comfort and joy they
experienced in each other’s company. Also, I wished to allow the conversations
to emerge between them, to facilitate exploration and growth of new ideas, and
to assist in the development of new dialogues and understandings. l was looking
for the spouses to hear each other’s childhood stories, and the genesis of their
individual values and attitudes. In addition to sharing their own stories, I wanted
couples to arrive at mutual understandings in the areas of power and gender
differences, budgeting and planning, and common values and beliefs. Thus, my

purpose was to create a dialogue between the spouses in my presence, a

173

dialogue I could gently direct with probing questions and some directed activities.
Overall, I was very pleased with the way these dialogues worked out. Couples
reported enjoying participating in the study and expressed an interest in this
research project and my other professional endeavors. In particular, all of the
participants were eager to share advice, hints, and tips with couples for whom
money issues constitute a major problem.

One of the methodological difﬁculties I encountered was having young
children in the home during the interviews. I speciﬁcally wanted to interview
parents of young children and offered to reimburse the costs of baby-sitting for
the duration of the two-hour interview. Unfortunately, three out of four families
chose not to hire a baby-sitter, and the fourth family hired a very young “mother’s
helper”. Consequently, the children were a constant distraction, and I appreciated
an opportunity to assess how couples functioned as parents. Although I was able
to obtain good data during all four interviews, I would recommend that other
researchers prepare for the noise and the distractions if they wish to work with
parents of young children.

In this study, I wanted to encourage the participants to tell their own
stories. Occasionally, I struggled with balancing the need to have their narratives
heard and the need for honest and complete data analysis. I wanted to remain
respectful to the participants, and yet not get inducted into their family systems to
the extent that I was not able to ask probing questions and seek alternative

explanations.

174

Limitations

Limitations of this study were two-fold. First and foremost, a sample size
of four cases although the usual maximum for collective case studies (Creswell,
1998), is very small. Reaching saturation in data gathered was not the goal of
this study. Rather I wanted to explore in greater detail the few cases that I
collected. Additionally, this sample was self-selected. Although several hundred
advertising ﬂyers were distributed, only six couples contacted me with requests
for more information. Four out of six were included in the ﬁnal analysis. All
couples found out about the study from the list serve maintained by the
University’s Child and Family Care Resources ofﬁce, and all were either student-
parents or employee-parents. All couples who were willing to spend two hours
with a researcher describing their ﬁnancial decision-making and their marital
satisfaction did not have severe relationship or money problems. Although some
couples did describe difﬁculty making ends meet on a monthly basis, while others
complained about high levels of debt, all participants were well-adjusted and did
not participate in either marital or debt counseling.

Another limitation of this study is the use of a speciﬁc life cycle stage, that
of first-time married couples with pre-school children. I deliberately excluded
couples with no children, as well as remarried couples, or those with step-
children. As discussed in Chapter 2, remarried couples tend to view their joint
financial lives differently than do those who are married for the ﬁrst time. Parents
often have more money-related concerns than do non-parents, both because of

increased expenses and reduced work hours. I made every effort to ﬁnd couples

175

who were in the same life cycle stage to facilitate cross-case comparisons. This
decision makes generalizations to other populations, including multi-ethnic and
multi-racial, populations invalid.

Recommendations for Future Research

More research is needed into how today’s families perceive the challenges
of living in and raising children in today’s consumerist society and how marriages
withstand or crumble under the weight of these pressures. I believe that a large-
scale longitudinal study that will compare marital satisfaction across different
socio-economic, racial and age groups would be beneﬁcial. It would also be
beneﬁcial to track family decision-making across family life-span: do couples
learn better decision-making skills as they grow older? Can these skills be
taught? How do ﬁnancial decisions affect marital satisfaction?

Another aspect of family ﬁnancial life that requires further study are the
times of hardship, such as unemployment, sudden illness of a breadwinner,
business setbacks, or large debts. How do families cope with these hardships?
What makes some couples survive the temporary setbacks and thrive in their
aftermath, and other couples collapse under the weight of these pressures? All of
this research needs to take into account participants’ race, age, sexual
orientation, the presence of children, and their socio-economic status, as I
believe that all of these factors will contribute signiﬁcantly to the outcome.

