*Remember that this department remains on my list of Top 20 Grad School Possibilities.
They break down consumers into the three categories as follows:
- Tightwads (21%) - their affective reaction to spending may lead them to spend less than their more deliberative (i.e., consequentialist) selves would prefer
- Spendthrifts (18%) - the failure to feel the pain of paying may lead these consumers to spend more than their consequentialist selves would prefer
- Unconflicted consumers (61%) - tend to spend about as much as their more deliberative selves would prefer
Anybody want to guess where I fell on this scale? Yes, a tightwad.
The researchers have an interesting, freely accessible journal article on their development and validation of the Tightwad-Spendthrift (TW-ST) scale. I will bullet point some of the findings I found of particular interest.
- Women are more likely than men to be spendthrifts.
- Correlation between income and TW-ST scale is low (r=.12), suggesting that reluctance to spend is not a function of ability to spend.
- Tightwads are more motivated by avoiding the pain of spending rather than gaining the pleasure of saving. (Correlation between the two statements was an impressively low r=.08). Seeking the pleasure of saving is a defining characteristic of the "frugal" personality, considered a separate concept from the tightwad.
- Tightwads are more likely to find spending painful before a purchase, while spendthrifts are more likely to feel the pain after the purchase.
- Consistent with the researchers' hypotheses (and this is correlational, not causal), tightwads and spendthrifts both report lower levels of overall happiness than unconflicted consumers. However, highly frugal individuals are happier than the less frugal.
- Tightwads find it difficult to "suspend (otherwise beneficial) self-control when doing so would be desirable." Spendthrifts have the opposite problem with exercising self-control.
- Tightwads spend significantly more on investments than consumables, relative to their own desired levels of spending. In other words, spending money on investments (where "thoughts of future consumption dampen the pain" of spending) is less painful to tightwads than spending money on stuff to use, so they come closer to spending the "right" amount on investments.
- Spendthrifts overspend significantly more on consumables than investments (consistent with "present-based" time perspective).
- In an experiment, tightwads were more willing to pay a $5 fee when it was characterized as a "small $5 fee" than a "$5 fee." Spendthrifts and unconflicted consumers did not differ in their response based on how the fee was framed.
- There is no correlation between TW-ST scores and the Eating Attitudes Test. However, the researchers (and I!) are interested in further investigation into possible relationships between the TW-ST scale and dieting behavior.
I find the comparisons of frugal vs. tightwad individuals pretty interesting. I wonder if tightwads are more likely to "underearn" relative to frugal folks, since they are primarily about not spending rather than actually building up savings. (Of course, there is no reason why a person can't have elements of both.)
Right now, I'm glad that I'm a tightwad. That reluctance to spend money has allowed me to build up some reserves to go toward keeping me off the streets while I am back in school. And truly, I shudder to think how many pairs of shoes I would own if I were a merely "unconflicted" consumer.
8 comments:
I would be interested in the correlation to dieting. That is an interesting concept and one that probably has not been delved into very much.
That is one weird survey. There were the usual poorly worded questions such as "I often [do whatever]" and then you have to select always, often, sometimes, rarely, or never. I rarely often do something?
But then a lot of questions were getting at concepts that were so odd to me that at the beginning of the question I was thinking I would answer in the extreme in one direction, but by the end I thought I might answer in the other direction.
And sometimes I couldn't tell what they were getting at at all. Like the one where I say how likely I am to buy a DVD that I haven't seen but that I've heard good things about and have been thinking about buying and it's on sale for $15. Well, I don't buy movies I haven't seen. Oh, but the question says I was thinking of buying it. Well, I do buy things I am thinking of buying when they go on sale. But not for $15. I always hold out for $10 now. So I said no. Was that the answer they wanted from me?
And the questions were on an odd array of topics.
**
I don't think I'm a tightwad by their definition. I just look like one because I don't like the stress of living paycheck to paycheck or of finding a high-paying job.
In fact, by their definition, I'd have to say I'm much closer to the spendthrift end of the spectrum. I can easily spend piles of money without noticing. I just don't let myself. Except when I do. I periodically have to start paying attention again. I never accidentally spend too little. I've only occasionally regretted not making a purchase (not climbing to the top of the Arc d'Triompe comes to mind, pardon the bad spelling, I'm about to run off).
This is definitely the kind of survey you have to be mentally generous about when answering - overthinking or being deliberately stupidly literal (which is the tendency of a Friend I Will Not Name) won't work as well. It's helpful that they ask a multitude of questions to come up with an index score rather than rely on a single-item indicator or small number of questions, where an off answer on any question can greatly influence the final score/categorization.
I agree that some of the questions looked odd and the item construction was awkward in many places as Debbie mentioned. But I guess I have seen enough of these things to realize that the face validity of the survey instrument itself is not a reliable indication of quality. It's funny how often people will express confusion or dissatisfaction with an instrument but give answers that are totally in line. The validation of the scale seemed reasonable to me at a cursory glance, though more data on predictive validity is needed.
Perhaps those who are tightwads like me have a much easier time of answering the questions because we immediately relate to the trait they are attempting to measure.
I thought that the inclusion of a couple cognitive measures at the end was interesting. (E.g. if something doubles in size every day, on which day was it half the size it is now?)
Debbie, would you say that you fit the description of the "frugal" individual?
My survey didn't have any cognitive measures at the end. No fair!
I thought it was pretty fun and interesting. I felt like my answers were somewhat contradictory to each other, but I didn't feel bad giving them. (I am able to work towards my long-term goals, I do monitor how I spend my money, but I also overspend all the damn time.) Whatever they get out of it is what they get out of it.
I definitely am the opposite of inhibited towards spending. I love spending!
I think the cognitive questions were the "other" survey. (Linked at the bottom of the page for the tightwad survey.)
Sally, I guess I seek the pleasure of saving, but that concept reminds me of the concept of organizing. Yes, I like to organize things, but not for the sake of organizing them like control freaks do. I like to organize things so I can access them.
Similarly I like to increase my savings, but it's so that I can have the freedom to do more of what I want.
As I go through life, I'm getting better at handling my money efficiently by learning to hold back on things that aren't high priorities, getting better at knowing what I like and finding sources of goods and services that I like, finding ways to afford things that don't seem very affordable, and getting more educated about how many options there are. I also like learning new tricks like realizing that my house isn't a museum, and like Tam's trick of realizing you can store things in stores.
To me "tightwad" has negative connotations that do imply that it hurts a person to spend. When talking of people who enjoy watching their savings grow, I think another term with negative connotations like "miser" or "hoarder" would be more appropriate than "frugal person."
To me, frugality is more about being a good steward of limited resources, about making wise choices given what your goals are. I also don't think I'm very frugal by my own definition, unless you compare me to other Americans, in which case I feel that I may border on extreme.
**
I also am "deliberately stupidly literal" sometimes in response to poorly written questions with the rationale that this will show them!
And when I can't figure out what they're looking for, so I can't figure out which answer would give them the truest impression of me, then I will resort to literal answers as well.
Tam, I also felt that some of my answers seemed contradictory, and also felt good about it. It seemed like a good sign because they were able to get to a level of complexity that most surveys do not try for.
Sally, speaking of shoes, I went into Patagonia with Mosch last night and saw some of the cutest ones ever. Fortunately, at $50 a pair I was not too tempted.
You can see some of the sneakery ones here.
Post a Comment