Financial attitudes and family communication aboutstudents' finances: the role of sex...

Past research has shown that men value money more than do women and men are less dependent on their parents in financial matters. Men and women also display different patterns of communication, with women engaging in higher levels of self-disclosure. We examined these issues in the context of young

college students communicating with parents about their financial situation by conducting a multistate survey (N = 1317). Results revealed women to be more open with their parents about financial matters even after controlling for financial dependence, which also was related to openness. Financial attitudes were related to family openness.

Keywords: Family Communication; Financial Attitudes; Sex Differences

**********

Researchers in interpersonal communication have generally overlooked economic issues as factors in relationships. The primary exception has been the study of marriage and divorce (e.g., Amato & Rogers, 1997; Schaninger & Buss, 1986; Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002). Economic issues contribute to marital well-being, at least in U.S. American culture, and access to resources within the family often translates into power differentials in marriage (see Dainton & Zelley, 2006). However, little is known about the role finances play in other types of family relationships or whether sex differences in attitudes regarding money (Furnham, 1984; Hayhoe, Leach, & Turner, 1999; Newcomb & Rabow, 1999) influence family communication. The purpose of the present investigation was to examine sex differences in college students' willingness to discuss their spending behaviors with their parents as well as to investigate the relationship between college students' attitudes toward money and the openness of their communication with parents about their spending behaviors.

Although we know little about sex differences in young peoples' willingness to discuss financial issues with their parents, sex differences in attitudes toward money are well documented. We turn first to a discussion of these differences and theoretical explanations for them.

Sex Differences in Financial Attitudes

Newcomb and Rabow (1999) found college-aged men believe they have greater knowledge about money and are more confident in their financial acumen than are college-aged women. Young men regard money and those who have it more positively and believe having money makes them socially desirable more than do women. Compared to men, young women have more negative, conflicted feelings about money. These differences are consistent with earlier research by Steinrock, Stern, and Solomon (1991); they found women are higher in financial anxiety and are more aversive to risk in their handling of money. Similarly, Xiao, Noring, and Anderson (1995) found men have more favorable attitudes toward credit cards than do women. However, women are more likely to have four or more credit cards than are men (Hayhoe et al., 1999).

Other studies have found comparable sex differences in attitudes toward money in other countries. Furnham (1984) identified six types of beliefs about money and found that young women and men in Great Britain differ on several of them. Men are more obsessed with money than are women. In contrast, women are more conservative and security-conscious in their money attitudes, taking a "more old-fashioned approach to money" (p. 505). Women also believe they cannot change their economic situation and earn less than they deserve compared to men. Lynn (1993) compared men's and women's money attitudes across 20 countries. He found men scored higher than women in the valuation of money in 14 of the countries.

The cross-cultural similarity in attitudes toward money suggests that these sex differences may be partially explained by factors beyond family socialization into cultural norms. Indeed, Lippa (2002) argues that sex differences can be explained by group level factors, past biological and socioenvironmental factors, current biological influences and social settings, and individual predispositions. At the biological level, evolutionary social psychology (see Buss & Kenrick, 1998) suggests that a male's access to and display of resources and status influences his ability to attract a desirable mate capable of carrying on his family line; in contrast, a female seeks a male who has the means and willingness to provide for her when she is most vulnerable (i.e., during pregnancy), and later for her and her offspring. This would suggest that families may instinctively teach their sons to value and acquire resources necessary to differential reproduction. Therefore, it seems likely that the financial attitudes of men will include obsession with money and focus on money as power more than will women while retention of money will be a more prevalent financial attitude for women than men.

