Money and Marriage:

An Exploration of the Relationship

between Marital Satisfaction and
Money Attitudes among Couples
Michael Pimentel

Cliff Robb, Ph.D.,

Assistant Professor of Consumer Economics

Rick Houser, Ph.D.,

Professor of Educational Counseling
Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between money

attitudes and overall marital satisfaction. Married cou-
ples are selected using a snowball collection method. A
52-item survey, including items comprising the Money At-
titude Scale (MAS) (Yamauchi & Templer, 1982) and the
Marital Adjustment Test (MAT) (Locke & Wallace, 1959)
is used. Separate factor analysis by gender of responses
to MAS items indicate husbands and wives differ some-
what in money attitudes. Multiple regression employing
demographic data and couples’ difference scores on six
money attitude factors is used to predict and analyze mar-
ital satisfaction.

Numerous studies have been conducted in the area of family dynam-
ics and the various factors that influence the relative happiness of dif-
ferent family members. The relational dynamics between husband and
wife can have a significant influence over the happiness of the family as a
unit. Some data have also suggested that individual happiness is strongly
correlated with having money (Gardner, 2001), whereas other findings
(Morawetz, 1977) indicate that income and happiness are not correlated—
although Morawetz (1977) did find that one’s perceived income level,

145
The University of Alabama McNair Journal

relative to that of others, is related to self-reported happiness. The de-

gree to which having more money is viewed as a benefit may also depend
strongly on how individuals view money in general and what goals they
believe that money should be used to accomplish. The present analysis
seeks to explore the impact of the differences in money attitudes on the
reported satisfaction of married couples.

Literature Review

From 1980-2000, marriage rates for those 15-64 years old have been
on the decline, with proportional increases in divorces (Martin & Kats,
2003). Concern over increasing divorce rates has motivated a great deal
of research centered on determining the potential causal factors behind
recent trends. One potential variable of interest that may reasonably be
considered is money. Previous writings on divorce suggest that money lies
at the root of more arguments among couples than any other factor and
that it is one of the leading causes of divorce (Collins, 1990). Foreman
(1987) suggests that “with one million bankruptcies each year and money
problems being the number one cause of divorce, sending a financially
uneducated child into adulthood is like sending an unarmed solider into
battle[,] they’re bound to become a casualty” (p. 9). Evidence presented
by Goode (1956; 1965) indicated that during the 1950s – 60s, one primary
reason for divorce is the husband’s inability to provide adequate resources
for the family. Even though today’s households may not be as dependent
upon the husband as the main breadwinner, the financial condition of the
household may still impact the satisfaction of marriages. Mott and Moore
(1979) found that when improvements were made to the household’s over-
all financial situation, divorce and separation rates declined. Amato and
Rogers (1997) found that spending money foolishly increased odds of di-
vorce by 45 percent within a 12-year span. In addition, other research
(Kerkmann, Thomas, Jean, & Scot, 2000) found that financial problems
significantly contributed to lower reported marital satisfaction among mar-
ried couples. To better understand the relationship between these factors
among married couples, it is important to analyze the relationship between
the differences in individual money attitudes and self-reported happiness
among couples.

Money Attitudes

How individuals view money should play a significant role in how

they feel money ought to be used, and conflicts may arise in marriages

146
 Money and Marriage

where spouses view money differently. Evaluating married couples in

terms of their individual money attitudes may help reveal differences that
exist in how they view money. Yamauchi and Templer (1982) developed
the Money Attitude Scale (MAS) to serve as a measure of money attitudes,
and they identified four specific attitudes: (1) power-prestige, (2) time-
retention, (3) distrust, and (4) anxiety. Based on responses to a 62-item
questionnaire, factor analysis was used to extract the four dimensions.
Responses were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale utilizing “al-
ways” and “never” as end points. Later research (Engelberg & Sjoberg,
2006; Roberts & Jones, 2001) found the measurement to be reliable.

Power-Prestige. In the original factor analysis, the power-prestige
dimension was the first factor to emerge (Yamauchi & Templer, 1982).
Individuals scoring high on this factor are more likely to view money as a
means of influencing and/or impressing others, and view money as a sign
of success or status. Such individuals use money to gain power over oth-
ers. Individuals who score high on this dimension focus on money less as
a means of acquiring material possessions and more as a means of buying
and maintaining prestige and control amongst their peers and acquain-
tances (Goldberg & Lewis, 1978).

