GENDER, SOCIALIZATION AND MONEY

by

Jerome Rabow
Professor of Sociology,
University of California, Los Angeles, California

and

Michael D. Newcomb
Division of Counseling Psychology
University of Southern California

We examine the Familial experiences of 605 university students surrounding money, and their current beliefs and attitudes about money. A survey examined parental practices regarding money, gender beliefs about equal and unequal earnings, money as it relates to assessments of the self and others, current financial practices, and plans and expectations regarding future financial earnings. Gender comparisons of 12 factors revealed separate and distinct money socialization tracks for men compared to women. Parents were described as having a very different set of practices and expectations for sons and daughters, and the male and female students also sharply differed in a number of ways on their attitudes and behaviors regarding money. For males, money was positively valued, Females had a negative value for money. These money tracks were more sharply differentiated and positively associated among students from higher social classes.

Little attention has been devoted to gender and money by recent social scien­tists. This is surprising, in light of both the important early work on money by Hubert and Mauss (1985) and Simmel (1978), the work on money and child development by Strauss (1952, 1954), and the modern feminist arguments of Chesler and Goodman (1976), who assert that because women have neither money nor power, both should be important areas of study. While Collins (1979) may have been correct when he noted that money has been ignored and treated as if it were not enough, it is more likely that it is too much, as when Freud noted that money is like feces and that we thus try to distance ourselves from it while also trying to retain it. The editor of The American Behavioral Scientist devoted an entire issue to the meaning of money and cleverly echoed Freud as he noted that when the academy does address issues of money, it does so in places that dis­tance it from ourselves, "in schools of business.., where money theory is math­ematical and abstract, where the topic is kept far away from us personally" (Doyle, 1992, p. 641).

Theoretical and empirical literature about money and socialization is almost nonexistent. Although successful adult financial functioning requires some fiscal acumen (e.g., knowledge of costs, savings, investment opportunities), almost nothing is known about if when, or how children are introduced to financial mat­ters; how money is used or abused in families; whether teachings are similar for boys and for girls; or how money enters into the evaluation of others and of the self. We have no systematic studies examining how monetary issues vary by social class or gender.

 Previous Investigations 

One approach by scholars who analyze money and gender differences is to examine structural issues, such as changes in the economy, antidiscrimination leg­islation, or differences in economic well-being. One review of this perspective has concluded that the "massive structural, legal, and behavioral change of the last quarter century did not improve the economic well-being of women in compari­son with men' (Fuchs, 1986, p. 464). A second approach to money and gender has focused on marriage and the problems resulting from differential earnings (Blood, 1960; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Dobash, 1982; Graham, 1984; Millman, 1991; Ostrander, 1984; Pahl, 1988; Weitzman, 1985). Because couples use money to "establish the balance of power in relationships" (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983, p. 53), fewer struggles over money occur when the members of a couple earn equal amounts (Hertz, 1986; see also Dobash, 1982; Pah], 1988; Zelizer, 1989).

 One study of upper-class women who had their own inherited wealth focused on the difficulty these women had in controlling their own money in marriages (Ostrander, 1984). Zelizer (1994) developed her ideas more extensively in her recent book. She documents the various changes in the public and private uses of money in the United States from 1870 to 1940. Contrary to the corrupting cultural influence that Marx, Simmci, and Bellah ascribed to money, she argues that indi­viduals constantly reshape uses and create meanings for money and weave these into personalized webs of friendship, community, family, and authority. She also examines how women and men end up handling money differently due to patriar­chal family structure and notes how "gender influenced women's money even when their income was earned" (p. 65). She comes close to our idea that money means different things to men compared to women. Nevertheless, her predomi­nantly sociological focus precludes an in-depth examination of how families teach and socialize their children about money, what they learn, and how these teachings might be different for boys and girls. Therefore, both of these literatures neglect the familial experiences that promote in children independence or fear, autonomy or dependency, and feelings of competence or shame around financial matters.

