THRIFTY SPENDING AS A (PARADOXICALLY) COSTLY SIGNAL: PERCEPTIONS OF OTHERS' TRAITS AND MATING PATTERNS AS A FUNCTION OF THEIR SPENDING STYLE

Lynzee J. Murray

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

August 2018

Committee:

Anne K. Gordon, Advisor

Vern P. Bingman

William H. O'Brien

THRIFTY SPENDING ii

ABSTRACT

Anne K. Gordon, Advisor

According to the bargain hunting hypothesis, thriftiness requires a host of personality characteristics and psychological traits, namely contentiousness, intelligence, and self-control.

Another part of the bargain hunting hypothesis attempts to explain why people, especially women, are often excited by the great deals they get and are motivated to tell others about them.

According to this hypothesis, signaling thriftiness may signal to others a host of desirable traits, including the aforementioned traits as well as a good moral character, a long-term mating orientation, and a disinclination toward infidelity. In the current study, participants were asked to think of someone they know whose is thrifty or who engages in conspicuous consumption and to evaluate this person on a variety of personality and mating-related dimensions. We predicted that in comparison to conspicuous-consumption targets, thrifty targets would be perceived as more intelligent (including creativity and problem solving), conscientious, higher in self-control, more likeable, emotionally closer with participants, more agreeable, higher in moral character/virtue, lower in their degree of perceived vanity and in their valuation of wealth in others, and cheaper.

We also predicted that thrifty targets would be perceived/rated as lower in short-term mating effort and infidelity probability, and higher in parenting effort and desirability as a long-term mate. The finding of our study supported the predictions that thrifty targets would be perceived as more intelligent, higher in self-control, more likeable, emotionally closer to participants, lower in perceived vanity, lower in valuation of wealth in other, cheaper, and lower in short-term mating effort. Our findings also provided partial support for our predictions that thrifty targets would be perceived as more agreeable, higher in moral character, lower in infidelity probability, and higher in parenting effort and desirability as a long-term mate. THRIFTY SPENDING iii

To my father, Zane: For giving me your love of science and encouraging my interests.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Anne K. Gordon, for her support and dedication to this project.

I would also like to thank Vern P. Bingman and William O’Brien for their advice and guidance. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Sexual Selection and Costly Signals ...... 1

Economic Decision Making as Sexual Signaling ...... 3

The Links Between Mating and Money...... 4

Female Spending as a Signal ...... 7

The Bargain-Hunting Hypothesis ...... 9

Overview of Current Research...... 14

CHAPTER II. METHOD...... 16

Participants and Design...... 16

Target Characteristics as a Function of Shopping Style ...... 19

Target Ethnicity ...... 20

Target Age ...... 20

Target Sexual Orientation ...... 20

Target Relationship Status ...... 20

Number of Children ...... 20

Duration of Relationship with Target ...... 21

Similarity to Target ...... 21

Relationship to Target ...... 21

Concern for Quality of Items ...... 22

Target Employment and Income ...... 22

Covariates/Control Variables; Order of Dependent Measures, and Effect Size ...... 23 vi

CHAPTER III. PRIMARY MEASURES AND RESULTS ...... 25

Manipulation Checks ...... 25

Predictions and Results ...... 26

Prediction 1 ...... 26

Prediction 2 ...... 27

Prediction 3 ...... 31

Prediction 4 ...... 31

Prediction 5 ...... 37

Prediction 6 ...... 39

Exploratory Analyses ...... 40

Summary of Results ...... 41

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION...... 43

Contributions/Strengths ...... 46

Replicated Results ...... 48

Limitations and Direction for Future Research ...... 48

Concluding Remarks ...... 50

REFERENCES ...... 52

APPENDIX A. INFORMED CONSENT...... 57

APPENDIX B. CONDITION I INSTRUCTIONS ...... 59

APPENDIX C. CONDITION II INSTRUCTIONS ...... 61

APPENDIX D. MEASURES...... 63

APPENDIX E. CONTROL/EXPLORATORY ITEMS ...... 70 vii

APPENDIX F. MANIPULATION CHECK ITEMS ...... 72

APPENDIX G. ATTENTION CHECK ITEMS ...... 76

APPENDIX H. TARGET DEMOGRAPHICS...... 77

APPENDIX I. PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 81

APPENDIX J. DEBRIEFING ...... 84

APPENDIX K. MTURK ADVERTISEMENT ...... 85

APPENDIX L. TABLES ...... 86

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Most to Least Commonly-Endorsed Shopping Behaviors Engaged in by Thrifty Targets,

as Perceived by Participants...... 86

2 Most to Least Commonly-Endorsed Shopping Behaviors Engaged in by Conspicuous

Consumption Targets, as Perceived by Participants ...... 87

3 Two Versions of Dependent Variable Presentation ...... 88

4 Main Effects of Shopping Style on Manipulation Check Items ...... 89

5 Effect Sizes that Accompany Main effects of Shopping Style on all Major Dependent

Measure, by Prediction, as a Function of Method of Calculation ...... 90

6 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Predictors of Likeability ...... 91

Running head: THRIFTY SPENDING 1

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

According to a recent survey, 83% of women consider themselves bargain shoppers, with

80% reporting that they would bargain shop even if money were not an object. Fifty nine percent of women also report that they wait for a sale to purchase items that they want. Interestingly,

47% of women report that they share the news of their deals with family and friends, and 35% report that they share the news with anyone that will listen (Consumer Reports, 2014). Although these estimates may exaggerate female thriftiness, it is still reasonable to assume that a large proportion of women, and a larger proportion of women than men, pursue and enjoy bargain hunting. (For example, it appears that the Consumer Reports survey included only women.) It is, therefore, surprising that research on why women are interested in bargain shopping and discussing the bargains that they find is virtually non-existent. As will be discussed, Gordon and her colleagues are attempting to begin to fill this gap in the literature with their bargain-hunting hypothesis.

Sexual Selection and Costly Signals

Contemplations on human mate selection began in 1871 with Charles Darwin’s The

Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Darwin wasn’t satisfied with natural selection as the only mechanism for evolutionary modification. A particular point of contention for

Darwin were features such as the peacock’s tail that didn’t seem to confer a direct survival advantage, but were instead seemingly deleterious to survival. A peacock’s tail is cumbersome and makes the carrier more obvious to predators. Darwin therefore suggested that some traits, which were seemingly functionless or even deleterious, could be selected by a process he called sexual selection, by which traits can be selected because they allow the carrier to obtain more matings and thereby increase their (usually his) reproductive success. Miller (2000), quoting THRIFTY SPENDING 2

Darwin, eloquently notes that sexual selection depends "not on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring." (p. 37).

According to Darwin, sexual selection occurs via two complementary processes.

Intrasexual competition is the process by which members of one sex compete against one another for access to mates; characteristics that enable an organism to compete more successfully against conspecifics could come under positive selection. Intersexual selection occurs when members of one sex choose certain members of the opposite sex as mates based on certain traits and characteristics. At the time, Darwin stated that certain traits are preferred by individuals when selecting a mate, but did not offer an explanation as to how these traits came to be preferred.

Costly signaling, and the closely related handicap principle, would later aid in the explanation of the evolution of these preferences.

According to costly signaling theory (a controversial theory, when it was proposed), an organism with a burdensome ornament, trait, or characteristic is communicating its quality and resilience. Because these traits are costly or burdensome in some manner they cannot be managed by all members of a species. Those that are weak or ill would be unable to produce a metabolically expensive or burdensome trait. The difficulty of producing these traits and the difficulty of faking them means these traits function as a reliable signal to members of the opposite sex of that organism’s mate value; only those that can withstand the cost of a trait can produce and maintain it (Zahavi, 1975; Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997). Thus, although some scientists argue that the distinction between natural and sexual selection is trivial or purely semantic (e.g.,

V. P. , Bingman, personal communication, Nov. 2016), it is important to note that, whereas

THRIFTY SPENDING 3 natural selection results in species-typical features and characteristics, sexual selection results in large individual differences within species across many features and characteristics (Miller,

2000).

Through the lens of costly signaling theory, the peacock’s tail is viewed as a handicap.

The peacocks with the largest, most symmetrical, and colorful plumage are signaling to potential mates that they are healthy and strong enough to produce and maintain such a costly trait and still survive to maturation (Moller & Petrie, 2002). Male-typical morphological features have also been suggested as possible handicaps that signal information about mate quality to potential partners. Characteristics such as a prominent jaw and low vocal pitch are influenced by androgens, which act as an immunosuppressant. Males that are able to produce these traits are signaling their health and underlying genetic quality (Little et. al., 2002; Puts, 2005; Miller,

2000). In women, smooth skin, long lustrous hair, and a bouncy gait could also be considered signals of above-average health and fertility, as those that are sick or elderly cannot produce them (Symons, 1979; 1995).

Economic Decision Making as Sexual Signaling

While costly signaling theory has garnered support in the field of behavioral ecology

(after much debate), it has not been until more recently that this theory has been applied to understanding of the development of human characteristics and behaviors. In his influential book, The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Mating, Geoffrey

Miller argues that the human mind (and behaviors that it produces) is the result of not only natural selection, but also sexual selection. He contended that many of the characteristics that we consider uniquely human, such as language, art, or music can be viewed as costly signals that

THRIFTY SPENDING 4 indicate the fitness of an individual. Essentially, according to Miller's hypothesis, the human capacity for these traits evolved to attract mates.

In a more recent book, Spent: Sex, Evolution, & Consumer Behavior, Miller (2009) extends his argument to suggest that people communicate some of the information that they want to signal to others through what they wear, how they decorate, what words and images appear on their mugs, bumper stickers, t-shirts, refrigerator magnets, etc. Particular products may function as a signal of the underlying personality characteristics of the buyer. In his book, Miller focuses on what he calls the central six, the Big 5 personality characteristics (openness, contentiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and stability) and intelligence. From this perspective, purchases communicate valuable information about the signaler, and signal information about the type of mate or friend that the buyer is attempting to attract. An example of this might operate through the type of car that a person decides to purchase. Purchasing a Prius sends a different message than the purchase of a Hummer, and each car will attract the attention of groups of people with different attitudes, values, and interests. However, even in this otherwise thorough and detailed book on the evolutionary psychology of spending, Miller does not cover the topics of bargain- hunting or thriftiness.