Time-Retention. Persons scoring high on the factor of time-retention
may be described as placing greater value on the processes of preparing
for the future as well as the goal of security in the future (Yamauchi &
Templer, 1982). These individuals have the observable trait of looking
ahead and thinking about the future and are more likely to prepare for it
financially.

Distrust. The distrust factor was the third factor to emerge. Individu-
als scoring high on this factor appear to maintain hesitant, suspicious, and
doubtful attitudes in situations involving a financial transaction. By con-
trast, a person scoring low on this factor is viewed as trusting and accept-
ing of situations involving money (Yamauchi & Templer, 1982). The au-
thors suggest that those scoring high on this factor have little faith in their
ability to make efficient purchase decisions. Roberts and Jones (2001)
further suggest that this factor may be better labeled as price sensitivity
since the items focus on individuals’ responsiveness to the price paid for
goods and services, in some cases to the point of obsession.

Anxiety. The final factor identified in the MAS was anxiety. Individu-
als scoring high on this factor generally held the attitude that money is

147
The University of Alabama McNair Journal

both a source of anxiety as well as a means of protection against anxiety.

Conversely, low scoring people on this factor may be described as less
worrisome and less anxious with money and in situations involving money
(Yamauchi & Templer, 1982).

Marriage Satisfaction

The Marital Adjustment Test (MAT) is a 15-item measure that as-

sesses spouses’ overall satisfaction with their marriage, including such
areas as handling family finances and demonstrations of affection (Locke
& Wallace, 1959). Using the split-half technique and Spearman-Brown
formula, the authors demonstrated that the measure had strong reliability
(.90). These findings were confirmed in a later study by Story, Berg, and
Smith (2007), who found the MAT to have good reliability. On the MAT,
higher scores are associated with greater marital satisfaction, with average
scores typically around 115 on a possible range from 2-158 points per per-
son. Scores below 100 indicate low marital satisfaction, and scores below
70 indicate serious dissatisfaction. The present study used a combined
point score from both spouses with a range of 4-316.

Purpose of Current Research

The purpose of this study is to assess whether a significant correlation

exists between differences in married couples’ individual money attitudes
and their overall satisfaction within marriage. It would be beneficial to
family and financial counseling professionals if a better understanding of
how the specific money attitudes of married individuals, when combined
with the money attitudes of their spouse, relates to their overall marital
satisfaction. It may be possible to create plans of action to help couples
work together more effectively on money issues, resolve disagreements
over finances, and help prevent future misunderstandings if more were
known in this area of research.

Method

Participants

Two hundred-sixty-five couples participated in the study by submit-

ting questionnaires. A total of 180 couples were removed from the data
analyses, however, due to missing data in the scales they returned. Eighty-
five pairs of completed questionnaires were used in the analysis. Of the

148
 Money and Marriage

85 married couples represented (170 people), 86% were Caucasian, 47%

had been married 1-5 years, and 75% were ages 19-35. Thirty percent
had annual household incomes below $26,000, 60% between $26,000 and
$50,000, and 10% over $50,000. Education among the sample was very
high, as expected with a vast majority of the participants being either col-
lege students or university staff, with 36% having some college, 46% hav-
ing a college degree or higher, and 18% having a high school diploma or
less. Fifty-five percent of the sample had one or more children.

Procedures

Participants were recruited from the University of Alabama’s Profes-

sional Staff Assembly (PSA) and from the University of Alabama stu-
dent body using snowball sampling; a group of married couples identi-
fied through the PSA and the University’s registrar’s office were asked
to answer the survey and then to pass it on to other married couples that
they knew. An initial email and three reminder emails were sent to all
married students at the University of Alabama, inviting them to take part
in the study. Members of the PSA were sent an initial email and one re-
minder email from leadership within the Assembly, informing members of
the study and inviting them to participate. The MAS and the MAT were
administered online via SurveyMonkey.com. On the MAT in the present
sample, the mean was 216 (range 82 to 291) with a possible total points
range from 4-316 per couple. Participants were offered a budgeting tool-
kit as an incentive for participating.