 There have been three recent, qualitative studies on money and socialization. Rabow and his students (Rabow & Charness, 1991; Rabow, Charness, Aguilar, & Toomaijian, 1992; Rabow & Rodriguez, 1993) probed the retrospective accounts of college women about their socialization experiences with money. The three small convenience samples (one predominantly White, one Filipiua, and the third focusing on Latino brothers and sisters) were interviewed about their childhood and contemporary experiences with money. The White women reported that their brothers were told to get jobs and had been introduced to savings and checking accounts at a much earlier age than they were. These women, raised in tradi­tional, intact families, were naive about monetary issues in comparison with their brothers. Their families used a number of strategies to keep their daughters dependent and uninformed regarding money (Rabow & Charness, 1991). In sharp contrast, Filipinas reported that family finances were managed by mothers, not by fathers, and were used by their mothers to unite the generations and to increase their daughters' financial independence and knowledge (Rabow et al., 1992). The study completed on Latino brothers and sisters, who were in college and had been poor, found that parents were similar in the way they approached their male and female children (Rabow & Rodriguez, 1993). These three studies suggest that White middle-class parents have a different attitude and set of expec­tations for their sons and daughters, and that social class (and perhaps ethnicity) is an important factor in influencing attitudes and behavior of parents and chil­dren with respect to money.

 While Maxx and Weber understood and described how people's psychology is transformed under capitalism, it was Millman's (1991) work that described the significance of money and the self in modern times: 

Money weaves its way deeply into the texture of the lives we spin and eventually we can't distinguish ourselves from it. Money rep­resents all things: a measure of our value; a source of power over other people, or a means to be free of them; a way to show care to others and to figure out how much they really care about us. (p. 125)

       Millman (1991) did not detail nor document gender differences. Her anec­dotal evidence and lack of a study sample limit our understanding. However, we can hypothesize that the ways in which men and women evaluate money and its relationship to the self and others will differ radically.

 Finally, Grunberg and Anthony (1980) documented the interest and rational understanding that children (ages 5 to 7) develop in regard to monetary matters. This work did not examine established gender differences in children's under­standing of money, but suggested that it would be useful to "examine what is being taught at these ages" (p. 350). In a follow-up study, Grunberg, Maycock, and Anthony (1985) focused on the assessment of material altruism in children. They studied money altruism among children (ages 3 to 16) and showed that early-elementary-age children (about age 7) were less generous compared to younger and older participants. Howcver, these researchers did not address potential gender differences nor the substantive teachings of parents about money to children.

 Current Study

         Given the limited research, we sought to study in a more systematic fashion the socialization experiences of young men and women with respect to money. We compared college-age men and women with respect to their views of money, their views of parental influences regarding money, and how money and the self are related. None of the cited work provides an understanding of how and what men and women learn about money, although it was suggestive about gender differences.

 Because there were no available measures of money skills, money knowl­edge, or family teachings about money, we developed a questionnaire based on the qualitative studies. The survey examined five areas: (a) parental practices regarding money; (b) how subjects evaluated money and themselves, and money and others; (c) gender beliefs regarding money; (d) current financial practices; and (e) future desires regarding money.  We developed questions designed to cap­ture these five areas of socialization and money. Based on prior research, we sought to establish whether parents treated and taught their sons and daughters in a similar or different manner. We explored parental practices and expectations regarding earnings, savings, working, and the use of money as a reward. We also assessed whether our sample of men and women felt differently about the future earnings of their mates and whether they would feel comfortable about their mates earning more or less. A third area was their own relationship to money. Did money have any influence upon their self-evaluation? Did it make them happy, comfortable, powerful, sexy? We also sought to determine how they saw others who earned lots of money. Wise? Fulfilled? In our fourth area, a set of questions was designed to capture the respondents' current financial practices. Were they able to balance checkbooks? Do they overspend? Do they look for bargains? Do they shop carefully? Along with their financial practices, we sought to assess their degree of knowledge and comfort with certain financial practices. Finally, we were concerned about the expectations our respondents held for future earn­ings.

We expected that parental practices and expectations about money differ for daughters and sons (Rabow & Charness, 1991; Rabow et al., 1992). We hypothesized that men and women would report different experiences regarding parents and money. These experiences of money would include savings, earnings, and working. Further, based on our literature review and on anticipated familial practices, we expected that males and females would have different feelings about money and the self, current practices, money and earnings, and other beliefs about money.

