The financial practices and perceptions behind separate systems of household financial
management
Katherine J. Ashby 1,2
Carole. B. Burgoyne 1
1
2
School of Psychology, University of Exeter, UK
Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of London, UK
Key words: Independent money management, Household financial organisation,
Cohabitation
Address for correspondence:
Katherine Ashby, Department of Development Studies, Faculty of Law and Social
Science, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Thornhaugh
Street, Russell Square, London, WC1H 0XG, UK. E-mail: KA10@soas.ac.uk; tel.:
(+44) 7792445178
1
Abstract
Qualitative research in the UK has revealed a diversity of financial arrangements
underlying separate systems of household financial management, such as Independent
Management (IM) and Partial Pooling (PP). Married and cohabiting couples seem to
perceive money in a wide variety of ways, with different implications for how they
handle money and for individual well-being. One factor, identified in previous work,
is perceived ownership of money, with financial practices differing according to
whether couples have distinct, blurred or shared ownership perceptions. The present
work aims to build on and extend this research, using data from an online survey
study with 190 cohabitants in the UK. The findings reveal that ownership perceptions
transcend the money management categories of IM and PP, and can be a significant
predictor of the type of contribution cohabitants make towards joint household
expenses. Some theoretical implications for the measurement of money management
are discussed.
2
1. Introduction
‘Some things are hidden if you just look at the way that money is arranged and you
don’t know what lies behind it’
(Interview participant Harry, p.478, Ashby & Burgoyne, 2008)
In studies of household financial management, it is often assumed that couples
using separate systems of money management, such as Independent money
management (IM) and Partial pooling (PP) are behaving as two separate financial
entities (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Elizabeth, 2001; Heimdal & Houseknecht, 2003;
Oropesa, Landale & Kenkre, 2003; Singh & Lindsay, 1994; Waite & Gallagher, 2000;
Vogler, 2005). However, a narrow focus on the money management system and the
bank accounts used by couples can conceal some important differences in the way that
money is both handled and perceived (Ashby & Burgoyne, 2008, also see Burgoyne,
Reibstein, Edmunds, & Dolman, 2007; Nyman, 1999; Nyman & Reinikainen, 2007).
One key factor that emerged from earlier research concerns the psychological – or
perceived – ownership of money (Burgoyne et al., 2007). These authors identified a
spectrum of ownership from distinct (where couples made a clear distinction between
joint and individually-owned money), through blurred, where perceptions differed
between partners or were in transition, to shared, where all money was regarded as
being collectively owned, regardless of its source. In qualitative research by Ashby and
Burgoyne (2008) the concept of ownership seemed to be an important determinant for
the way that the money management systems of IM and PP operated in practice.
Especially when there was a disparity in incomes between partners, there were different
implications for individual well-being, depending on whether the couple had distinct,
3
blurred or shared ownership perceptions. Ashby and Burgoyne (2008) concluded that
asking questions about ownership perceptions in future research might help to provide a
more fine-grained and accurate picture of how couples deal with financial issues (cf.
Burgoyne et al., 2006). In a similar vein, Nyman & Reinikainen (2007) advocate
examining the meanings of money. In the latter’s qualitative study with married
couples they found that the definition of money’s ownership, as ‘mine, yours or ours’
(p65) conferred different meanings upon money, which in turn had implications for
how money was used (Nyman & Reinikainen, 2007). For women in particular, they
found that having money that was defined as ‘mine’ versus ‘ours’ was an important
source of economic independence. This research also has points of contact with
Thaler’s (1999) influential work on mental accounting, which challenges the economic
assumption of fungibility of money. Mental accounting is ‘the set of cognitive
operations used by individuals and households to organize, evaluate, and keep track of
financial activities’ (Thaler, 1999, p183). According to this theory individuals can hold
a number of separate mental accounts for different expenditures (including for example,
household bills, social expenses, personal spending), and the spending from each
‘account’ is constrained in different ways (see Burgoyne, 1995). For example, someone
may not want to tap into resources from their household bills account to buy clothing
for themselves (see Shefrin & Thaler, 1988). Ashby and Burgoyne’s (2008) research
indicates that partners with distinct and also blurred ownership perceptions can hold
different mental accounts for shared/joint money on the one hand and personal money
on the other.
Using data from a survey with 190 unmarried cohabitants in the UK, the present
study builds on and extends Ashby and Burgoyne’s (2008) qualitative research on the
financial practices and meanings behind IM and PP.
4
1.1 Separate systems of money management
Pahl’s (1983) typology was initially developed on the basis of a substantial
interview study with married couples to describe the different ways that partners could
arrange their household finances. Figure 1 gives an outline of Pahl’s typology and
identifies IM as a system where both partners keep their money in separate accounts,
have their incomes paid into these accounts and typically do not have access to any
joint sources of money (Pahl, 1995). PP has recently been identified for couples who
keep a significant proportion of their money independently, but also have a joint
account for household expenses (Burgoyne et al, 2007; Pahl, 2005). Couples usually
have their incomes paid into their separate account and then transfer an agreed sum into
their joint account for collective expenses (Burgoyne et al., 2007).
Until recently little research attention has been paid to these separate systems of
money management (Elizabeth, 2001). This is in part because the research focus has
been on married couples who typically have had such low levels of IM (2% or less),
that analysis of this system has often been excluded (Pahl, 1995). However, research
with remarried, same-sex, and heterosexual cohabiting couples, has often found much
higher levels of separate money management (Ashby & Burgoyne, 2008; Burns,
Burgoyne & Clarke, 2008; Burgoyne & Morrison, 1997; Vogler et al., 2006; 2008).
Recent studies with newly married couples have also found an increasing use of IM and
PP (Burgoyne et al., 2007; Pahl, 2005).
The rising use of separate systems of money management has highlighted and
heightened the need to explore the financial practices and meanings behind IM and PP
(see Elizabeth, 2001). From her qualitative research in New Zealand, Elizabeth (2001)
found that IM was adopted by couples in order to avoid financial dependency, and to
feel autonomous and independent in the relationship by: (i) maintaining individual
5
Figure 1 Summary of Pahl’s (1989; 1990) typology
Money management
system
Independent
management
Description
Where both partners typically have their own incomes and keep their money in
separate accounts.
Partial pooling
Where partners typically have their own incomes paid into separate accounts,
but also have a joint account they each contribute to (typically to pay for
household expenses).
Pooling (can be joint,
male or female
managed)
Where couples pool all or nearly all of their money into a joint account. The
joint pool of money can be managed jointly by both partners or individually by
either the male or female partner.
Housekeeping or
allowance
This typically involves a fixed sum being given to the wife for household
expenses leaving the rest in the hands of the husband.