The Links Between Mating and Money

A large body of evidence suggests that women prefer long-term and short-term mates with resources, good earning potential, and/or traits reliably linked with resources, such as intelligence, ambition, and a strong work ethic (e.g., Buss, 1989; Kenrick, Sadalla, Goth, &

Trost, 1990; Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larson, 2001; Gustavsson & Johnsson, 2008).

The preference that women have for a mate with resources and related traits is thought to

THRIFTY SPENDING 5 originate from the disproportionate and substantial investment that women must make in regards to reproduction; women invest a metabolically expensive egg, nine months of gestation, several months of lactation, and years of child-care as a consequence of reproduction. Men are capable of fathering a child, minimally, with the time and energy that it takes to impregnate a woman.

The sex that has a higher obligate investment in reproduction and parental care is expected to be choosier when selecting a mate (Trivers, 1972). When women are selecting a mate, resources are important because they can be channeled to the offspring that they might already have, or offspring they may produce in the future. The preference that women have for mates with resources makes the signaling of resources (via conspicuous consumption) a viable strategy for men to attract a mate.

In his work The Theory of the Leisure Class, economist Thorstein Veblen coined the term

“conspicuous consumption” to describe the behavior of people who spend more money than necessary on products as a means of displaying their social status, wealth, or power. He believed that the display of luxury products could function as form of social competition. Therefore, conspicuous consumption may serve as a costly signal of the resources that an individual has and how they might invest those resources in short or long-term mates (Griskevicius et. al., 2007;

Iredale, Van Vugt, & Dunbar, 2008; Sundie et. al., 2011). Over the past decade or so, evolutionary psychologists have tested a number of hypotheses regarding the potential function(s) of conspicuous consumption. Many of these studies have compared the economic decisions and resource allocations among men and women in a mating versus a neutral mindset.

A study by Griskevicius and colleagues (2007) found that when placed in a mating mindset, by viewing photographs of members of the opposite-sex, male participants spent more money than males in a control condition. In a second study these researchers predicted and found

THRIFTY SPENDING 6 that males in a mate-prime (induced using a romantic scenario about a date with an attractive member of the opposite sex) versus a neutral-prime condition were more likely to spend money on conspicuous goods. The same romantic prime also led to a decrease among men in spending on inconspicuous purchases. The romantic primes did not influence female spending in either study. These findings highlight that conspicuous consumption may function as a signal among men that they have abundant resources and would be able to spend them within a mating context.

Notably, mating motivations appear to not only increase a man’s desire to spend, rather they increase the desire to conspicuously consume.

After demonstrating that placing men into a “mating mindset” can elicit conspicuous purchasing behaviors, Sundie and colleagues (2011) found that men who follow a short-term mating strategy were more likely to engage in conspicuous consumption when they were primed with mating stimuli compared to exposure to neutral stimuli. Men who were following a higher investment mating strategy did not conspicuously consume more when primed with mating stimuli compared to neutral stimuli. Interestingly, women in this study were found to perceive men that own conspicuous goods, in this case a Porsche (versus a Honda Civic), as a more desirable short-term mate but not as a more desirable long-term mate. This makes sense, given that women also perceiving the male targets with the Porsche versus the Civic to be more interested in short-term mating. This seems to suggest that conspicuous consumption not only signals that a male has resources, but also signals his mating strategy to potential partners.

Curiously, the men’s perceptions of female conspicuous consumers were in-line with the above findings, although the results were marginally significant. It would be interesting to explore, in a more nuanced way, how men perceive various female spending behaviors.

THRIFTY SPENDING 7

Results of another study that examined how spending decisions may be influenced by mating motivations, suggested that men were more likely to contribute money to charity if they were being observed by a member of the opposite sex than by a same-sex observer or no observer; female contributions did not vary over the three observer conditions (Iredale, Van

Vugt, & Dunbar, 2008). The researchers suggested that generosity might have evolved in men as a mating signal. Generosity could signal underlying genetic qualities (Miller, 2000), or a willingness to share resources (Kelly & Dunbar, 2001); both types of information that could be signaled by male generosity would be important to women when selecting a mate (see also

Nowak, 2006).

Along similar lines, another study found that following a prime made to elicit status motives, participants were willing to spend more money on “green” products such as a Prius over equally priced non-green products that had more capabilities and luxuries than their “green” counterparts did. The authors explained that this might be a way to signal one’s altruistic tendencies and willingness to incur costs to help others (Griskevicius, Tyber, & Van den Bergh,

2010). This again demonstrates that people do not seem to purchase products based solely on their respective utility or to increase self-esteem, as is traditionally assumed. They may also function as a signal of information that is crucial when attempting to form social bonds.

Female Spending as a Signal

To this point most of the research on spending as a form of signaling has focused on conspicuous consumption among males. This focus stems from the tenet of sexual selection that

"males court, females choose." (Miller, 2000, p. 39), which forms the basis for expecting intense competition among males. Females, however, do compete with other females, often to attract the

THRIFTY SPENDING 8 most desirable, and also most choosy, long-term mates (see Campbell, 2016). But just as the literature has traditionally focused on male versus female intra-sexual competition and aggression, little research has explored how men perceive female conspicuous consumers, and even less attention has been devoted to other spending behaviors (Griskevicius et al., 2007;

Sundie et al., 2011). Recently some researchers have begun to explore how women display luxury goods to communicate information to potential mates and sexual rivals.

In one study by Wang and Griskevicius (2013), researchers hypothesized that women may display luxury items to deter female rivals, as women with partners who purchase expensive items may be considered more devoted to the relationship. Along these lines, they predicted and found that female participants perceived a woman described in a scenario as wearing designer clothing as having a more devoted partner than a woman who wore non-designer clothing. In another study, female participants were placed in a mate-guarding condition by having the participants read a scenario in which other another female talked, flirted, and kissed their partner at a party. The participants then were asked to write about how they envisioned this scenario and how they would feel. The major dependent variable was how much money participants would spend, relative to peers, on conspicuous (e.g., car) versus non-conspicuous (e.g., washing machine) purchases. The results indicated that women placed in the mate-guarding condition reporting a willingness to spend more money on conspicuous items than women placed in a neutral scenario condition (Wang & Griskevicius, 2013). In another study, these researchers also found that when a woman displayed luxury items, purchased by a partner, female participants reported to be less likely to make an attempt at mate-poaching (Wang & Griskevicius, 2013).

Further research has also demonstrated that other women perceive women who purchase luxury goods as more ambitious, flirty, sexy, and less loyal and smart (Hudders et al., 2014).

THRIFTY SPENDING 9

Currently, research into female luxury consumption suggests that while male conspicuous consumption may be largely directed at attracting opposite-sex targets with less emphasis on intersexual signaling, women may conspicuously consume as a signal to potential same-sex rivals. The consumption of luxury items may also function as a signal of a woman’s sexual strategy, particularly a short-term mating strategy, to other women. What is less clear is if women use only use conspicuous consumption to deter potential mate poachers, or if women use other spending strategies to the same effect. It could be possible that women purchase products or discuss spending in ways that encourage the formations of friendships, or makes them seem more likable. It is also unclear if women use spending behaviors to communicate information to potential opposite-sex mates.

The Bargain-Hunting Hypothesis

While research into the evolutionary underpinnings of spending behaviors is becoming more extensive, the literature has still largely focused on conspicuous consumption or the display or luxury/designer goods. Thriftiness and bargain hunting, forms of spending that may be particularly important aspects of female spending behavior, have been almost entirely overlooked.

According to Gordon et al.'s bargain-hunting hypothesis, being thrifty and searching for bargains is (paradoxically) costly. Thriftiness can involve using coupons, online coupon codes, store apps for discounts, waiting for desired items to go on sale, purchasing items strategically, such as at the end of a season, searching clearance racks, or going to thrift or consignment stores.

These methods for saving money are all costly in some way. They require additional time, energy, resourcefulness, attention to detail, commitment and perseverance, and/or planning.

THRIFTY SPENDING 10

They also carry the potential for social stigma, in that there can be a fine line between being thrifty and perceived as cheap or lacking in resources (Ashworth, Darke, & Schaller, 2005)

Based on these observations and the theoretical foundation offered by costly signaling theory, Gordon et al. posited that being thrifty likely requires a suite of personality characteristics and psychological traits, namely contentiousness, intelligence, and self-control. Second, to the extent that thriftiness is associated with traits that are also associated with successful long-term mating (conscientiousness, self-control, agreeableness), these authors also expected thriftiness to be associated with a predication toward a long-term mating and anticipatory guilt toward infidelity (used as a proxy for a lowered likelihood of engaging in actual infidelity).

From the perspective of the bargain hunting hypothesis, it is the signaling of thriftiness that is of primary importance. As noted, survey research and ample anecdotal experience suggests that many women like to talk about the good deals they get on their purchases. Gordon et al. have posited that, among women, talking with others about one’s ability to obtain bargains is thought to function as a signal of the aforementioned traits, which are desirable in a long-term mate and in a friend. Conversely, men are expected to signal these traits using other strategies, because displaying thriftiness could make them appear to be lacking in resources, which would lower their perceived mate value.

Why would women enjoy talking with others about their successful bargain hunting experiences? The traits that are thought to be associated with a thrifty shopping style also correspond to characteristics that are preferred in a long-term mate and a friend. One study has indicated that those who are high in conscientiousness are less likely to commit infidelity than those who are lower on this trait (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). In addition, a spouse’s

THRIFTY SPENDING 11 conscientiousness is positively related to their partner’s relationship satisfaction (Shackelford &

Buss, 2000). In a massive cross-cultural study of mate preferences (Buss et al., 1990), both men and women rated intelligence as the second most highly rated trait in a potential long-term mate.

The trait that participants rated most highly as desirable in a potential long-term mate was “kind and understanding.” Botwin et al. (1997) also found that those higher in agreeableness have higher martial satisfaction. Meta-analytic results have linked trait self-control with a broad array of positive outcomes and a lowered likelihood of engaging in harmful or negative behaviors.

Studies have also found that individuals are capable of perceiving the trait self-control of others, and are more trusting of those that are high in trait self-control (Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011).