The research literature and theoretical understanding about gender differ­ences and socialization patterns regarding money matters are scant at best. Nevertheless, we make the following five tentative hypotheses based on prior literature and use these as a focus for our analysis and discussion: 

Hypothesis 1. Men and women will report different parental practices regarding money. Expectations about the importance of working, saving, and earning money will be higher for males than for females.

Hypothesis 2. Men will believe that they have greater knowledge of money than do women. Men will also be uncomfortable if their expected earnings are lower than their future mates.

Hypothesis 3. Men will have a greater desire for significant earn­ings than women and will have less desire for financial depen­dence than will women.

Hypothesis 4. Men will be more comfortable than women when they earn more money and will be admiring of themselves and oth­ers who also have and earn a great deal of money. They will evaluate having, making, and earning money as a means toward being more attractive, more responsible, and more positive. Women will tend to view money in negative terms and will evaluate others who earn a great deal of money in more negative terms.

Hypothesis 5. Men will be less chaotic, less fearful, and less confused than will women in regard to their own contemporary finan­cial practices.

        We also explore social class differences as these relate to our money variables and whether these associations are different by gender. However, the lack of rele­vant literature or theory prevents us from proposing specific hypotheses regard­ing these relationships.

Method

 Participants

The sample consisted of 605 college students at a large West-coast public university who volunteered as part of an optional class assignment. The questionnaire was administered in the spring and summer of 1989 to four introductory and six upper-division sociology classes. The sample contains more juniors and seniors (57%) than freshman and sophomores (42%) and is predomi­nantly female (64%). The ethnic proportions for the sample arc White, 61%; Asian, 16%; African American, 10%; Hispanic, 12%; and Native American, 1%. In addition, more than 90% of the students are between the ages of 17 and 23; 67% come from families where the parents are still married; slightly more than one third are eldest children, and the same percentage are the youngest; and 8% are only children. Given their age, we infer that most subjects had been bom after the publication of Friedan's (1963) work. Thus, their parents had probably been exposed to ideas of equality in childrearing.

Students were asked to describe their current family social class on a 5-point scale. More than half (51%) considered themselves upper middle class, while 30% described themselves as middle class. The remainder classified themselves as lower middle class (12%), upper class (4%), or lower class (3%).

The sample includes a large number of students from affluent families: 37% of the students have fathers who earn $100,000 per year, and 23% reported that their fathers' income was more than $200,000 per year. While mothers' income is certainly relevant, this item was inadvertently omitted from the questionnaire. Twenty-three percent of the students had experienced parental divorce, and another 3% reported that their parents were separated.

This sample is not broadly representative of the general community and suf­fers from the typical limitations of using college students as participants. Never­theless, these students are ethnically diverse, and our goals of scale development and testing for gender differences ought to be sufficiently robust to generalize beyond this particular group.

Measures

       About 200 Likert-type items were used in this survey. Items were generated to reflect numerous potential aspects of the five areas presented in the introduc­tion to this paper. These five general areas included parent practices, gender beliefs, self and others, current practices, and plans and expectations for the future. All items employed a 5-point scale ranging from I (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).

We used factor analyses with oblique rotation to examine these items and to identify underlying constructs. After examining the first results, we ran the analysis again after excluding items that did not load well on any factor. By removing the Iow-loading items (those less than .5) and using conceptual consistency to assign the few multiple-loading items to specific factors, 12 inter­pretable factors emerged that captured each of the five areas: (a) parent practices (three factors), (b) self and others (two factors), (c) gender beliefs (two factors), (d) current practices (three factors), and (e) plans and expectations for the future (two factors).

 We ran reliability tests on each factor or scale and eliminated items to maxi­mize the internal consistency (alpha value). Items that reduced the reliability were removed. The resulting five groups and 12 factors are discussed and pre­sented in Table 1 along with their reliabilities and specific items for each scale.

In addition, there were four single-item variables that we believed would be theoretically important and add to our understanding of parental financial prac­tices and the attitudes and behavior of our respondents. In all, we describe a total of 16 variables which we hypothesize as differentiating males from females.

