Husbands, Wives, and Perception of Relative Knowledge About Household Finances

Sherman D. Hanna, Professor, Ohio State University1

Kyoung Tae Kim, Associate Professor, University of Alabama

Suzanne Lindamood, Ph.D., J.D.

Sunwoo Tessa Lee, Ph.D. Candidate, Ohio State University

Abstract

Which spouse is more knowledgeable about the household’s finances in mixed-sex married

couple households? The answer to this question can be inferred from the Survey of Consumer

Finances (SCF), which assigns the title of “respondent” to the person the household indicates is

more knowledgeable about its finances. In the 2016 SCF, the husband was the respondent in

56% of husband-wife households, but among households in the top 1% of net worth, the husband

was the respondent in 90% of the households. Despite the progress women have made in

education and other aspects of society, husbands were the respondent in a higher percent of

households in 2016 than in 1992, and the husband was much more likely to be the respondent in

wealthy households. Logistic regression on whether the husband or wife was the respondent

showed a strong effect of the spouse with more education being the respondent.

Keywords: Gender, Survey of Consumer Finances, Financial knowledge, Household production

model, Family decision-making, Gender roles

JEL Classification: D14, J12, J16, G53

1
Department of Human Sciences, 1787 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210. Hanna.1@osu.edu

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

 Introduction

Role specialization is typical within couple households (Coltrane, 2000; Noonan, 2001). Becker

(1991) demonstrated that having household members specialize in particular household tasks is

efficient, even if they have equal initial abilities. One set of household tasks in which

specialization is observed is the management of household finances. Management of household

finances is not a single task, however, as the concept encompasses several activities of varying

complexity. Hilgert et al. (2003) divided household financial activities into four main categories:

cash flow management, credit management, saving, and investment. The relative importance of

these financial activities may differ for wealthy households and lower wealth households, and

patterns of gender specialization have implications beyond the household and impact gender

roles in the financial services industry. According to Baghai et al. (2020), women represent only

15% of financial advisors. Does the prevalence of men being the financial respondents among

wealthy households create a barrier to reducing the gender imbalance in financial advising?

What are the implications for the financial advising industry as more women gain control over

wealth?

Our study focuses on whether the husband or the wife in mixed-sex married couple

households is designated as the spouse more knowledgeable about the household’s finances.

There is a long history of research related to gender differences based on socialization and other

differences, and our research contributes to that literature.

Presumably, the person who specializes in the most important financial tasks of that

household is likely to be considered the one who is more knowledgeable about the household’s

finances. In financially less complex households, such as those that do not have investment

portfolios, the spouse who pays the bills is likely to be the one who will have better knowledge

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

to answer questions about income, credit balances, and the value of assets. For financially more

complex households, such as those with investment portfolios, the spouse who has knowledge of

the household’s investments and assets is likely to be the more knowledgeable spouse. In this

study, data from mixed-sex married couple households are analyzed, because our focus is on

differences between males and females in the perception of who is more financially

knowledgeable in each household. We did not include unmarried mixed-sex couple households

because there is limited information about the permanence of the relationships and such

households represent a small portion of household wealth as compared to mixed-sex married

couples. Furthermore, a substantial majority of U.S. adults will be married at some point, with

only about 4% of females age 85 and older in the year 2018 having never been married (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2019). While the proportion of adults who are married has decreased, the rate is

still relatively high for college-educated adults (Parker & Stepler, 2017).

For empirical analyses, we used the U.S. Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), which is

appropriate for this research because the interviews are scheduled with the person that the

household’s initial contact identifies as the more knowledgeable about the family’s finances.

Some previous research has analyzed factors related to who is the financial respondent in mixed-

sex couples, most often using the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) dataset (e.g., Smith et al.,

2010). The SCF dataset, however, has the advantage of an oversampling of wealthy households,

allowing for robust estimation of patterns and effects for households with very high net worth.

In an era with increasing labor force participation of women and attention to the financial

education of women, one would expect women to be the financial decision-maker more often

than in the past. Understanding who is more knowledgeable about a household’s finances is

important to financial educators and financial service firms, which have to decide whether to

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

direct efforts to men, women, or both. Financial planners working with couple households need

to take into account who is financially more knowledgeable, especially if the planner can interact

with only one person. If role specialization is substantial, divorce, death, or separation from the

more financially knowledgeable spouse could be a problem for the other person. The potential

problem is illustrated by the fact that in 2018, only 17% of females age 85 and older were

married and living with a husband (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Specialization in household

financial management by the husband in couple households could cause problems later in life for

women who lack knowledge.