Issues of gender and power differences in the family and their inﬂuence on
financial behaviors and marital satisfaction need to be explored in more detail. As

discussed previously, this is a methodologically difﬁcult area to investigate, but

176

our knowledge in this field is an yet inadequate, and further research in this area
is crucial.
Implications

Implications of this study for clinicians are two-fold: ﬁrst, clinicians need to
understand the complex nature of marital satisfaction with all its antecedents and
consequences. Some individual decisions and actions have implications on
marital satisfaction, because in a marital system an action taken (or not taken) by
one member has a direct effect on all other members. Conversely, marital
satisfaction can and does affect individual decisions: couples who are satisﬁed
with their relationship are less likely to act in ways that would jeopardize that
relationship. On the other hand, less than satisﬁed couples may act out of
jealousy, spite, or desire for revenge.

Secondly, clinicians need to get further training in how family ﬁnancial
decisions and problems relate to marital functioning and satisfaction. It is rare to
find a clinician who is not familiar with signs of eating disorders or spousal
violence, and yet very few can assess adequately for signs of credit abuse,
gambling problems, or compulsive consumption. Yet, these problems are
probably more prevalent in the population an average therapist serves than
eating disorders or spousal abuse.

This study has implications for researchers and educators, as well. I was
surprised to ﬁnd out how different the four couples I interviewed were from one
another. And yet, all were ﬁrst time married couples with pre-school children.

\Mth today’s medical technology, child-bearing can be postponed until

177

convenient for both spouses, and ﬁrst children are often born to couples in their
30s - something that would be unthinkable even one generation ago.

Additionally, with advances in reproductive medicine, couples in their 405
(even late 40s) can and do bear children. Families who appeared similar to
researchers twenty or thirty years ago because they were parenting children of
the same age, are now a very heterogeneous group. The main difference among
these families is probably their ability to access resources: emotional, cognitive,
financial, social. Younger couples may have more familial support, but not as
much money or credit history to secure money if needed. Older couples may
have better decision-making skills and social support other than their families of
origin. Additionally, they may be more ﬁnancially secure. Thus, when choosing
populations for study, researchers need to take into account the advances in
both medical technology and reproductive norms and mores. The educators
need to be mindful of the cohort effects that may be very different even in the
families in the same life cycle stage.

Summary

This collective case study examined the relationship between ﬁnancial
behaviors in families and marital satisfaction. It represented a ﬁrst small step in
answering qualitative questions about ﬁnancial behaviors in marriages.

Although the scope of the study was limited, marital satisfaction was found
to be important in how couples made money-related decisions in that those who

were satisﬁed with their marriages exhibited qualitatively different behaviors. For

178

example, satisfied couples either checked in with each other before making
purchase decisions, especially on large-ticket items, or they shopped together;
either shared similar values with respect to materialism and spending, or were
able to negotiate their differences productively. Additionally, they negotiated
common values and had an "us against it” attitudes, choosing to blame money
itself, instead of blaming one another for ﬁnancial problems. They trusted one
another to have the family’s best interests at heart, not to spend frivolously or
foolishly, and not to sabotage each other’s goals or progress. All couples in this
study had joint bank accounts, although only one family member was responsible
for budgeting and paying of bills.

This study demonstrated that being in debt or in constrained ﬁnancial
circumstances, although stressful both on individuals and on marriages, is not
necessarily an indicator of marital dysfunction. Participants’ values surrounding
money issues was also the focus of this study. The ﬁndings clearly indicate that,
at least at this stage of the family life cycle, family of origin has strong inﬂuences
on how young couples deal with money. Societal values and pressures, as well
as gender and power issues, were found to be mitigated in their inﬂuence by the
values of the families in which spouses spend their formative years. More
research is needed in order to more fully understand the complex interaction of

marital satisfaction and ﬁnancial behaviors in families.