Whole wage (male or
female system)
Where one partner manages all of the household finances. Traditionally, in the
female whole wage system the husband hands his wages over to his wife
(usually minus his personal spending money) and she uses the money plus any
of her own to cover the entire household’s needs. In the male whole wage
system the man has sole responsibility for running the household finances
(which can leave non-earning wives with no access to money for themselves)
control over money and (ii) contributing equally towards expenses. However,
defining equality in terms of equal contributions without taking account of income
can lead to traditional inequalities in access to money, with the higher earning partner
(predominantly male) having greater access to and control over their own separate
money (Elizabeth). Vogler et al (2006, 2008) draw comparable conclusions in their
UK survey study with married and cohabiting couples. They found that IM and PP
were most likely to be used by cohabiting respondents when one partner earned more
6
than the other, whereas those who earned similar amounts were most likely to use the
joint pool. In a context where men earn more than women, they also argue this can
leave the male partner with greater access to discretionary spending money, and allow
gender inequalities in the labour market to feed into the household (Vogler et al.,
2006; 2008).
However, in an in-depth qualitative study, Ashby and Burgoyne (2008) found
that it was not always possible to read off financial practices based on the category
labels of IM and PP alone. Some couples treated money in a much more collective way
than the category labels implied. Indeed just as pooled money could be seen as
separately owned (Burgoyne et al, 2007), money held in separate accounts could be
seen as belonging to both partners in the couple. Furthermore, it was this sense of
ownership that appeared to determine the degree of autonomy for each partner over the
use of money (see figure 2, also see Burgoyne, et al., 2007). As figure 2 shows it was
specifically those with distinct ownership perceptions who were found to define
equality in terms of equal contributions and who were more likely to split the cost of
these expenses equally, regardless of each partner’s level of income. In contrast, when
there was a disparity in earnings, those with blurred ownership were more likely to
contribute proportionally to their earnings, which resulted in the lower earning partner
having greater access to spending money than would have been the case if they
contributed equally. Finally, for those using IM and PP with shared ownership
perceptions, each partner felt they had access to all money, regardless of who earned it.
In this way IM and PP resembled the joint pool. The present study investigates these
nuances in definitions of equality, and explores whether contributions towards joint
expenses differ between those with distinct, blurred and shared ownership perceptions.
7
Figure 2. Ownership perceptions cut across separate categories of money
management: Summary of money management categories
Distinct
- Savings and debts perceived as private
matter for the individual rather than a joint
responsibility
- Partners take financial responsibility for
themselves
- Pay 50/50 for joint expenses
IM
Blurred
PP
Shared
- Give versus loan money
- More flexible about paying for joint
expenses – more likely to pay “roughly”
50/50 or “roughly” proportionally
- Ultimately it is the individual’s choice
how the money they earned/saved is used
- Impossible to distinguish between
money in different accounts
- Joint decision how the money in each
account is used.
- Separate accounts are not private.
1.2 The psychology of ownership
Etzioni (1991) pointed out that ownership is a ‘dual creation, part attitude, part
object, part in the mind, part ‘real’’ (p.466). The psychology of ownership has been
studied in a variety of contexts and across a range of disciplines, including psychology,
anthropology, consumer behaviour, biology and philosophy (see Pierce, Kostova &
Dirks, 2003, for a review). However, this research primarily focuses on the ownership
of objects (both material and immaterial), rather than the ownership of money. Pierce,
Kostova and Dirks (2003) conceptually define psychological ownership as ‘the state in
which individuals feel as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is
‘theirs’…..The sense of ownership manifests itself in the meaning and emotion
commonly associated with my or mine or our.’ Etzoni (1991) and others have
highlighted the distinction between psychological and legal ownership and the fact that
8
the former can exist in absence of the latter (and vice-versa). This was certainly true for
cohabitants in Ashby and Burgoyne’s (2008) study with shared ownership perceptions
who arranged their money in separate accounts. Although these cohabitants may have
viewed the money as belonging jointly to both partners, the fact they did not legally
have rights to money or property registered solely in their partners name could be
problematic in the event of separation, or the death of one partner. This was highlighted
in recent case law in the UK, where in an appeal case involving an unmarried
cohabiting couple who had separated, the absence of a joint account and the use of
separate accounts was taken as evidence of the couple’s financial independence (see
House of Lords, 2007, reporting the case of Stack versus Dowden).
1.3 Expectations and hypotheses
In light of the earlier findings, discussed above, the following hypotheses were
developed:
1) Cohabitants will be more likely to use separate systems of management
(including IM or PP), than the pooling, whole wage or housekeeping systems.
2) Ownership perceptions will be independent of the category labels of IM and PP.
3) Perceiving money as shared will be associated with contributing different
amounts towards joint household expenses rather than equal contributions.
4) Cohabitants using IM and PP will be more likely to make equal contributions
towards joint expenses when (i) they have no children; (ii) partners earn roughly
the same amount; and (iii) they perceive money as distinctly owned.
In addition to investigating the above hypotheses, the present study examines
the relationship between the money management system cohabitants report and other
financial information they provided (including for example the bank accounts they
9
had). Versions of Pahl’s (1989; 1995) typology are frequently used in surveys to
classify how couples are managing their money. Yet there is very little research on the
relationship between participants’ and researchers’ understandings of the money
management systems (Sonnenberg, 2008). Exploring ownership perceptions in the
present study provided an opportunity to investigate whether participants rely on
objective or subjective information when indicating their money management system.
For example, when participants perceive money as jointly owned but use separate
accounts do they report IM or a pooling system?
2. Method
2.1 Recruitment and Sample
Opportunity sampling was used; potential participants were required to be aged
16 years or older, in an unmarried heterosexual cohabiting relationship, and to be
resident in the UK. Participants were recruited through a number of methods: a link to
the survey was included on the main home page of the One Plus One website
(www.oneplusone.org.uk); advertisements were sent via email to staff and students at
three Universities in the Southwest (snowballing techniques were also used and those
who received the email were asked if they could forward the information to any of their
cohabiting friends or family); and posters and leaflets advertising the survey were placed
in a number of venues in and around the southwest.
2.2 Participants
The final sample comprised 190 unmarried cohabitants. The majority of the
sample was white, educated, in full time employment (70.3%) and in a dual-earner
relationship. Participants ranged in age from 20-63 years (median of 27 years). The
majority of participants (96.8%) had been in a relationship with their partner for over one
year. Just over 80% of the respondents had lived with their partner for over one year,
10
with the longest cohabitation being 25 years (median cohabitation length was three
years). Just over 10% of the respondents had children with their cohabiting partner and
8.8% had one child or more from a previous relationship.