Theoretical Approaches and Prior Research

Theoretical Models

Two economic models that have been used to analyze household roles are (1) the household

production model articulated by Becker (1991), and (2) the bargaining model, which assumes

each member is bargaining to maximize individual utility. Sociological models of household

norms and roles (Bernasek & Bajtelsmit, 2002) have also been discussed in the context of

household roles. In the household production model, also referred to as the unitary model (Elder

& Rudolph, 2003), household utility is maximized based on specialization of tasks. Becker

(1991) stated that specialization of household members is efficient, in terms of investment in

human capital for specific tasks such as market work and in terms of specific household

production tasks, leading to higher total consumption for the household. The model assumes

family members’ ultimate goal is to maximize joint utility of the household, and tasks will be

done by the person with comparative advantage. The one who has acquired more human capital

related to a particular task will specialize in that task (Becker, 1991; Ratchford, 2001; Bernasek

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

& Bajtelsmit, 2002). Task specialization would also depend on opportunity cost of carrying out

the task, which would be related to income or employment status (Elder & Rudolph, 2003).

Ratchford (2001) noted the role of learning by doing, so those who perform a task will tend, over

time, to have an increasing comparative advantage.

The bargaining model is based on the assumption that household utility depends on

individual utility functions for each member of the household. Decisions about expenditures and

about tasks would be influenced by each member’s bargaining power because they would

attempt to maximize their own utilities (Elder & Rudolph, 2003; Yilmazer & Lyons, 2010).

Education, age, income, employment, health, and cognitive ability are suggested as the

determinants of bargaining power (Bernasek & Bajtelsmit, 2002; Elder & Rudolph, 2003;

Friedberg & Webb, 2006; Luhrmann & Maurer, 2007; Bertocchi et al., 2014; Oreffice, 2014).

Role theory in sociology proposes that the tasks people perform are based on societally

prescribed roles. While there may be some predisposition based on biological factors,

sociologists frequently have suggested that men and women have designated roles that are

learned behaviors based on socialization and social norms (Schaninger & Buss, 1985; Qualls,

1987; Fischer & Arnold, 1994; Eagly et al., 2000). Identification of the social norms for sex

roles is fairly clear for some household tasks such as childcare and food preparation, which are

typically women’s roles, and auto maintenance and home repair, which are typically roles of

men. Some authors have concluded, however, that financial management is a sex-neutral

household task (Marini & Shelton, 1993; Coltrane, 2000; Estes et al., 2007). If financial

management is a sex-neutral task, we should find a random distribution of husbands and wives

being designated as the person more knowledgeable about the household’s finances and there

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

would be little relationship between household characteristics and whether a husband or wife has

that designation.

The research questions for this study are based on elements of both the bargaining model

and the unitary model of family financial decision making, with a focus on ascertaining the

characteristics of the financially more knowledgeable spouse. The unitary model, with its basis

in efficiency and household utility maximization, applies to both decision making and

knowledge, in that the spouse who should specialize in financial management is the one who has

a comparative advantage in that. Education can increase both power and ability, thus influencing

the choice of financial decision-maker under both the bargaining model and the unitary model.

The person with more education might have a comparative advantage in financial management if

education is assumed to result in greater financial knowledge. Controlling for time spent in the

labor force, we expect that the spouse with more education should be more knowledgeable.

Under a bargaining model, power derived from education, income, and sex roles determines who

is the financial decision-maker. If a person has power in a relationship, that person is more

likely to exert control over finances and subsequently gain even greater experience and

knowledge.

Selected Previous Empirical Studies

There have been empirical studies about which spouse/partner is the financial respondent,

the term the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) datasets use for the person who provides

answers to financial questions. Those studies have relevance to our research, as the dependent

variable is similar to our dependent variable. There have also been studies that focus on who

makes the financial decisions in the household. Although those studies have some relevance to

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

our focus in terms of discussions of theories, the person making the decisions is not necessarily

the same as the one more knowledgeable about the household’s finances.