As Lippa (2002) argues, sex differences also can be explained by socioenvironmental factors. Sex differences in attitudes about money may occur because parents socialize sons and daughters differently, especially in middle-class Anglo families. Social role theory (see Eagly, 1987) helps explain why this may be the case:

   The causes in sex differences in adult social behavior are likely
   to be hierarchically arranged with the best predictor being adult
   roles, skills, and beliefs which are related to the distribution of
   men and women into specified social roles which is related to some
   unknown extent to more distal factors such as childhood
   socialization and biological predispositions. (p. 133)

Eagly acknowledges a link between socialization theories and social role theory in that children learn gender roles (and attitudes) by direct and indirect tutoring from and observation of parents, teachers, peers, and other socializers.

Social role theory contends that the differing gender roles partially stem from the different roles men and women occupy in the family and in society. Women tend to enact communal roles and men tend to enact more agentic roles (Lippa, 2002). The communal role includes being caring, nurturing, affectionate, interpersonally sensitive, concerned with the welfare of others, and emotionally expressive. The agentic role includes being independent, controlling, forceful, ambitious, and dominant. The focus on independence in the agentic role may help explain why men, across cultures, repeatedly report stronger attitudes regarding money as a way to ensure independence than do women.

Sex differences occur because "members of social groups experience common situational constraints because they tend to have the same or similar social positions within organizations and other structures such as families" (Eagly, 1987, p. 9). "Parents may end up giving their daughters a kind of 'dependence training' and their sons a kind of 'independence training'" (Lippa, 2002, p. 140). Regarding financial socialization, Newcomb and Rabow (1999) concluded parents put daughters and sons on different "money tracks" (p. 865) by holding different expectations for them. The parents of sons have higher expectations for working and saving. Families introduce sons to family bills at a younger age than daughters; additionally, college-age sons work more hours per week and receive less financial support from their families than do college-age daughters. In contrast, parents socialize daughters to focus on product labels as consumers (Mangleburg, Grewal, & Bristol, 1997). Bailey and Lown (1993) found parents of sons are more likely to talk with their children about money than are the parents of daughters.

Self-disclosure and Family Communication

The past research revealing that parents discuss family finances more with sons than with daughters is especially interesting in light of research on self-disclosure and family communication. In their review of gender stereotypes, Anselmi and Law (1993) indicated being talkative is highly associated with women and Lippa (2002) concluded parents may talk more with daughters than sons about life events and emotions. Generally, research shows women engage in somewhat more self-disclosure than men do overall and there is more disclosure to women than to men (Dindia & Allen, 1992). Compared with men, women are especially likely to disclose when they have a relationship to the recipient of the disclosure (Dindia & Allen, 1992) such as when the target is a family member or a friend. Although parents may talk to sons about money more than to daughters, daughters may be freer to self-disclose their financial situation with their parents than are sons. Indeed, interviews with 103 college students revealed young men were significantly more likely than young women to indicate that discussion of financial issues within the family was a forbidden subject (Allen, Warren, & Amason, 2002).

Based on the research on social role theory, family socialization, and self-disclosure we expected college-age sons would be less likely to discuss their own financial situation with their parents than would college-age daughters. This should be especially true if parents provide less financial support to sons than to daughters. However, the research on self-disclosure suggests the effect should not entirely be a function of financial support. We predicted:

H1: After controlling for financial support, men will display less openness with their parents about financial matters than will women.

As described earlier, past research has identified sex differences in financial attitudes (e.g., Furnham, 1984; Hayhoe et al., 1999; Newcomb & Rabow, 1999), with men being more obsessed with money and women being more conservative and security conscious. Of interest to the current study is whether financial attitudes are related to a college student's willingness to discuss his or her credit card use and spending behaviors with parents. For example, seeing money as a source of power and independence may be associated with greater secretiveness about one's financial situation. On the other hand, a tendency to save and budget carefully may be associated with greater willingness to discuss one's financial situation in order to either seek advice or receive praise.

