Women, men and money styles

Journal of Economic Psychology 14 (1993) 175-182

North-Holland

175

Women, men, and money styles

Melvin Prince Fordham Uniuersity, New York, USA

Received March 24, 1992; accepted November 19, 1992

The character of gender differences in money styles is examined. On average, money style

item scores for young adult males and females are found to be consistently disparate.

Males and females are both likely to see money as closely linked with esteem and power, but males are more prone to feel involved and competent in money handling, and take risks to amass

wealth. Females have a greater sense of envy and deprivation with respect to money as a means

of obtaining things and experiences that they can enjoy in the present.

Money style is defined by Yablonsky (1991: 25). He asserts: ‘Every- one learns some means to acquire money and develops patterns for spending it. Your relationship with money, your hows and whys of getting and spending, add up to your personal money style.’ Hallowell and Grace (1989) use essentially the same definition of money style. They add that it is rooted in your emotional makeup and reflects your personality. Money is also seen by Goldberg and Lewis (1978) as tapping personality at its deepest levels, involving love and security, greed and envy.

Other writers observe the personal significance of money and possessions, especially in relation to identity issues (Dittmar et al. 1989; Furby 1978; Rudmin 1990).

In turn, identity issues, and meanings of money and possessions are connected with gender (Belk 1988; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton 1981). Women are more likely to be seen as warm, nurturing and expressive - and men as individualistic, self-assertive and achievement-oriented (Bern 1974; Broverman et al. 1972; Carlson 1971). Findings from Rudmin (1990) show that males and females vary in

Correspondence to: M. Prince, 83 Hoyt Street, Darien, CT 06820, USA.

0167-4870/93/$06.00 0 1993 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

176 M. Prince / Women, men and money styles

ownership motivations, and Dittmar (1989) finds gender differences in the meaning of personal possessions. In his paper concerned with motivations for ownership, Rudmin confirms that for men money is power and that women relate to money in different ways - connected with personal and specific social relationships and events. Yablonsky conducted a national survey of people’s styles about the emotional meaning of money in their lives. Yablonsky (1991: 201) concludes from his data that:

‘We found a clear pattern of difference between the male and female self-concept on their

handling of money. More men than statistically expected and fewer women than statistically

expected felt they handled money sensibly. From the responses, we can conclude that women

in general feel they do not handle money as sensibly as men.’

Furthermore, personal possessions are found to convey different meanings for women and men. Men are more likely to view their possessions from a functional/self-oriented perspective. Women, on the other hand, are more inclined to view possessions on a symbolic/other-oriented level (Dittmar 1989). Money hunger may be more insistent in females, since money is associated with a wider range of needs, values and gratifications. For women, money is not only a prestige symbol, but is a passport to personal security and tranquility, a means of immediate acquisition of treasured possessions and self-extensions, a facility for enhancing relationships, as well as a means of living a satisfying and comfortable lifestyle.

For men, identities are more closely linked to the possession and acquisition of money per se. In American society, both men and women see a man’s money and portfolio as an inextricable part of the overall male image and attractiveness. Money enables men to express their needs for dominance and force, as noted by Rudmin (1990). Furthermore, the central role of money in men’s identities, makes a degree of financial risk-taking a more acceptable money style for them.

These salient and differentiating dimensions of gender identity provide a theoretical perspective for the analysis of money styles. Hypotheses, based on identity considerations, are that males have greater confidence in their money handling abilities and are prone to take greater financial risks. Females, on the other hand, are more likely to view money as a means of hedonistic and expressive pursuits.

M. Prince / Women, men and money styles 171

Motives and money styles

Motives underlying money styles range from striving for status and power and enhancing self-worth (Lindgren 1980) to searching for security and satisfying one’s needs (Knight 1968). Belk’s work (1984, 1985) describes a generalized materialism orientation that may drive money styles. He identifies at least three sub-traits, including envy, possessiveness and non-generosity.

Several studies show gender differences in traits that may relate to money styles. Examples of such traits are risk-proneness, self-esteem, and interpersonal orientation (Jacobsen 1980; Levine et al. 1982; Stake and Orlofsky 1981).

Consumer research specifically on money styles and gender is extremely limited. However, it is known that impulse buyers (Kollat and Willett 1967) and compulsive buyers (O’Guinn and Faber 1989) are more likely to be females.