The concepts of tradition, power, and ability are relevant to the bargaining theory of

family financial decision-making explored in earlier research. When examining the sources of

bargaining power to determine financial decision-maker, one of the sources that has been

commonly discussed in previous studies is education. Education is often referred to as a proxy

for general human capital and differences in education have been found to be positively

correlated to who is the financial respondent (Smith et al., 2010; Angrisani & Lee, 2019), and

decision-maker status (Friedberg & Webb, 2006; Bertocchi et al., 2014). Elder and Rudolph

(2003) found that husbands with higher levels of education were more likely to be the decision-

maker, but at lower levels of education, the wife was more likely to be the financial decision-

maker. This finding is similar to the proposal by Ferber and Lee (1974), who asserted that there

is a difference between financial planning tasks and financial implementation tasks. A person

with higher levels of education and skill may be the planner, but the day-to-day tasks of

implementation may be assigned to the less powerful or less skilled person. Even routine

implementation of financial tasks, however, is likely to increase one’s knowledge of details of

family finances.

Another source of power and skill is age, and the older person in a household is more

likely to be a financial decision-maker due to the power that comes with age as well as

experience and higher levels of knowledge (Bertocchi et al., 2014), as financial knowledge may

come from education or experience (Hilgert, et al., 2003). Employment status is another relevant

factor, as an employed person may have more power and more experience (Luhrmann & Maurer,

2007). Friedberg and Webb (2006) and Bertocchi et al. (2014) found that the wife’s earnings

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

relative to the husband’s earnings affected who was the decision-maker. Chen and Volpe (2002)

found that female college students tend to have less knowledge about personal finance topics and

less willingness to learn about these topics than male students, suggesting a predisposition to

specialization among males. While attitudes and skills might contribute to differences between

husbands and wives in financial management tasks, given that these tasks range from bill paying

to investment decisions, it is not clear whether men or women would be more efficient in overall

household financial management.

Fonseca et al. (2012) analyzed the 2009 American Life Panel sample and found that

males had higher financial literacy than females. They suggested that the production of financial

literacy might take place due to men specializing in obtaining financial knowledge and women

specializing in other tasks, though they acknowledged that men might have higher financial

knowledge for other reasons. They also found that the number of financial tasks taken on by

men increased with their level of education, while there was not a relationship between the level

of education of women and the number of financial tasks they performed. There was also a

pattern of the more educated spouse performing more financial tasks.

Smith et al. (2010) analyzed the 2006 HRS and found that the husband’s education, age,

numeracy, and other indicators of cognitive ability were related to whether the husband was the

financial respondent in a sample of married couples. Lindamood and Hanna (2005) analyzed the

1992 to 2001 Survey of Consumer Finances datasets, and found that in 47% of married couple

households, the wife was the respondent, and therefore presumably the more knowledgeable

spouse. Their multivariate analysis showed that education was related to who was the

respondent, and the likelihood of the wife being the respondent decreased as household income

and assets increased. The effect of education would imply that over time, there should be a shift

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

toward less male dominance in financial knowledge, as the college completion rate (bachelor’s

degree or higher) for males age 25 to 29 remained roughly the same over a 35 year period (28%

in both 1976 and 2011), while the rate for women of the same age grew steadily over the same

period (Fry & Parker, 2012). The pattern has changed from equal completion rates in 1991 to

women having a much higher rate (37%) than men (30%) in 2012. The growing educational

advantages of women over men should presumably result in an increased likelihood that a wife

will be the more financially knowledgeable spouse.

There have been studies analyzing financial knowledge differences between males and

females (Chen & Volpe, 2002; Fonseca et al., 2012) and even within couple households (Elder &

Rudolph, 2003; Smith, et al., 2010). For instance, Smith et al. found that in 62% of married

couple households in the 2006 HRS wave (a dataset with older households) the husband was the

financial respondent, the household’s designation of the person more knowledgeable about the

household’s finances. Smith et al. (2010) reported that in their multivariate analysis, the

likelihood of the male being the financial respondent increased with the husband’s education,

and cognitive scores, and effects of the wife’s characteristics on whether the husband was the

financial respondent were not as strong as the effects of the husband’s characteristics.