179

APPENDICES

180

APPENDIX 1
Interview Guide
Research Question #1: (Main research question under study)

What is the relationship between ﬁnancial behavior and marital satisfaction?
1. How would characterize your marriage: happy? Unhappy? Somewhere in
between? What makes you say that?
2. Can you describe the process of money management in your family? Who
pays the bills, makes deposits, checks balances in checking accounts?
4. Do you follow a budget? How was this budget created? If you don’t, what other
money management strategies do you use?
5. How do you make less frequent decisions, such as how much money to
allocate to savings, retirement, credit card debt, which stocks or mutual funds to
buy?
6. Who earns more money in your family? How do you both feel about this?
7. Do you have money-related disagreements and ﬁghts? If you do, what do you
usually fight about? Are you able to talk freely about money with your spouse?
8. What persuasion strategies do you use? Do you usually agree with the way
your spouse handles money?
9. Can you take turns describing your most recent money fights? What
happened?
10. Do you see the connections between your money arguments and problems

and the way you feel about your spouse? In what way?

181

Research Question #2: (informed by Human Ecological and Bowen Family
Systems theories)
What are the linkages between values and the ﬁnancial decisions made by
families?

1. What are your values with respect to money?
2. Are you a saver or a spender? Do you worry a lot about money or does it take
care of itself?
3. What does having money mean to you? What could you accomplish or have if
you had money?
4. What would happen if you were broke? Discuss the emotions that accompany
your thoughts.
5. Would you consider yourself a money-wise individual? Is learning about
money important to you?

6. How do your values work with or against those of your spouse?

182

Research Question #3: (informed by Bowen Family Systems theory)
What is the role of the family of origin in the transmission of the money values,
attitudes and beliefs?
1. What did you learn about money from the family in which you grew up?
2. What were your first money-related experiences?
3. How do these early experiences inﬂuence you today?
4. What was your family’s socio-economic status?
5. What were your family’s attitude about saving and investing?
6. Was love ever expressed through money in your family? Denied through

money?

183

Research Question #4: (informed by Human Ecological theory)
How does society influence the spouses’ values and the subsequent decisions
about money issues?

1. Do you feel pressure from society or friends and co-workers to buy certain
things, or have a certain life-style? If you do, how do you deal with that pressure?
2. Was the family in which you grew up materialistic? In what ways? What about
your siblings or friends?
3. How do or did family members respond to each other’s requests for ﬁnancial
suppon?
4. How did your family evaluate success — by possessions, education,
prestigious jobs, happiness, social status?
5. Are you satisfied with your current income? What about expenses and level of
debt? Are you anticipating any changes in the future?
6. How do you feel about debt? Home ownership?
7. Do you and your spouse agree on dealing with societal and peer pressure?
8. Describe a purchase or an expenditure that you are particularly proud of or
happy with? Describe a purchase or an expenditure that you are particularly

unhappy with?

184

Research Question #5: (informed by Human Ecological and Bowen Family
Systems theories)
How do issues of gender and power inﬂuence money-related values and
decisions, as well as marital conﬂict and consensus?

1. What kinds of roles were assigned to men and women in you the family in
which you grew up?
2. Who was responsible for earning money? Saving money? Spending money?
Saving money?
3. Who had more control and power in decision-making: your mom or your dad?
What makes you say that?
4. Who had more control power in decision-making: you or your spouse? What
makes you say that?
5. Do you feel that your needs and desires are as important as your spouse’s
and children’s or is there inequality?
6. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “completely solitary” and 10 being “a perfect

team,” how would say rate yourselves when it comes to money?

185

APPENDIX 2
Written Questionnaire
This questionnaire needs to be completed separately from your spouse, and
handed back to the researcher in a sealed envelope. I would appreciate as much

detail as possible, feel free to use the reverse side of the page if you need it.

The contents of this questionnaire will not be disclosed to your spouse under any

circumstances.