In the original formulation of the bargain hunting hypothesis, thriftiness was not expected to relate to agreeableness. However, two studies have now shown reliable links between self- reported thriftiness and self-reported agreeableness. Thus, the hypothesis has been expanded to include an examination and theoretical foundation for these links. One idea is that when women tell others about their successful bargain hunting experiences they are also often sharing information about the strategies they use to obtain good deals and details about the stores in which they have found great deals. Sharing one's trade secrets is a nice thing to do, compared with keeping the information to oneself. In a classic study that involved participants' rating 555 personality-trait words on their degree of likableness/desirability the word "thrifty" received a mean rating of 3.72 (out of 6), whereas terms associated with conspicuous consumption, such as materialistic (mean rating = 2.60) or spendthrift (mean rating = 2.21) were perceived much more negatively.

To date, there have been two studies that have tested predictions derived from this hypothesis. In their first study Gordon and Nebl demonstrated that, as predicted by the bargain

THRIFTY SPENDING 12 hunting hypothesis, self-reported thriftiness was positively correlated with self-reported self- control, self-reported conscientiousness, and self-reported intellect. They also predicted and found that self-reported thriftiness was positively correlated with a self-reported long-term mating orientation and negatively correlated with a self-reported short-term mating orientation and reported number of foreseeable sex partners. As noted, although it was not predicted, self- reported thriftiness was also positively correlated with self-reported agreeableness. Results also indicated that females scored higher than males on self-reported thriftiness and the tendency to talk about their thriftiness. Males reported being more concerned than females with appearing cheap and more likely than women to engage in conspicuous consumption.

Thus, although thriftiness is associated with the desirable traits of conscientiousness, self- control, intellect, and agreeableness across men and women, men appear to be less interested in being thrifty and less interested in talking about being thriftiness. These findings were interpreted in terms of sexual strategies theory. As noted, men are valued as both short- and long-term mates in part based on their perceived degree of resources, and ability to share resources. Thriftiness may therefore be too costly for men to engage in and signal to other men or to women who could become or know potential long- or short-term mates. It may be better from a mating perspective for men to signal their standing on the traits of intellect, self-control, and conscientiousness via other channels, such as through success in education, career, sports, good parenting, good hygiene, etc.

In their follow up to this research, Gordon et al., borrowing the mating prime procedures from Griskevicious et el., (2007) put participants into a mating mindset to test their prediction that women in a mating mindset would be more likely to report being thrifty and more likely to signal thriftiness compared to women in a control group, with a more neutral mindset. They also

THRIFTY SPENDING 13 predicted that men put into a mating mindset would report less thriftiness and a lessened inclination to talk about thriftiness compared to males put into control group /neutral mindset.

The key result from this study was that females put into a mating mindset were more likely to report engaging in competitive signaling of thriftiness, as compared to the control group.

However, male responses did not vary as a function of priming condition. Also, correlations between self-reported thriftiness and self-reported conscientiousness, self-control, intelligence, agreeableness and a predication toward a long-term mating orientation were replicated.

The program of research designed to test predictions derived from the bargain-hunting hypothesis has established that thriftiness is linked within individuals with several positively valued but costly traits. Now the research is focusing on testing predictions associated with the proposed signaling function of displays of thriftiness. McCoy and Gordon are using a scenario- based approach in which participants will read about and evaluate a (male or female) target described as thrifty or as someone who engages in conspicuous consumption. Predictions focus on the thrifty target being perceived as more intelligent, higher in conscientiousness, higher in self-control, and more oriented toward long-term mating, compared to the target described as engaging in conspicuous consumption.

The use of scenarios has the advantage of conferring a high degree of experimental control, which is essential for theory testing. However, a study that relies upon perceptions of

"paper people," as described in scenarios, can be criticized for lacking ecological validity. Thus, the current research will serve as a crucial "real-world" test of a key prediction of the bargain hunting hypothesis, namely that people will describe a person they actually know who is thrifty as higher on a host of positively valued traits, compared with how other participants (determined

THRIFTY SPENDING 14 via random assignment) will describe a person they actually know who engages in conspicuous consumption.

The bargain-hunting hypothesis is a new hypothesis in which researchers suggest that women may signal thriftiness to signal to potential mates and friends (or existing mates and friends) additional traits indirectly, such as contentiousness, intelligence, and self-control. This does not require women to be aware of or intentional in their use of bragging about bargains as a means of communicating one's underlying valuable traits. Neither does this mean that signaling thriftiness is the only or primary means for women to signal these traits.

Overview of Current Research

As noted, in a separate-but-related study, another member of our lab (Mark McCoy) is randomly assigning participants to evaluate a male or female target who is described in a vignette as either thrifty or engaging in conspicuous consumption (or, in control group conditions, as not particularly thrifty or flashy in their spending). The purpose of the current study is to replicate and extend the (predicted, potential) findings from this highly controlled, scenario-based methodology using a method that is more ecologically valid, so we can examine naturally-occurring perceptions of people who are known to be thrifty or as engaging in conspicuous consumption. In this study, we will test the following predictions by asking participants to think of someone they know who characteristically engages in one of these shopping styles.

Prediction 1. Participants asked to think of a thrifty person will be more likely to think of a woman versus a man. (We made no prediction regarding the gender that would come to mind when thinking of someone whose shopping is characterized by conspicuous consumption.)

THRIFTY SPENDING 15

Prediction 2. Thrifty targets are expected to be perceived/rated as significantly more (a) intelligent (including creativity and problem solving), (b) conscientious, and higher in (c) self- control than targets who engage in conspicuous consumption.

Prediction 3. Thrifty targets are expected to be perceived/rated as significantly more likeable and emotionally closer with participants than targets who engage in conspicuous consumption.

Prediction 4. Thrifty targets are expected to be perceived/rated as significantly (a) more agreeable, (b) higher in moral character/virtue, (c) lower in their degree of perceived vanity and

(d) lower in their valuation of wealth in others, and (e) more cheap, compared to targets who engage in conspicuous consumption.

If Predictions 3 and 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d are each supported, we will examine whether the relationship between thriftiness and likeableness/emotional closeness is mediated by perceptions of agreeableness, moral character/virtue, vanity, and valuation of wealth in others

Prediction 5. Thrifty targets are expected to be perceived/rated as lower in (a) short-term mating effort, and (b) infidelity probability, compared to targets who engage in conspicuous consumption.

Prediction 6. Thrifty targets are expected to be perceived/rated higher in (a) parenting effort and

(b) desirability as a long-term mate, compared to targets who engage in conspicuous consumption.

THRIFTY SPENDING 16

CHAPTER II. METHOD

Participants and Design

Two hundred and ninety participants were initially recruited for this study using the site

Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The study was titled, "Shopping and Personality” and was described as a study in which participants would be asked to "think of someone you know who shops in a certain way and . . . [report on] various aspects of this person's personality and lifestyle (see Appendix K). To be eligible to participate, individuals had to have successfully completed at least 90% of their 50 or more MTurk activities, be between the ages of 18 and 50, currently living in the United States, and speak English as their first language. Participants were paid $1 for their time and assistance.

Three attention check items (e.g., If you are able to read this, please select "disagree" from the options below” were included within the survey to ensure that the participants were paying attention and not robots. Data from fifteen participants were removed for various reasons

(Eleven participants missed one or more of the attention-check items; two participants identified the gender of their target person as something other than male or female; two participants did not provide their target person’s gender) from the sample, which led to a working sample of n = 275

(52% male; average age = 33 (19-50, SD = 9.22); 88% heterosexual; 62% not in a committed romantic relationship; 75% White/Caucasian. Highest level of education was bimodal: 37% bachelor's degree, 32% some college, no degree. 64% were employed full time.

Participants were told that the study was concerned with examining connections between people’s spending habits and other aspects of personality and lifestyle. Participants provided their informed consent after being asked to review information about the general purpose of the

THRIFTY SPENDING 17 study, what they would be asked to do during the study, how long the study would take, how much they would be paid, that their responses would be anonymous, that there were no foreseeable risks associated with participating, etc. (See Appendix A).

The design of this study was a simple two-group experiment, with shopping style of the target (thrifty or conspicuous consumption) as the independent variable. Participants were asked, based on random assignment, to think of someone they know whose is thrifty (n = 137, 50% female) or who engages in conspicuous consumption (n = 138, 45% female). To minimize demand characteristics and other sources of bias associated with the labels “thrifty” or

“conspicuous consumption” participants were not asked to think of someone based on these labels. Instead, participants were asked to think of someone who engaged in some or all of a series of behaviors that were provided in a list that constituted our operational definitions of thriftiness and conspicuous consumption. Our operationalization of thriftiness included 16 behaviors (e.g., shopping at stores that offer good prices, using coupons, waiting for sales). Our operationalization of conspicuous consumption behaviors included 17 behaviors (e.g., regularly buying expensive items and paying full price, buying things whenever they want to, buying designer/brand name items, driving a luxury vehicle.) A pilot study involving an act nomination approach (Buss & Craik, 1983) was done to help identify a broad range of behaviors people engage in that are associated with thriftiness or conspicuous consumption.

After completing all major dependent variables, participants were presented with the same list of thriftiness- or conspicuous consumption-related behaviors that they saw at the beginning of the study and were asked to indicate which of the behaviors their target engages in.

Following this list, there was also space for the participant to enter any behaviors that their target engages in that we had not listed. A purpose of this task was to allow us to see which behaviors

THRIFTY SPENDING 18 are most common and potentially provide insight into other spending behaviors that we overlooked.

Based on the popularity of some write-in behaviors listed by participants, new categories were created for both the thrifty and the conspicuous consumption conditions. In the thrifty condition “cooks meals at home” and “walks or takes public transport” were included as categories in our analyses, and “brags about possessions”, “throws expensive parties”, and

“makes it known when they give to charity” were included as categories of spending behavior in the conspicuous consumer condition (see Tables 1 and 2 for complete lists of spending behaviors). In Table 1 and Table 2 the behavioral frequencies of these items are reported. As seen in Table 1, the most frequently endorsed thrifty behaviors were: uses coupons, shops at stores known for good prices, searches sales racks/clearance sections, and compare prices at different stores. As seen in Table 2, the most frequently endorse conspicuous consumption items were: regularly buys expensive items/pay full price, and buys, things whenever they want, doesn't compare prices to get best deals, and buys new clothes regularly/often.

