Beliefs about Financial Organization in Marriage: The “Equality Rules OK” Norm?

Author:

Burgoyne Carole B.1,Routh David A.2

Affiliation:

1. School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

2. Dept. of Exper. Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Abstract

Summary: Survey and interview studies have identified the existence of a number of systems of financial organization in marriage, but their origins remain a mystery. One possibility is that people develop normative beliefs that are carried forward into marriage. The present questionnaire study aimed to elucidate such beliefs by means of the responses of 408 undergraduates to one of five different vignettes, each containing a choice dilemma. Each vignette described a couple of recent graduates about to get married, with particular income levels that varied across the five versions. Respondents were asked to select the “best” system of financial management from six possibilities, to rank the possibilities in order of fairness, to decide whether or not one partner should have more personal spending money (PSM) than the other, and to explain their answers where relevant. While the differences between vignettes had some impact on the system chosen, the commonest choice was for one in which all income was pooled. Moreover, two-thirds of the sample believed that each partner should receive an equal amount of PSM. A predominant feature of the findings was a belief that financial organization in marriage should be governed by a norm of equality, though independence and autonomy were also seen as important by some.

Publisher

Hogrefe Publishing Group

Subject

General Psychology,Social Psychology

Reference17 articles.

1. Becker, G.S. (1993). A treatise on the family. . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. .

2. Money in Marriage: How Patterns of Allocation Both Reflect and Conceal Power

3. Distributive justice in marriage: Equality or equity?

4. Money in Remarriage: Keeping Things Simple — And Separate

5. Clark, M.S. Chrisman, K. (1994). Resource allocation in intimate relationships: Trying to make sense of a confusing literature. In M.J. Lerner & G. Mikula (Eds.), Entitlement and the affectional bond: Justice in close relationships (pp.65-88). New York: Plenum. .

Cited by 37 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3