While some previous research has investigated factors related to whether the husband or

the wife is the financial respondent, research using the SCF has the advantage of a sample of

households of all ages, detailed household balance sheet information, plus a simple indicator of

which spouse is more knowledgeable about the household’s finances. The SCF also oversamples

wealthy households, making possible robust estimates of patterns for high net worth households

(Hanna et al., 2018). The objective of this research is to analyze factors related to the husband

being the more knowledgeable spouse in mixed-sex married couple households in the 2016 SCF.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

 Methods

Dataset and sample selection

We used the 2016 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) dataset, sponsored by the Federal

Reserve Board and administered every three years since 1983. For a descriptive comparison

over time, we also analyzed prior survey waves from the 1992 to 2013 SCF datasets. The 2016

SCF includes 6,248 households (technically, primary economic units), and our analytic sample

consisted of 3,345 mixed-sex married couples.

An important consideration for this research is identifying the more financially

knowledgeable spouse. The “respondent” in the SCF is the person a household member

identifies as “more knowledgeable about the household finances.” The SCF makes extensive

efforts to schedule and complete an interview with that person and the interviewers for the SCF

follow a set of rules to identify the person to serve as the respondent in a household (Lindamood

et al., 2007). We recognize that it is possible that the person who responds is the one most

available, without serious consideration given for whether that person is more knowledgeable

about the household’s finances. However, if the respondent is the more available spouse,

household characteristics would not have many significant effects on which spouse was the

respondent. Our empirical results and similar previous analyses (e.g., Smith, et al., 2010) show

that the effects of household characteristics are consistent with the respondent being the more

financially knowledgeable spouse, with the more educated spouse being more likely to be the

respondent.

Measurement of variables

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

We used whether the wife or husband was the respondent as a proxy for which one is the more

financially knowledgeable. The dependent variable was a dichotomous variable equal to 1 if the

respondent is the husband, and equal to 0 if the respondent is the wife. Independent variables

were the log of income, spline variables2 for the log of positive and of negative net worth, and

various household characteristics including spousal differences in age, education, health, and

employment. We did not control for risk tolerance, as that question is answered only by the

respondent. The 2016 SCF included three financial knowledge questions, as well as a subjective

assessment of financial knowledge, but since only the respondent answered those questions, we

did not include them. We created all variables using data in the SCF SAS files available on the

Federal Reserve Board website3, and followed the recommendations of Lindamood et al. (2007)

and Hanna et al. (2018).

Results
Descriptive Patterns

Table 1 provides some insights into the financial importance of mixed-sex married couples in the

United States, despite the declining proportion that group represents among all households.

Mixed-sex married couples represented only 47% of all households in 2016, but held 76% of

household net worth and had much higher mean household net worth than other household types

(Panel B). Mixed-sex unmarried couples held only 3.8% of household net worth, with mean net

worth of $305,241 compared to $1,116,017 for mixed-sex married couple households.

[Insert Table 1]

2
See rationale for spline specification of net worth in Ouyang et al. (2019).
3
www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

 Figure 1 displays the proportion of mixed-sex married couples in which the husband was

the respondent for the 1992 to 2016 SCF datasets. The rate has fluctuated, with the lowest

proportion, 49%, in the 1995 SCF, and the highest proportions, in the 2013 SCF (57%) and 2016

SCF (56%).4

[Insert Figure 1]

Table 2 shows the rate of the husband being the respondent in the 2016 SCF, overall, and

by net worth category. In 2016, the rate of the husband being the more financially

knowledgeable spouse varied substantially by the household’s net worth, with 90% of the

households in the top 1% of net worth having the husband as the respondent. Because of the

sampling method used by the SCF (Hanna et al., 2018), the weighted estimate for the top 1% is a

robust estimate, as there were 494 mixed-sex married couples in the sample with a net worth

greater than $15,123,000. The pattern by net worth category is illustrated in Figure 2. For

households with negative net worth, 45% had the husband as the respondent.

[Insert Table 2 and Figure 2]

Figure 3 shows the mean proportion of financial assets, non-financial investments such as

business assets, and residence and vehicle assets by the net worth categories shown in Table 2.