To behaviorally validate our manipulation of shopping style, we correlated the number of spending behaviors that each participant reported that their target engaged in, with a continuous measure of thrifty spending behavior. To create this individual-difference composite measure of perceived spending style, we averaged scores on two items; a thriftiness and a conspicuous consumption (reversed) item ( = .88, r = -.79), wherein higher scores correspond to higher degrees of thriftiness. Scores on the composite measure of thriftiness were significantly positively correlated with the number of spending behaviors that thrifty targets engaged in and (r

= .37, p = .000) and negatively correlated with the number of spending behaviors that conspicuous consumption targets engaged in (r = -.70, p = .000).

THRIFTY SPENDING 19

On average, participants in the thrifty condition reported that their target engaged in roughly 9 behaviors from the list of 18 behaviors (M = 9.22, SD = 3.56), and, on average, participants in the conspicuous consumer condition reported that their target engaged in roughly

10 behaviors from a list of 20 behaviors (M = 9.98, SD = 4.55), (t (273) = 1.54, p = .125).

Target Characteristics as a Function of Shopping Style

All major dependent variables were asked in reference to the target person, not in reference to the participants themselves. For this reason, target characteristics are more relevant to our predictions than participant characteristics and will, therefore, be described in greater detail. The target person could be anyone participants knew (e.g., friend, spouse), except for themselves.

This study was intended to examine whether people whose shopping style is characteristically thrifty are perceived differently, on a number of theoretically meaningful traits and characteristics, by people who know them than people whose shopping style in characterized by conspicuous consumption. By asking participants to report on people they know we were able to capitalize upon a methodology high in ecological validity. However, this approach offers less experimental control, in that thrifty and conspicuous-consumption targets could differ systematically in a number of ways. Along these lines, we identified and measured a number of variables (e.g., target age, relationship status, number of children, relationship to target) that might need to be statistically controlled/treated as potential covariates in our statistical model. In the next section, we report on analyses and results relevant to identifying which variables warrant being treated as covariates in tests of the predictions.

THRIFTY SPENDING 20

Target Ethnicity.Overall, 78% of the targets were White/Caucasian, 8% Asian/Pacific Islander,

7% Black/African American, 6% Hispanic/Latino/a, 1% Biracial/Multiracial, and 0.5% Native

American/ American Indian. In both the thrifty condition (82%) and the conspicuous consumption condition (74%) the majority of targets were White/Caucasian.

Target Age. Thrifty targets were slightly older, on average, (M = 39.6, SD = 13.14) than conspicuous-consumption targets (M = 36.01, SD = 11.83, t = 2.34, p = .02. Age of target was treated as a covariate tests in tests of predictions.

Target Sexual Orientation. Among both thrifty (93%) and conspicuous-consumption conditions (91%), the majority of targets were described as straight/heterosexual. There were, however, more targets (n = 6) described as gay/lesbian within the conspicuous consumption condition than within the thrifty condition (n = 1). These numbers, being small, did not warrant treating target sexual orientation as a covariate.

Target Relationship Status. Participants were given six options to indicate the target's relationship status (single, dating, in a committed relationship, cohabitating, married/engaged, unknown). When target relationship status was known (96% of the time), we created a dichotomous scale to indicate whether the target was in a committed relationship or not. More thrifty targets (66%, or 16% more than the expectation based on chance) than conspicuous consumption targets (49%, or roughly equal to the expectation based on chance) were described as being in a committed romantic relationship. Target relationship status was treated as a covariate in all tests of predictions.

Number of Children. Participants were asked if the target person had any children. Thrifty targets were more likely to have at least one child (roughly 64%) than were conspicuous-

THRIFTY SPENDING 21 consumption targets (roughly 41%), χ2 = 14.50, p = .000. Among those with children, thrifty targets had more children, on average, (M = 2.47, SD = 1.65) than conspicuous-consumption targets (M = 1.82, SD = 1.03), t = 2.62, p = .01. Moreover, roughly 24% of thrifty targets had 3 or more children, versus 6.5% of conspicuous-consumption targets, χ 2 = 16.20, p = .000.

Number of children was treated as a covariate in all tests of predictions. [From a life history perspective, having had a stable, predictable early life environment may cause people to be both thrifty and more oriented toward long-term mating and parenting (Cabeza de Baca & Ellis,

2017). Of course, having more children may also make people, by necessity, more thrifty.]

Duration of Relationship with Target. Participants in the thrifty conditions reported knowing the target longer (M = 15.75 years; SD = 12.02) than those in the conspicuous consumption condition (M = 10.44 years; SD = 10.9), t = 3.83, p =.000. Duration of relationship was treated as a covariate in all tests of predictions.

Similarity to Target. Two items (similar to me and similar shopping style) were averaged to form a composite index of similarity ( = .81). Perhaps not surprisingly, because they are regular

MTurk users who are participating in studies for small amounts of money, participants reported being more similar to the thrifty target (M = 5.80, SD = 1.90) than the conspicuous consumption target (M = 3.14, SD = 1.91), t (273) = 11.54, p = .000. Similarity to target was treated as a covariate in all tests of predictions.

Relationship to Target. Participants were given fourteen response options on which to indicate their relationship to target. From these options we created three evolutionarily-relevant categories of relationship type: Friend (friend, acquaintance, co-worker, boss), Kin (mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son, extended kin), and Romantic Partner (husband, wife,

THRIFTY SPENDING 22 fiancé/é, girlfriend, boyfriend). Friend was overwhelming the most commonly selected relationship between participant and target. Among thrifty targets, 66% were friends; 24% were kin; and, 10% were romantic partners. Among conspicuous-consumption targets, 74% were friends; 20% were kin; and, 6% were romantic partners1. We could not treat relationship type as a covariate because it was a nominal variable. Instead, we treated duration of relationship between target and participant and perceived similarity to target, as psychological proxies for relationship type.

Participants were instructed to not complete the study questionnaires in reference to themselves. As a validity check we included "self" as a response option. No participant selected this option.

Concern for Quality of Items. Participants reported (on a single item) that the conspicuous- consumption target was more concerned with quality (M = 6.93, SD = 2.00) of items than the thrifty (M =5.53, SD = 1.95), t(273) = 5.85, p = .000. We treated concern for quality when shopping as a covariate in tests of predictions.

Target Employment and Income. The majority of targets were reported as working full-time

(66%) with 14% working part-time. More targets in the thrifty condition were reported as being

Homemakers/Stay-at-home mothers or fathers (n = 5.1%) versus (n = 3.3%) in the conspicuous consumption condition. Additionally, more targets were retired in the thrifty condition (n = 4%) than in the conspicuous consumption condition (n = 1.8%).

Participants were given fourteen response options to indicate their target income (e.g., none, < $10,000, $10,000 to $19,999, up to $150,000 or more, Don’t Know, and Other). The ordinal, range-of-income categories were assigned a number ranging from 0 (no income) to 12

THRIFTY SPENDING 23

($150,000 or more). Participants (n = 17) who indicated they did not know the target's income were excluded from this analysis. Participants in the thrifty condition reported that the target had a lower income [M = 5.43 (midpoint, just under $50K), SD = 2.53] than those in the conspicuous-consumption condition [M = 7.34 (midpoint, just under $70K), SD = 3.21], t = 5.33, p = .000. Target income, but not employment status, was treated as a covariate in tests of predictions. Target income likely subsumes employment status and our measurement of it had better psychometric properties than our measurement of employment status.

Covariates/Control Variables; Order of Dependent Measures, and Effect Size

Our thrifty targets, compared to conspicuous-consumption targets were, on average: older; more likely to be involved in a committed romantic relationship; more likely to have children, and when they had children they had more children. Thrifty targets were known by participants for a longer time, and participants felt more similar to thrifty than conspicuous- consumption targets. Thrifty targets were reported to earn less, on average, than targets who engage in conspicuous consumption and perceived as being less concerned with quality when they shopped. Therefore, to help isolate the independent variable and rule out potential confounding variables, when performing between-groups statistical tests pertinent to predictions, we controlled the following variables: target age, target relationship status, target's number of children, length of relationship with target, similarity to target, estimated target income, and target's concern for quality.

Participants completed dependent measures in one of two orders (see Table 3).

Regardless of order, completion of the major dependent measures was followed by two control items (similarity, concern with quality when shopping), two exploratory items (physical

THRIFTY SPENDING 24 attractiveness and health), six manipulation check items, and questions pertaining to target and participant demographics. Order of dependent measures was included as a variable in each test of a prediction. No order effects were obtained.

We report effect sizes in a variety of ways. For predicted main effects of shopping style we report eta squared along with significance test results. For η2, .01 corresponds to a small effect, .06 corresponds to a medium effect, and .14 corresponds to a large effect. As will be described, we examined each prediction using a correlational approach as well. Here we relied on Pearson r and partial r as measures of effect size. According to Cohen and Cohen (1975) correlations around .1 are considered small, around .3 are considered medium, and those around

.5 or greater are considered large.

Cohen’s d is the standard method for reporting effect size based on differences between means. However, because we controlled for seven covariates our relevant statistical output from a series of ANCOVAS, looking primarily for main effects of shopping style, included both uncorrected and corrected means. In Table 4, we report the ds that accompanied the comparison of pairs of uncorrected means. These effect sizes, it should be noted, may over-estimate the size of the true effect. On the other hand, to report ds based on corrected means may under-estimate the size of the true effect. Moreover, there is not a straightforward way to calculate d for corrected means. After consulting with an expert on effect size calculation (Dr. William

O’Brian) we deemed it appropriate to report ds that were calculated using F ratios and cell sample sizes. These effect sizes are also reported in Table 4.

THRIFTY SPENDING 25

CHAPTER III. PRIMARY MEASURES AND RESULTS

Each of the primary dependent measures were asked using a 9-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 9 = Strongly Agree; see Appendix D). To control the family-wise error rate, we used p < .01 to evaluate the statistical significance of all tests relevant to predictions.

Manipulation Checks

After completing all dependent measures, all participants were given a definition of thriftiness and asked to rate the target on the degree to which the target is thrifty. We submitted the thriftiness manipulation-check item to a 2 (Shopping Style) x 2 (Order) x 2 (Participant Sex) x 2 (Target Sex) ANCOVA, controlling for target age, target relationship status, target number of children, target length known, similarity to target, target salary, and target concern for quality. Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target F(1, 248) = 61.67, p = .000, and concern with quality, F(1, 248) = 12.30, p = .001, were significant. Importantly, the main effect of shopping style indicated that thrifty targets were perceived to be more thrifty (M = 7.49, SD = 1.57) than the conspicuous consumption targets (M = 2.70, SD = 2.01), F(1, 248) = 110.68, p = .000. No other effects were significant.