Underlying these speculations is the notion that attitudes toward money function to influence individuals' willingness to discuss their financial situation with others in the same way that attitudes toward other topics (e.g., organ donation) influence relevant behaviors (intending to sign an organ donation card) (Morgan & Miller, 2002). In a meta-analysis of attitude-behavior research, Kim and Hunter (1993) found a positive attitude-behavior relationship is especially strong when attitudes are important and relevant. Because money is an important issue for people, we expect attitudes toward money should influence communication about it. However, no theoretical basis exists for making predictions about the relationships among specific attitudes toward money and a tendency to engage in open communication about it; consequently, we posit a nondirectional hypothesis. Additionally, because some of these attitudes are more likely to be held by men than women due to the arguments presented earlier, it is important to control for sex. We predict:

H2: After controlling for sex, the financial attitudes of young adults will correlate with their openness with their parents about their financial situation.

Method

Sample

The sample (N= 1317) included participants from major universities in Arkansas (n= 515; 39%), Missouri (n = 216; 16%), Louisiana (n= 294; 22%), and Kentucky (n = 290, 22%). Most were 1st year students (n = 992, 77%) or sophomores (n = 199, 15%), with a mean age of 18.88 (SD = 2.79). We intentionally focused on younger participants, on the basis that they would be more connected to their parents for financial and emotional support.

The sample was 60% female (n = 776) and 40% male (n = 517). The participants were largely unmarried (98%), full-time students (99%), European American (87%), state residents where they attended school (80%), and U.S. citizens (98%). They represented a variety of majors and over one half lived in dormitories (n = 754, 58%). Their mothers (74%) and fathers (94%) held full-time jobs. Nearly half of the participants (n = 650, 49%) had one or more credit cards. For those with credit cards, 67% reported no credit card debt. For the remaining participants, the average credit card debt was $1,033.65 (SD = $2,821.80). Most of the participants (n = 776, 76%) had no outstanding student loans. Those with loans owed an average of $3,578.57 (SD = 3,927.74).

Procedure

The hypotheses were tested with a multistate survey of college students. Students in Arkansas completed an online version of the survey whereas students in Louisiana, Missouri, and Kentucky completed paper versions. Results did not vary as a function of type of administration. Participants were primarily students in basic communication classes, English classes, and freshman seminars. Some participants earned class credit for participating. The survey took approximately 15-20 minutes to complete.

The first section of the questionnaire concerned attitudes toward money and credit cards. In the survey's second section openness of communication was one of several measures included, but the only one used in the present study. The last section of the survey requested demographic information as well as data about employment, credit card use, financial support, and debt.

Two versions of the questionnaire were administered. The first focused on credit card spending and was distributed to participants who were solely responsible for at least one credit card. The second version of the questionnaire focused on general spending behaviors. Results did not vary as a function of version of the questionnaire.

Variables

The following sections describe the major variables in this study. Unless otherwise noted, all variables were measured using Likert scaled items with a 5-point response scale. Scores were computed by calculating mean scores across the items for that scale. Higher scores reflect higher levels of the variables.

Money attitudes

In his analysis of financial attitudes, Furnham (1984) identified six general attitudes toward money and developed an instrument, the money beliefs and behavior scale, to measure them. We modified five scales of the MBBS (Furnham, 1982) for college students: obsession, power, effort, inadequacy, and retention. We added a sixth scale labeled independence. Obsession (M = 2.01, SD = .67, [alpha] = .79) refers to preoccupation with money and was measured using six items including "I believe money is the only thing that I can really count on." Power (M = 1.70, SD = .67, [alpha] = .70), which refers to the use of money to buy status, was measured by three questions including "I often use money as a weapon to control and intimidate those who frustrate me." Effort (M = 3.56, SD = .89, r = .50), which refers to how one gets money, was measured with two questions including "I believe my present income is about what I deserve, given the job I do." Inadequacy (M = 2.84, SD = .78, [alpha] = .61), the feeling that one does not have enough money, was measured by three questions including "I am worse off (in monetary terms) than most of my friends think." Retention (M = 3.32, SD = .97, r = .65), the tendency to be careful with money, was measured with two questions including "I budget my money very well." Independence (M = 2.82, SD = .78, [alpha] = .76), the idea that money is equated with freedom and competence, was measured with four questions including "Money gives you autonomy and freedom."