The sample included a disproportionately high number of female cohabitants
(79%, 149 out of 190 were female), and because of this any findings regarding gender
differences need to be treated with some caution. Nevertheless, the study still provides
novel insights into the financial practices and perceptions that underlie separate systems
of money management and acts as a departure for further research in this area. It is also
worth noting that Ashby and Burgoyne (2008) did not report any gender differences in
ownership perceptions in their qualitative study. However, Vogler et al’s (2008) found
that unmarried male, childless cohabitants were more likely to report using income
pooling, whilst female, childless cohabitants were more likely to report using partial
pooling. Yet as the male and female survey participants were not partnering one another
in Vogler et al’s (2008) study, it is difficult to conclude that there were gender
differences in perceptions of financial arrangements without further research.
2.3 Materials
The online survey was 15 pages in length; each page contained a section of
questions that participants completed before clicking ‘next’ and moving to the next page.
It was possible for participants to go back to earlier sections to change or add to their
responses by using the ‘back’ button. The software programme PhP Surveyor was used
to facilitate the creation of the online survey (see Kulich, 2006, for further information).
The sections of the survey included: (1) cover page, (2) instructions, (3) money
management, (4) personal spending money, (5) joint expenses, (6) financial practices and
beliefs, (7) control and ownership of money, (8) ownership perceptions, (9) reasons
behind separate financial arrangements, (10) reasons for living together, (11) living
11
together background questions, including length of cohabitation, (12) legal
understanding and views, (13) demographic details, (14) submission of answers, and
(15) final ‘thank you’ page. See Ashby (2008) for further details.
2.4 Measures
This study had two dependent measures: household financial management and
ownership perceptions. Household financial management was a categorical measure
that captured the system of money management that participants said came closest to
their own. Initially the following nine categories, based on a modified version of Pahl’s
(1989; 1995) typology were included: joint pool (managed by both partners); joint pool
(managed by one partner); housekeeping or allowance system; PP (with equal
contributions for joint household expenses); PP (with different contributions for joint
household expenses); a version of pooling or PP where participants pool nearly all of
their income but keep some separately for personal spending; IM (with equal
contributions for joint household expenses); IM (with different contributions for joint
household expenses); or another arrangement. For the final analyses household
financial management comprised only five categories. Cohabitants using a jointly
managed pool, a pool managed by one partner, or a version of pooling or PP where the
majority of money is pooled but some is kept separately for personal spending1, were
all included under one category of ‘pooling.’ Additionally, the housekeeping system
was excluded from the analyses due to the small number of cohabitants using this
system.
Ownership perceptions. 17 ownership items were designed on the basis of Ashby
and Burgoyne’s (2008) qualitative study, which represented how cohabitants with either
1
This was decided on the basis of similarities between this version of PP and total pooling,
including that participants using this version of PP had their incomes paid directly into a joint
account.
12
distinct, blurred or shared ownership perceptions viewed and treated money (see Ashby,
2008). The data were subjected to a principal-axis factor analysis (PAF) (see Table 1,
also see Ashby, 2008, for further details).
Table 1
PAF Analysis: Factor loadings for Oblimin two factor solution for the ownership
perceptions questionnaire: Communalities, eigenvalues and percentages of variance.
Item
Factor loadings
Communality
(Pattern Matrix)
1
“I would say that overall I see the
2
-0.803
.71
-0.679
.57
-0.615
.47
-0.614
.72
-0.599
.40
0.549
.41
0.541
.63
0.445
.60
money I earn as money for the
relationship rather than just my money”
“It does not matter how much we each
pay towards joint expenses as long as
they all get paid”
“I would say my partner and I usually
just give rather than loan each other
money”
“It makes no difference which account
or name money is kept in – all the
money belongs to both of us”
“I feel we are starting to view money as
more shared than we used to”
“Contributing equally to household
expenses and splitting costs 50/50 is
very important to me”
“We see ourselves as separate from each
other financially”
“If I borrowed money from my partner I
would always pay them back and I
would expect them to do the same”
“I have the final say over how my
0.952
13
.91
separate savings are used”
“My partner has the final say over how
0.910
.89
0.421
.88
0.397
.86
his/her separate savings are used”
“The money in my personal account is
just mine to spend as I want”
“The money my partner has in their
personal account is just their money to
spend as they want”
(*These items were reversed to create
the scale)
Eigenvalue
8.78
1.27
% of variance
51.69
7.49
Factor correlation matrix
Factor
1
2
1
1
.57
2
.57
1
Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring
Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization
Factor 1: Shared versus distinct ownership perceptions ( =.88). The items
loading highly on the first factor appeared to represent how participants perceived the
ownership of money, ranging from a shared view of ownership to a separate (distinct)
view of ownership. These eight items (see Table 2) were reversed where necessary and
averaged to create a continuous measure of ownership perceptions with scores ranging
from 1-5, where a score of one indicated that participants perceived money as shared and
a score of five indicated that they perceived it as distinctly owned. A categorical variable
for ownership perceptions was also created by dividing the scale into three categories:
shared, blurred and distinct ownership perceptions. These were created using the
percentiles; those in the distinct ownership group had scores ranging from 0 -2.5; those
14
in the blurred ownership group had scores ranging from 2.51-3.13; and finally those in
the shared ownership group had scores ranging from 3.14-5.
Table 2
The items that were used to create the ownership measure
Different couples often think about and treat money in different ways. Please read the following
statements and tick one box to indicate how you treat and/or view money (strongly agree,
agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
“I would say that overall I see the money I earn as money for the relationship rather than just
my money”
“It makes no difference which account or name money is kept in – all the money belongs to
both of us”
“I would say my partner and I usually just give rather than loan each other money”
“I feel we are starting to view money as more shared than we used to”
“It does not matter how much we each pay towards joint expenses as long as they all get paid”
“If I borrowed money from my partner I would always pay them back and I would expect them
to do the same”*
“We see ourselves as separate from each other financially”*
“Contributing equally to household expenses and splitting costs 50/50 is very important to
me”*
*The scores on these items were reversed when creating the scale
3. Results
This section is organised as follows: first, the descriptive survey findings are
outlined, including the systems of money management cohabitants used (Hypothesis
1) and cohabitants’ ownership perceptions. Second, the association between money
management systems and ownership perceptions is explored (Hypothesis 2). Third,
the relationship between ownership perceptions (of those using a separate system of
money management) and financial practices (including payment of household and
social expenses, and access to money for personal spending) is examined (Hypotheses
15
2 and 3). Next, the results of a regression analysis, exploring the predictors of whether
cohabitants using IM or PP made equal contributions (compared to different
contributions) towards joint household expenses is presented (Hypothesis 4). Finally,
the relationship between the money management system cohabitants said they were
using and other financial information they provided is examined.
3.1 How did cohabitants organise their finances? (Hypothesis 1)
Table 3 provides information on the percentage of cohabitants using each
money management system. As Table 3 shows, consistent with Hypothesis 1, the
majority of cohabitants organised some or all of their finances separately from their
partner. Overall, just under 50% of cohabitants used PP and just under 30% used IM.