1. What is your name and age?

2. What is your spouse’s name and age?

3. What are your children’s names and ages?

4. How long have you been married?

5. What is your income before taxes? (Specify per hour, per month or per year

and break down by sources of income, such as primary job, secondary job,

income-earning assets, etc. )

6. What is your occupation?

7. How many hours do you work in a typical week?

186

8. What is your spouse’s income before taxes? (Specify per hour, per month or
per year and break down by sources of income, such as primary job, secondary
job, income-earning assets, etc. )

9. What is your spouse’s occupation?

10. How many hours does he or she work in a typical week?

11. What is your highest level of education?

12. What is your spouse’s highest level of education?

13. Have you or your spouse ever participated in marriage counseling? When?

Can you tell me a little about that experience?

14. Have you or your spouse ever participated in credit counseling? When?

Can you tell me a little about that experience?

187

15. Have you ever or do you currently hide income from your spouse?

15. Have you ever or do you currently hide expenses from your spouse?

16. To the best of your knowledge, does your spouse hide income or expenses

from you?

17. How did you feel about participation in this study?

18. Is there anything that you want me to know about yourself, or your family, or

your money situation that you did not want to share earlier?

19. Any ﬁnal comments of thoughts?

188

APPENDIX 3

Informed Consent

The purpose of this collective case study is to understand the relationship between
couple’s ﬁnancial behavior and their marital satisfaction. Financial behaviors may
include any earning or spending that a person does, as well as gambling, hoarding,
overspending or over-reliance on credit. You are being asked to discuss your family’s
ﬁnancial situation, as well as your feelings, thoughts and values about money issues and
the satisfaction you feel with your marriage with the researcher and your spouse. After
the interview is complete, you will have an opportunity to write down answers to
sensitive or personal questions that you did not want to discuss with your spouse present.
Your spouse will never have access to the questionnaire you have completed.

>

Your participation is totally voluntary and can be discontinued at any time. You may
also refuse to answer any question or share information. If one spouse decided to
discontinue their participation, the whole couple unit will be released from further
questions.

All information obtained will be kept conﬁdential and any written reports will not use
name or other identifying data. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

Questions for the researcher can be asked at any time during the process. Additional
questions about the study can be addressed to Natasha Kendal, MA. at (517) 355-
4506 or Dr. Marsha Carolan (517) 432-3327. If you have any questions or concerns
about your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any
aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish - be asked of Ashir
Kumar, M. D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS) at (517) 355-2180.

All sessions will be audio taped, and all tapes will be erased after this project is
complete. Only the researcher will retain the transcripts of the interviews, which will
be kept locked at all times.

If you were referred to this study by your therapist, your doctor, or another helping
professional, they will not be informed of your participation, and the services you are
receiving from them will not be affected by your participation, non-participation, or
withdrawal from this study.

Within a week after the interview, the researcher will call your home to share the
preliminary data analysis, to conﬁrm the information obtained at the interview, or to
ask any follow-up questions.

We foresee no psychological or emotional trauma ﬁ'om participation in this project,
but you are encouraged to ask questions about this study or your participation in it at
any time. We will also be happy to supply names of psychological and/or ﬁnancial
professionals in this area, should you feel that you need further consultation.

To show our appreciation for your time and energy, we will present you with a copy
of a recently published book about family ﬁnancial issues, entitled “You Paid How
Much for That?”. We will be happy to do so, even if you or your spouse decide to
discontinue participation part-way through the project.

189

Your signature below indicates that you have read, understood and voluntarily agreed to
the above statements. A copy of this consent form will be made available to you for your
records.

Signature of participant

 

Name

Date

190

REFERENCES

Allen, E. S., Baucom, D. H., Burnett, C. K., Epstein, N., & Rankin-Esquer, L. A.
(2001). Decision-making power, autonomy, and communication in
remarried spouses compared with ﬁrst-married spouses. Family Relations,
50(4), 326-334.

Amato, P. R. & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and
subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 612-624.

Andersen, J. (2000). Financial problems as predictors of divorce: A social
exchange perspective (Doctoral Dissertation, Utah State University, 2000).
retrieved October 15, 2001, from Dissertation Abstracts International
database.

