Financial Services Review, 31(4) 266 Financial Satisfaction: The Role of Shared Financial Responsibilities and Shared Financial Values Among Couples Michelle Kruger,1 Lance Palmer,2 and Joseph Goetz3 Abstract Managing shared finances is an important aspect of a romantic relationship, and satisfaction with one’s financial situation depends on a complex host of issues, including decision-making dynamics and resource sharing. This paper provides insight into this relationship by reporting the results from a study designed to provide evidence of an association between couple’s shared financial decision-making behavior and their financial satisfaction. Using a sample of 602 individuals in a committed romantic relationship, this project evaluated how couples’ division of financial responsibilities and agreement on spending and saving behavior affected their perceived financial satisfaction. Results of the analysis indicated that the way household finances were shared was associated with perceptions of financial satisfaction. Specifically, those who reported combining their finances with their partner were more financially satisfied. Couples who reported higher levels of agreement on spending were more likely to be satisfied with their current financial situation. Finally, couples with higher levels of agreement on saving were more satisfied financially. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License Recommended Citation Kruger, M., Palmer, L., & Goetz, J. (2023). Financial satisfaction: The role of shared financial responsibilities and share financial values among couples. Financial Services Review, 31(4), 266-282. Introduction Financial satisfaction is the subjective perception of one’s financial adequacy and resources (Hira & Mugenda, 1998). It is an important topic for policymakers, researchers, and educators because it contributes to household outcome measures such as well-being (Campbell, 1981; CFPB, 2015; Easterlin, 2006; Joo, 2008; Robb & 1 Corresponding author (mkruger@uga.edu). Department of Financial Planning, Housing and Consumer Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, USA 2 Department of Financial Planning, Housing and Consumer Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, USA 3 Department of Financial Planning, Housing and Consumer Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, USA Woodyard, 2011) and overall life satisfaction (Xiao et al., 2009). Many studies on financial satisfaction focus on identifying characteristics of household financial decision-makers (e.g., Joo & Grable, 2004; Tharp, 2017; Woodyard & Robb, 2016). In this regard, financial satisfaction has been used as both an outcome and explanatory variable associated with objective and subjective demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Financial Services Review, 31(4) 267 financial attitudes, financial behaviors, and financial knowledge. Other research has evaluated how perceptions of a partner’s spending and saving behavior impact measures of relationship satisfaction (Archuleta, 2013; Mao et al., 2017). This literature shows a positive connection between financial and marital satisfaction (Koochel et al., 2020; Ross et al., 2021). Yet, little is known about how financial mutuality, such as sharing financial goals and money management responsibilities, is associated with couples’ financial satisfaction (Archuleta et al., 2013; Grable et al., 2021). Moreover, though the relation between partner spending and relationship satisfaction is well established (Britt et al., 2008; Kelley et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023), the association between financial satisfaction and agreement on saving and spending behaviors has yet to be fully evaluated. This paper therefore aims to address this issue by examining how couples’ division of financial responsibilities and spending and saving compatibility are associated with their financial satisfaction. Background George (1992) defines financial satisfaction as the subjective evaluation of a person’s resource adequacy. Joo and Grable (2004) define it as one’s overall satisfaction with their current financial situation. Given this evolving definition, it is perhaps unsurprising that there is no consensus on the best way to measure financial satisfaction (Godwin, 1994). Some researchers use scales and indexes, whereas others consider single-item measures (Aboagye & Jung, 2018; Hira & Mugenda, 1998; Joo & Grable, 2004). Further, numerous sub-facets of financial satisfaction have been identified (Garrett & James, 2013; Joo & Grable, 2004; Tharp, 2017; Woodyard & Robb, 2016). These include financial strain, attitudes, behaviors, financial knowledge, personal characteristics, and couple-level characteristics. Although researchers have studied financial satisfaction for over a century, the modeling of financial satisfaction is a more recent phenomenon. For example, Joo and Grable (2004) proposed a framework to describe the abovementioned personal and household characteristics associated with one’s assessment of their current financial situation, operationalized as follows: 𝐹𝑆 = 𝑓(𝑆, 𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐾, 𝑃), (1) where FS, financial satisfaction, is a function of five factors represented by S, a vector of financial strain variables; A, a vector of attitudinal variables; B, a vector of behavioral variables; K, financial knowledge; and P, a vector of personal characteristics. Following Garrett and James (2013), Tharp (2017), and Woodyard and Robb (2016), this study builds on Joo and Grable’s (2004) model to evaluate the functional domains and variables evaluated in this study: 𝐹𝑆 = 𝑓(𝑆, 𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐾, 𝑃, 𝐶𝐿), (2) where CL is added to capture a vector of variables representing couple-level characteristics. The following sections discuss these six domains in detail. Financial Strain Financial strain results from major life-cycle events that influence the family system and generally cost significant sums of money to solve (Joo & Grable, 2004), such as unemployment (Plagnol, 2011; Vera-Toscano et al., 2006). These difficulties are associated with lower levels of financial satisfaction (Archuleta et al., 2011; Spuhler & Dew, 2019), and reducing them offers a pathway to increasing financial satisfaction (Xiao et al., 2006). Attitudes An attitudinal variable of importance in nearly all financial satisfaction frameworks is financial risk tolerance, or a person’s willingness to pursue uncertain and potentially negative outcomes. Risk tolerance is positively associated with financial satisfaction (Aboagye & Jung, 2018; Joo & Grable, 2004). The prevailing thought is that risk tolerance is a trait-like factor (Van de Venter et al., 2012), and as such, it helps