All participants were also given a definition of conspicuous consumption and asked to rate the target on the degree to which the target engages in conspicuous consumption. We submitted the conspicuous consumption manipulation-check item to a 2 (Shopping Style) x 2

(Order) x 2 (Participant Sex) x 2 (Target Sex) ANCOVA, controlling for target age, target relationship status, target number of children, target length known, similarity to target, target salary, and target concern for quality. Of the covariates, only perceived similarity to target was significant, F(1, 248) = 25.60, p = .000. Importantly, the main effect of shopping style indicated

THRIFTY SPENDING 26 that conspicuous consumption targets were rated as higher on conspicuous consumption (M =

7.10, SD = 1.72) than thrifty targets (M = 2.90, SD = 2.14), F(1, 272) = 177.50, p = .000. No other effects were significant. Together, these two sets of results indicate that our manipulation of shopping style was effective. See Table 5 for the results of four additional manipulation check items.

Predictions and Results

Prediction 1. In Prediction 1, we expected participants asked to think of a thrifty person to be more likely to think of a woman versus a man. Results indicated that regardless of shopping style participants were more likely to think of a female (69%) than a male (31%) target, and this effect was driven by female participants (83% of female participants reported on a female target, whereas 56% of males reported on a female target). However, the tendency to think of a female target was exaggerated among those asked to think of a thrifty person. Consistent with Prediction

1, 76% of those asked to think of a thrifty person reported on a female (26% greater than the expectation based on chance). Thus, Prediction 1 was supported.

We did not have a theoretical basis for making a prediction about whether participants in the conspicuous consumption condition would be more likely to report on men, women, or report equally on men and women. However, for exploratory purposes, we examined this question and found that 62% of those asked to think of someone who engages in conspicuous consumption reported on a female (12% greater than the expectation based on chance). It could be that whenever people are asked to think of shoppers of any kind they may be automatically primed to think of women. Even so, thrifty targets were 14% more likely than conspicuous consumption targets to be female (76% versus 62%).

THRIFTY SPENDING 27

We did not include target gender as a moderator or control variable in any primary predictions; however, we included target gender as a predictor in our statistical model to err on the side of potentially identifying results that might be moderated by target gender. The same logic applies to our decision to include participant sex in the model as a predictor.

Prediction 2. To examine Prediction 2a, that thrifty targets would be perceived as more intelligent than conspicuous consumption targets, participants were asked to evaluate the target on intelligence and problem solving (5 items;  =.93). Two items (This person is someone who is original, comes up with new ideas, and This person is ingenious, a deep thinker) were borrowed from the openness subscale of the Big 5 Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991).

The other 3 items (This person is intelligent. This person is creative. This person is good at solving problems.) were created for the purposes of this research.

We submitted the intelligence composite to a 2 (Shopping Style) x 2 (Order) x 2

(Participant Sex) x 2 (Target Sex) ANCOVA, controlling for target age, target relationship status, target number of children, target length known, similarity to target, target salary, and target concern for quality. Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) = 136.59, p

= .000] and target concern for quality [F(1, 249) = 13.95, p = .000] were significant. As expected, the main effect of shopping style indicated that thrifty targets were perceived as more intelligent (M = 6.57, SD = 1.53, MM = 6.08) than conspicuous consumption targets (M = 4.78,

2 SD = 1.71, MM = 5.23) F(1, 249) = 12.91, p = .000, η = .049. No other effects were significant.

This between-groups approach was effective for testing our prediction. However, because we measured target thriftiness and conspicuous consumption using continuous measures (as manipulation checks) we were also able to test this and subsequent predictions using a

THRIFTY SPENDING 28 correlational approach. This approach allows us to examine the predictions while eliminating error variance that arose from targets selected by participants assigned to the thrifty condition who are not particularly thrifty or targets selected by participants assigned to the conspicuous- consumption group who are not particularly flashy or exuberant in their spending. (Within the thrifty condition six targets were rated below the midpoint on thriftiness; within the conspicuous consumption condition six targets were rated below the midpoint on conspicuous consumption.

Seven and fifteen participants within the thrifty and conspicuous consumption conditions, respectively, were rated at the midpoint of their respective scale.)

First, we created an individual-difference composite measure of thriftiness, by averaging scores on the thriftiness and the conspicuous consumption (reversed) items ( = .88, r = -.79), such that higher scores correspond to higher degrees of thriftiness. Second, we ran a bivariate correlation between the thriftiness composite and the intelligence composite. Perceived thriftiness and perceived intelligence were significantly, positively correlated, r = .57, p = .000.

Third, we calculated a partial correlation between the composite measure of thriftiness and the intelligence composite, controlling for the variables that were significant covariates (similarity and concern with quality when shopping) within the between-groups model. After controlling for similarity and concern for quality the size of this effect, although attenuated, remained significant, r = .32, p = .000. Thus, Prediction 2a was strongly supported. Across two types of analyses, results converge on the conclusion that people who are known to be more thrifty are also perceived to be more intelligent. The size of this effect is medium.

To evaluate Prediction 2b, that thrifty targets would be perceived as more conscientiousness than conspicuous consumption targets, participants evaluated the target on perceived conscientiousness (5 items; e.g., This person is someone who does a thorough job, 

THRIFTY SPENDING 29

=.89). All five items were borrowed from the Big 5 Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle,

1991).We submitted the conscientiousness composite to the same ANCOVA detailed above. Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) = 107.41, p = .000], target number of children [F(1, 249) = 7.36, p = .007], and target salary [F(1, 248) = 14.66, p = .000] were significant. As expected, the main effect of shopping style indicated that thrifty targets were perceived as more conscientious (M = 6.92, SD = 1.47, MM = 6.37) than conspicuous-

2 consumption targets (M = 4.96, SD = 1.73, MM = 5.57 ), F(1, 249) = 10.17, p = .002, η = .068.

This result supports Prediction 2b.

This main effect was qualified by a participant sex x shopping style interaction, F(1, 249)

= 12.18, p = .001. Examination of the means suggests that the simple effect of shopping style on conscientiousness was larger among male [t(142 = 8.63, p = .000, d = 1.44] than female participants [t(128) = 5.67, p = .000, d = 0.98]. Additionally, the participant sex x order interaction was significant, F(1, 249) = 7.89, p = .005, but was not meaningful. No other effects were significant.

Similar to the process outlined above, we also examined Prediction 2b using a correlational approach. Perceived thriftiness and perceived conscientiousness were significantly, positively correlated, r = .57, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariates of number of children, perceived similarity, and target salary, this effect remained significant, r = .29, p =

.000. Thus, Prediction 2b was strongly supported. Across two types of analyses, results converge on the conclusion that people who are known to be more thrifty are also perceived to be more conscientious, and the size of the effect is medium.

THRIFTY SPENDING 30

To evaluate Prediction 2c, that thrifty targets would be perceived as higher in self-control than conspicuous consumption targets, participants evaluated targets on perceived self-control (5 items; e.g., This person is good at resisting temptation,  =.90). All 5 items were modified from

(Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone 2004). We submitted the self-control composite to the same

ANCOVA detailed above. Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) = 143.59, p

= .000], target number of children [F(1, 249) = 8.38, p = .004] and target salary [F(1, 249) =

10.49, p = .001] were significant. As expected, the main effect of shopping style indicated that thrifty targets were perceived as having higher self-control (M = 6.50 , SD = 1.60, MM = 5.87) than conspicuous consumption targets (M = 3.89 , SD = 1.69 , MM= 4.48, F(1, 249) = 30.50, p =

.000, η2 = .109. This effect supports Prediction 2c.

This main effect was qualified by a participant sex x shopping style interaction, F(1, 249)

= 14.13, p = .000. Examination of the means suggests that the simple effect of shopping style on self-control was larger among male [t (142) = 10.83, p = .000, d = 1.81] than female participants

[t(128) = 7.72, p = .000, d =1.36 ]. No other effects were significant.

Prediction 2c was also examined treating shopping style as a continuous rather than a between-groups variable. Perceived thriftiness and perceived self-control were significantly, positively correlated, r = .69, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariates of number of children, perceived similarity, and target salary, this effect remained significant, r = .44, p =

.000. Thus, Prediction 2c was strongly supported. Across two types of analyses, results converge on the conclusion that people who are known to be more thrifty are also perceived to higher in self-control, and the size of the effect is medium to large.

THRIFTY SPENDING 31

Predictions 3. To examine Prediction 3, that thrifty targets would be perceived as more likeable than conspicuous consumption targets, participants were asked to evaluate the target on likeableness (1 = dislike greatly, 9 = like very much) and emotional closeness (1 = not at all close, 9 = extremely close). These two items were averaged to form a likeableness/closeness composite,  = .88. We submitted the likeableness composite to the same ANCOVA detailed previously. Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) = 70.14, p = .000], length known [F(1, 249) = 14.70, p = .000] and concern with quality when shopping [F(1, 249) = 8.04, p = .005] were significant. As expected, the main effect of shopping style indicated that thrifty targets were perceived as more likeable (M = 7.48 , SD = 1.50, MM = 7.16) than conspicuous

2 consumption targets (M = 5.83 , SD = 2.10 , MM= 6.34, F(1, 249) = 6.95, p = .009, η = .027.

This result supports Prediction 3. No other effects were significant.

We also examined Prediction 3 using a correlational approach. Perceived thriftiness and perceived likeableness were significantly, positively correlated, r = .47, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariates of length known, perceived similarity, and concern with quality while shopping, this effect remained significant, r = .18, p = .003. Thus, Prediction 3 was strongly supported. Across two types of analyses, results converge on the conclusion that people who are perceived to be more thrifty are also perceived to be more likeable, and the size of the effect is small to medium.