In the bottom half of the net worth distribution, the vehicle and personal residence category

accounted for more than 70% of household assets, so that investment decisions were presumably

not a frequent issue in household finances. In higher net worth categories, the two investment

types comprised higher proportions of total assets, and for households in the top 1% of net worth,

vehicle and personal residence assets comprised less than 11% of total assets.

4
We also analyzed the 2019 SCF dataset, which was released after our manuscript was submitted. The overall

proportion of mixed-sex married couple households with the husband as the respondent increased to 58%.

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

 [Insert Figure 3]

Multivariate Analysis

Table 3 shows the results of a logistic regression on whether the husband was the respondent.

The likelihood of the husband being the respondent was not related to household income, but

increased as net worth increased above zero, and also increased as net worth decreased below

zero. Households with Black respondents and those with Hispanic respondents were more likely

than otherwise similar households with White respondents to have the husband as the

respondent. Neither age differences between the husband and the wife nor the age of the

husband had significant effects. However, differences in years of education had strong effects,

with the more educated spouse being more likely to be the respondent. Controlling for education

differences, as the husband’s education increased, the likelihood of him being the respondent

increased. The lack of effects for the employment status variables is not consistent with

availability for an interview being a key factor in determining who would be the respondent.

Households with a dependent child under the age of 18 were less likely to have the husband as

the respondent than those without one.

The husband was less likely to be the respondent in homeowner households than in

otherwise comparable renter households. When both spouses were present for the interview, the

husband was more likely to be the respondent. If the husband was in poor health and the wife

was not, the wife was more likely to be the respondent compared to households where neither

was in poor health.

[Insert Table 3]

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

 Discussion and Implications

Based on our analyses, gender roles for household finances have not changed much since 1992,

despite changes in employment and roles for women taking place outside the household. Our

finding of the strong pattern among wealthier households of the husband being the financially

more knowledgeable spouse (90% for the top 1%) supports the conclusion that investment

decisions are perceived as masculine activities.

The gender gap in financial literacy does not seem to be sufficient to explain the large

gender difference in wealthy households. Most studies have found that women have lower levels

of objective financial knowledge than men (Hasler & Lusardi, 2017). However, this gap in the

U.S. is relatively small, only about 10 percentage points, making it puzzling that husbands in the

wealthiest households are overwhelmingly the more financially knowledgeable spouse. The

higher financial confidence of men is another possible explanation for the patterns we found.

Hasler and Lusardi (2017) found that women are much more likely to give “do not know”

responses than men in surveys where such responses are recorded. Confidence and the

perception of investment decisions being masculine probably play an important role for gender

differences and are topics for further research.

The complexity of financial tasks varies with household wealth, and this could impact

which spouse handles the tasks and therefore is more knowledgeable. We found a strong

relationship between the husband being the respondent and having negative net worth, as well as

for the husband being the respondent in households with high net worth. In particular, the

likelihood of the husband being the respondent increased substantially as net worth became more

negative. This may be related to the characteristics of households with very negative net worth.

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

It is possible that a higher risk tolerance may have contributed to this negative net worth, which

might be found in small businesses and overly leveraged real estate investments.

In households with a positive net worth that is below the median level, financial tasks are

likely to be limited mainlyto bill paying and record-keeping. For these households, we found

that wives are as likely as husbands to be the spouse more knowledgeable about finances. In

very wealthy households, where about 90% of the assets are investment assets, the financial

decisions are more complex and involve greater risk. In these wealthy households, husbands

were overwhelmingly the more knowledgeable about household finances. This pattern could be

explained in part by the higher risk tolerance that has been found for men (e.g., Yao & Hanna,

2005). This higher risk tolerance may contribute to negative net worth, as discussed above, but

also is associated with higher net worth due to equity, business, and real estate investments.

We framed this research around two economic models for family decision making – the

unitary model and the bargaining model. Our results do not provide definitive support for the

bargaining model as some of the characteristics related to relative power, especially employment

status and age, are not significantly related to whether the husband is the financial respondent.

Our results might be interpreted as consistent with the unitary model, to the extent that males are

more comfortable with making the investment decisions that are common for wealthy

households. Our results are also consistent with the social norm model from sociology, as males

may have been more likely to be socialized to view investment decisions as gender-appropriate.