Method

In the present research, a battery of money style items was used to provide an adequate data base to test the basic ideas advanced in this research. The methods and samples involved in generating informa- tion about money styles have already been reported (Prince 1993). Structured interviews were conducted within geographically dispersed locations in a large metropolitan area. The sample comprised 47 males and 45 females.

Respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with each of a number of statements about spending, saving and handling money. Agreement with eight individual statements in the questionnaire was expressed at one of five levels, ranging from agree strongly to disagree strongly.

Table 1 contains names for the money style variables, as well as descriptive statements. The money styles in the battery may be grouped into risk seeking (GAMBLE, RISK), money importance (PRESTIGE, SUCCESS), money hunger (ENVY, FRUSTRAT) and money management competence (THOROUGH, PRIDE).


Table 1

Eight money style attributes investigated

Variable

Xl

x2

x3

X4

X5

X6 x7

X8

Attribute

Like to gamble

Thorough in financial matters

Take pride in handling finances

Will risk money for gain

Success is amount of money earned

Envy friends with more money

Money brings prestige

Frustrated: not enough money

Name

GAMBLE

THOROUGH

PRIDE

RISK

SUCCESS

ENVY PRESTIGE

FRUSTRAT

Thus, the general notion of money style was partitioned into four trait constructs. Each of these constructs, in turn, had two observed variables, taken from the questionnaire.

Results

The eight money style items are used as discriminating variables for profiling gender differences and classifying cases into male or female groups.

Table 2

Discriminant analysis of money styles and gender.

Variable Money attitude means a

Men Women

Discriminant

coefficients

Xl, GAMBLE 2.19 2.04 0.110

X2, THOROUGH 3.47 3.11 0.215

X3, PRIDE 3.70 2.29 0.200

X4, RISK 3.32 2.71 0.502

X5, SUCCESS 2.62 2.87 0.033 X6, ENVY 2.38 2.84 0.089 X7, PRESTIGE 2.66 2.80 0.028

X8, FRUSTRAT 2.87 3.67 0.626

Mean discriminant score - 0.41

n,=47

0.43

n,=45

a Scales inverted so that higher scores represent greater agreement.


The results of a discriminant analysis of money styles and gender are given in Table 2. Mean discriminant scores are shown for men and women. Only one canonical discriminant function was involved, since the number of groups is two (Tatsuoka 1988).

The relative magnitudes and signs of the standardized discriminant weights provide psychological insights into the importance of each factor for gender classification.

Since the predictors are uncorrelated, the weight (coefficient) will be indicated accurately for purposes of interpretation (Perreault et al. 1979).

The general image of women’s special money styles is that women seemed to exhibit a stronger sense of money hunger. That is to say, they were much more likely than men to express a sense of frustration about not having enough money. They were also slightly more likely than men to be envious of those who have more money than they have.

Men, on the other hand, were much more likely to see themselves as risk-takers, ready to risk money for gain. On a related issue, men felt they had a greater propensity to gamble. Men were also more likely to think highly of their competence in financial dealings; they regarded themselves as thorough and take pride in their money management skills.

Finally, both women and men reflected American society’s norms that money is a symbol and vehicle of prestige, power and success. This key dimension of money style is least important as a basis of differentiation by gender.

Using the discriminant coefficients of money styles in the discriminant equation, the discriminant score averages for men and women differ ( - 0.41 vs. 0.43). It can be seen from Table 3, that the probabil-

Table 3 Significance of discriminant function for money styles and gender.

Measures Values

Wilks lambda 0.85

Chi-square 14.08 Degrees of freedom 8

Probability less than 0.08 Canonical correlation 0.39


ity of this large a difference between group means being due to chance is less than 0.08.

The Wilks’s lambda statistic is fairly high (0.851, indicating that a substantial amount of info~ation about group differences has been captured by a single canonical discriminant function.

The canonical correlation coefficient is 0.39, a moderate relationship between the discriminant function and gender groups. This suggests that money styles are generally good group predictors, but that some women and some men are misclassified.

Discriminant money attitude scores are used to assign respondents to gender groups. Overall, 70% of respondents are correctly classified as to their gender. Money styles accurately predict 70.2% of men and 68.9% of women.