 Parental practices. Three factors pertained to the respondents' assessments of their parental experiences and expectations while growing up. The first factor, called Parental Money Concerns, represented family conflicts and confusion about money. This factor consisted of seven items, including the following: parents arguing about money, being secretive about money, using money as a substitute for love, and being concerned with "keeping up with the Joneses." In one seemingly unrelated item, subjects reported that their parents' attitude toward money was that it is not how much money you make, but how happy you are. The students who endorsed these items on the one hand saw their parents as secretive and arguing about money, using money as a substitute for love, and concerned with keeping up with others. On the other hand, these children were told that hap­piness is more important than money. When students endorsed these items, they were describing a contradictory reality: Parents were stressing happiness over money while investing an enormous amount of time and energy on money issues.

 A second parental practices factor, pertaining to a less neurotic family pat­tern, was called Parental Expectations: Work and Save. This seven-item scale was concerned with parents' financial expectations for their children, such as job experiences and learning about savings. This factor also included the existence or experience of family hardship. In this factor, subjects described parents as expecting them to have a job during the summers in high school and in college, as well as during their college years. These items also assessed the degree of preparation for financial responsibility.

 The third factor, consisting of eight items, captured parents' emphasis on the value of grades and the relationship of good grades to economic success. Other items on this factor assessed the mothers' and fathers' teachings and encourage­ment regarding fiscal responsibility and lectures about the value of money. We called this factor Parental Influence: Money and Grades.

 Of the three parental practices, one factor, parental money concerns, seems to undermine realistic understandings about money. The other two factors, parental expectations for working and saving and parental emphasis that links good grades with economic success, seem to promote experiences of both competence and comfort with money.

 Gender beliefs. Two factors emerged that related to feelings about money and earning and the assessments of respondents' own knowledge of money and finances compared to the opposite gender. The first of the two factors regarding gender beliefs was called Gender Belief: Monetary Equality, on which respon­dents indicated whether they would be bothered if they earned more or earned less than their future spouses and stated whether they would have to earn the same amount as their spouses to feel comfortable. On the second factor, called Gender Belief: Monetary Superiority, respondents indicated whether they believed that they knew more about money than did their own gender and the opposite gender.

 Money, the self, and others. One of two factors, Money as Positive for the Self and Others, consisted of 14 items in which our respondents indicated whether they felt good, happy, lovable, and greater self-worth with money, as well as more attractive to the opposite gender when making money. Other items involved beliefs that others who earn more money are seen as likable, responsi­ble, rational, and attractive but are also viewed with jealousy and envy.

         On the other factor, Money as Negative for the Self and Others, respondents reported their negative evaluations of money and the "self," and of money and "others." These eight items assessed whether the respondents felt guilty about earning more than their parents; whether they viewed those who make a great deal of money as immoral, threatening, or intimidating; and whether they are "turned off' by power and money.

 Current practices. Three factors represented students' current financial prac­tices. One factor, Chaotic Financial Practices, contained four items that indicated students' difficulties with balancing checkbooks, paying bills, and managing money. Another factor, Bargain Hunting, indicated respondents' practice of habitual bargain hunting and examined whether they found this practice satisfy­ing. The third factor, Fear of Finances, assessed whether subjects were confused about investments, intimidated about organizing their finances, and whether they believed that investments are risky ventures.

 Plans and expectations for the future. Finally, two scales captured subjects' future desires and expectations about finances and income. One factor reflected respondents' desire for significant earnings and the other factor addressed respondents' desire to remain financially dependent. Each factor had three items. Desire for Significant Earnings concerns subjects' desire for a career with good earnings, expectations for earning significant money, and consideration of gradu­ate school to increase his or her earnings. Desire for Financial Dependence tapped subjects' desire for future financial wishes for dependence. On this factor, subjects indicated whether they planned to contribute to family earnings (nega­tively scored), whether they planned to be the breadwinner (negatively scored), and whether they planned to rely on someone else financially.