Several of our findings have implications for the financial services profession. While

husbands are much more likely to be considered the knowledgeable spouse for households in the

target market for many financial services companies, especially investment-oriented companies

targeting households with high financial assets, financial educators and advisors should attempt

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

to work with both partners in couple households. This is due in part to the fact that death or

divorce may leave the less informed partner in a bad situation. Our research shows that the wife

is much less likely to be the financially more knowledgeable spouse in households with high net

worth. While this does not mean the wife is not knowledgeable, specific attention should be

given to assure that both partners are aware of their financial situation and understand the

household’s finances. Financial advisors should likewise be aware that the wife is likely to be

the financially more knowledgeable spouse in households with lower net worth levels and direct

their attention so that both members become familiar with their financial situation and the advice

being given.

It seems plausible that the low percent of female financial respondents in wealthy

husband-wife households could affect the perceptions of the suitability of a female advisor.

Sommer et al (2018) concluded that there was no obvious same-gender bias in the selection of

financial planners, which would mean pattern of husbands being the respondent in high net

worth households would have no impact on gender biases for the selection of an advisor.

However, a Swedish study (Söderberg, 2013) suggests that the gender of the financial advisor

had a considerable effect on the client’s risk perception, willingness to follow advice, and

opinion of the advisors’ credibility. The possible difference in risk preference between female

advisors and the male clients who dominate the financial decision-making in wealthy husband-

wife households could impact perceptions of female advisors. Overcoming such perceptions will

be a substantial challenge for the goal of substantially increasing the number of female advisors.

Marketing campaigns with a focus on examples of successful female financial advisors and

female executives of financial companies might help alter perceptions.

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

 References

Angrisani, M., & Lee, J. (2019). Cognitive decline and household financial decisions at older

ages. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 13, 86-101.

Baghai, P., Howard, O., Prakash, L., & Zucker, J. (2020). Women as the next wave of growth in

US wealth management. McKinsey & Company report, downloaded August 1, 2020 from

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Financial%20Services/Our%2

0Insights/Women%20as%20the%20next%20wave%20of%20growth%20in%20US%20w

ealth%20management/Women-as-the-next-wave-of-growth-in-US-wealth-

management.pdf

Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

Enlarged Edition.

Bernasek, A. & Bajtelsmit, V. L. (2002). Predictors of women's involvement in household

financial decision-making. Financial Counseling and Planning, 13(2), 39-47.

Bertocchi, G., Brunetti, M., & Torricelli, C. (2014). Who holds the purse strings within the

household? The determinants of intra-family decision making. Journal of Economic

Behavior and Organization, 101, 65–86.

Chen, H. & Volpe, R. P. (2002). Gender differences in personal financial literacy among college

students. Financial Services Review, 11(3), 289-307.

Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social

embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1208-

1233.

17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and

similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H.M.Trautner (Eds.), The developmental

social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Elder, H.W. & Rudolph, P.M. (2003). Who makes the financial decisions in the households of

older Americans? Financial Services Review, 12(4), 293-308.

Estes, S. B., Noonan, M. C. & Maume, D. J. (2007). Is work-family policy use related to the

gendered division of housework? Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28(4), 527–

545.

Ferber, R. & Lee, L. C. (1974). Husband-wife influences in family purchasing behavior. Journal

of Consumer Research, 1(1), 43-50.

Fischer, E. & Arnold, S. J. (1994). Sex, gender role attitudes, and consumer behavior.

Psychology and Marketing, 11(2), 163-182.

Fonseca, R., Mullen, K. J., Zamarro, G. & Zissimopoulos, J. (2012). What explains the gender

gap in financial literacy? The role of household decision making. Journal of Consumer

Affairs, 46(1), 90-106.

Friedberg, L., & Webb, A. (2006). Determinants and consequences of bargaining power in

households. NBER Working Paper Series, 12367.

Fry, R. & Parker, K. (2012). Record shares of young adults have finished both high school and

college. Pew Research Center, Retrieved August 19, 2020, from

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-

content/uploads/sites/3/2012/11/educ_attain_report_FNL.pdf

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

Hanna, S. D., Kim, K. T., & Lindamood, S. (2018). Behind the numbers: Understanding the

Survey of Consumer Finances. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 29(2):

410-418.