The majority of participants using PP and IM paid equal rather than different amounts
towards joint household expenses. A further 16.8% of cohabitants pooled all or nearly
all of their money (of these cohabitants, over half had a jointly managed pool and the
rest had a pool managed by only one partner). Only a very small minority of
participants used a version of pooling or PP where participants pool their money
together but keep some separately for personal spending, or the more traditional
housekeeping system (where one partner takes overall responsibility for all or most of
the income and the other receives a housekeeping allowance).
Money management and background factors. Our findings indicate that there
were no significant differences between male and female cohabitants in the money
management system (pooling, IM equal, IM different, PP equal, PP different) used
(p>0.05). The majority of both male and female participants used one of the separate
systems of money management in comparison to income pooling (21.6% of male
participants and 17.6% of female participants used pooling, with the remainder using IM
or PP). In relation to cohabitants with children the main differences were between
16
participants using pooling, in comparison to separate systems of money management.
Just over 40% (14 out of 34) of those using a pooling system said that they or their
partner had children under 18 years. In comparison, only 10.8%, 7.7%, and 6.7% of
Table 3
Money management systems used
% of
Money management system
Cohabitants
Total N
using system
Housekeeping/allowance
1.6
3
Pooling (managed jointly)
1.6
19
Pooling (managed by one partner)
6.8
13
Pooling (with money kept separately for personal spending)
1.6
3
PP equal
34.7
66
PP different
13.7
26
IM equal
21.1
40
IM different
7.9
15
Total %
100
100
Total N
190
190
those using PP with equal contributions, PP with different contributions and IM with
different contributions, respectively, had children under 18 years. None of those using
IM with equal contributions had children under 18 years. This is consistent with research
showing that cohabitants with children are most likely to resemble married couples in
terms of their use of income pooling (Vogler, 2005).
Overall, 37% of participants reported that one partner earned a great deal more
than the other, 48% said one partner earned slightly more, and the remainder earned
roughly the same. As table 4 shows, when one partner earned a great deal more than
the other, income pooling and PP with equal contributions were the most commonly
17
used systems. When one partner earned slightly more than the other, the highest
percentage of cohabitants used PP with equal contributions followed by IM with equal
contributions (see Table 4). Over half of those earning roughly the same as their partner
used PP with equal contributions, followed by IM with equal contributions. Pooling
was used by 14% of participants. These findings contrast with Vogler et al (2008) who
found that pooling was most likely to be used by cohabitants earning similar amounts,
instead our findings show the highest use of income pooling amongst those who
reported the greatest disparity in earnings. Additionally, use of PP and IM with
different contributions (compared to equal contributions) was highest amongst those
who reported a great deal of difference in their earnings.
Table 4
Money management systems by earning disparity
Money management Earning disparity (percentages)
system
One partner earns a
One partner earns
Earn roughly
Total
Total
great deal more
slightly more
the same
%
N
Pooling
52.9
35.3
11.8
100
34
PP equal
27.3
48.5
24.2
100
66
44
56
0
100
25
IM equal
22.5
60
17.5
100
40
IM different
66.7
26.7
6.7
100
15
66
86
28
100
180
PP different
Total N
* A chi-square test was not used to explore the overall differences between the groups because some of
the expected cell sizes were smaller than 5 (which can result in a loss statistical power; Field, 2005).
In the majority of cases (66%) where there was a disparity in earnings between
the partners, the male partner was the higher earner (earning slightly, or a great deal
18
more). However, as Table 5 shows, the pattern of use of money management systems
was very similar when either the male and female partner were the higher earners.
Table 5
Nature of earning disparity (male or female earns more) and money management
system
Money management Nature of earning disparity (percentages)
system
Female partner
Male partner
Total
earns more
earns more
N
Pooling
23.1
18
30
PP equal
32.7
33
50
PP different
11.5
19
25
IM equal
17.3
24
33
IM different
15.4
6
14
Total %
100
100
100
Total N
52
100
152
3.3 Ownership perceptions and money management systems (Hypotheses 2 and 3)
Respondents were classified as follows: 29% of cohabitants had distinct
ownership perceptions, 50% were classified as blurred, and 21% had shared ownership
perceptions. There was a significant association between money management system
and perceived ownership of money (i.e. shared, blurred or distinct), 2 (8) = 67.35,
p<0.001. Figure 3 provides information on money management systems by ownership
perceptions, and Table 6 shows ownership perceptions by money management systems.
There were some important differences both between and within money management
systems. One of the key differences was between those using pooling and separate
systems of money management; a much higher percentage of those using pooling
19
viewed their money as shared, in comparison to those using a separate system of money
management. Cohabitants using a separate system of management were more likely to
have blurred or distinct ownership perceptions. None of the cohabitants with distinct
ownership perceptions used income pooling.
Table 6
Ownership perceptions by money management system
Money management
Ownership group
system
Distinct
Blurred
Shared
Total N
Pooling
0
5.7
51
30
PP equal
44.7
44.8
18.4
65
PP different
5.3
17.2
14.3
25
IM equal
42.1
24.1
6.1
40
IM different
7.9
8
10.2
15
Total %
100
100
100
Total N
38
87
46
174
* 2 (8) = 67.35, p<0.001
Consistent with Hypothesis 2, Figure 3 shows differences within the money
management systems of IM and PP. Those making equal contributions towards
household expenses (using IM or PP) were more similar in terms of their ownership
perceptions than those making different contributions towards expenses (using IM or
PP). In support of Hypotheses 2 and 3, a higher percentage of cohabitants making
different contributions towards joint expenses had blurred or shared ownership
perceptions, as compared to those making equal contributions. Additionally, a higher
20
Figure 3. Money management system by ownership category
Ownership category (% of cohabitants)
100%
7.5
13.8
90%
29.2
33.3
80%
70%
52.5
60%
83.8
60
Shared
50%
40%
46.7
62.5
Blurred
Distinct
30%
20%
40
26.2
10%
20
16.7
8.3
0%
Pooling
PP equal
PP different
IM equal
Im different
Money management system
percentage of those using IM and PP and making equal contributions had a distinct
view of ownership, as compared with those making different contributions. Therefore
the findings show greater similarities in ownership perceptions across IM and PP based
on the type of contribution partners made towards household expenses, than between
IM and PP per se.
Ownership perceptions and background factors. In line with the previous
findings regarding the increased use of income pooling amongst participants with
children, a higher percentage of cohabitants with children had shared ownership
perceptions, compared to those without children. There was also a significant
association between ownership perceptions (distinct, blurred or shared) and the sex of
the participants, 2 (2)= 7.38, p = 0.025. A higher percentage of female cohabitants
reported having distinct ownership perceptions in comparison to male cohabitants
(25.5% of female cohabitants were classified as having distinct ownership perceptions,
compared to 5.4% of males). Additionally, male cohabitants had a higher percentage of
21
shared ownership perceptions compared to females (37.8% of the male cohabitants
were classified as having shared ownership perceptions, compared to 26.2% of the
females). However, due to the small number of male cohabitants in this sample, and the
fact that male and female participants in the study were not partnering one another it is
not possible to draw any general conclusions about such gender differences.