Aniol, J. C. & Snyder, D. K. (1997). Differential assessment of ﬁnancial and
relationship distress: Implications for couples therapy. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 23, 347-352.

Anonymous (2003). The Beige Book Summary for April, 2003. Retrieved May
11, 2003, from

http:lIwww.federaIreserve.govlfomclbeigebook12003l20030423ldefauI
t. htm

Avis, J. M. & Turner, J. (1996). Feminist lenses in family therapy research:
Gender, politics, and science. In D. Sprenkle & 8. Moon (Eds), Research
Methods in Family Therapy (pp. 145-173). New York: The Guilford Press.

Bach, D. (2001). Smart Couples Finish Rich. New York: Broadway Books.

Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Smart Money Decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.

Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265-280.

Blumstein, P. & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William
Morrow and Company.

Bowen, M. (1966). The use of family therapy in clinical practice. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, vol. 7 (5), 345-374.

Bubolz, M. 8 Sontag, M. (1993). Human Ecology Theory. In P. Boss, W. Doherty,
R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, & S. Steinmetz, (Eds), Sourcebook of Family
Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. (pp. 419-448). New York:
Plenum Press.

191

Busby, D. M., Christiansen, C., Crane, D. R. & Larson, J. H. (1995). A revision of
the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed
couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3), 289-308.

Clark-Lempers, D. S., Lempers, J. D., & Netusil, A. J. (1990). Family ﬁnancial
stress, parental support, and young adolescents’ academic achievement
and depressive symptoms. Journal of Early Adolescence, 10, 21-36.

Cohen, P. N. (1998). Replacing housework in the service economy: Gender,
class and race-ethnicity in service spending. Gender and Society, 12(2),
219-231.

Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (1989). Financial management in stepfamilies.
Lifestyles: Family and Economic Issues, 10(3), 217-232.

Crane, D.R., Busby, D. M. & Larson, J. H. (1991). Afactor analysis of the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale with distressed and non-distressed couples. The
American Journal of Family Therapy, 19(1), 60-66 .

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design. Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing Among
Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Giles-Sims, J. (1991). Marital power in stepfather families:
A test of normative resource theory. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 100-
1 06.

Daly, K. (1992). The ﬁt between qualitative research and characteristics of
families. In J. F. Gilfun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds). Qualitative methods
in family research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Daw, J. (1999). Money matters. How to find the hidden issues in ﬁnancial
disagreements. Family Therapy News, April/May 1999, 30.

Ealy, D. & Kesh, K. (1999). Our money, ourselves. Redesigning your relationship
with money. New York: Amacom.

Faber, R. (1992). “Money Changes Everything: Compulsive Buying from a
Biopsychosocial Perspective.” American Behavioral Scientist. 35 (6), 809-
819.

Fan, J. X. (2000). Linking consumer debt and consumer expenditures: Do
borrows spend money differently? Family and Consumer Sciences

192

Research Journal, 28(3), 357-400.

Fitzgerald, M. A. & Soderquist, J. N. (1998). Money and emotions: The
experience of clients, and the implications for ﬁnancial counselors and
family therapists. Proceedings of the Association for Financial Counseling
and Planning Education, 1998, p. 248.

Fishman, B. (1983). The economic behavior of stepfamilies. Family Relations,
32, 28-33.

Fleming, R. (1997). The common purse. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland
University Press.

Frolik, L. A. (1996). Legacies of possessions: Passing property at death.
Generations, 20(3), 9-12.

Goldner, V. (1985). Feminism and family therapy. Family Process, 24, 31-47.

Gongloff, M. (2002). The Fed’s deﬂation dread. Retrieved on November 7,
2002, CNN Money:

http:/Imoney.cnn.con1/2002l1 1l07lnewsleconomyldeﬂationlindex.htm

Gongloff, M. (2002). Late mortgage payments on the rise. Retrieved on
November 7, 2002, CNN Money:

httg:llmoney.cnn.coml2002/09l10lnewsleconomylmortgage delingue
ncylindex.htm

Goode, W. L. (1956/1965). Women in divorce. New York: Free Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (1991). The economy of gratitude. In M. Hutter, (Ed.), The
Family Experience (pp.499—516). New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.