For precise interpretation, results are corrected for accurate predictions due to random assignment. Hence, a tau statistic was computed which shows that the proportional reduction in error is actually 43% above chance. This confirms that gender predictions from money styles, while relatively accurate, involves a fair amount of misclassifica- tion. Tau will overstate to some extent the estimation procedure’s power. However, the study sample is insufficiently large to permit validation on a hold-out sample.

Discussion

Support is found for the basic hypothesis that money styles differ sharply and consistently by gender, at least for young adults age 18-34.

In the present study, data show that among young adults, males report greater confidence, independence of action, risk-taking and gambling with respect to money matters. Their identities, self-esteem and sense of power are inextricably linked with money.

In the present study, males and females are both likely to see money as closely linked with esteem and power, but males are more prone to feel involved and competent in money handling, and to take risks to amass wealth. Females have a greater sense of envy and deprivation with respect to money as a means of obtaining things and experiences that they can enjoy in the present.


The present research on gender and money styles carries with it certain limitations. An important qualification should be noted in that there is overlap in money attitude profiles of males and females. The small samples used in the present research have precluded the intro- duction of important demographic and psychographic variables to control, test and improve further the predictions obtained.

Future research should validate and refine the relationships between money styles and gender, by introducing occupational, educa- tional, income, family and life-style variables.

References

Belk, R.W., 1984. Cultural and historical differences in concepts of self and their effects on

attitudes toward having and giving. Advances in Consumer Research 11, 291-297.

Belk, R.W., 198.5. Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer

Research 12, 265-280. Belk, R.W., 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15,

139-168.

Bern, S.L., 1974. The measurement of psychological androgeny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 42, 155-162.

Broverman, I.K. et al., 1972. Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues

28, 59-78. Carlson, R., 1971. Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploratory studies of agency and

communion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 37, 267-277. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and E. Rochberg-Halston, 1981. The Meaning of Things. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press. Dittmar, H., 1989. Gender identity-related meanings of personal possessions British Journal of

Social Psychology 28, 159-170.

Dittmar, H., Mannetti and Semin, 1989. Fine feathers make fine birds: A comparative study of

the impact of material wealth on perceived identities in England and Italy. Social Behaviour

4, 195-200. Furby, L., 1978. Possessions in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivation.

Social Behavior and Personality 6, 49-65.

Goldberg, H. and R.T. Lewis, 1978. Money Madness: The Psychology of Saving, Spending,

Loving and Hating Money. New York: Wm. Morrow.

Hallowell, E.M. and W.J. Grace, Jr., 1989. What Are You Worth? New York: Weidenfeld and

Nicolson.

Jacobson, M.B., 1980. A non-sexist look at the shift to risk. Sex Roles 6, 481-487.

Knight, J.A., 1968. For the Love of Money. New York: J.B. Lippincott.

Kollat, D.T. and R.P. Willett, 1967. Consumer impulse purchasing behavior. Journal of Market- ing Research 4, 21-31.

Levine, R. et al., 1982. Individual differences for sex differences in achievement attributions? Sex Roles 8, 455-466.

Lindgren, H.C., 1980. Great Expectations: The Psychology of Money. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann.


O’Guinn, T.C. and R.J. Faber, 1989. Compulsive buying: A phenomenological exploration.

Journal of Consumer Research 16, 147-157.

Perreault, W.D., Jr, D.N. Behrman and G.M. Armstrong, 1979. Alternative approaches for

interpretation of multiple discriminant analysis in marketing research. Journal of Business

Research 7, 151-173.

Prince, M., 1993. Self-concept, money beliefs and values. Journal of Economic Psychology 14, 161-173.

Rudmin, F.W., 1990. German and Canadian data on motivations for ownership: Was Pythagoras

right? Advances in Consumer Research 17, 176-181.

Scott, R., 1976. The Female Consumer. New York: Wiley.

Stake, J.E. and J.L. Orlofsky, 1981. On the use of global and specific measures in assessing the

self-esteem of males and females. Sex Roles, 6, 653-662.

Tatsuoka, M.M., 1988. Multivariate Analysis. New York: Macmillan.

Yablonsky, L., 1991. The Emotional Meaning of Money. New York: Gardner Press.

Documents

Women, men and money styles