There was a significant association between ownership perceptions and earning
disparity, 2 (4)= 2.068, p <0.001. In support of Hypothesis 4, a higher percentage
(44.9%) of those who reported a large disparity in earnings were classified as having
shared ownership perceptions, in comparison to those with a slight difference in
partners’ earnings, or those who earned roughly equally (15.9% and 23.3%
respectively). There was also a significant association between ownership perceptions
and the nature of the earning disparity (i.e. if the female or male partner were the higher
earner, or they earned the same), 2 (4) = 1.02, p < 0.05. As Table 7 shows when the
female partner was the higher earner, there was a higher percentage of shared
ownership perceptions, compared to when the male partner was the higher earner.
However, it is also important to keep in mind that this difference could be
related to the high number of female participants in the study, who were the lower
earner in their relationship. As the lower earner, female partners are perhaps less likely
to perceive money as shared, compared to when they are in the higher earner position
(see Burgoyne, 1990; 1995). The descriptive findings seem to support this assertion;
exploring the results for female participants separately showed that when the female
partner was the lower earner, 21.5% reported shared ownership perceptions.
22
Table 7
Nature of earning disparity (male or female earns more) and ownership perceptions
Nature of earning disparity (percentages)
Ownership
perceptions
Female partner
Male partner
earns more
earns more
Earn the same
Total
N
Shared
37.3
25
23.3
51
Blurred
33.3
54
66.7
91
Distinct
29.4
21
10
39
Total %
100
100
100
100
Total N
51
100
30
181
In comparison, when the female partner was the higher earner, 38.1% of females
reported shared ownership perceptions. As already mentioned, caution needs to be
taken in drawing any definite conclusions from these findings. However, they do
indicate the need to examine potential gender differences in ownership perceptions in
future research. In particular it will be important to explore the extent to which
partner’s views of ownership coincide, especially where one earns more than the other.
3.4 A closer look at ownership perceptions and the financial practices of those using
separate systems of money management (Hypotheses 2 & 3)
Exploring payments of joint household expenses in more detail revealed that
cohabitants using a separate system of financial organisation in the distinct ownership
group were more likely to pay for expenses exactly equally (57.9%), than those who
had blurred or shared perceptions of ownership (46.3% and 29.2% respectively). Those
with blurred perceptions of ownership were most likely to say they paid for expenses
“roughly” equally and to be unsure of the precise contributions they each made (32.9%,
compared to 21.1% for those who viewed money as distinct and 29.2% for those who
23
viewed money as shared). In relation to spending on joint social expenses (for example,
going out for meals, drinks and cinema trips together), consistent with the findings
from Ashby and Burgoyne’s (2008) interview study those with shared and blurred
ownership perceptions were the more likely to report that they took it in turns to pay
but did not keep track of how much they each contributed (66.7% shared, 54.9%
blurred and 36.8% distinct).
Cohabitants with distinct ownership were the most likely to pay for social
expenses equally: 15.8% of cohabitants with distinct ownership said that they took it in
turns to pay and did keep track, whereas only 3.7% of those with blurred ownership
said that they paid in this way, and none with shared ownership did. Also a further
26.3% of those with distinct ownership said that they shared the cost of social expenses
50/50, compared to only 4.2% with shared ownership and 3.7% with blurred
ownership. Moreover, none of those with distinct ownership perceptions and only 1.2%
of those with blurred ownership said that they paid from whichever account had money
in at the time (it could be separate or joint), in comparison to 16.7% of those with
shared ownership perceptions
Ownership perceptions and personal spending money of cohabitants using
separate systems of money management. The majority of participants in all of the
ownership groups reported that they ‘always’ had access to money for personal
spending, however, the percentage was highest for those with distinct ownership:
97.2% reported always having access to personal spending money, compared to 90.9%
of those with shared ownership perceptions and 90% of those with blurred perceptions.
In relation to source of money for personal spending the main differences were between
participants with shared ownership in comparison to those with either blurred or
distinct ownership. All cohabitants with distinct and blurred ownership perceptions
24
used money for personal spending money from their own earnings or savings,
compared to 87.5% of those with shared ownership perceptions. The remaining 12.5%
of those with shared ownership perceptions said that their spending money came from
whichever account had the money in at the time (it could be either their own or their
partners separate account or a joint account).
Overall, in support of Hypothesis 2 these findings indicate that the ownership
perceptions of cohabitants using separate systems of money management can have
different implications for the way that money is used for various purposes.
3.6 Predicting contributions towards joint household expenses (Hypothesis 4)
Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were used to explore which variables
predicted whether cohabitants using a separate system of financial organisation
(including both IM and PP) made equal contributions, in comparison to different
contributions, towards joint household expenses. The first regression tested the effect of
ownership perceptions by entering it as a second step (after the variables ‘children
under 18’ and ‘earning disparity’). For each of the categorical variables the last named
category was the reference group. Previous research has supported the role of the two
variables entered at the first step of the regression (children under 18 years and earning
disparity) in predicting type of contribution towards joint expenses (see Elizabeth,
2001; Vogler, 2005). Therefore, this procedure was chosen as it enabled the effect of
new predictors of financial organisation to be tested (including ownership perceptions),
whilst controlling for those which previous research had established as important (see
Field, 2005, for discussion of this approach).
The variables were entered in the following order (as separate steps) in the way
described above: children under 18 years (yes, no) and earning disparity (one partner
25
earns a great deal more, one partner earns slightly more, earn roughly the same);
ownership perceptions.
The final model: Hypothesis 3 was partially supported; two variables were
significant predictors of whether cohabitants using separate systems of organisation
made equal contributions (compared to different contributions) towards joint household
expenses: perceived earning disparity and ownership perceptions. At the first step, the
predictors (children under 18 and earning disparity) accounted for 14.2% of the
variance (Nagelkerke pseudo R Square), and 73.4% of cases were correctly classified
using this predictor, 2 (3) =14.62, p<0.05 (note, the priori number of cases correctly
classified was also 73.4%). The variable ‘children under 18 years’ was not a significant
individual predictor of the type of contribution participants made.
However, the model at the second step, including ownership perceptions,
accounted for 28.1% of the variance (Nagelkerke pseudo R Square), and 79.7% of
cases were correctly classified using this model, 2 (1) =16.01, p<0.001.
Table 8 shows that one partner earning a great deal more than the other (rather
than earning roughly the same) reduces the odds of cohabitants making equal
contributions towards joint household expenses by a factor of 0.04 (or 96%), compared
to the odds of making different contributions. However, the odds of making equal
contributions (compared to different contributions), increases by a factor of 3.14 for
every one point increase in ownership perceptions score (where a high score indicates
money is perceived as separately/distinctly owned).