Jacobson, D. (1983). What’s fair? Concepts of ﬁnancial management in
stepfamily households. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 19(3/4), 221 -
238.

Jenkins, N.H., Stanley S. M., Bailey W. C. & Markman, H. J. (2002). You paid

how much for that? How to win at money without losing at love. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kitchler, E., Rodler, C, Holzl, E. & Meier, K. (2001). Conﬂict and decision-making
in close relationships. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis Inc.

Kitson, G. C. & Sussman, M. B. (1982). Marital complaints, demographic
characteristics, and symptoms of mental distress in divorce. Journal of

193

Marriage and the Family, 44, 87-101.

Knudson-Martin, C. (1994). The female voice: applications to Bowen’s family
systems theory. Journal of Marital and Family Theory, Vol. 20(1), 35-46.

Koutstaal, S. (1998). What’s money got to do with it: How ﬁnancial issues relate
to marital satisfaction. (Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech University,
1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and
Social Sciences, vol. 59 (3-A): 0971.

Kurdek, L. A. (1990). Spouse attributes and spousal interactions as dimensions
of relationship quality in ﬁrst-married and remarried newlywed men and
women. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 91-100.

Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, V. A., Hughner, R. S. & Kuntze, R. J.
(1999). Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: Theory and measurement. Journal
of Consumer Research, 29, 85-98.

Lown, J. M. & Dolan, E. M. (1994). Remarried families’ economic behavior:
Fishman’s model revisited. Journal of Divorce and Remaniage, 22(112),
103-119.

Lustbader, W. (1996). Conﬂict, emotion, and power surrounding legacy.
Generations, 20(3), 54-57.

Madanes, C. (1994). The secret meaning of money. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Millman, M. (1991). Warm hearts, cold cash. The intimate dynamics of families
and money. New York: The Free Press.

Moon, S. M. & Trepper, T. S. (1996). Case study research. In D. Sprenkle & 8.
Moon (Eds) Research methods in family therapy. (pp. 393-411). New
York: The Guilford Press.

Nelson, K., Smith, R.L., & Ybanez, K. (2002, October). Couple and family
diagnostic instruments: A critique. Poster session presented at the annual
meeting of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy,
Cincinnati, OH.

Nichols, M. P. & R. C. Schwartz. (1998). Family Therapy. Concepts and
Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

194

O’Conner, C. (1996). Empirical research on how the elderly handle their estates.
Generations, 20(3), 13-20.

O’Leary, K, Heyman, R. and Jongsma, A. (1998). The couples psychotherapy
treatment planner. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

O’Quinn, T. C. & Faber, R. J. (1989). Compulsive buying: A phenomenological
exploration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 147-157.

Ono, H. (1998). Husbands’ and wives’ resources and marital dissolution. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 60(3), 674-689.

Pahl, J. (1989). Money and marriage. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Pahl, J. (2000). Couples and their money: Patterns of accounting and
accountability in the domestic economy. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 13 (4), 502-517.

Paolucci, B., Hall, O. & Axinn, N. (1977). Family decision making: An ecosystem
approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Park, J.-H., Tansuhaj, P. S., & Kolbe, R. N. (1991). The role of affection,
love and intimacy in family decision-making research. Advances in
Consumer Research, 18, 651 -656.

Parrotta, J. L. & Johnson, P. J. (1998). The impact of ﬁnancial attitudes
and knowledge on ﬁnancial management and satisfaction of recently
married individuals. Association for Financial Counseling and Planning
Education, p. 59-74.

Pennartz, P. 8 Niehof, A. (1999). The Domestic domain. Chances, choices and
strategies of family households. Brookﬁeld, VT: Ashgate Publishing
Company.

Poduska, B. (1993). For Love and Money. Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company.