describe the degree to which someone expresses financial satisfaction. Beyond causality, it is reasonable to hypothesize that financial risk tolerance is positively associated with financial decision- making and subsequent outcomes which, in turn, relate to feelings of financial satisfaction. Kruger et al. 268 Behaviors Financial satisfaction can be negatively affected by mishandling of household financial management tasks (Joo, 2008: Porter, 1990; Xiao et al., 2014). Those who perform routine financial management tasks well (e.g., handling cash and credit accounts) are more likely to feel satisfied with their financial situation. Positive financial behavior, such as managing cashflows and credit accounts to fully pay off monthly credit card balances (Joo, 1998), is positively associated with financial satisfaction (Aboagye & Jung, 2018; Joo & Grable, 2004; Xiao et al., 2009), whereas risky financial behaviors, such as spending more than one’s income (Aboagye & Jung, 2018), is associated with lower levels of financial satisfaction (Xiao et al., 2014). Financial solvency—a behavioral outcome associated with the ability to pay off all debt and still have assets remaining—is also positively associated with financial satisfaction (Joo & Grable, 2004; Garrett & James, 2013; Mugenda et al., 1990; Sumarwan & Hira, 1993). Financial Knowledge Financial knowledge can be objective or subjective (Fan & Babiarz, 2019; Xiao et al., 2009). Objective financial knowledge is sometimes referred to as financial literacy (Atlas et al., 2019), which can be measured using a quiz or a gradable survey testing the subject’s knowledge of financial topics. Subjective financial knowledge can be an indicator of a decision-maker’s confidence (Atlas et al., 2019) and is typically measured by asking the person to rate their own level of financial knowledge. Robb and Woodyard (2011) found that subjective financial knowledge offers insight into one’s financial behavior, which is corroborated by evidence showing a positive relationship between subjective financial knowledge and financial satisfaction (Fan & Babiarz, 2019; Joo & Grable, 2004; Xiao et al., 2014). Personal Characteristics Of particular importance when describing financial satisfaction is the demographic profile of a financial decision-maker. Fan and Babiarz (2019) noted that divorced individuals, particularly women, generally exhibit lower financial satisfaction than those who are married. Fan and Babiarz found that single women are less financially satisfied than married women. Men are more likely than women to report being satisfied with their current financial situation, after controlling for socioeconomic status (Hira & Mugenda, 1998; Xiao et al., 2014), although gender differences in financial satisfaction generally decrease with age (Hansen et al., 2008). The relationship between attained education level and financial satisfaction is less clear (Fan & Babiarz, 2019; Joo & Grable, 2004; Hsieh, 2004). In terms of racial or ethnic background, Zurlo (2009) reported that non-Whites are significantly less financially satisfied than Whites. Others found no significant relationship between race or ethnic background and financial satisfaction (e.g., Hsieh, 2001, 2004; Joo & Grable, 2004). Age and income are positively associated with financial satisfaction (Archuleta, 2013; Hansen et al., 2008; Sumarwan & Hira, 1993), perhaps because older adults tend to have higher net worth and higher incomes than younger adults. However, Hansen et al. (2008) found that older adults appear to be more satisfied with their financial situation than younger adults, even when wealth and income levels are the same, suggesting they may have learned to be more content with their circumstances. Couple-level Characteristics Joint financial decision-making relates to perceptions of shared financial values among romantic partners (Totenhagen et al., 2019). Discrepancies in income-earning between romantic partners can contribute to financial conflict and reduce financial satisfaction (Eirich & Robinson, 2017). For example, those who report having equal levels of economic power in a relationship (i.e., equal earnings) are more likely to report lower levels of financial conflict (Dew & Stewart, 2012). Hypotheses How a person assesses their financial satisfaction is a function of different personal and household characteristics. Of particular interest to this study is how financial satisfaction among those in a committed romantic relationship relates to couple-level characteristics, such as the degree to which they share goals and values and the Financial Services Review, 31(4) 269 division of financial responsibilities. Understanding how these characteristics affect financial satisfaction can offer insight and tools to improve one’s financial wellbeing. The present study thus extends the financial counseling literature by investigating whether the relationship between financial satisfaction and shared financial goals and values extends to a couple’s level of agreement on specific financial behaviors. Extending Joo and Grable’s (2004) financial satisfaction framework, the following hypotheses examine five financial characteristics of couples (i.e., financial integration style, financial decision-making style, income-earning style, agreement on spending, and agreement on saving) and how they relate to financial satisfaction: H1: Partners who report combining their finances are more likely to be satisfied with their current financial situation. H2: Partners who report being jointly responsible for financial decisions and management are more likely to be satisfied with their current financial situation. H3: Partners who report being jointly responsible for earning income are more likely to be satisfied with their current financial situation. H4: Couples with higher levels of agreement on spending are more likely to be satisfied with their current financial situation. H5: Couples with higher levels of agreement on saving are more likely to be satisfied with their current financial situation. Methodology Data Data for this study were collected by a private firm between December 2013 and January 2014 through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform. Data were analyzed as a secondary dataset. The target population for the sample included people in the United States who were currently living with a romantic partner in which at least one partner makes financial decisions for the couple and at least one partner is responsible for earning income. Participants who were not currently living with a significant other were excluded. Little’s (1988) t and chi-square tests were used to determine if missing data related to values of other variables in the dataset (Sheskin, 2020). In rare cases of missing data, the omissions were determined to be random. The “linear trend at point” method of missing data replacement, a procedure in SPSS that regresses the existing series on an index variable scaled from 1 to n, was used to replace the missing values. The resulting sample comprised 602 individuals living with a romantic partner. Outcome Variable The outcome variable of interest in this study was financial satisfaction, measured using a single- item Likert agreement measure that was converted into a dummy variable. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement, “I am satisfied with my current financial situation.” Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement were coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. The choice to dichotomize the variable was made to delineate those who were financially satisfied from those who were less satisfied. Based on the coding, approximately 49% of participants reported agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement. Couple-level Characteristics Financial decision-making style was measured using the following question: "Who is responsible for the majority of the financial decisions and management made in your household?" Responses were converted into dummy variables as follows: “I am responsible” was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise; “My spouse is responsible” was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise; “My spouse/significant other and I are jointly responsible” (reference item) was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Income pooling style was assessed by asking study participants to complete this statement: “My spouse/significant other and I ______.” Combining all finances with a spouse or partner was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Keeping some finances separate was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Keeping finances entirely separate (reference category) was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Responsibility for earning income was measured by asking, "Who is responsible for working Kruger et al. 270 (generating income)?" The variable was converted into dummy variables as follows: a participant who was responsible for working was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise; a spouse responsible for working was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise; being jointly responsible (reference category) was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise 0. Each couple’s level of agreement on spending was measured by agreement with the following statement: "My spouse/significant other and I agree on issues related to spending money." The variable was converted into two binary variables. A response of agree or strongly agree was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. A response of neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree (reference category) was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Each couple’s level of agreement on saving was measured based on agreement with the following statement: "My spouse/significant other and I agree on issues related to saving money." Responses were converted into two binary variables: agree or strongly agree was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise; neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree (reference category) was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Control Variables To measure financial strain, two proxies were used. First, unemployment was assessed and coded as 1 if the participant was currently unemployed, and 0 otherwise. Second, financial stress was indicated by answers to the following question: “I/we often take money out of savings to pay bills.” Responses were measured on a five- point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. To measure attitudes, risk tolerance was measured using the following question: “How often have others described you as a risk-taker?” Respondents answered using a five-point Likert- type scale where 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 = very often/always. For financial behavior, spending capacity was measured using the following question: “In the past, how often have you had difficulty spending less than your household earns?” Answers were coded as 1 = never, 2 = several times per year, 3 = once a month, 4 = several times a month, 5 = once a week, 6 = several times a week, and 7 = almost every day. A dummy variable was created for which those who reported never having difficulty spending less than their household earns were coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Holding credit card debt was measured using the following question: “How much credit card debt do you/does your household currently have? Please round to the nearest dollar amount.” The variable was recoded into a dummy variable where those who reported having $0 in credit card debt were coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Lastly, net worth served as a proxy for solvency. A positive net worth where household assets (cash, investments) exceeded liabilities (debt) was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Subjective financial knowledge was measured with the following items using a five-point agreement scale: (a) I have explained financial concepts to others in the past, (b) I consider myself a novice or beginner when it comes to managing household finances, (c) I often have to ask others to explain financial terminology, (d) I am very comfortable explaining financial terminology, (e) I enjoy learning about financial concepts and terminology, (f) others seek my advice regarding personal financial matters, (g) I consider myself an expert at managing household finances, and (h) I enjoy thinking about/talking about financial matters. Two of the questions were reverse coded so that higher scores on the scale indicated an elevated level of financial knowledge. The reliability of the scale was measured at a Cronbach's alpha level of .91. The vector of personal characteristics included several variables. Marital status was measured categorically using six classifications: (a) single, never married; (b) married, never divorced; (c) remarried; (d) widowed; (e) divorced; and (f) separated. Four dummy coded variables were created for the analysis: (a) single, never married (reference), (b) married, never divorced, (c) remarried, and (d) widowed, divorced, or separated were coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Gender was measured categorically with self- described females coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. Education level was measured by asking participants to indicate the highest level of education they had obtained. A dummy variable, Financial Services Review, 31(4) 271 