Another way to understand these results is that cohabitants who have a great
deal of difference in their earnings are 3.13 times less likely, and those who have a
slight difference in their earnings are 2.44 times less likely, to make equal
contributions towards joint household expenses. Also for every one point increase
26
Table 8
Summary of regression predicting equal contributions towards joint household
expenses (compared to different contributions)
Predictor
B
SE
Wald
Exp (B)
statistic
95% confidence
interval for Exp
(B)
(a) Children under 18 years
Lower
Upper
0.26
0.88
0.9
1.30
0.23
7.31
-3.13
1.10
8.17*
0.04
0.01
0.37
-2.44
1.09
5.01*
0.09
0.01
0.74
1.14
0.31
14.46**
3.14
1.70
5.78
(yes)
(b) Earning disparity (one
earns a great deal more)
(b) Earning disparity (one
earns slightly more)
Ownership perceptions
* p < 0.05. **p <0.001
a) The reference category is ‘no’ children under 18 years
b) The reference category is ‘we earn about the same’
in ownership perceptions score (where a higher score indicates participants perceived
money as distinctly owned) cohabitants are 1.14 times more likely to make equal
contributions, compared to different ones.
Overall, these findings indicate that cohabitants who earn roughly the same
amount, and perceive the money they and their partner have as distinctly (separately)
owned are more likely to make equal contributions towards joint household expenses,
in comparison to different contributions.
27
3.5 Classifying money management systems
In this section the relationship between the money management system
cohabitants said they were using and other financial information they provided is
examined.
Money management system and income/earnings. All of the cohabitants using a
separate system of management (IM or PP with equal or different contributions) had
their incomes paid directly into a personal account in their name only, as did their
partners. In comparison, 41.2% of those using a pooling system had their income paid
directly into a joint account (held in joint names) and 55.9% had their income paid
directly into a personal account in only their name, as did their partners.
Joint accounts: Although the majority of those using a pooling system had a
joint account, a substantial minority did not: 20% of cohabitants using a pooling
system, 10.6% of those using PP with equal contributions, and 30.8% of those using PP
with different contributions said that they did not have a joint account. Additionally,
whilst the majority of those using IM did not have a joint account, 17.5% of those using
IM with equal contributions and 6.7% of those using IM with different contributions
did.
This suggests that those participants (without a joint account) who indicated that
they used a total pooling or PP system focused on how they perceived money when
they chose which arrangement came closest to their own, rather than how money was
physically arranged. This is supported by the fact that all of the participants using a
pooling system who did not have a joint account were in the shared ownership category
(indicating they viewed all of their money as jointly owned). Additionally over 80% of
cohabitants using a pooling system that did not have a joint account said that they saw
the money in their personal account as belonging equally to both partners.
28
None of the cohabitants using IM who also had a joint account used the latter to
pay for joint household expenses. Instead, it was used for a range of purposes including
joint savings, house related repairs and joint furniture, and joint holidays. Also one
participant said that they used their joint account as an individual account for their own
personal spending.
Separate accounts: All of the cohabitants using separate systems of
management (IM or PP) had personal accounts, as did their partners. In comparison,
34.3% of those using a pooling system had no personal account. Therefore, in line with
the typology (Burgoyne, 1995; Pahl, 1989; 1995;), pooling was less associated with
participants having their own personal accounts, than separate systems of management.
However, the majority of those using pooling did have a separate account and, as
mentioned earlier, just over 40% of pooling cohabitants had their incomes paid directly
into a separate account in their name only. Yet the findings examined above also
revealed that cohabitants using pooling (rather than a separate system of management),
differed in how they perceived the ownership of money in their personal accounts. A
higher percentage of those using pooling said that the money in their personal account
belonged equally to both partners, compared to those using IM or PP.
4. Discussion
In line with the existing literature (Ashby & Burgoyne, 2008; Elizabeth, 2001;
Vogler, 2005; Vogler et al., 2006; 2008), there was a high level of separateness in the
way cohabitants organised their finances. The majority of respondents used IM or PP,
and the more traditional housekeeping and whole wage systems had to be excluded
from the quantitative analyses because less than two percent were using the former
system and none used the latter.
29
However, consistent with Ashby and Burgoyne (2008), cohabitants using
separate systems of financial organisation did not always operate as separate financial
entities and a more complicated picture emerged; within IM and PP cohabitants
handled and perceived money in a range of ways. As predicted, ownership
perceptions cut across IM and PP and had different implications for cohabitants’
financial practices and individual access to resources, depending on whether they had
shared, blurred or distinct ownership perceptions (this echoes the findings of
Burgoyne et al., 2007, with newly married couples).
4.1 Ownership perceptions and financial practices
Distinct ownership was related to paying exactly equally towards both joint
household and joint social expenses (and being aware of the precise contribution that
each partner made). In comparison, cohabitants with shared and blurred ownership
were much less aware of the exact amount each partner paid. They were more likely to
make different contributions, and say that they paid ‘roughly’ equally or ‘roughly’
proportionally towards these costs.
Overall, in terms of paying for joint expenses cohabitants with distinct
ownership perceptions more closely resembled the separate financial entities usually
associated with separate systems of management, whereas the more flexible approaches
taken by those with shared and blurred ownership perceptions more closely matched
the financial practices typically associated with total pooling (e.g., see Pahl, 1995;
Singh & Lindsay, 1994).
In relation to PSM, all of the cohabitants with distinct or blurred ownership
perceptions took their PSM from their own earnings or savings. Fewer of those with
shared ownership took their PSM from this source, with the remaining participants
using whichever of their accounts (joint or separate) had the money in at the time.
30
Cohabitants with shared ownership also reported having slightly less frequent access to
PSM than those with blurred or distinct ownership perceptions. These findings support
previous research on income pooling showing that when PSM comes from a joint
source each partners’ spending can be constrained by feeling that they need to consult
one another before making purchases, or the lower earning partner feeling less entitled
to spend money that they did not earn (see Burgoyne 1990; Burgoyne & Lewis, 1994).
These findings add to previous research by indicating that this impact on personal
spending can occur when money is perceived as shared (and is arranged partially or
completely in separate accounts), in addition to when it is physically arranged as “joint”
or shared (i.e. a pooling system is used).
4.2 Beyond categories of money management
In summary, the findings indicate that the category labels of IM and PP can
conceal important differences in how cohabitants perceive and handle money. Overall,
the findings support the development of a multi-dimensional approach that takes into
account how money is perceived, as well as the accounts used. However, in quantitative
research, where the typology is the only source of information available, the findings
indicate that subdividing separate systems of money management on the basis of
whether partners make equal or different contributions towards joint expenses can
begin to tap into how cohabitants perceive the ownership of money. This is because, as
illustrated above, ownership perceptions relate to cohabitants’ financial practices, as
well as how they view their relationship in terms of ideology and permanence.