Prediction 4. To examine Prediction 4a, that thrifty targets would be perceived as more agreeable than conspicuous consumption targets, participants were asked to evaluate the target on agreeableness [4 items from the Big 5 Inventory ( John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). We removed an item on likeableness from the five-item measure of agreeableness used by John et al. because for the analytic and theoretical purposes of this research we needed agreeableness and

THRIFTY SPENDING 32 likeableness to be measured as separate constructs. As noted in Prediction 3, we created a composite measure of liking and closeness;  = .94]. We submitted the agreeableness composite to the same ANCOVA detailed previously. Of the covariates, only perceived similarity to target was significant, [F(1, 248) = 77.29, p = .000]. The means were in the expected direction, with thrifty targets being perceived as more agreeable (M = 6.89, SD = 1.66 , MM= 6.46) than conspicuous consumption targets (M = 5.81, SD = 1.90, MM= 6.05; however, the main effect of shopping style on agreeableness was not significant [F(1, 249) = 1.93, p = .17, η2 = .008]. No other effects were significant.

We also examined Prediction 4a using a correlational approach. Perceived thriftiness and agreeableness were significantly, positively correlated, r = .49, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariate of perceived similarity, this effect, albeit attenuated, remained significant, r

= .17, p = .004. Thus, Prediction 4a was partially supported. Across two types of analyses, results suggest that people who are known to be more thrifty may also perceived to be more agreeable, and the effect size is small to medium.

To examine Prediction 4b, that thrifty targets would be perceived as higher in moral character/virtue than conspicuous consumption targets, participants were asked to evaluate the targets on moral character/virtue (6 items; e.g., This person has a strong sense of right and wrong,  = .95). These items were created for the purpose of this research. The moral character/virtue composite was submitted to the same ANCOVA described above. Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) = 102.06, p = .000], and target concern with quality when shopping [F(1, 249) = 7.27, p = .008] were significant. Although the means were in the expected direction, with thrifty targets being perceived as having a stronger moral character

(M = 7.12, SD = 1.68, MM= 6.74) than conspicuous consumption targets (M = 5.66, SD = 1.75,

THRIFTY SPENDING 33

2 MM = 6.16), the main effect of shopping style was not significant [F(1, 249) = 4.63, p = .032, η =

.018]. No other effects were significant.

We also examined Prediction 4b using a correlational approach. Perceived thriftiness and perceived moral character/virtue were significantly, positively correlated, r = .47, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariates of perceived similarity and concern with quality while shopping, this effect remained significant, r = .20, p = .001. Thus, Prediction 4b was partially supported. Across two types of analyses, results suggest that people who are perceived to be more thrifty may also perceived as being higher in moral character/virtue, and the effect size is small to medium.

To test Prediction 4c, that thrifty targets would be perceived as less vain than conspicuous consumption targets, participants were asked to evaluate targets on perceived vanity

(7 items; e.g., This person is superficial.  = .97). These items were created for this research. We submitted the vanity composite to the same ANCOVA previously detailed. Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) = 58.82, p = .000] was significant. As expected, the main effect of shopping style indicated that conspicuous consumption targets were perceived as more vain (M = 5.89, SD = 1.91, MM = 5.24) than thrifty targets (M = 2.91 , SD = 1.82 , MM=

3.43), F(1, 249) = 30.88, p = .000, η2 = .110. This result supports Prediction 4c. No other effects were significant.

Prediction 4c was also examined using a correlational approach. Perceived thriftiness and perceived vanity were significantly, negatively correlated, r = -.72, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariate of perceived similarity this effect remained significant and meaningful, r = -.52, p = .000. Thus, Prediction 4c was strongly supported. Across two types of

THRIFTY SPENDING 34 analyses, results converge on the conclusion that people who are known to be more thrifty are also perceived to be less vain, and the effect size is large.

To examine Prediction 4d, that thrifty targets would be perceived as lower in valuation of wealth in others than conspicuous consumption targets, we asked participants to evaluate targets on their degree of valuing wealth in others (3 items; e.g., This person is attracted to people for their wealth,  =.83). These items were created for this research. We submitted the valuation of wealth composite to the same ANCOVA described above. Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) = 15.12, p = .000] was significant. As expected, the main effect of shopping style indicated that conspicuous consumption targets were perceived as valuing others for their wealth (M = 5.24, SD = 2.11, MM = 4.95) more so than thrifty targets (M = 3.39, SD = 1.77 ,

2 MM= 3.53), F(1, 249) = 15.07, p = .000, η = .057. This result supports Prediction 4d. No other effects were significant.

Prediction 4d was also examined using a correlational approach. Perceived thriftiness and perceived valuation of wealth were significantly, negatively correlated, r = -.53, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariate of perceived similarity this effect remained significant and meaningful, r = -.35, p = .000. Thus, Prediction 4d was strongly supported. Across two types of analyses, results converge on the conclusion that people who are perceived to be more thrifty are also perceived to place a lesser value on wealth in others, and the size of the effect is medium to large.

To evaluate Prediction 4e, that thrifty targets would be perceived as more cheap than conspicuous consumption targets, participants were asked to evaluate targets on perceived cheapness (3 items; e.g., This person is cheap,  =.87). These items were created for the purpose

THRIFTY SPENDING 35 of this research. We submitted the cheapness composite to the same ANCOVA described above.

Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) = 7.65, p = .006], and target concern with quality when shopping [F(1, 249) = 13.12, p = .000] were significant. As expected, the main effect of shopping style indicated that thrifty targets were perceived as more cheap (M =

4.85, SD = 1.96, MM = 4.37) than conspicuous consumption targets (M = 3.06 , SD = 1.88 , MM=

3.37), F(1, 249) = 7.68, p = .006, η2 = .030. This effect provides support for Prediction 4e. No other effects were significant.

Prediction 4e was also examined using a correlational approach. Perceived thriftiness and perceived cheapness were significantly, positively correlated, r = .48, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariates of perceived similarity and concern with quality while shopping this effect remained significant and meaningful, r = .26, p = .000. Thus, Prediction 4e was supported.

Across two types of analyses, results converge on the conclusion that people who are perceived to be more thrifty are also perceived to be more cheap, and the effect size is medium.

Given that shopping style was related to likeableness/closeness (Prediction 3), agreeableness, moral character/virtue, vanity, and valuation of wealth (Predictions 4a, 4b,4c, and

4d), in the predicted directions, we are justified in examining whether the link between thriftiness and likability might be mediated by perceptions of agreeableness, moral character/virtue, vanity, and valuation of wealth in others.

We followed the procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) for examining mediation using continuous variables. For this mediation analysis, we used our continuous, composite measure of spending (higher numbers correspond to more thriftiness) because it is a

THRIFTY SPENDING 36 more sensitive measure of the shopping style adopted by targets in this study, as compared to our randomly assigned, dichotomous treatment of shopping style.

The first step in examining potential mediation using this method is to establish that the predictor is correlated to the outcome variable. As reported above under Prediction 3, there was a significant partial correlation (again, we controlled for seven covariates when assessing partial correlations), between our continuous, composite measure of shopping style and likeability (r =

.18, p = .003)

The second step is to establish that the predictor is significantly correlated with the potential mediators. As was reported under Prediction 4, there were significant partial correlations between our continuous, composite measure of shopping style and each of the potential mediators of perceived agreeableness (r = .17, p = .004), moral character/virtue (r =

.20, p = .001), vanity (r = -.52, p < .001), and valuation of wealth in others (r = -.35, p < .001).

To satisfy the third step, we had to ascertain that our mediators affected our outcome variable. To do this we conducted a hierarchical regression with our seven covariates entered into the first step, and our four potential mediators entered into the second step. Likability was the outcome of interest. After controlling for the effects of age, relationship type, number of children, length known, salary, similarity, and concern with quality on likeability, there was a significant relationship between agreeableness and likeableness (b =. 35, SE = .09, p <.001), and vanity and likeableness (b = -.22, SE = .06, p =.001). There was not, however, a significant relationship between valuation of wealth (b =. 03, SE = .05, p =.575) or moral character/virtue

(b= .21, SE = .10, p = .034) and the outcome of perceived likeableness.

THRIFTY SPENDING 37

The final step in the test of mediation was to examine whether the relationship between shopping style and likeability became less statistically significant or non-statistically significant after controlling for the potential mediators of perceived agreeableness and vanity. Moral character/virtue and valuation of wealth were excluded as mediators from this analysis, because they were not significant in the third step. The effect of shopping style on likeability became nonsignificant (b = -.04, SE = .05, p = .346) when agreeableness and vanity were added into the regression equation. Thus, together, these results suggest that the relationship between shopping style and likeableness is mediated by agreeableness and vanity (see Table 6 for full table of results). In other words, thrifty people may be perceived as more likeable, at least in-part, because they are seen as nicer and less vain than conspicuous consumers.

Prediction 5. To examine Prediction 5a, that thrifty targets would be perceived as lower in short-term mating effort than conspicuous consumption targets, participants were asked to evaluate target’s perceived short-term mating effort (3 items; e.g., this person has slept with a large number of people in his/her lifetime,  =.73). These items were adapted from a measure developed by Kruger and Nesse (2006) to assess the allocation of resources to mating effort. We submitted the short-term mating effort composite to the same ANCOVA described above. Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) = 12.72, p = .000] and target concern with quality when shopping [F(1, 249) = 6.84, p = .009] were significant. As expected, the main effect of shopping style indicated that thrifty targets were perceived as lower in short-term mating effort (M = 3.34, SD = 1.566, MM = 3.89) than conspicuous consumption targets (M =

2 5.08, SD = 1.69, MM = 4.80) F(1, 249) = 8.86 p = .003, η = .034. This result supports Prediction

5a. No other effects were significant.

THRIFTY SPENDING 38

Prediction 5a was also examined using a correlational approach. Perceived thriftiness and perceived short-term mating effort were significantly, negatively correlated, r = -.54, p = .000.

After controlling for the significant covariates of perceived similarity and concern for quality while shopping this effect remained significant and meaningful, r = -.36, p = .000. Thus,

Prediction 5a was strongly supported. Across two types of analyses, results converge on the conclusion that people who are perceived to be more thrifty are also perceived to be lower in short-term mating effort, and the effect size is medium.

To examine Prediction 5b, that thrifty targets would be perceived as lower in infidelity probability than conspicuous consumption targets, participants were asked to evaluate the target on various items concerning mating, specifically perceived infidelity probability (3 items; e.g.,

This person could/does remain sexually faithful within a long-term relationship,  =.86). These items were modified from a measure created by Shackelford, Besser, & Goetz, 2008. We submitted the infidelity probability composite to the same ANCOVA described above. Of the covariates, perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) = 19.61, p = .000], and target number of children [F(1, 249) = 7.79, p = .006] were significant. Although the means were in the expected direction, with thrifty targets being perceived as lower in infidelity probability (M = 2.86, SD =

1.85, MM= 3.11) than conspicuous consumption targets (M = 4.38, SD = 2.09, MM= 3.95), the main effect of shopping style was not significant [F(1, 249) = 5.50, p = .020, η2 = .022. No other effects were significant.