Bachelor’s degree or higher, was coded as 1 for respondents with a Bachelor’s degree or higher, and 0 otherwise. Race/ethnicity was measured categorically using only three dummies due to low variability: (a) White (reference), (b) Black or African American, and (c) other. Age and income each were measured as a continuous variable. Study participants also were asked, "Please estimate the approximate total income of your household before taxes last year. Include income from earnings (e.g., wages, business profits) and unearned income (passive income from investments such as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds)." Income was log-transformed for the analysis. Data Analyses Data were analyzed using SPSS 28.0. The research hypotheses were evaluated using a variety of parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. Mean and frequency descriptive statistics were calculated for the continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Tests of the research hypotheses were first made using a chi- square analysis to identify significant differences in financial satisfaction across couple-level characteristics. Two logit models were then estimated with financial satisfaction as the outcome variable. Multivariate logistic regression was chosen for the analysis because of the binary nature of the dependent variable, the capacity of the model to handle a variety of control and independent variable types, and the ability to interpret results using the odds ratio. To address multicollinearity concerns, the level of agreement on spending and level of agreement on saving variables were analyzed in separate models. The models included the remaining couple-level characteristic variables and all control variables. The logit models were empirically modeled as follows: ln [ 𝑃(𝑌) 1−𝑃(𝑌) ] = 𝛽0 + ′𝛽1𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛1 + 𝛽2𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑇𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒2 + ′𝛽3𝐵𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙3 + 𝛽4𝐾𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒4 + ′𝛽5𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙5 + ′𝛽6𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙6 + 𝑒𝑖, (3) where ln [ 𝑃(𝑌) 1−𝑃(𝑌) ] is the odds of financial satisfaction, Y is the binary outcome, ′𝛽1𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛1 is the vector of variables representing financial strain, 𝛽2𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑇𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒2 is financial risk tolerance, ′𝛽3𝐵𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙3 denotes the vector of financial behavior variables, 𝛽4𝐾𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒4 is financial knowledge, ′𝛽5𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙5 is the vector of personal characteristic variables, and ′𝛽6𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙6 represents the vector of variables representing couple-level characteristics. Results Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the categorial variables used in the study. A small proportion of the sample had never been married but were in a committed relationship and living with their partner. Approximately 60% of study participants were male, had completed at least a bachelor’s degree, and had a positive net worth. Most were employed at the time of the survey. Kruger et al. 272 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Categorical Variables (N = 602) Variable Freq. Participant is Satisfied with their Current Financial Situation Strongly Disagree 9.5% Disagree 27.5% Neither Agree nor Disagree 13.8% Agree 35.2% Strongly Agree 14.0% Independent Variables Financial Decision-Making Responsibilities Both Partners Make Financial Decisions Jointly 57.8% Participant Makes Financial Decisions 38.2% Partner Makes Financial Decisions 4.0% Income Earning Responsibilities Both Partners Earn Income 62.1% Participant Earns Income 25.2% Partner Earns Income 12.7% Household Financial Integration Style Couple Combines Finances 65.3% Couple Keeps Some Finances Separate 25.9% Couple Keeps All Finances Separate 8.8% Spouse and Participant Agree on Issues Related to Spending Money Strongly Disagree 2.2% Disagree 13.5% Neither Agree nor Disagree 17.4% Agree 50.5% Strongly Agree 16.4% Spouse and Participant Agree on Issues Related to Saving Money Strongly Disagree 2.2% Disagree 8.8% Neither Agree nor Disagree 11.6% Agree 56.5% Strongly Agree 20.9% Control Variables (Personal Characteristics, Financial Stress, Attitudes, and Behavior Marital Status Single, Never Married 15.3% Other Marital Status 84.7% Gender Male 60.0% Female 40.0% Financial Services Review, 31(4) 273 Table 1 (continued). Descriptive Statistics for the Categorical Variables (N = 602) Variable Freq. Education Level Completed an Associate's Degree or Lower 36.7% Completed a Bachelor's Degree or Higher 63.3% Race White 90.8% Black or African American 4.5% Other Race 4.7% Employment Status Unemployed 4.2% Employed 95.8% Financial Stress Strongly Disagree That They Often Take Money out of Savings to Pay Bills 33.7% Disagree That They Often Take Money out of Savings to Pay Bills 40.3% Neither Agree nor Disagree That They Often Take Money out of Savings to Pay Bills 11.6% Agree That They Often Take Money out of Savings to Pay Bills 13.1% Strongly Agree That They Often Take Money out of Savings to Pay Bills 1.3% Risk Tolerance Others Would Never Describe as a Risk-Taker 29.9% Others Would Rarely Describe as a Risk-Taker 39.6% Others Would Sometimes Describe as a Risk-Taker 22.9% Others Would Often Describe as a Risk-Taker 6.3% Others Would Very Often/Always Describe as a Risk-Taker 1.3% Credit Card Behavior Do Not Carry a Credit Card Balance 44.9% Carry a Credit Card Balance 55.1% Spending Behavior Never Has Difficulty Spending Less Than Income 36.0% Has Difficulty Spending Less Than Income 64.0% Net Worth Positive Net Worth 62.1% Negative Net Worth 23.4% Zero Net Worth 14.5% Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the continuous variables. The average age of study participants was slightly under 38 years with an average annual income of approximately $104,000. Scores measuring subjective financial knowledge ranged from the lowest possible score of eight to the highest possible score of 40, with an average score of about 28. Kruger et al. 274 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Continuous Variables (N = 602) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Age 37.6 10.3 20 74 Pre-Tax Household Income $103,899.48 $100,710.29 $800.00 $1,000,000 Financial Acumen Scale Score 27.9 7.0 8 40 The first research hypothesis was assessed using a series of chi-square tests. The chi-square