Results

Data Analysis
The money attitudes of husbands and wives were analyzed indepen-
dently of each other. Factor analysis was performed on the 29 questions
comprising the MAS to reveal six factors for each gender (in contrast to
the four identified by Yamauchi and Templer, 1982). The factors were
then rotated using the varimax method. As a measure of standardization,
z-scores were calculated for each of the six factors for each participant.
The resultant z-scores were then subtracted from the z-score of the spouse
to create a measure of difference. Ordinary least squares regression was
used to analyze overall marital satisfaction. Predictor variables included
key demographics and difference scores for each of the six money atti-
tudes. The selected independent variables accounted for 30% of the vari-
ance in the present analysis.

149
 The University of Alabama McNair Journal

This study represents a unique approach to the analysis of money at-

titudes in that attitudes were analyzed separately based on gender. Results
of the factor analysis suggest that husbands and wives differ on how they
load on the MAS. In Tables 1-6, factor loadings and Eigen values are pre-
sented separately for husband and wife respondents.

Husband Wife
Table 1.
Factor 1
Power-prestige (Eigen value: 5.78) Power-prestige (Eigen value: 6.27)
Question Eigen Question Eigen
IQuestion behave as if money were the ultimate symbol of .71
Eigen IQuestionbehave as if money were the ultimate symbol .62
Eigen
success.
I behave as if money were the ultimate symbol of .71 of
I behave success. as if money were the ultimate symbol .62
I often try to find out if other people make more
success. .75 I often
of try to find out if other people make
success. .66
money
I often try thantoIfind
do. out if other people make more .75 more
I oftenmoney than out
try to find I do.if other people make .66
Imoney use money
than Itodo.influence other people to do things .80 Imore use money
money to thaninfluence
I do. other people to do .68
for
I use me.
money to influence other people to do things .80 things
I use money for me.to influence other people to do .68
Ifor must
me.admit that I purchase things because I .82 Ithingsmust for
admit me.that I purchase things because I .75
Iknow mustthey
admitwill
thatimpress others.
I purchase things because I .82 Iknow mustthey
admit will
thatimpress others.
I purchase things because I .75
Iknow seemthey
to find
willthat I show
impress more respect to people
others. .71 Iknowseemthey
to find
willthat I show
impress more respect to
others. .74
with
I seem more money
to find that than I have.
I show more respect to people .71 people
I seem to with more
find thatmoney
I showthan
moreI have.
respect to .74
In
with allmore
honesty,
money I ownthannice things in order to
I have. .81 In all honesty,
people with more I own nice than
money things in order to
I have. .80
impress
In others.I own nice things in order to
all honesty, .81 impress
In others.I own nice things in order to
all honesty, .80
Although
impress others.I should judge the success of people by .82 Although
impress others.I should judge the success of people .78
their
Although deeds, I am more
I should judgeinfluenced by of
the success thepeople
amountby .82 by their deeds,
Although I shouldI amjudge
moretheinfluenced
success ofbypeople
the .78
of
their money they
deeds, I amhave.
more influenced by the amount amount
by their of money
deeds, I amthey
morehave.
influenced by the
Iofmust admit that
money they have. I sometimes boast about how .72 Iamount
must admit that Ithey
of money sometimes
have. boast about how .76
Imuchmustmoney I make.
admit that I sometimes boast about how .72 Imuch
mustmoney
admit thatI make.
I sometimes boast about how .76
People
much moneyI knowI make.
tell me that I place too much .66 People I knowI make.
much money tell me that I place too much .72
emphasis
People I knowon thetellamount
me thatofImoney a person
place too much has as .66 emphasis
People I knowon thetellamount
me that ofImoney a person
place too much .72
aemphasis
sign of his
on success.
the amount of money a person has as has as a sign
emphasis of his
on the success.
amount of money a person
Ia spend
sign ofmoney to make myself feel better.
his success. .56 Ihas
spend money to make
as a sign of his success. myself feel better. .54
I spend money to make myself feel better. .56 I spend money to make myself feel better. .54
Husband Wife
Husband
Husband WifeWife
Table 2.
Table 2.
Factor
Table 2.2
Factor 2 2value: 3.70)
Factor
Anxiety (Eigen Security (Eigen value: 4.04)
Anxiety
Anxiety (Eigen
(Eigen value: value:
3.70) 3.70) Security
Security (Eigen (Eigen
value: 4.04) value: 4.04)
Question Eigen Question Eigen
IQuestion
worry that I will not be financially secure. .73
Eigen IQuestion
follow a careful financial budget. .55
Eigen
IAfter
worrybuying
that I something,
will not be Ifinancially
wonder if secure.
I could have .49
.73 II follow
keep track of myfinancial
a careful money. budget. .55
.55
gotten the same
After buying for less elsewhere.
something, I wonder if I could have .49 I keep track of my money. .55
Igotten
arguethe
or complain about
same for less the cost of things I buy.
elsewhere. .72 I put money aside on a regular basis for the .85
I argue or complain about the cost of things I buy. .72 future.
I put money aside on a regular basis for the .85
When I buy something I complain about the price .63 I do financial planning for the future.
future. .76
IWhenpaid. I buy something I complain about the price .63 I do financial planning for the future. .76
It bothers me when I discover I could have gotten
I paid. .53 I have money available in the event of another .75
something
It bothers me forwhen
less elsewhere.
I discover I could have gotten .53 economic depression.
I have money available in the event of another .75
Isomething
show worrisome
for less behavior when it comes to
elsewhere. .77 Ieconomic
am very prudent with money.
depression. .52
money.
I show worrisome behavior when it comes to .77 I am very prudent with money. .52
Imoney.
show signs of nervousness when I don’t have .70 I save now to prepare for my old age. .85
enough money.
I show signs of nervousness when I don’t have .70 I save now to prepare for my old age. .85
Ienough
hesitatemoney.
to spend money, even on necessities. .64
I hesitate to spend money, even on necessities. .64
Husband Wife
Husband Wife
150
Table 3.
Table 3.
 Money and Marriage

