Opposites attract?
According to one study of Rick, Small and Finkel, the famous popular adage according to which “Opposites attract"(complementary attractions) also applies to one's own shopping behavior. This implies that the misers will marry spendthrifts and vice versa. THE'attraction in fact follows the rules of complementarity according to professors Klohnen and Mendelsohn[1]. To complete each other, two people look to their partner characteristics related to the ability to spend that they would like to have or are proud of having; instead with regard to demographic characteristics, values, personality and character, the saying is valid: “Every like loves his like” (technically: positive assortment). For this reason, those who curse their greed marry those who, on the contrary, like to spend their money happily, so that help them to temper their fault.
But is this good for married life?
Not really: misers and spendthrifts are more satisfied if they marry their own kind. Unions between misers and spendthrifts and vice versa lead, for obvious reasons, to conflicts in money management. The stingy they also stand financially better off if they marry each other, as opposed to spendthrift, who enjoy a better position if they share the roof with a miser.
Another popular adage about married life reads: “The man is the boss. But the woman is the neck and she moves her head where she wants”. Does it also apply to spending decisions within the family?
Who rules in the family?
Like all those who have an economic background, I can only answer you: it depends!
According to a research by Mader and Schneebaum from last year, in Europe the women make their own decisions about daily expenses and for children. Two decisions closely related to the female role of care of the family and childrenwhich seems to limit their decision-making power. The financial decisions are instead the prerogative of men. This division of decisions follows the theory oforchestration powerr (Woolley and Marshall, 1984[2]).
But if the wives they earn more than their husbands, are more likely to make these decisions for them. Conversely, inactive people have less decision-making power in the family. In short, in general, plus couple members have similar earnings, the more likely that make decisions together.
But presence of a child in the family reverses the situation: in this case, the couple will make financial and durable goods decisions together, while decisions on daily expenses will be made by one member or the other separately.
And if the family pours into one condition of economic hardship? In this case, the probability that decisions will be made together decreases.
Let's focus on the now South Europe, which in the Esping-Andersen[3] classification of welfare systems includes Italy, Greece e Spain. In these three countries, women Frmake decisions by themselves more difficult within the family. In case of financial problems, it is men who decide. Furthermore, in these countries, the higher level of education of a member of the couple does not give him greater decision-making power in the family, unlike in other European countries.
An all-Italian peculiarity is that here, over time, they take more and more decisions together within the couple.
In short, heart and wallet are more connected than you think. To put it with Franco Battiato:
We are children of the stars and great-grandchildren of his majesty money
What do you say: find it confirmations or denials than reported in these studies your private life?