analysis revealed significant differences in financial satisfaction in groups with divergent couple-level characteristics. Table 3 shows the results of the chi-square tests of independence (*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001). Each of the five couple-level characteristics of interest (i.e., financial integration style, financial decision- making style, income-earning style, agreement on spending, and agreement on saving) was significantly associated with financial satisfaction. Those who were financially satisfied were more likely to report combining their finances with their partner, having the participant be primarily responsible for making financial decisions, being jointly responsible or having the participant be primarily responsible for earning income, agreeing on spending, and agreeing on saving. Those who were less financially satisfied were more likely to have separate finances or some separate finances, be jointly responsible or have their partner be responsible for financial decisions, have their partner be primarily responsible for earning income, not agree on spending, and not agree on saving. Two logit models were estimated to evaluate the remaining research hypotheses, both controlled for the same variables. Model 1 (agree on spending) included all couple-level characteristic variables except the “agree on saving” variable. Model 2 (agree on saving) included all couple- level characteristic variables except the “agree on spending” variable. Table 4 shows the results. Except for the financial stress variable, the coefficient directions and levels of significance for each model were the same. Both models had relatively high explained variance, although Model 1 had a slightly higher pseudo-r-squared compared to Model 2 (Nagelkerke R2 = .534 versus Nagelkerke R2 = .521). Income was positively associated with financial satisfaction in both models. Subjective financial knowledge was also positively associated with reports of financial satisfaction (p < .001). For each additional point scored on the subjective financial knowledge measure, the odds of being financially satisfied increased in Model 1 by 8% and in Model 2 by 9%. Financial stress was significantly associated with financial satisfaction in the agree-on-saving model (p < .05), in which those who were financially stressed were 23% less likely to be financially satisfied; however, financial stress was not significant in the agree-on-spending model (p = .06). Paying with credit card balances in full each month (p < .05) and net worth (p < .01) were significantly associated with being financially satisfied in both models. In comparison to those who did not have a positive net worth, those who did were 127% more likely to be financially satisfied in the agree-on-spending model and 110% more likely in the agree-on-saving model. Financial Services Review, 31(4) 275 Table 3. Differences in Financial Satisfaction by Couple-level Financial Characteristics Not Satisfied Satisfied Χ2 Separate Finances Count 40 13 21.56*** Expected Count 26.9 26.1 Std. Residual 2.5 -2.6 Some Separate Finances Count 90 66 Expected Count 79.3 76.7 Std. Residual 1.2 -1.2 Combined Finances Count 176 217 Expected Count 199.8 193.2 Std. Residual -1.7 1.7 Participant Responsible for Financial Decisions Count 103 127 13.94*** Expected Count 116.9 113.1 Std. Residual -1.3 1.3 Jointly Responsible for Financial Decisions Count 183 165 Expected Count 176.9 171.1 Std. Residual 0.5 -0.5 Participant's Partner Responsible for Financial Decisions Count 20 4 Expected Count 12.2 11.8 Std. Residual 2.2 -2.3 Participant Responsible for Earning Income Count 64 88 17.11*** Expected Count 77.3 74.7 Std. Residual -1.5 1.5 Jointly Responsible for Earning Income Count 188 186 Expected Count 190.1 183.9 Std. Residual -0.2 0.2 Participant's Partner Responsible for Earning Income Count 54 22 Expected Count 38.6 37.4 Std. Residual 2.5 -2.5 Do Not Agree on Spending Count 138 62 39.56*** Expected Count 101.7 98.3 Std. Residual 3.6 -3.7 Agree on Spending Count 168 234 Expected Count 204.3 197.7 Std. Residual -2.5 2.6 Do Not Agree on Saving Count 96 41 26.28*** Expected Count 69.6 67.4 Std. Residual 3.2 -3.2 Agree on Saving Count 210 255 Expected Count 236.4 228.6 Std. Residual -1.7 1.7 Financial Services Review, 31(4) 276 Of the couple-level characteristics, only financial integration style was associated with financial satisfaction (p < .05). Neither financial decision- making responsibility allocation nor income- earning responsibility allocation was significantly associated with financial satisfaction. In comparison with those who had completely separate finances, those who had completely combined finances were 1.60 times more likely to be financially satisfied, accounting for agreement on spending, and 1.79 times more likely to be financially satisfied, accounting for agreement on saving. Agreement on spending money was associated with financial satisfaction (p < .001). Those who reported that they and their partner agree on spending were 61% more likely to be financially satisfied, compared to those who strongly disagreed. Agreement on saving money also was associated with financial satisfaction (p < .01). Those who reported that they and their partner agree on issues related to saving money were 33% more likely to be financially satisfied than those who disagreed. Discussion The results from the statistical tests provide support for the first (i.e., partners who report combining their finances are more likely to be satisfied with their current financial situation), fourth (i.e., couples with higher levels of agreement on spending are more likely to be satisfied with their current financial situation), and fifth (i.e., couples with higher levels of agreement on saving are more likely to be satisfied with their current financial situation) hypotheses. The two regressions were similar, with one main difference. In Model 1, where agreement on spending was included as an explanatory variable, financial stress was not significant; however, in Model 2, where agreement on saving was included as an explanatory variable, financial stress was significant (p < .05). It is important to note that although the estimations were statistically different for each model, the p-values and association with financial satisfaction for each model were similar (i.e., agree-on-spending model, p = .06, and 21% less likely to be financially satisfied; agree-on-saving model, p = .04, and 23% less likely to be financially satisfied). However, as the threshold for a Type-I error was set at p < .05, financial stress was deemed significant in the second model only. More empirical work is needed to understand how financial stress may be associated with financial satisfaction when controlling for couple’s