 Factor intercorrelations. Despite the fact that an oblique rotation was used to develop the factors, the intercorrelations of the 12 resulting scales were remark­ably low. Very few were greater than .20. Since the 12 factors reflect the five domains, we expected to have higher correlations for scales within a particular domain than scales across domains. Of the 15 correlations of scales within domains, two thirds (10) were significant. The highest within-domain correlation was between Chaotic Financial Practices and Bargain Hunting (r = -.45). How­ever, of the 105 correlations between scales from dissimilar domains, only about half (54) were significant. The highest correlation across domains was between Gender Beliefs: Monetary Superiority and Bargain Hunting (r = .48). In general, we can conclude that there were proportionally more significant correlations within domains than across domains.

Other variables. The four single-item variables were as follows: (a) the age at which respondents were introduced to discussions of family bills (we assumed that boys would be introduced to such discussions at an earlier age than girls); (b) the number of jobs that respondents reported (we believed that parents would encourage sons to work more frequently than they encouraged daughters, and that men would report having had more jobs than would women); (c) the current number of hours per week that respondents worked (we believed that men would work more hours than would women); and (d) the percentage of the students' expenses paid by others (we assumed that women would receive more financial aid from their families than would men).

 Results

      The following analyses are based on a comparison of the means for all 12 scales (created via unit-weighted sum scores) and the four selected single-item variables for the entire sample. Table 2 reports the gender mean differences tested as point-biserial correlations. This method of mean comparisons was selected since it is identical to the t test but has the added advantage of describing the amount of variance due to gender when squared.

Out of 16 possible comparisons for main effects of gender, 13 were significant. All three parental practices scales differentiated between males and females. Sons perceived that their parents engaged in more neurotic parental practices, had higher expectations for working and saving, and emphasized money and grades more than did daughters. With respect to gender beliefs, males and females were equally comfortable with their mates' earnings being equal to or greater than their own, but males viewed themselves as knowing more about money than did females. Both self and other factors differentiated between men and women. When asked about their assessments of the self, others, and money, women evaluated themselves and others in more negative terms than did men, and men evaluated others and themselves in more positive terms than did women. The comparisons of current practices revealed no differences in the degree of chaotic financial practice for males and females, but women reported greater fear of finances and more bargain hunting than did men. Finally, men reported both a stronger desire for significant earnings and for less financial dependence than did women. Three of the four single-item variables were signif­icantly different by gender Men were introduced to family bills at an earlier age (by a full year); indicated that they were currently working more hours per week (males, 21.3 per week; females, 18.7 per week); and received less current finan­cial support from their families than did women.

The right-hand portion of Table 2 presents correlations between social class and the 16 money scales and items separately by gender. We also provide z-difference tests between the correlations for men and women using the Fisher r-to-z conversion. The z differences essentially represent interactions where a dif­ferent association is found between social class and the money scales for men compared to women.

There were six significant correlations between social class and the money variables for men, and eight significant correlations for women. Three of these were in the same direction and on the same variables for men and women. Higher social class was significantly correlated with greater parental concerns, a greater belief in monetary superiority, and less belief in money as negative for self and others for men and for women. For men, higher social class was also signifi­cantly correlated with less bargain hunting, a lower desire for financial depen­dence, and more jobs. For women, higher social class was also significantly correlated with lower parental expectations for working and saving, less concern and influence by parents on grades and money, less belief in gender equality, less fear of finances, and greater desire for financial dependence. Only two z-difference tests were significant between correlations fbr men and women; higher social class was significantly associated with lower fear of finances for women and unrelated for men, and higher social class was significantly associated with less desire for financial dependence for men and significantly associated with greater desire for financial dependence lbr women.

Discussion

        Parents' expectations about money for their male and female children dif­fered dramatically, as anticipated by our first hypothesis. Sons more than daugh­ters perceived and evaluated their parents as expecting them to know how to work and to save. Sons were introduced to discussions of family finances at an earlier age than were their sisters, reported that they currently work more than do women, and received less financial support from their families than did women.