4.3 Predicting equal contributions towards household expenses
To our knowledge, this was the first survey study to investigate which variables
predict whether cohabitants using separate systems of management (IM or PP) make
equal or different contributions towards joint household expenses. Consistent with the
31
predictions, after controlling for whether cohabitants had children under 18 years, both
earning disparity and ownership perceptions were found to play a significant role in
predicting whether cohabitants made equal contributions towards joint household
expenses. In line with previous qualitative findings (see Elizabeth, 2001), those with a
disparity in earning were more likely to pay different amounts towards joint household
expenses than those who earned roughly the same amount. Furthermore, when one
partner earned a great deal more than the other, cohabitants were more likely to
contribute different amounts than when one partner earned slightly more.
Cohabitants who viewed money as more distinctly owned were more likely to
make equal (rather than different) contributions to household expenses. These findings
further demonstrate and support the role ownership perceptions can play in explaining
how cohabitants deal with money. Vogler et al (2008) hypothesised that cohabitants’
use of separate systems of money management could reflect a desire by the higher
earning partner to retain greater access to and control over separate money. However,
the present findings indicate this is not always the case, as those with a disparity in
earnings were more likely to perceive money as shared and to contribute different
amounts towards expenses. Moreover, the extent to which partners using separate
systems of money management feel they have separate control over and access to
money seems to depend on how they perceive the ownership of money.
On a descriptive level the analyses also suggest potential gender differences in
ownership perceptions. First, a higher percentage of men reported shared ownership
perceptions (and a lower percentage of distinct ownership perceptions) in comparison
to female participants, and second, in cases where the male partner was the higher
earner, female participants reported a lower level of shared ownership perceptions, in
compared to when female participants were the higher earner themselves. These
32
findings are consistent with Burgoyne’s earlier work on the importance of the rights of
the earner, and the finding that even when money is pooled, the partner contributing
less (or not at all) can lack the sense of entitlement over money that seems to go handin-hand with earning (Burgoyne & Lewis; Burgoyne & Kirchler, 2008; Pahl 1995).
These findings also resonate with Tichenor’s (1999) research showing that women who
earned a lot more than their male partners, often defined all assets as joint, in an attempt
to protect their husband’s masculinity. However, as mentioned earlier, due to the small
numbers of male participants in the sample, and the fact male and female participants
were not partnering one another, further work including both partners is required to
investigate these potential gender differences in ownership perceptions.
Furthermore, additional research is required to explore the relationship between
participants’ beliefs about equality, and their actual financial practices. In particular, do
those who value 50/50 payments always contribute equally towards joint expenses,
even when there is a disparity in earnings? Also do cohabitants that define equality in
terms of having equal access to money for discretionary spending, pay different
amounts towards joint expenses when there is a difference in earnings? Do partners’
views of the meaning of equality always coincide?
4.4 Classifying money management systems: Exploring the relationship between
subjective and objective information
Frequently, one of the main criteria used for classifying participants as having a
pooling or PP system is the presence of a physical pool of money that both partners
have access to (usually a joint account). IM, on the other hand, is distinguished from PP
by the fact that participants do not usually have a joint pool of money that they both
have access to (Pahl, 1995). However, contrary to these definitions, the present findings
revealed that a number of the cohabitants who reported that they were using pooling or
33
PP did not actually have a joint account. This indicates that these participants were
relying on how they perceived money, rather than where it was located (that is, how it
was physically arranged) when they selected which management system came closest
to their own. This is supported by the findings that all of the participants using PP or
pooling without a joint account said they viewed the money in their separate accounts
as belonging to both partners.
In addition, a small number of the cohabitants using IM had a joint account.
However, it seems that they did not report they were using PP, as the primary purpose
of their joint accounts was not to pay joint household expenses. Instead these
participants used their accounts in a range of ways, including for joint savings, joint
holidays or as an individual account.
As discussed above, the findings on ownership perceptions challenge the
assertion that all cohabitants using separate systems of management (IM or PP) operate
as separate financial entities. They show that cohabitants within IM and PP perceive
and handle money in a range of different ways, and whilst the majority perceive money
as distinctly owned, others have blurred or shared ownership perceptions. Cohabitants
with different ownership perceptions have varying financial practices and access to
money. In particular, as mentioned above, when it came to paying for joint expenses
the flexible approach taken by those with blurred and shared ownership perceptions
more closely resembled those typically associated with total pooling than separate
systems of management. Overall, these findings indicate that cohabitants with blurred
and especially shared ownership perceptions (who selected IM or PP), were relying on
objective information regarding the accounts they kept money in, rather than subjective
information regarding how they perceived the ownership of money (and also how they
34
used money) when they reported which money management system came closest to
their own.
4.5 Limitations, strengths and conclusions
This study had a number of limitations which merit discussion. First, the
hypotheses indicate that perceiving the ownership of money as shared, blurred or
distinct, could lead to different financial practices. Whilst this is a plausible prediction
based on our earlier qualitative findings, as the data were correlational in nature they
cannot be used to support causal interpretations. It is also possible that ownership
perceptions are influenced by the financial practices couples adopt. In future work,
experimental research designs are needed for more certainty about causal
relationships. Additionally, further research is required to investigate the origins of
different ownership perceptions, including the extent to which partners believe money
should be shared or kept independently in cohabiting relationships (see Burgoyne,
Sonnenberg & Routh, 2006).
A second limitation relates to the cohabitants who took part in this study. The
majority of the sample in the survey study were female, dual-earner couples and had no
children. The fact that the majority of participants did not have children was
advantageous in allowing an in-depth understanding of this group to be explored. This
was especially important because research in the UK has previously focused on those
with children, and less detailed information is available on cohabitants with no
children. However, this narrow focus means that further research is required to explore
how those with children deal with money. This is particularly because when couples
have young children they are less likely to be in dual-earner relationships. It will be
important to examine how the employment status of each partner impacts on his or her
perceptions and use of money. Additionally, as the majority of the sample in the survey
35
were female, the extent to which our findings generalise to a male sample is an
important question for future research. Furthermore, including data from both partners
in a couple in future research will allow gender differences in ownership perceptions to
be fully examined.