Husband Wife
Table
Factor
Factor
3 3.
3
Factor
3(Eigen3value: 2.90)
Security (Eigen value: 2.90) Anxiety (Eigen value: 3.34)
Factor
Security Anxiety (Eigen value: 3.34)
Security
Security
Question (Eigen(Eigen value: 2.90)
value: 2.90) Eigen Question (Eigen
Anxiety Anxiety (Eigen
value: 3.34) value: 3.34) Eigen
Question Eigen Question Eigen
I put money aside on a regular basis for the future. .87 I worry that I will not be financially secure. .75
I put money aside on a regular basis for the future.
Question .87
Eigen I worry that I will not be financially secure.
Question .75
Eigen
I do financial planning for the future. .76 After buying something, I wonder if I could .47
II put
do financial planning
money aside for the future.
on a regular basis for the future. .76
.87 After
Ihave
worrybuying
that I something,
will not be I wonder ifsecure.
financially
gotten the same for less elsewhere.
I could .47
.75
II do financial planning for the future. .76 have gotten
After buying the same for Iless
something, elsewhere.
wonder if I could .47
have money available in the event of another .81 I show worrisome behavior when it comes to .78
I have money available in the event of another .81 I show
have worrisome
gotten the samebehavior
for lesswhen it comes to
elsewhere. .78
economic depression. money.
IIeconomic
have
am very
depression.
money available
prudent in the event of another
with money. .81
.59 IImoney.
show worrisome behavior when it comes
show signs of nervousness when I don’t have to .78
.70
I am very depression.
economic prudent with money. .59 I show signs of nervousness when I don’t have
money. .70
enough money.
II am
savevery
nowprudent withfor
to prepare money.
my old age. .59
.90 Ienough money.
show signs of nervousness when I don’t have .70
I save now to prepare for my old age. .90 enough money.
I save now to prepare for my old age. .90