Poduska, B. E. and Allred, G. H. (1990). Family ﬁnances: the missing link in
MFT training. The American Joumal of Family Therapy, 18(2), 161 -168.

Pyke, K. D. (1994). Women’s employment as a gift or a burden? Marital power
across marriage, divorce and remarriage. Gender and Society, 8, 73-91.

Rettig, K. D. (1993). Problem-solving and decision-making as central processes

of family life: An ecological framework for family relations and family
resource management. In B. H. Settles, R. S. Hanks, & M. B. Sussman,

195

(Eds), American families and the future: Analyses of possible destines,
(pp.187-222). New York: Hawarth.

Rettig, K. D., Danes, S. M., & Leichtentritt, R. D. (1997). Affective, cognitive, and
behavioral responses to economic stress. Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, 26(1), 3-28.

Richins, M. & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism
and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of
Consumer Research, 19(3), 303-316.

Rindﬂeisch, A., Burroughs, J. E. & Denton, F. (1997). Family structure,
materialism, and compulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer
Research, 23(4), 312-325.

Schnarch, D. M. (1991). Constructing the sexual crucible. An integration of
sexual and marital therapy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Schor, J. (2000). Do Americans shop too much? New Democracy
Forum Series. Boston: Beacon Press.

Seymour, D. & Lessne, G. (1984). Spousal conﬂict arousal: Scale Development.
Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 810-821.

Singh, S. (1997). Marriage money. St. Leonards, Australia: Allyn & Unwin.
Smith, L. (1992). How couples misuse money. Family Therapy, 19 (2), 131-135.

Stack, S. & Eshleman, J. R. (1998). Marital status and happiness: A 17-nation
study. Journal of Maniage and the Family, 60(2), 527-536.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.

Stanley, T. J. & Danko, W. D. (1996). The millionaire next door. Atlanta, GA:
Longstreet Press.

Stum, M. S. (1999). "I just want to be fair”: Interpersonal justice in
intergenerational transfers of non-titled property. Family Relations, 48(2),
159-166.

Spanier, G. B. (1979). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing

the quality of marriage and other similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 38, 15-28.

196

Spanier, G. B. & Filsinger, E. E. (1985). The Dyadic Adjustment Scale. In E. E.
Filsinger (Ed), Marriage and family assessment. A sourcebook for family
therapy. (pp.156-168). New York: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Sprenkle, D. & Moon, S. (Eds) Research methods in family therapy. New York:
The Guilford Press.

Swenson, L (1997). Psychology and the law for the helping professions. Paciﬁc
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Taylor, D. S. & Overbey, G. (1999). Financial practices and expectations of
student and non-student consumers. Journal of Family and Consumer
Sciences, 91(4), 39-42.

Tichenor, V. (1999). Status and income as gendered resources: the case of
marital power. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 638-650.

Thurnher, M., Fenn, C. B., Melichar, J., & Chiriboga, D. A. (1983).
Sociodemographic perspectives on reasons for divorce. Journal of
Divorce, 6(4), 25-35.

Thompson, L. & Walker, A. J. (1982). The dyad as the unit of analysis:
Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 44, 889-900.

Waite, L. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier,
healthier and better off ﬁnancially. New York: Doubleday.

Walker, R. & Garman, E. T. (1992). The meanings of money. Perspectives from
human ecology. American Behavioral Scientist, 35(6), 781-789.

Walsh, F., & Scheinkman, M. (1989). (Fe)male: The hidden gender dimension in
models of family therapy. In M. McGoldrick, C. Anderson, & F. Walsh,
(Eds), Women in families: A framework for family therapy. (pp. 21-41).
New York: W.W. Norton.

Wilson, V. (1999). The secret life of money. St. Leonards, Australia: Allyn &
Unwin.

Yin, R. K. (1985). Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Zvonkovic, A. M., Greaves, K. M., Schmiege, C. J. & Hall, L. D. (1996). The

marital construction of gender through work and family decisions: A
qualitative analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1), 91-100.

197

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ll[llljjjljjjjl.lljljljrl