Prediction 5b was also examined using a correlational approach. Perceived thriftiness and perceived infidelity probability were significantly, negatively correlated, r = -.48, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariates of number of children and perceived similarity, this effect remained significant, r = -.26, p = .000. Thus, Prediction 5b was partially supported.

THRIFTY SPENDING 39

Across two types of analyses, results suggest that people who are perceived to be more thrifty may also be perceived to be lower in infidelity probability, and the effect size is small to medium.

Prediction 6. To examine Prediction 6a, that thrifty targets would be perceived as higher in parenting effort than conspicuous consumption targets, participants were asked to rate the target on their parenting effort (4 items, modified from Kruger and Nesse (2006); e.g., this person would be/is good at taking care of children,  =.915). We submitted the parenting effort composite to the same ANCOVA described above, except that here the variables of target number of children and target relationship status were not included as covariates. Controlling these two sources of variance within the context of this as well as the next dependent measure would account to potentially controlling away the variance we are interested in explaining. Of the remaining five covariates we examined, only perceived similarity to target [F(1, 249) =

126.18, p = .000] was significant. The main effect of shopping style was marginally significant

[F(1, 249) = 6.35, p = .012, η2 = .025], with thrifty targets being perceived as higher in parenting effort (M = 6.95, SD = 1.75, MM= 6.43) than conspicuous consumption targets (M = 5.16, SD =

1.89, MM= 5.74), No other effects were significant.

Prediction 6a was also examined using a correlational approach. Perceived thriftiness and perceived parenting effort were significantly, positively correlated, r = .55, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariate of similarity the size of this effect was attenuated but remained significant, r = .20, p = .001. Across two types of analyses, results suggest that people who are perceived to be more thrifty may also be perceived to be higher in parenting effort, and the effect size is small to medium.

THRIFTY SPENDING 40

To examine Prediction 6b, that thrifty targets would be perceived as more desirable as a long-term mate than conspicuous consumption targets, participants were asked to rate the target on their desirability as a long-term mate (2 items; e.g., This person would/does make a good long-term partner,  =.827). We submitted the desirability as a long-term mate composite to the same ANCOVA described above, less the covariates of number of children and relationship status. Of the five remaining covariates, only perceived similarity to target, F(1, 249) = 97.27, p

= .000, was significant. The main effect of shopping style was marginally significant, F(1, 249)

= 4.60, p = .033, η2 = .018, with thrifty targets being perceived as higher in desirability as a long- term mate (M = 6.57, SD = 2.06, MM= 6.18) than conspicuous consumption targets (M = 4.92,

SD = 1.95, MM= 5.49). No other effects were significant.

Prediction 6b was also examined treating shopping style as a continuous rather than a between-groups variable. Perceived thriftiness and perceived desirability as a long-term mate were significantly, positively correlated, r = .49, p = .000. After controlling for the significant covariates of perceived similarity the size of the effect was diminished and only marginally significant, r = .14, p = .02. Across two types of analyses, results suggest that people who are perceived to be more thrifty may also be perceived to more desirable as a long-term mate, and the effect size is small.

Exploratory Analyses. For exploratory purposes, we also measured perceptions of target's physical attractiveness, sexiness, and flirtatiousness. Physical attractiveness and sexiness were averaged to form a composite index ( = .82) and the composite was submitted to the same

ANCOVA described above. No theoretically relevant effects were obtained. Thrifty (M = 5.60,

SD = 1.76, MM= 5.55) and conspicuous-consumption (M = 5.42, SD = 1.78, MM = 5.68) targets were both perceived to be average in attractiveness, F(1,249) = .18, p = .67, η2 = .001. We did,

THRIFTY SPENDING 41 however, obtain a main effect of shopping style on the single-item measure of target flirtatiousness, F(1,249) = 6.90, p = .009, η2 = .027, indicating that conspicuous consumption targets (M = 5.69, MM = 5.56, SD = 2.11) are perceived to be more flirtatious than thrifty targets

(M = 4.04, MM = 4.52, SD = 2.19).

For exploratory purposes, we also measured perceptions of target’s general health and how often they workout. The general health item and the item on working out were averaged to form a composite ( = .75) and the composite was submitted to the same ANCOVA described above. No theoretically relevant effects were obtained. Thrifty (M = 5.97, SD = 1.88, MM= 6.18) and conspicuous-consumption (M = 5.71, SD = 1.82, MM = 5.86) targets were both perceived to be average on overall health, F(1,249) = .98, p = .32, η2 = .004. When we separated the items and submitted them individually to the ANCOVA, there was still no effect of shopping style on perceived health F(1,249) = .44, p = .51, η2 = .002 or working out F(1,249) = 1.10, p = .29, η2 =

.004.

Summary of Results

In sum, when treating shopping style as a manipulated, dichotomous variable, 8 of 13 predictions regarding the effect of shopping style on our outcome variables yielded statistically significant results (p < .01) in support of the prediction. When treating shopping style as a continuous variable, which is a more powerful statistical approach, all eight of the bivariate correlational findings were supportive of our predictions (p < .01). When looking at the effect sizes for these eight effects, the picture that emerges is that, within the context of the methods used in this study, the effect of shopping style on perceived intelligence, conscientiousness, self- control, likeability, vanity, valuation of wealth, cheapness, and short-term mating orientation is

THRIFTY SPENDING 42 moderate to large, and supports our contention that thriftiness is positively associated with these traits both intra-individually, as shown in our previous research, and in other's perceptions of thrifty people they know, as shown in the current findings.

When treating shopping style as a manipulated, dichotomous variable, 4 of 13 predictions regarding the effect of shopping style on our outcome variables yielded marginally significant results (ps between .01 and .05) in support of the prediction. All four of the supplemental bivariate correlational tests of these relationships were supportive of our predictions (p < .01).

When looking at the effect sizes for these four effects, the picture that emerges is that, within the context of the methods used in this study, the effect of shopping style on perceived moral character and virtue, infidelity probability, parenting effort, and desirability as a long-term mate is small to medium.

One predicted effect (agreeableness) was not significant when shopping style was treated as a manipulated, dichotomous variable. However, when examining the three effect sizes for this outcome variable, the effect of shopping style on perceived agreeableness appears to be small to medium in size.

We postulated a priori that any obtained relationship between shopping style and perceived likeability might be mediated by perceived agreeableness, moral character/virtue, vanity, and valuation of wealth in others. Across two methods used to assess potential mediation, it appears, at least within the methods used in this study, that the relationship between shopping style and likeability is mediated by vanity and, to a large but lesser extent, agreeableness.

THRIFTY SPENDING 43

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION

The present study was designed to examine novel predictions derived from the bargain hunting hypothesis. According to the bargain hunting hypothesis, thriftiness (e.g., using coupons, waiting for sales, doing comparison shopping, shopping at thrift stores) requires a host of personality characteristics and psychological traits, namely contentiousness, intelligence, and self-control. To date, two studies have supported this notion, in that these traits and characteristics are positively correlated with thriftiness. A second part of the bargain hunting hypothesis attempts to explain why people, especially women versus men, are often excited by the great deals they get and are motivated to tell others about them. According to the bargain hunting hypothesis, signaling thriftiness may signal to others, especially potential and current friends and long-term mates, a host of desirable traits, including the aforementioned traits as well as a good moral character, a long-term mating orientation, and a disinclination toward infidelity.

Two studies have been designed and conducted concurrently to examine predictions regarding the potential signaling functions of thriftiness (compared to conspicuous consumption). The other study was designed to maximize experimental control and the internal validity needed for theory testing. The current study was designed to examine the potential signaling function of thriftiness using a more ecologically-valid research design.

In the current study, participants were asked, based on random assignment, to think of someone they know whose is thrifty or who engages in conspicuous consumption and to evaluate this person on a variety of personality and mating-related dimensions. We predicted that participants asked to think of a thrifty person would be more likely to think of a woman than a man. We predicted that, in comparison to conspicuous-consumption targets, thrifty targets would be perceived as more intelligent (including creativity and problem solving), conscientious,

THRIFTY SPENDING 44 higher in self-control, more likeable, emotionally closer with participants, more agreeable, higher in moral character/virtue, lower in their degree of perceived vanity and lower in their valuation of wealth in others, and cheaper. We predicted that thrifty targets would be perceived/rated as lower in short-term mating effort and infidelity probability and higher in parenting effort and desirability as a long-term mate.

Our results indicated that when asked to think of a thrifty person, participants were more likely to think of a woman than a man. This finding is important, because we argued, based on the evolutionary logic of mate preferences, that women would be expected to signal thriftiness more so than men. This may be because men, who are valued largely for their ability to acquire and accrue resources and for their willingness to direct those resources to female mates and offspring, risk too much in terms of a lowering of their mate value if they appear to be cheap or tight with their money. One of our results, in fact, is that thrifty people are perceived to be more cheap, stingy, and tight with their money than their conspicuous consumption counterparts.

Thus, men may be better off signaling their intelligence, conscientiousness, self-control regarding money by negotiating price of a car, house, or their salary, discussing their ventures in the stock market, or haggling/bartering within exchange-based economies. In these kinds of contexts, men can additionally display dominance, which is valued within the domain of men’s but not women’s mate value.

The research on women’s mate value often focuses on the importance of cues associated with relative youth, health, and fertility (e.g., low waist-to-hip ratio, smooth wrinkle-free skin, thick and lustrous hair, full lips). However, women’s long-term mate value is much more complicated than this narrow focus on cues associated with fertility (Buss, 1989). Intelligence

THRIFTY SPENDING 45 and kindness are key components of a women’s value as a long-term mate, both of which appear to be linked with thriftiness. Moreover, men may value thriftiness in potential long-term mates for a variety of reasons. Wealthy men may be wary of attracting gold-diggers who might later be wasteful and extravagant in their spending of their money and therefore be pleased to learn that a woman is smart about money. Men without ample economic resources may value thriftiness in a potential mate because it signals her ability to maximize resources while spending less money.