financial characteristics. An important finding from this study is that a couple’s level of agreement on spending is important in describing financial satisfaction. Participants who strongly agreed that they or their partner agree on issues related to spending money were much more likely to report being financially satisfied, compared to similar participants who reported disagreeing with this statement. Partners who strongly agreed on issues related to saving money also were more likely to report being financially satisfied, compared to those who disagreed with this notion. Agreement on spending exhibited a larger effect size than agreement on saving, perhaps because the consequences of disagreeing on spending are felt more immediately than are disagreements about saving. Study participants who completely combined finances with their partner were more likely to report being financially satisfied, compared to those who kept their finances completely separate. No differences in financial satisfaction based on responsibility for income earning or responsibility for financial decisions and management were observed. It appears that viewing money as a household good—as a combined asset—is more important in terms of financial satisfaction than how money management responsibilities and tasks are divided. This insight provides support for conclusions made by Skogrand et al. (2011) and Ward and Lynch (2018). Skogrand et al. (2011) noted how important trust and communication are in the financial management process. When interpreting their findings and the results from the current study, it is important to remember that conclusions are applicable only in the context of healthy and non-abusive relationships where finances are not used to control or manipulate a partner. Financial Services Review, 31(4) 277 Table 4. Logistic Regression Analyses (N = 602) Variable B SE Odds Ratio B SE Odds Ratio Agreement on Spending Model Agreement on Saving Model Independent Variables (Couple-level Characteristics) Participant Responsible for Financial Decisions (Ref: Joint Decisions) -0.135 0.25 0.874 -0.210 0.25 .811 Participant's Partner Responsible for Financial Decisions (Ref: Joint Decisions) -1.219 0.71 .296 -1.200 0.70 .301 Combined Finances (Ref: Completely Separate Finances) 0.956* 0.43 2.601 1.026* 0.43 2.789 Some Separate Finances (Ref: Completely Separate Finances) 0.713 0.44 2.041 0.746 0.44 2.108 Participant Responsible for Earning Income (Ref: Joint Income) 0.203 0.28 1.224 0.221 0.28 1.247 Participant's Partner Responsible for Earning Income (Ref: Joint Income) -0.045 0.39 .956 -0.088 0.39 .916 Agree on Spending 0.476*** 0.13 1.610 Agree on Saving 0.286* 0.14 1.331 Control Variables (Personal Characteristics, Knowledge, Financial Strain, Attitudes, and Behavior) Single, Never Married 0.093 0.35 1.097 0.053 0.35 1.055 Female -0.150 0.27 .861 -0.131 0.27 .877 Bachelor's Degree or Higher -0.420 0.25 .657 -0.394 0.25 .674 Black or African American (Ref: White) 0.365 0.54 1.441 0.370 0.53 1.447 Other Race (Ref: White) 0.001 0.53 1.001 0.008 0.52 1.008 Age -0.008 0.01 .992 -0.006 0.01 .994 Income (Log transformed) 0.878*** 0.20 2.407 0.849*** 0.20 2.336 Subjective Financial Knowledge 0.081*** 0.02 1.084 0.082*** 0.02 1.086 Unemployed -0.428 0.61 0.652 -0.322 0.60 .725 Financial Stress -0.240 0.13 .786 -0.266* 0.13 .766 Risk Tolerance 0.075 0.13 1.078 0.101 0.13 1.106 Paying Credit Card Balance in Full 0.559* 0.23 1.749 0.552* 0.23 1.737 Never Overspend 0.876*** 0.26 2.401 0.913*** 0.26 2.492 Positive Net Worth 0.820** 0.26 2.272 0.742** 0.26 2.099 Constant -14.781 2.36 -13.930 2.32 Notes: *<.05; **<.01; ***<.001; Model 1: Nagelkerke Pseudo R-Squared = .534; Model 2: Nagelkerke Pseudo R-Squared = .521. Financial Services Review, 31(4) 278 Implications The financial literature indicates that higher levels of financial satisfaction are associated with lower levels of marital discord (e.g., Betcher & Macauley, 1990; Dew, 2007) and divorce (e.g., Amato & Rogers, 1997; Grable et al., 2007; Hill et al., 2017; Zagorsky, 2003). Findings from this study provide a strategic pathway for financial counselors looking to mitigate the negative impacts of financial dissatisfaction for their clients. One way to do this is to align a couple’s shared values and behaviors. As noted by Britt et al. (2008), agreement about spending and saving is related to financial satisfaction. In this regard, financial counselors should be purposeful when assisting their clients in maximizing life satisfaction and happiness (Britt et al., 2017). For example, they should evaluate the couple’s money-related habits and behaviors to determine the root causes of any conflict. When building and delivering financial action plans to these clients, financial counselors can recommend ways to align spending and saving goals. Results from this study also indicate that it may be appropriate to introduce strategies designed to increase goal congruence related to spending and saving as a way to improve overall financial satisfaction. Doing so should increase confidence in each partner so that, if desired, the couple can begin to combine finances to a greater extent, further enhancing financial satisfaction. Limitations and Future Directions Although the findings from this study advance the literature on the relationship between financial satisfaction and shared financial goals and values, certain limitations need to be acknowledged. First, the analyses utilized a secondary dataset, which means that some variables had to be approximated or excluded from the models due to a lack of available proxies (e.g., self-reported relationship status, relationship satisfaction). Additionally, data were collected online and thus could be vulnerable to a response bias. Data were cross-sectional, so the potential for dual causality cannot be ruled out. Future studies using longitudinal data would be useful in helping researchers determine the direction of certain relationships and in making causal inferences. In addition, the data were collected at the individual level, which means that responses signified only one person's opinions. Responses from both partners would have allowed comparisons between partners, as well as comparisons between each study participant's perception of their own and their partner's perceptions. Additionally, it was not known how many times a participant had been married or involved in a committed romantic relationship or whether the participant was currently in a blended relationship. Studies designed to replicate this research should take steps to account for these situations. Finally, several studies (e.g., Archuleta, 2013; Archuleta et al., 2011, 2013) have shown that financial satisfaction is related to relational and marital satisfaction. Although it