Husband
Husband
Husband Wife
Wife
Wife
Table
Table 4. 4.
Husband Wife
Factor
Table
Table
Factor
Table
Factor
4.
4.
4.44 4
Retention
Factor
Retention
Factor
4(Eigen(Eigen value: 2.55)
value: 2.55)
Retention4 (Eigen value: 2.55)
Distrust Distrust (Eigen
(Eigen value:
Distrust (Eigen value:
2.85)value: 2.85)
2.85)
Retention (Eigen value: 2.55) Distrust (Eigen value: 2.85)
Retention (Eigen value: 2.55)
Question Distrust (Eigen value: 2.85)
Eigen Question Eigen
Question Eigen Question Eigen
IQuestion
follow a careful financial budget. .65
Eigen IQuestion
argue or complain about the cost of things I .60
Eigen
I follow a careful financial budget.
Question .65
Eigen I argue or complain about the cost of things I
Question .60
Eigen
I follow a careful financial budget. .65 buy
I argue or complain about the cost of things I .60
II follow a careful buy
keep track of myfinancial
money. budget. .65
.72 I argue or complain about the cost
buy I buy something I complain about the
When of things I .60
.70
I keep track of my money. .72 When I buy something I complain about the
buy .70
I keep track of my money. .72 price
WhenI paid.
I buy something I complain about the .70
I keep track of my money. .72 price IIpaid.
When buy something I complain
Iprice I paid.
automatically say, “I can’t afford about
it,” the .70
.55
I automatically
price I paid. say, “I can’t afford it,” .55
whether I can orsay,
I automatically not. “I can’t afford it,” .55
IIwhether
whether
I can orsay,
automatically
hesitate Itocan
not.“I can’t afford it,”
or not.
spend money, even on necessities. .55
.72
I hesitateI to
whether canspend money, even on necessities.
or not. .72
I hesitate to spend money, even on necessities. .72
I hesitate to spend money, even on necessities. .72
Husband Wife
Husband
Husband
Husband
Husband WifeWife
Wife
Wife
Table
Table
Table
5. 5.
Table 5.
Factor 5 value: 2.43)
Factor 5.
Table
Factor 5.55
Factor
Second 5 (Eigen
guess Second guess (Eigen value: 2.21)
Second
Factor
Second
Second guessguess
guess
(Eigen(Eigen
5 (Eigen value: 2.43)
value: 2.43)
value: 2.43)
Second
SecondSecond guess value:
guess (Eigen
guess (Eigen (Eigen
value: value: 2.21)
2.21)
2.21)
Second guess (Eigen value: 2.43)
Question Second
Eigen Question guess (Eigen value: 2.21) Eigen
Question Eigen Question Eigen
It’s hard for me to pass up a bargain.
Question .85
Eigen ItQuestion
bothers me when I discover I could have .49
Eigen
It’s hard for me to pass up a bargain.
Question .85
Eigen It bothers me when I discover I could have
Question .49
Eigen
It’s hard for me to pass up a bargain. .85 gotten something
It bothers me when forI less elsewhere.
discover I could have .49
It’s gotten something for less elsewhere.
I amhard for mewhen
bothered to pass up atobargain.
I have pass up a sale. .85
.86 It bothers
gotten
It’s meme
when
hardsomething
for I discover
to for
passless I could have
up elsewhere.
a bargain. .49
.82
I am bothered when I have to pass up a sale. .86 It’s hard for me to pass up a
gotten something for less elsewhere.bargain. .82
I am bothered when I have to pass up a sale. .86 IIt’s
amhard for me
bothered to pass
when up to
I have a bargain.
pass up a sale. .82
.81
I am bothered when I have to pass up a sale. .86 I amhard
It’s bothered
for mewhen I have
to pass up atobargain.
pass up a sale. .81
.82
I am bothered when I have to pass up a sale. .81
I am bothered when I have to pass up a sale. .81
Husband Wife
Husband Wife
Husband
Husband
Husband Wife
Wife
Wife
Table
6. 6.
Table 6.
Table
Table 6.
Factor 6.66
Factor
Table
Factor
Factor
Suspect
Factor
6
(Eigen 6value: 1.98)
6(Eigen value:
Suspect (Eigen value: 1.25)
Suspect (Eigen value: 1.98) Suspect
(Eigen (Eigen value: 1.25)
Suspect (Eigen 1.98) Suspect (Eigen value: 1.25)
Suspect value: 1.98) Suspect value: 1.25)
Suspect (Eigen value: 1.98)
Question Eigen Question (Eigen value: 1.25)
Suspect Eigen
Question Eigen Question Eigen
IQuestion
automatically say, “I can’t afford it,” whether I .55
Eigen When I make a major purchase, I have the
Question .54
Eigen
I automatically say, “I can’t afford it,” whether I
Question .55
Eigen When I make a major purchase, I have the
Question .54
Eigen
can or not.
I automatically say, “I can’t afford it,” whether I .55 suspicion
When I that
makeI have beenpurchase,
a major taken advantage of.
I have the .54
can
IWhen or not.
automatically suspicion that I ahave been taken advantage
I have theof.
can make a say,
orInot. “I purchase,
major can’t afford it,” whether
I have the I .55
.54 When I make
suspicion major
that I have purchase,
been taken advantage of. .54
When I make
can or not. a major purchase, I have the .54 suspicion that I have been taken advantage of.
When I make a major purchase, I have the .54
When I make
suspicion thataImajor purchase,
have been takenIadvantage
have the of. .54