Hasler, A., & Lusardi, A. (2017). The gender gap in financial literacy: A global perspective.

Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center, The George Washington University School

of Business.

Hilgert, M.A., Hogarth, J.M. & Beverly, S.G. (2003). Household financial management: The

connection between knowledge and behavior. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 89, 309-322.

Lindamood, S. & Hanna, S. D. (2005). Determinants of the wife being the financially

knowledgeable spouse. Proceedings of the Academy of Financial Services.

Lindamood, S., Hanna, S. D. & Bi, L. (2007). Using the Survey of Consumer Finances:

Methodological considerations and issues. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(2), 195-214.

Luhrmann, M., & Maurer, J. (2007). Who wears the trousers? A semiparametric analysis of

decision power in couples. Cemmap Working Paper, No.CWP25/0.

Marini, M.M., & Shelton, B.A. (1993). Measuring household work: Recent experience in the

United States. Social Science Research, 22(4), 361-382.

Noonan, M.C. (2001). The impact of domestic work on men’s and women’s wages. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 63(4), 1134-1145.

Oreffice, S. (2014). Culture and household decision making. balance of power and labor supply

choices of us-born and foreign-born couples. Journal of Labor Research, 35(2), 162-184.

Ouyang, C., Hanna, S. D., & Kim, K. T. (2019). Are Asian American households more likely

than other households to expect to help children with college costs? Journal of Family

and Economic Issues, 40(3), 540–552.

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

Parker, K., & Stepler, R. (2017). As US marriage rate hovers at 50%, education gap in marital

status widens. PEW Research Center. Retrieved October 10, 2020 from

http://pewrsr.ch/2eYAuZM.

Qualls, W. J. (1987). Household decision behavior: The impact of husbands and wives sex role

orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 264-279.

Ratchford, B. T. (2001). The economics of consumer knowledge. Journal of Consumer

Research, 27(4), 397-411.

Schaninger, C. M. & Buss, W. C. (1985). The relationship of sex-role norms to household task

allocation. Psychology and Marketing, 2(2), 93-104.

Smith, J.P, McArdle, J. J. & Willis, R. (2010). Financial decision making and cognition in a

family context. The Economic Journal, 120(548), F363-F380.

Söderberg, I. L. (2013). Relationships between advisor characteristics and consumer perceptions.

International Journal of Bank Marketing, 31(3), 147-166.

Sommer, M., Lim, H. N., & MacDonald, M. (2018). Gender bias and practice profiles in the

selection of a financial adviser. Journal of Financial Planning, 31(10), 38-47.

U.S. Census Bureau (2019). Table A1. Marital status of people 15 years and over, by age, sex,

personal earnings, race, and Hispanic origin, 2018. Current Population Survey 2018

Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Retrieved Oct. 1, 2019 from

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/families/2018/cps-2018/taba1-

all.xls

Yao, R., & Hanna, S. D. (2005). The effect of gender and marital status on financial risk

tolerance. Journal of Personal Finance, 4(1), 66-85.

20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

Yilmazer, T., & Lyons, A. C. (2010). Marriage and the allocation of assets in women’s defined

contribution plans. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(2), 121-137.

21

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

Table 1. Household Types and Net Worth Distributions in the United States, 2016 SCF

Panel A. Distribution of Six Household Types

Actual number in
Type Number in U.S.* Weighted %*
SCF sample**
Mixed-sex married couples 59,144,708 3,345 47.0
Same-sex married couples 521,998 29 0.4
Mixed-sex unmarried couples 10,887,987 485 8.6
Same-sex unmarried couples 684,722 34 0.5
Single male 21,033,725 943 16.7
Single female 33,708,560 1,412 26.8
All households 125,981,700 6,248 100.0

Panel B. Net Worth of Six Household Types and Percent of Total Household Net Worth
Proportion of total
Type Median* Mean* U.S. household
net worth*
Mixed-sex married couples $211,160 $1,116,017 76.0%
Same-sex married couples $217,690 $629,315 0.4%
Mixed-sex unmarried couples $26,600 $305,241 3.8%
Same-sex unmarried couples $38,600 $499,997 0.4%
Single male $45,000 $426,271 10.3%
Single female $36,900 $234,571 9.1
Total sample $97,300 $689,576 100.0%
* Authors estimates using 2016 SCF population weights.
** Authors estimates with unweighted numbers averaged across implicates.