Financial support

Participants reported the percentage of their monthly expenses paid by their parents (M = 52.70, SD = 41.50). [1]

Communication openness

The items measuring the communication openness of young adults with their parents about their financial situation varied across the two versions of the survey. For students with credit cards, the survey items referred to use of credit cards. For participants without credit cards, the items asked about their spending habits. The students' openness about finances was measured with seven items written specifically for this study (M = 3.65, SD = .82, [alpha] = .84). For three of the items, respondents indicated how open they were with their parents when talking about how many credit cards they had (or their spending habits), how much debt they had, and the types of things they charged on their credit cards (or spent money on). The remaining items were "My parents and I discuss my credit card decisions (spending behaviors)," "I talk about my credit card use (spending behaviors) with my parents," "I am open to discussing my credit card use (spending behaviors) with my parents," and "I keep my credit card use (spending behaviors) private from my parents."

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Prior to testing the hypotheses, we determined whether the current data were consistent with past research concerning sex differences. Our results were similar to those of earlier studies: men scored higher than women on the variables of obsession, t (959.87) = 6.34, p < .001; power, t (983.45) = 5.25, p < .001; and independence, t (1289) = 6.23, p < .001. Women scored higher than men on effort, t (1255) = -3.04, p = .002. In addition, parents paid a larger percentage of monthly expenses for daughters than for sons, t (1052) = -3.56, p < .001. Mean scores are reported in Table 1.

Hypothesis Testing

The first hypothesis predicted that young men are less open with their parents about financial matters than young women even after controlling for financial support. We tested this hypothesis by conducting an analysis of covariance using financial support as the covariate. The results of the ANCOVA were significant for both financial support, F (1, 1042) = 31.11, p < .001, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .03, and for sex, F (1, 1042) = 10.62, p = .001, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .01. Greater financial support is associated with more openness and young women are more likely to discuss their finances with their parents than are young men (Mean scores are reported in Table 1). We probed this effect by testing for sex differences without the covariate and found comparable results, F (1, 1279) = 15.56, p < .001, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .01. Thus, the effect for sex is small but significant and is relatively unaffected by financial dependence on parents.

The second prediction concerned the relationships between financial attitudes and family openness after controlling for sex. Openness was significantly correlated with all of the financial attitudes. For obsession, the correlation was negative, r (1241) = -.16, p < .001. For power, the correlation was negative, r (1241) = -.13, p < .001. For inadequacy, the correlation was negative, r (1241) = -.14, p < .001. For effort, the correlation was positive, r (1241) = .15, p < .001. For retention, the correlation was positive, r (1241) = .19, p < .001. For independence, the correlation was negative, r (1241) = -.09, p = .003.

Although all of the correlations between financial attitudes and openness were statistically significant, they were small in magnitude. In order to determine whether the cluster of attitudes explained more of the variance in openness, we regressed attitudes on openness. Results of the regression analysis appear in Table 2. Sex was entered in Step 1, followed by the financial attitudes in Step 2. At Step 1, the control variable of sex accounted for 1% of the variance in openness, R = .113, F (1, 1242) = 16.14, p < .001. At Step 2, the financial attitudes accounted for an additional 8 % of the variance in openness, R = .298, F (6, 1236) = 17.17, p < .001. Inspection of the standardized beta coefficients revealed significant effects for all of the attitudes except independence.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to examine sex differences in young adults' openness with their parents about their financial situation as well as to investigate the influence of financial attitudes on this communication. Our results support and extend previous research. We found a small but statistically significant effect for sex and a stronger effect for financial attitudes.