was not possible to account for marital or relational satisfaction in this study, future studies should control for and investigate the possibility that relational and marital satisfaction are associated with financial satisfaction. References Aboagye, J., & Jung, J. Y. (2018). Debt holding, financial behavior, and financial satisfaction. Financial Counseling and Planning, 29(2), 208-218. doi.10.1891/1052-3073.29.2.208 Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 612-624. Archuleta, K. L. (2013). Couples, money, and expectations: Negotiating financial management roles to increase relationship satisfaction. Marriage & Family Review, 49(5), 391-411. doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2013.766296 Archuleta, K. L., Britt, S. L., Tonn, T. J., & Grable, J. E. (2011). Financial satisfaction and financial stressors in marital satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 108(2), 563-576. doi.org/10.2466/07.21.PR0.108.2.563- 576 Archuleta, K. L., Grable, J. E., & Britt, S. L. (2013). Financial and relationship satisfaction as a function of harsh start- up and shared goals and values. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/01494929.2013.766296 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2466/07.21.PR0.108.2.563-576 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2466/07.21.PR0.108.2.563-576 Financial Services Review, 31(4) 279 Financial Counseling and Planning, 24(1), 3-14. Atlas, S. A., Lu, J., Micu, P. D., & Porto, N. (2019). Financial knowledge, confidence, credit use, and financial satisfaction. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 30(2), 175- 190. doi.10.1891/1052-3073.30.2.175 Betcher, W., & Macauley, R. (1990). The seven basic quarrels of marriage: Recognize, defuse, negotiate, and resolve your conflicts. Villard Books. Britt, S., Grable, J. E., Goff, B. S. N., & White, M. (2008). The influence of perceived spending behaviors on relationship satisfaction. Financial Counseling and Planning, 19(1), 31-43. Britt, S. L., Hill, E. J., LeBaron, A., Lawson, D. R., & Bean, R. A. (2017). Tightwads and spenders: Predicting financial conflict in couple relationships. Journal of Financial Planning, 30(5), 36-42. Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America: Recent patterns and trends. McGraw-Hill. CFPB. (2015). Financial Well-Being: The Goal of Financial Education. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington, DC. https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2015 01_cfpb_report_financial-well-being.pdf Dew, J. (2007). Two sides of the same coin? The differing roles of assets and consumer debt in marriage. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28(1), 89–104. doi.10.1007/s10834-006-9051-6 Dew, J. P., & Stewart, R. (2012). A financial issue, a relationship issue, or both? Examining the predictors of marital financial conflict. Journal of Financial Therapy, 3(1), 43-61. https://newprairiepress.org/jft/vol3/iss1/ 4/ Easterlin, R. A. (2006). Life cycle happiness and its sources: Intersections of psychology, economics, and demography. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(4), 463-482. doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.05.002 Eirich, G. M., & Robinson, J. H. (2017). Does earning more than your spouse increase your financial satisfaction? A comparison of men and women in the United States, 1982 to 2012. Journal of Family Issues, 38(17), 2371–2399. doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16638384 Fan, L., & Babiarz, P. (2019). The determinants of subjective financial satisfaction and the moderating roles of gender and marital status. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 47(3), 237- 259. doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12297 Garrett, S., & James, R. N. (2013). Financial ratios and perceived household financial satisfaction. Journal of Financial Therapy, 4(1), 39-62. doi.org/10.4148/jft.v4i1.1839 George, L. K. (1992). Economic status and subjective well-being: A review of the literature and an agenda for future research. In N. E. Cutler, D. W. Gregg, & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Aging, money, and life satisfaction: Aspects of financial gerontology (pp. 69-99). Springer. Godwin, D. D. (1994). Antecedents and consequences of newlyweds' cash flow management. Financial Counseling and Planning, 5, 161-190. Grable, J. E., Britt, S., & Cantrell, J. (2007). An exploratory study of the role financial satisfaction has on the thought of subsequent divorce. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 36(2), 130-150. doi.org/10.1177/1077727X07309284 Grable, J., Kruger, M., Byram, J-L., & Kwak, E. J. (2021). Perceptions of a partner’s spending and saving behavior and financial satisfaction. Journal of Financial Therapy, 12(1). https://newprairiepress.org/jft/vol12/iss1 /3/ Hansen, T., Slagsvold, B., & Moum, T. (2008). Financial satisfaction in old age: A http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1052-3073.30.2.175 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.joep.2006.05.002 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0192513X16638384 https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12297 https://doi.org/10.4148/jft.v4i1.1839 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/1077727X07309284 Kruger et al. 280 satisfaction paradox or a result of accumulated wealth? Social Indicators Research, 89(2), 323-347. doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9234-z Hill, E. J., Allsop, D. B., LeBaron, A. B., & Bean, R. A. (2017). How do money, sex, and stress influence marital instability? Journal of Financial Therapy, 8(1), 21- 42. doi.org/10.4148/1944-9771.1135 Hira, T. K., & Mugenda, O. M. (1998). Predictors of financial satisfaction: Differences between retirees and non-retirees. Financial Counseling and Planning, 9(2), 75-84. https://www.afcpe.org/news-and- publications/journal-of-financial- counseling-and-planning/volume-9- 2/predictors-of-financial-satisfaction- differences-between-retirees-and-non- retirees/ Hsieh, C. M. (2001). Correlates of financial satisfaction. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 52(2), 135-153. doi.org/10.2190/9YDE-46PA- MV9C-2JRB Hsieh, C. M. (2004). Income and financial satisfaction among older adults in the United States. Social Indicators Research, 66(3), 249-266. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27522072 Joo, S. (1998). Personal financial wellness and worker job productivity. [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University]. Joo, S. (2008). Personal financial wellness. In J. J. Xiao (Ed.), Handbook of Consumer Finance Research (pp. 21-33). Springer Science + Business Media. Joo, S. H., & Grable, J. E. (2004). An exploratory framework of the determinants of financial satisfaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25(1), 25-50. doi.org/10.1023/B:JEEI.0000016722.37 994.9f Kelley, H. H., Chandler, A. B., Li, X., Curran, M. A., & Yorgason, J. B. (2022). Spenders and tightwads among newlyweds: Perceptions of partner financial behaviors and relational well-being. Journal of Financial Therapy, 13(1), 3. doi.org/10.4148/1944-9771.1288 Koochel, E. E., Markham, M. S., Crawford, D. W., & Archuleta, K. L. (2020). Financial transparency scale: Its development and potential uses. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 31(1), 14-27. https://connect.springerpub.com/content /sgrjfcp Li, X., Curran, M. A., LeBaron-Black, A. B., Jorgensen, B., Yorgason, J., & Wilmarth, M. J. (2023). Couple-level attachment styles, finances, and marital satisfaction: Mediational analyses among young adult newlywed couples. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 44(1), 125-142. doi.org/10.1007/s10834-021-09808-x Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198- 1202. Mao, D. M., Danes, S. M., Serido, J., & Shim, S. (2017). Financial influences impacting young adults’ relationship satisfaction: Personal management quality, perceived partner behavior, and perceived financial mutuality. Journal of Financial Therapy, 8(2), 24-41. https://newprairiepress.org/jft/vol8/iss2/ 3/ Mugenda, O. M., Hira, T. K., & Fanslow, A. M. (1990). Assessing the causal relationship among communication, money management practices, satisfaction with financial status, and satisfaction with quality of life. Lifestyles: Family and Economic Issues, 11(4), 343-360. doi.org/10.1007/BF00987345 Plagnol, A. C. (2011). Financial satisfaction over the life course: The influence of assets and liabilities. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(1), 45-64. doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.10.006 https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-9771.1135 https://doi.org/10.2190/9YDE-46PA-MV9C-2JRB https://doi.org/10.2190/9YDE-46PA-MV9C-2JRB https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-9771.1288 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.joep.2010.10.006 Financial Services Review, 31(4) 281 Porter, N. M. (1990). Testing a model of financial well-being. [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University]. Robb, C. A., & Woodyard, A. S. (2011). Financial knowledge and best practice behavior. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 22(1), 60-70. http://afcpe.org Ross, D. B., Gale, J., Wickrama, K., Goetz, J., Vowels, M. J., & Tang, Y. (2021). Couple perceptions as mediators between family economic strain and marital quality: Evidence from longitudinal dyadic data. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 32(1), 158- 172. doi. 10.1891/JFCP-18-00065 Sheskin, D. J. (2020). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (4th ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC. Skogrand, L., Johnson, A. C., Horrocks, A. M., & DeFrain, J. (2011). Financial management practices of couples with great marriages. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32(1), 27-35. doi. 10.1007/s10834-010-9195-2 Spuhler, B. K., & Dew, J. (2019). Sound financial management and happiness: Economic pressure and relationship satisfaction as mediators. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 30(2), 157- 174. https://connect.springerpub.com/content /sgrjfcp Sumarwan, U., & Hira, T. K. (1993). The effects of perceived locus of control and perceived income adequacy on satisfaction with financial status of rural households. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 14(4), 343-364. doi.org/10.1007/BF01013984 Tharp, D. T. (2017). Three essays on personality characteristics and financial satisfaction. [Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University]. Totenhagen, C. J., Wilmarth, M. J., Serido, J., Curran, M. A., & Shim, S. (2019). Pathways from financial knowledge to relationship satisfaction: The roles of financial behaviors, perceived shared financial values with the romantic partner, and debt. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 40(3), 423-437. doi.org/10.1007/s10834-019-09611-9 Van de Venter, G., Michayluk, D., & Davey, G. (2012). A longitudinal study of financial risk tolerance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(4), 794-800. doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.03.001 Vera-Toscano, E., Ateca-Amestoy, V., & Serrano-Del-Rosal, R. (2006). Building financial satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 77(2), 211-243. doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-2614-3 Ward, A. F., & Lynch Jr, J. G. (2018). On a need- to-know basis: How the distribution of responsibility between couples shapes financial literacy and financial outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 1013-1036. doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy037 Woodyard, A. S., & Robb, C. A. (2016). Consideration of financial satisfaction: What consumers know, feel and do from a financial perspective. Journal of Financial Therapy, 7(2), 41-61. https://newprairiepress.org/jft/vol7/iss2/ 4/ Xiao, J. J., Chen, C., & Chen, F. (2014). Consumer financial capability and financial satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 118(1), 415-432. doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0414-8 Xiao, J. J., Sorhaindo, B., & Garman, E. T. (2006). Financial behaviours of consumers in credit counselling. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(2), 108-121. doi.org/10.1111/j.1470- 6431.2005.00455.x Xiao, J. J., Tang, C., & Shim, S. (2009). Acting for happiness: Financial behavior and life satisfaction of college students. Social https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1007%252Fs10834-010-9195-2;h=repec:kap:jfamec:v:32:y:2011:i:1:p:27-35 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/BF01013984 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10834-019-09611-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.03.001 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s11205-005-2614-3 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1093/jcr/ucy037 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00455.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00455.x Kruger et al. 282 Indicators Research, 92(1), 53-68. doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9288-6 Zagorsky, J. L. (2003). Husbands’ and wives’ view of the family finances. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 32(2), 127-146. Zurlo, K. A. (2009). Personal attributes and the financial well-being of older adults: The effects of control beliefs. PARC Working Paper Series, WPS 09-03. https://repository.upenn.edu/parc_worki ng_papers/27/