22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

Table 2. Percent of Mixed-sex Married Couples with Husband More Financially Knowledgeable,
by Net Worth Categories, 2016 SCF
% with husband
Net worth category
respondent*
All households 56.09
Bottom quartile:
45.18
(< $0)
($0 to $53,359) 49.58
nd
2 quartile ($53,360 to $211,159) 50.54
3rd quartile ($211,160 to $680,399) 56.94
75th to 95th percentile ($680,400 to $3,750,499) 64.88
95th to 99th percentile ($3,750,500 to $15,122,999) 81.15
Top 1% (>$15,123,000) 89.82
* Authors estimates using SCF population weights.

23

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

Table 3. Logistic Regression Analysis of the Husband Being Financially More Knowledgeable,
2016 SCF, Mixed Sex Married Couples
Standard
Variable Coefficient p-value Odds ratio
error
Log of household income 0.0035 0.0226 0.8806 1.0035
Log of positive net worth, log(.01) for net
0.2399 0.0254 <.0001 1.2711
worth ≤ 0.
Log of negative net worth, log (.01) for
0.2272 0.0302 <.0001 1.2551
net worth ≥ 0.
Racial ethnic status of respondent (reference = White)
Black -0.3850 0.1568 0.0141 1.4696
Hispanic -0.3460 0.1490 0.0202 1.4135
Asian/other -0.2457 0.1794 0.1709 1.2785
Age difference of husband and wife (reference = husband more than 5 years older)
Wife is more than 5 years older -0.3239 0.2435 0.1835 0.7233
Age difference of wife and husband are
-0.0323 0.1028 0.7536 1.0328
within 5 years
Age of husband -0.0057 0.0046 0.2151 0.9944
Higher years of education of husband and wife (reference = same level)
Wife has more -0.3979 0.0970 <.0001 0.6717
Husband has more -0.3989 0.1032 0.0001 1.4901
Years of education of husband -0.0724 0.0172 <.0001 1.0751
Employment status of husband and wife (reference = neither employed)
Wife employed, husband not -0.1118 0.1797 0.5338 0.8942
Husband employed, wife not -0.1763 0.1511 0.2434 1.1927
Both employed -0.0693 0.1457 0.6342 0.9330
Have a dependent child under 18
-0.2507 0.1055 0.0175 0.7783
(reference: no)
Homeownership (reference: no) -0.2893 0.1252 0.0209 0.7488
Spouse or partner present during interview -0.2591 0.0860 0.0026 1.2958
Health status of husband and wife (reference = neither poor)
Husband poor, wife not -0.4572 0.2208 0.0384 0.6331
Wife poor, husband not -0.0665 0.2616 0.7992 0.9356
Both poor -0.1601 0.5044 0.7510 1.1736
Intercept -2.0981 0.4502 <.0001
Concordance (averaged for 5 implicates) 72.9
Notes. Unweighted RII analysis of 2016 SCF dataset.

24

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

Figure 1. Percent of Mixed-sex Married Couples with the Husband More Knowledgeable by
Survey Year, 1992-2016 SCF

58%

57%
% husband more knowledgeable

56%

55%

54%

53%

52%

51%

50%

49%
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016
Survey Year

Notes. Weighted analyses of the 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016 SCF
datasets.

25

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

Figure 2. Percent of Mixed-sex Married Couples with the Husband More Knowledgeable by Net
Worth Category, 2016 SCF

90
85
% with husband more knoeledgeable

80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
<0 rest of 25%tile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile75th to 95th 95th to 99th top 1%
%tile
Net worth in 2016

Notes. Weighted analyses of 2016 SCF.

26

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622

Figure 3. Distribution of Assets by Three Categories by Net Worth Category, Mixed-sex Married
Couples, 2016 SCF

80%

70%

60%
Percent of Assets

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
<0 rest of 25%tile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile75th to 95th 95th to 99th top 1%
%tile
Net Worth Category

houses, cars business, investment real estate financial

Notes. Weighted analyses of 2016 SCF.

27

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3781622