The present study provides insight into sex differences in the interaction between parents and young adults regarding financial matters. Consistent with previous research on self-disclosure (Dindia & Allen, 1992), we found that daughters are more open with their parents about their spending behaviors in the same way that women are generally more likely to self-disclose personal information to relational partners than are men. The effect, however, was small, accounting for only 1% of the variance in the dependent variable. The young adults' financial dependence on parents was a stronger predictor of their openness, accounting for approximately 3% of the variance. However, even though young women are more dependent on their parents for support, using financial dependence as a covariate did not moderate the influence of sex on openness of communication.

These results are important in several ways. First, they reveal that financial dependence leads to greater communication about a young adult's financial situation. This finding highlights the importance of resources within the family and how those translate into power differentials (e.g., Dainton & Zelley, 2006). Young adults whose parents supply tangible resources to them are more likely to discuss the use of those resources. The current study did not examine why this occurs. Perhaps parents who provide more support expect to know what is happening with "their" money. Another explanation is that students who receive more financial support from their parents are more emotionally dependent on their parents. Alternatively, students who share their financial difficulties with their parents may be given additional support. Future research should investigate the role of parents' expectations in this process as well as the actual messages that are exchanged.

The results of this investigation shed light on sex differences. Similar to past research (e.g., Newcomb & Rabow, 1999), we found that parents provide less financial support for college-age sons than for daughters. This finding supports socialization theories (Lippa, 2002) and the notion of different money tracks for sons and daughters. Sons are expected by their parents to be more knowledgeable about money and more self-sufficient in supporting themselves. Past research has shown that parents talk with sons about money (Bailey & Lown, 1993; Newcomb & Rabow, 1999), but our findings show that daughters are more likely than sons to talk with parents about their own financial situation. This is consistent with past research on self-disclosure (Dindia & Allen, 1992), with socialization theory, and with the communal gender role of women (Lippa, 2002). Parents may socialize daughters to be more dependent in two ways regarding money: Parents provide more real financial support to daughters and they provide social support by listening to daughters who open up to them about their financial situation.

We also investigated the influence of attitudes toward money on young adults' openness with their parents about their financial situation. Although we did not test for a causal relationship, our underlying notion was that attitudes toward money have the potential to influence communication about financial situation (see Kim & Hunter, 1993). We found that college students, regardless of their gender, are less open about their financial situation with their parents when they are more obsessed with money, when they regard it as a source of power and status, when they feel less anxiety about their financial situation, when they perceive more inequity in their pay, and when they tend not to budget and save their money. These findings shed light on the money attitudes (Furnham, 1984). For example, the finding that greater preoccupation with money (obsession) is associated with less openness with parents may be limited to parent-child communication or it may reveal that obsession with money is a private matter to be hidden from others. In contrast, anxiety about financial situation may be shared with parents in order to elicit sympathy and support.

Although each individual attitude has a small relationship with openness, our findings suggest that a cluster of money attitudes is more strongly associated with students' openness with parents about their financial situation. Based on our findings, we suggest that individuals communicate about their financial situation not only because of something inherent to the topic of money but also because of particular attitudes toward money. Future research should investigate these money attitudes and whether they predict communication about financial matters with other relational partners. For example, they may also influence communication between husbands and wives. Additionally, we would encourage more development of the measurement of the money attitudes in order to improve reliability.

This study addressed the topic of economic issues in family communication by focusing on sex differences, financial attitudes, and students' openness with parents about their financial situation. Based on a large sample drawn from students in several states, a concern with an important practical problem, theoretical linkages, and significant results, this study opens the door for more investigations of the relationship between communication and personal finances. Researchers interested in these issues may examine further the messages that parents give to children about money, the conflict that parents and children experience regarding money, and the reciprocity of communication about money. Although we know that money plays an important role in marriage, more research is needed to understand its role in family communication.

References

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.

Mien, M. W., Warren, R., & Amason, P. (2002, November). Financial discussions within the family: Conversational climate, discussants, topics, and advice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

Anselmi, D. L., & Law, A. L. (1993). Gender roles and stereotypes. In A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Psychology of gender (pp. 195-205). New York: Guilford.