The questions that loaded high on Factor 1 were identical for husbands and wives, showing a
strong relationship between spouses with regard to the Power-prestige factor. However, strong
differences were noted for Factor 2. Questions loading high on Factor 2 for the husband, instead,
151loading high on Factors 3 and 4 for the husband
loaded high on Factor 3 for the wife. Questions
loaded high on Factor 2 for the wife. Factors 5 and 6, though not identical, are much more
The University of Alabama McNair Journal

The questions that loaded high on Factor 1 were identical for husbands
and wives, showing a strong relationship between spouses with regard to
the Power-prestige factor. However, strong differences were noted for
Factor 2. Questions loading high on Factor 2 for the husband, instead,
loaded high on Factor 3 for the wife. Questions loading high on Factors
3 and 4 for the husband loaded high on Factor 2 for the wife. Factors 5
and 6, though not identical, are much more similar for husbands and wives
than are Factors 2, 3, and 4. Differences in z-scores for husbands and
wives on each of the factors were used in the regression model.
Results of the regression analysis, as presented in Table 7, revealed
five variables having a significant relationship with marriage satisfac-
tion. Couples with white husbands reported higher scores on the mea-
sure of marital satisfaction than couples with a minority husband, with a
coefficient of -39.411 for non-white husbands when compared to white
husbands. Couples married for less than one year had higher ratings of
marriage satisfaction when compared to couples married from 1-5 years.
Three differences in money attitudes were found to have a significant cor-
relation with overall marriage satisfaction. Couples with greater differ-
ences related to the anxiety measure displayed increasingly lower marital
satisfaction
married for scores. Couples
less than one year hadwith increasingly
higher different
ratings of marriage attitudes
satisfaction when toward
compared to
second-guess
couples marriedandfrom
suspect dimensions
1-5 years. of the MAS
Three differences displayed
in money higher
attitudes were marital
found to have a
satisfaction. It appears
significant correlation with that a marriage
overall difference in couples’
satisfaction. Couplesanxiety about
with greater money
differences related
lowers their overall marital satisfaction, whereas differences in their ten-
to the anxiety measure displayed increasingly lower marital satisfaction scores. Couples with

dencies to second-guess or be suspicious about money inmatters

couples’ increase
increasingly different attitudes toward second-guess and suspect dimensions of the MAS
displayed higher marital satisfaction. It appears that a difference anxiety about
couples’
money satisfaction scores.
lowers their overall marital satisfaction, whereas differences in their tendencies to
second-guess or be suspicious about money matters increase couples’ satisfaction scores.

Table 7.7.
Table
OLS regression
OLS results,
regression results, marriage
marriage satisfaction
satisfaction as thevariable.
as the dependent dependent variable.
Variable Parameter Standard
Estimate Error
Intercept 213.430*** 8.887
Race (1=other than white)
Husband -39.411** 15.054
Wife 8.296 18.219
Household income
Low 5.309 10.439
High -16.546 15.796
Years Married
less than 1 year 21.310* 12.697
6-10 years -12.996 13.814
11-20 years 8.682 16.378
21-30 years -31.871 32.504
30 or more years -9.548 18.655
Have children -11.120 11.949
Difference in MAT
Power -1.164 4.25
Anxiety -5.699** 4.678
Distrust -7.271 3.219
Security -2.454 5.025
Secondguess 6.587* 3.778
Suspect 16.840*** 4.590
P<.1*, P<.05**,P<.001***
P<.1*, P<.05**, P<.001***

Interestingly, household income and having children were not found to have a significant
152
correlation with marriage satisfaction based on the current sample.

Discussion
 Money and Marriage

Interestingly, household income and having children were not found

to have a significant correlation with marriage satisfaction based on the
current sample.