 These differences in expectations and behavior help to establish what we will now call different money tracks for sons and daughters. These experiences of sons are combined with evaluations of parents as confused, obsessed, and in con­flict about money. Daughters are either protected from parental fiscal problems or do not perceive or evaluate them in the same ways as do sons. Money is han­dled for daughters and for sons in distinct ways; thus, our first hypothesis about money-track differences based on gender is confirmed.

 Our second hypothesis, which derives from the differential money tracks, received partial confirmation. Men reported that they believe that they have greater monetary knowledge than females. No attitudinal difference was found, since men and women both reported that they would not be bothered if their mates earned more than or the same as themselves.

 Hypothesis 3, regarding the relationship of the self to money and the evalua­tion by others who earn large amounts of money, was also confirmed. Men and women had sharply different evaluations of money in relation to themselves and others. Men more than women felt positive about money and others who make money. Men felt that those who earn money are rational, responsible, and attrac­tive. Money makes men feel lovable, happy, in control, and provides them with a feeling of self-worth. Men also envy those who earn a great deal of money. Women, on the other hand, were repelled by and considered immoral those who earn good incomes. These "others" were also perceived as intimidating when they earn a great deal of money. Women also believed that earning more than their par­ents would make them feel guilty. Although women also had conflicting feelings regarding money, these feelings tend to be more negative. Money and the sclf are interwoven for men and for women, but these weavings result in different patterns.

 Hypothesis 4 was partially concerned with selected financial practices of the students. Our male and female subjects did not differ in their actual money habits regarding balancing checkbooks and payment of bills, but they differed in their feelings about finances and shopping practices. Women more than men had a greater fear of finances, were confused about investing options, and believed that investments were a risky venture, but also were bargain hunters.

 We examined subjects' future desires and hopes regarding money by testing Hypothesis 5. We predicted that males would have a greater desire for significant earnings and a lower desire for financial dependence than would women. This hypothesis was also confirmed.

 When gender and money differences are examined, this study points to clearly differentiated training or socialization tracks for males and for females. These tracks are objective (age of first job, financial support, hours worked), sub­jective (gender beliefs and perception of self and others), and are part of the dif­ferent social and psychological worlds created by parents and occupied by sons and by daughters. This initial training leads to different sets of beliefs about the self and others, to different evaluations about the opposite gender's monetary knowledge, to differential fears about finances, and to a set of future desires about money that again separate young women from young men.

 The scales regarding evaluation of self and others suggest sharply divergent, "unreal," and "neurotic" evaluations by both men and women. Men tend to glam­orize money and are driven to earn it, whereas women fear and are wary of money.

 What does social class contribute to our understanding of money tracks? Without claiming to establish causal effects, higher socioeconomic class was related to the perception of parental concerns for men and women. Higher social class was also related to parents being less concerned that their daughters under­stand money than their sons. This may further handicap women and their quest for independence. Both men and women from higher social-class families believed in their superior financial knowledge and believed in gender equality. Higher socioeconomic status reflects negatively on the self for both sons and daughters, while also being associated with different directions of financial dependence and independence. Parents from higher socioeconomic classes are also seen as believing in their sons working, while not stressing this to their daughters. Finally, daughters of parents in the higher social classes had less fear of finances but more desire for financial dependence, while sons from this group had less desire for financial dependence.

 The legacy of growing up without financial training and experiences is reflected in women's greater fear of finances, intimidation, and confusion about investing. Surprisingly, we found no gender differences in the degree of financial chaos. As for our students' desires and wishes about the future, males had higher expectations and desires for significant earnings than did women, despite their stronger perceptions of parental concerns about money. Males also wanted to be more financially independent than did women. This picture of differential experi­ence, knowledge, and expectations is confirmed further by our single-variable differences: Males worked more than did females and received less support from their families.

 The results of this research suggest that young men and women born in the late 1960s and early 1970s were raised in families in which parents had different financial expectations for their sons and for their daughters. Sons more than daughters were expected to work and were taught to save. Men more than women evaluated their adolescence as having prepared them for financial responsibility. Boys more than girls also reported seeing their parents' manipu­lations, machinations, and concerns: Boys saw and assessed their parents both as trying to "keep up with the Joneses" and as using money as a substitute for love.