Bailey, W. C., & Lown, I. M. (1993). A cross-cultural examination of the aetiology of attitudes towards money. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 17, 391-402.

Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology Vol. II (4th ed., pp. 982-1025). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Dainton, M., & Zelley, E. D. (2006). Social exchange theories: Interdependence and equity. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 243-259). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Furnham, A. (1984). Many sides of the coin: The psychology of money usage. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 501-509.

Hayhoe, C. R., Leach, L., & Turner, P. R. (1999). Discriminating the number of credit cards held by college students using credit and money attitudes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 643-656.

Kim, M. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Attitude-behavior relations: A meta-analysis of attitudinal relevance and topic. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 101-142.

Lippa, R. A. (2002). Gender, nature, and nurture. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lynn, R. (1993). Sex differences in competitiveness and the valuation of money in twenty countries. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 507-512.

Mangleburg, T. F., Grewal, D., & Bristol, T. (1997). Socialization, gender, and adolescent's self-reports of their generalized use of product labels. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31, 255-279.

Morgan, S. E., & Miller, J. K. (2002). Communicating about gifts of life: The effect of knowledge, attitudes, and altruism on behavior and behavioral intentions regarding organ donation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 163-178.

Newcomb, M. D., & Rabow, J. (1999). Gender, socialization, and money. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 852-869.

Schaninger, C. M., & Buss, W. C. (1986). A longitudinal comparison of consumption and finance handling between happily married and divorced couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 129-136.

Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659-675.

Steinrock, R., Stern, B. B., & Solomon, M. R. (1991). Sex and money: Gender differences in the use of surrogate consumers for financial decision-making. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 7, 167-182.

Xiao, J. J., Noring, F. E., & Anderson, J. G. (1995). College students' attitudes towards credit cards. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 19, 155-174.

Notes

[1] Of the total sample of 1317, only 782 participants reported the level of financial support from their parents and were included in the test of the first hypothesis. We tested the second hypothesis two times: with the total sample and with only the 782 participants reporting financial support. The results of the two tests were comparable.

Renee Edwards (PhD, Florida State University, 1980) is a Professor and Chair in the Department of Communication Studies at Louisiana State University. Myria Watkins Allen (PhD, University of Kentucky, 1988) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Arkansas. Celia Ray Hayhoe (PhD, University of Arizona, 1994, CFP[R], 1986) is an Assistant Professor and Family Financial Management Extension Specialist in the Department of Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management at Virginia Polytechnic and State University. This project was supported by a grant from the National Endowment for Financial Education (www.nefe.org). A version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York City, 2005. Correspondence to: Renee Edwards, Communication Studies, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-3923, USA. E-mail: edwards@lsu.edu

Table 1 Financial Attitudes, Parents' Support, and Openness for Male
and Female College Students

                            Men                  Women

                     M       SD     n      M      SD      n

Obsession           2.16     .73   516    1.91     .61   776
Independence        2.98     .76   516    2.71     .77   775
Power               1.82     .72   516    1.62     .62   776
Inadequacy          2.82     .77   516    2.84     .79   776
Retention           3.38     .95   517    3.28     .98   775
Effort              3.47     .90   501    3.62     .88   756
Parents' support   47.28   41.51   435   56.36   41.04   619
Openness            3.54     .81   515    3.73     .82   766

Table 2 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Sex
and Financial Attitudes Predicting College Students' Openness
with Parents about their Financial Situation (N = 1243)

  Variable         B     SE B   [beta]

Step 1
  S ex             .19    .05    .113 *
Step 2
  Sex             .137   .047    .082 *
  Obsession      -.092   .041   -.074 *
  Independence   -.029   .033   -.027
  Power          -.084   .038   -.068 *
  Inadequacy     -.070   .030   -.066 *
  Retention       .129   .024    .152 *
  Effort          .095   .026    .102 *

Note. [R.sup.2] = .01 for Step 1; [DELTA][R.sup.2] = .08 for Step 2.

* p < .05.