Discussion

The results of the present study reveal surprising correlations between

marital satisfaction and several factors, including differences in couples’
scores on three of six money attitude factors. Couples who reported be-
ing married less than one year seem to be happier, perhaps because these
couples have yet to encounter many obstacles in their marriage; couples
married longer have had much more time to encounter hardships and the
challenges that come with marriage. Husband’s race had a significant im-
pact on overall marital satisfaction, as the presence of a non-white husband
was associated with lower satisfaction (-39.4). It is beyond the scope of
the present study to assume the many possible factors that may contribute
to this correlation.
Differences in the money attitude of Suspicion between husbands and
wives had the strongest positive correlation with marital satisfaction of all
the money attitudes. Spouses who may have a suspicious attitude towards
money may not entirely trust others with financial decisions. They may
often feel that they have in some way been taken advantage of by others.
When married to a spouse who differs in this attitude, who trusts people
more, less trustful spouses may find it easier to trust others as well. This
may enhance marital satisfaction, relative to that of spouses who share
more or less suspicious attitudes.
The money attitude of Second-guess included questions that show re-
gret about financial decisions. Spouses differing on this factor may pro-
vide support to one another that would increase happiness in the marriage.
A spouse who may show worrisome behavior towards money and often
regret financial decisions may be balanced by a spouse who is more confi-
dent about financial decisions.
Spouses differing in the Anxiety money attitude show a decrease in
reported marital happiness. The questions associated with the Anxiety
money attitude reveal persons who tend to be nervous and insecure to-
wards money and financial decisions Spouses differing in this money atti-
tude may have disagreements on what they can or cannot afford. Since one
is more price-sensitive than the other, issues of spending too much money
may arise, leading to increased arguments and lower marital satisfaction.
As more is learned in the area of money attitudes and how differences
in those money attitudes may affect happiness with others, specifically

153
The University of Alabama McNair Journal

spouses, it may be possible to create plans of action that financial counsel-

ors and family therapists may use to help couples work together more ef-
fectively on money issues, resolve disagreements over finances, and help
prevent future misunderstandings.

Limitations

A major limitation to the present study is the sample. The sample was
mainly college students from one campus, a highly educated group. In
addition, the sample was small. Finances and marital satisfaction can be
a sensitive subject for many people and, therefore, not many people may
feel comfortable discussing these topics with others. Also, some couples
may have been worried that their spouse would somehow be privy to their
responses and therefore answer more positively on marital satisfaction
questions. A qualitative study with one-on-one interviews would prob-
ably enhance data in a study such as this. In the future, this study may be
enhanced by collecting a greater number of participants, possibly from
random phone calls or mailings, and by conducting the interviews in per-
son instead of online.

References

Amato, P., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital prob-

lems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family,
59, 612-624.

Collins, V. F., & Brown, B. (1990). Couples and money: Why money in-
terferes with love and what to do about it. New York: Bantam
Books.

Engelberg, E., & Sjoberg, L.(2006). Money attitudes and emotional in-
telligence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, (8), 2027-
2047.

Foreman, N. (1987). Mind over money. Toronto: Doubleday.

Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. (2001). Does money buy happiness? A longitu-
dinal study using data on windfalls. Warwick University, Depart-
ment of Economics.

154
 Money and Marriage

Goldberg, H., & Lewis, R. (1978). Money madness. London: Springwood

Books.

Goode, W. (1956; 1965). Women in divorce. New York: Free Press.

Kerkmann, B.C., Thomas, R. L., Jean, M. L., & Scot, M. A. (2000). Fi-
nancial management, financial problems, and marital satisfaction
among recently married college students. Financial Counseling
and Planning, 11 (2), 55-65.

Locke, H., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and pre-

diction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family
Living, 21 (3), 251-255.

Martin, G., & Kats, V. (2003). Families and work in transition in 12 coun-
tries, 1980-2001. Monthly Labor Review, 126 (9) 3-31.

Morawetz, D., Atia, E., Bin-Nun, G., Felous, L., Gariplerden, Y., Harris,
E., et al. (1977). Income distribution and self-rated happiness:
Some empirical evidence. The Economic Journal , 87 (347), 511-
522.

Mott, F. L., & Moore, S. F. (1979). The causes of marital disruption among
young American women: An interdisciplinary approach. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 41, 355-365.

Roberts, J. A., & Jones, E. (2001). Money attitudes, credit card use, and
compulsive buying among American college students. The Jour-
nal of Consumer Affairs, 35 (21), 213-240.

Story, T. N., Berg, C. A., Smith, T. W., Beveridge, R., Henry, N. J. M.,
& Pearce, G. (2007). Age, marital satisfaction, and optimism as
predictors of positive sentiment override in middle-aged and older
married couples. Psychology and Aging, 22 (4), 719-727.

Yamauchi, K. T., & Templer, D. I. (1982). The development of a money

attitude scale. Journal of Personality Assessment , 46 (5), 522-
528.

155
The University of Alabama McNair Journal

156