 Growing up on these different tracks leaves a legacy of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that differentiate men from women. Males feel superior to females in financial matters; surprisingly, however, the genders are similar in their desire to earn as much as their mates. While voicing a sense of superiority in money mat­ters, men also expect an equal contribution from their seemingly less sophisti­cated partners. Males have a strong attraction to those who make money, and evaluate earning money with positive self-esteem. Indeed, as noted earlier, they feel attracted toward those who earn good incomes and see value in earning a great deal of money. Men feel happy and lovable and have a greater sense of self-worth with more money than do women.

 While we would not wish to infer that the sources of these money tracks arc derived exclusively from experiences in the family, it seems reasonable to assume that separate money tracks by gender exist within families. These tracks have a larger number of dimensions and facets among these ethnically diverse college students. Higher socioeconomic status seems to accentuate differences in the money socialization patterns of sons and daughters. These differences may handicap women. This conclusion echoes Gilman (1899, p. 44): "The female of genus homo is economically dependent on the male. He is her food supply." These words were part of her hopeful, evolutionary perspective on the possibili­ties of economic equality between men and women. Almost 100 years later, she would still seem to be correct and most disappointed.

References

Blood, R. O. (1960). Husbands and wives. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, I~ (1983). American couples. New York, NY: Morrow.

Chesler, P., & Goodman, E. J. (1976). Women, money and power. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company.

Collins, R. (1979). Review of The Bankers, by Martin Mayer. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 190-194.

Dobash, R. (1982). The violent event. In E. Whitelegg (Ed.), The changing expe­rience of women. Oxford.

Doyle, K. O. (1992). Introduction; money and the behavioral sciences. In K. Doyle (Ed.), American Behavioral Scientist (Vol. 24, pp. 641-656). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York, NY: Dell.

Fuchs, V. R. (1986). Sex differences in economic well being. Science, 232, 459-464.

Gilman, C. P. (1899). Women and economics: A study of the economic relations between men and women as a Factor in social evolution (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Snell, Maynard, & Co. Graham, H. (1984). Women, health and the family. Brighton, UK: Harvester. Grunberg, N. E., & Anthony, B. J. (1980). Monetary awareness in children. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 343-350.

Grunberg, N. E., Maycock, V. A., & Anthony, B. J. (1985). Material altruism in children. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 1 - 11.

Hertz, R. (1986). More equal than others. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hubert, H., & Mauss, M. (1985). The circulation of sentiments, magic and money. In R. Collins (Ed.), Three sociological traditions: Selected readings (pp. 187-197). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Millman, M. ( 1991 ). Warm hearts and cold cash. New York, NY: Free Press. Ostrander, S. A. (1984). Women of the upper class. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Pahl, J. M. (1988). Earning, sharing, spending: Married couples and their money. In R. Walker & G. Parker (Eds.), Money matters: Income, wealth and financial welfare (pp. 195-211). London, UK: Sage.

Rahow, J., & Chainess, M. (1991). Women and money: Identities in flux.Humanity and Society, 15, 254-276.

Rabow, J., Chainess, M., Aguilar, A., & Toomajian, J. (1992). Women and money: Cultural contrasts. Sociological Studies of Child Development, 5, 191-219.

Rahow, J., & Rodriguez, K. (1993). Socialization toward money in Latino fami­lies: An exploratory study of gender differences. Hispanic Journal of Behav-ioralSciences, 15, 324-341.

Simmel, G. (1978). The philosophy of money. London, U K: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.

Strauss, A. (1952). The development and transformation of monetary meaning in the child. American Sociological Review, 17, 275-286.

Strauss, A. (1954). The development of conceptions of rules in children. Child Development, 25, 193-208~

Weitzman, L. J. (1985). The divorce revolution: The unexpected social and economic consequences for women and children in America. New York, NY: Free Press.

Zelizer, V. A. (1989). The social meaning of money: Special monies. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 342-377.

Zelizer, V. A. (1994). The sociological meaning of money. New York, NY: Basic.

Table 1

 Item Content for the Money Scales

Table 2

Gender Differences and Correlations Between Social Class and the Money Scales by Gender

Call us.  We can help.
310-712-7039