Despite these limitations, the study nevertheless enabled detailed information to
be gathered on the financial arrangements of a larger group of cohabitants than would
have been possible with qualitative research. Crucially, the survey made it possible to
test if the relationships between variables found in the interview study (with a small
number of cohabitants) held up in a larger sample. In terms of theoretical implications
for how money management is conceptualised, the findings of both our earlier
qualitative research and the present survey study support the need to move beyond
Pahl’s (1989; 1995) typology in its current form. Both research studies indicate that the
typology is not always able to capture how those using separate systems of
management perceive and handle money, and that diversity may be hidden under the
category labels of IM and PP (see Ashby & Burgoyne, 2008). Ownership perceptions
seem to provide a more consistent picture of cohabitants’ financial practices and
individual access to resources than objective information regarding the accounts
participants use. The findings support the development of a more holistic approach,
which takes into account both how money is perceived and the accounts participants
use. In addition to being better suited to the increasingly separate financial
arrangements of couples, this approach would also help to resolve any ambiguities
regarding the extent to which participants (and researchers in qualitative research)
relied on subjective or objective information when classifying a couple’s system of
money management.
36
Overall, our earlier qualitative study (Ashby & Burgoyne, 2008) provided a rich
base of data from which to develop a detailed measure of ownership perceptions in the
present survey. The measure of ownership perceptions needs to be tested rigorously in
future research, but it has the potential to provide a fruitful and novel way of capturing
detailed financial information, which researchers have not previously been able to
capture in quantitative research.
References
Ashby, K.J. (2007). Money, Cohabitation and the Law: A Story of Diversity. Doctoral
thesis, University of Exeter, UK.
Ashby, K.J., & Burgoyne, C.B. (2008). Separate financial entities? Beyond categories of
money management. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 458-480.
Barlow, A. (2008). Cohabiting relationships, money and property: The legal backdrop.
Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 502-518.
Barlow, A., Burgoyne, C., Clery, E., & Smithson, J. (2008). Cohabitation and the law:
myths, money and the media. In A. Park, J. Curtice, K. Thompson, M. Philips, M.
C. Johnson, & E. Clery (Eds.), British Social Attitudes: The 24th Report. London:
Sage.
Barlow, A., Burgoyne, C.B., & Smithson, J. (2007). The living together campaign – An
investigation of its impact on legally aware cohabitants. Research report to
Department for Constitutional Affairs, 14h February 2007. Retrieved March 1,
2007 from www.dca.gov.uk/research.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New York:
William Morrow and Company Inc.
Burgoyne, C. B. (1990). Money in marriage: how patterns of allocation both reflect and
conceal power. The Sociological Review, 38, 634-665.
Burgoyne, C.B. (1995). Financial organisation and decision-making within western
‘households’. Journal of Economic Psychology, 3, 421-430.
Burgoyne, C.B., & Kirchler, E. (2008). In A.Lewis (Ed), The Cambridge Handbook of
Psychology and Economic Behaviour, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp.132-155.
37
Burgoyne, C. B., and Lewis, A. (1994). Distributive Justice in Marriage: Equality or
Equity? Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 101-114.
Burgoyne, C.B., Reibstein, J., Edmunds, A.M., and Dolman, V.A. (2007). Money
management in early marriage: Factors influencing change and stability. Journal
of Economic Psychology, 28, 214-228.
Burgoyne, C. B., and Routh, D. A. (2001). Beliefs about financial organisation in
marriage: The 'Equality Rules OK' norm?' Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 32,
162-170.
Burns, M., Burgoyne, C. B., & Clarke, V. (2008). Financial affairs? Money management
in same-sex relationships. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 481-501.
Elizabeth, V. (2001). Managing money, managing coupledom: A critical examination of
cohabitants' money management practices. The Sociological Review, 49, 368-388.
Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 6, 465–468.
Haskey, J. (2001). Demographic aspects of cohabitation in Great Britain. International
Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family, 15, 51-67.
Heimdal, K. R., & Houseknecht, S. K. (2003). Cohabiting and Married Couples' Income
Organization: Approaches in Sweden and the United States. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 65, 525-538.
House of Lords (2007). Judgements – Stack (Appellant) v. Dowden. Retrieved May 10,
2007, from
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070425/stack1.htm
Kiernan, K. (2004). Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe. Law
& Policy, 26, 33-55.
Kulich, C. (2006, November). Workshop on PHP Surveyor version. University of Exeter,
School of Psychology.
Laurie, H. & Gershuny, J. (2000). Couples, work and money. In R. Berthoud and J.
Gershuny (Eds.), Seven Years in the Lives of British Families, Bristol: Policy
Press, pp.45-72.
National Statistics (2005). 2005 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. Retrieved Jan 1,
2006, from www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdr/ashellos.pdf
Nyman, C. (1999). Gender equality in 'the most equal country in the world'? Money and
marriage in Sweden. The Sociological Review, 47, 766-793.
38
Nyman, C., & Reinikalinen, L. (2007). Elusive independence in a context of gender in
Sweden. In J. Stocks, C. Diaz-Martinez, & B. Hallerod (Eds,), Modern couples
sharing money, sharing life (pp.41-71). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan
Office of Public Sector Information (2007). Civil Partnerships Act (2004). Retrieved
January 1, 2006, from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040033.htm
One Plus One Marriage & Relationship Research. (2007). Welcome to One Plus One:
National Information Centre on Relationships. Retrieved January 1, 2004, from
http://www.oneplusone.org.uk/Oropesa, R.S., Landale, N.S., & Kenkre, T.
(2003). Income allocation in martial and cohabiting unions: the case of mainland
Puerto Ricans. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 910-926.
Pahl, J. (1989). Money and Marriage. London: Macmillan.
Pahl, J. (1995). His money, her money: Recent research on financial organisation in
marriage. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 361-376
Pahl, J. (2005). Individualization in couple finances: who pays for the children? Social
Policy and Society,4, 381-392.
Pierce, J. L., & Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological
ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General
Psychology, 7, 84-107.
Shefrin, H. H. and Thaler, R. H. (1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic
Inquiry, 26, 609-643.
Singh, S., & Lindsay, J. (1996). ‘Money in heterosexual relationships’. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 32, 55-59.
Sonnenberg, S.J. (2008). Household financial organization and discursive practice:
Managing money and identity. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37,
Sonnenberg, S.J., Burgoyne, C.B., & Routh, D.A. (2006). ‘Income disparity and choice
of financial organisation in the household’. Proceedings: 31st IAREP Colloquium
“Values and Economy”5-8 July September, Paris, France.
Thaler, R.H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral decision making,
12, 183-206.
Tichenor, V. J. (1999). Status and income as gendered resources: The case of marital
power. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 638-650.
Vogler, C. (2005). Cohabiting couples: rethinking money in the household at the
beginning of the twenty first century. The Sociological Review, 53, 1-29.
39
Vogler, C., Brockmann, M., & Wiggins, R.D. (2008). Managing money in new
heterosexual forms of intimate relationships. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37,
552-576.
Vogler, C., Brockmann, M., & Wiggins, R.D. (2006). Intimate relationships and
changing patterns of money management at the beginning of the twenty-first
century. British Journal of Sociology, 57, 455-482.
Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are
happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Doubled
40