Along these lines, our results did indicate that thrifty targets were perceived as lower in vanity and valuation of wealth compared to conspicuous-consumption targets. Thrifty targets were also perceived as more intelligent, conscientious, higher in self-control, and more desirable as long-term mates than conspicuous-consumption targets. These traits have been previously linked to higher marital satisfaction and a lowered risk of infidelity (Buss & Shackelford, 1997;

Shackelford & Buss, 2000). We also received partial support for the predictions that thrifty targets would be perceived as lower in short-term mating effort, infidelity probability, as well as, higher in long-term mating effort, parenting effort, and moral character/virtue. Taken together, our results seem to suggest that women could signal their thriftiness to communicate their possession of positive traits that are associated with a predication toward a long-term mating orientation (as well as being a high-quality mate) and away from a short-term mating orientation.

Our results also indicated that participants rated thrifty targets as being more likeable than conspicuous consumption targets, and participants felt emotionally closer to thrifty targets.

This finding is important, because results from one of our previous studies have indicated that women not only signal their thriftiness to potential mates, but they also signal their thriftiness to friends and strangers. We believe that the exchange of information that is inherent in signaling thriftiness (telling others about sales, deals, and sharing coupons) could increase liking due to the

THRIFTY SPENDING 46 spontaneous helpfulness that is involved in sharing this sort of information. Along these lines, through our mediation analyses we found that this perception of thrifty people as being more likable is potentially mediated by perceptions of agreeableness and vanity. Therefore, it could also be the case that thrifty people are perceived as being more agreeable and less vain than those who engage in conspicuous consumption, and that in turn leads to them being perceived as more likeable. Thus, it could be the case that people signal their thriftiness to appear more likeable and in turn this increased their ability to attract potential friends and allies.

Contributions/Strengths

The current study contributes to our knowledge on the ways in which people signal their spending to advertise their positive, personal characteristics to others. To this point, most of the research on spending in the realm of evolutionary psychology (and elsewhere) has focused on conspicuous consumption, a largely male-typical spending style. Surprisingly, thriftiness has largely been ignored within this body of literature. This is particularly surprising, because numerous press reports can be found which report that money is a main contributor to disagreements within romantic relationships. Interestingly, when searching the psychological and sociological literature for studies that investigate partner preferences for spending habits, no empirical research was found. Therefore, this research on spending, particularly thriftiness, and its connection to mating and friendship helps to fill this gap. Our study also replicates and extends previous findings from two separate studies on the potential links between thriftiness and a suite of positive personality traits and characteristics.

Also, in this study, our participants were free to report on any person in which they have a relationship. Therefore, this study has the particular strength in that the method was based on

THRIFTY SPENDING 47 perceptions of actual spending behaviors of real people in our participants’ lives. Up to this point, most of the research on spending has been conducted using a priming methodology which utilizes written scenarios. While spending scenarios have the advantage of experimental control, we believe that our methodology provides a more ecologically valid way to test the bargain hunting hypothesis. Moreover, we know of no other study that has randomly assigned participants to think of a certain type of person they know and then report on this person's characteristics. Thus, we may have contributed a novel methodology suitable for studying many topics within the area of person perception.

Moreover, we worked diligently to include in our operationalizations of thriftiness and conspicuous consumption a variety of behaviors. We conducted a small pilot study to generate items for our operationalizations of thriftiness and conspicuous consumption, and allowed participants the opportunity after completing the study to add behaviors that we had overlooked.

It is, of course, possible that in different cultures or sub-cultures (e.g., among inner-city residents, the extremely wealthy) the ways that thriftiness and conspicuous consumption are communicated would vary from how we manipulated and measure it here.

Another potential strength is that an MTurk sample was used for this research. Thus, our participants represented a variety of occupations and socioeconomic backgrounds, and even if it stands to reason that a large proportion of our participants might identify more with a thrifty target than a conspicuous consumer target, we were able to statistically control for this issue.

Minimally, MTurk responders are better suited for a study of this nature, at least potentially, than would be a sample of university undergraduates. On the other hand, in the future, these hypotheses should be examined among participants in the lower and upper extremes of the socioeconomic spectrum, sub-populations our study likely missed.

THRIFTY SPENDING 48

Lastly, we found support for almost every prediction tested, even after controlling for perceived similarity of target to participant. Similarity was, across every test of prediction, a highly significant covariate. So, it is noteworthy that most of our predictions were supported a) with real people, and b) after controlling for important sources of natural variation in these kinds of judgments. If anything, because we controlled for so many potential confounds and used a conservative alpha level it is possible that we may have been too conservative in interpreting our results. For example, to err on the side of caution, we interpreted results that were significant at an alpha level between .01 and .05 as marginally significant.

Replicated Results

Another study designed to test largely the same predictions but using scenario-based descriptions of a single target described as thrifty or engaging in conspicuous consumption was recently conducted by another member of our lab. Using controlled stimuli, participants formed judgments of target individuals in line with predictions in a manner that serves as a conceptual replication of the results reported here, on the measures of conscientiousness, self-control, intelligence, agreeableness, valuation of wealth, vanity, moral character/virtue, desirability as a long-term mate, infidelity probability, and perceived cheapness. Thus, we have converging evidence for the validity of these effects, coming from two distinct methodologies.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

In the future, it is important that the bargain hunting hypothesis be tested with a sample of individuals from an upper-class economic background. It could be the case that people from high socioeconomic backgrounds engage in thriftiness, but in different ways than participants reported in the current study (such as, purchasing high-end items at consignment shops or

THRIFTY SPENDING 49 waiting for sample sales from high-end clothing designers). It could also be the case that with more disposable income, people become less thrifty. Future research could investigate how/if thriftiness is signaled by people with larger yearly incomes. Moreover, among very low income individuals there may, ironically, be a stigma to using coupons or being conspicuously concerned with saving money. Thus, our hypotheses and predictions may be limited in their generalizability to other samples.

In the future, it is also important that the bargain hunting hypothesis be tested using samples from other cultures. Up to this point, the bargain hunting hypothesis has only been examined in the United States. It could be the case that people (particularly women) communicate their positive traits using thriftiness because they live in a capitalistic society where there is much variation in peoples’ economic standing, as well as, a large variety of goods to be purchased and displayed. In other cultures where there is less variation in a person’s economic status and fewer goods to competitively display, thriftiness may not be a strategy that is used to communicate positive traits such as intelligence, self-control, or conscientiousness.

Thus, we would not necessarily expect the signaling of thriftiness to be a universal strategy to communicate the valued underlying traits we studied in the current research.

Alternatively, over evolutionary history there has been a sexual division of labor such that women spent more time foraging for food and men spent more time hunting game. It could be that men and womens’ brains have been shaped by these roles to approach spending and the displaying of goods differently. For example, Kruger and Kruger (2009) have argued that modern-day women (at least in the United States) often shop in a manner that parallel's how women would have foraged within the ancestral environment, such as by using object-orientation navigation. Thus, we might expect universality in the signaling of thriftiness among women,

THRIFTY SPENDING 50 even if thriftiness is defined or expressed somewhat differently in other cultures. Moreover, our belief that the excitement that people, especially women, feel when they talk about their thriftiness leads us to believe that there might be something more ancient about this form of signaling, in that affective regions of the brain evolved prior to the areas associated with rational decision-making.

We measured an array of traits as outcome variables. However, among relevant outcome measures we did not measure but future research on this topic might fruitfully explore include: perceived helpfulness, benign versus hostile envy, annoyance stemming from the person's shopping style and signaling of it.

Concluding Remarks

In 2017 psychologist Dan Ariely released a well-received book on spending called

“Dollars and Sense: How We Misthink Money and How to Spend Smarter”. In the book he describes the ways in which our environment encourages spending. Some of the factors that he highlights as a cause for irresponsible spending are sales and bargain-hunting. In the book he states, “Discounts are a potion for stupidity. They simply dumb down our decision-making process. When an item is 'on sale,' we act more quickly and with even less thought than if the product costs the same but is marked at a regular price." He goes on to say, “When we see a sale, we shouldn't consider what the price used to be or how much we're spending. Rather we should consider what we're actually going to spend. Buying a $60 shirt marked down from $100 isn't

'saving $40. It is spending $60.”

With comments of this nature, we believe that the author is misrepresenting many of the underlying psychological mechanisms that are associated with thriftiness. According to results

THRIFTY SPENDING 51 from our research, bargain-hunting can be a thoughtful process that requires high amounts of self-control and forethought. In the current study, targets that engaged in thrifty behaviors were perceived positively on a multitude of factors that are known to be associated with being a desirable friend, ally, or mate. Not only this, but we also found that perceived thriftiness was negatively associated with credit card debt ( r = -.52) while perceived conspicuous consumption was positively associated with credit card debt ( r = .57). Therefore, at least according to data from this study, thrifty people seem to be more responsible with their money, not less.

In sum, these results provide exciting, new insights into the ways in which people may use their spending to signal information to other people, as well as, how this information is perceived by others. Moreover, our results may help put a positive construal on a behavior that is predominantly expressed by women, amid recent efforts that stigmatize bargain hunting, which may make women feel foolish for doing something that brings them pride.

THRIFTY SPENDING 52

REFERENCES

Ariely, D., & Kreisler, J. (2017). Dollars and Sense: How We Misthink Money and How to Spend

Smarter. New York, New York: Harper.

Ashworth, L., Darke, P. R., Schaller, M. (2005). No one wants to look cheap: Trade-offs

between social disincentives and the economic and psychological incentives to redeem

coupons. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 295-306.

Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences:

Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107-

136.

Buss, D. M. & Craik, K. H. (1983). The distortional analysis of everyday conduct. Journal of

Personality, 51(3), 393-412.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypothesis tested

in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

Buss, D. M. & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of marriage.

Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193-221.

Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen R. J. (2001) A half century of

American mate preferences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 491-503.

Cabeza de Baca, T., & Ellis, B. J. (2017). Early stress, parental motivation, and reproductive

decision-making: Applications of life history theory to parental behavior. Current

Opinion in Psychology, 15, 1-6.

Campbell, A. (2016). Women's competition and aggression. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook

of Evolutionary Psychology (Second ed.), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

THRIFTY SPENDING 53

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the

Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY:

Routledge Academic.

Consumer Reports. (2014, April 30). America’s bargain-hunting habits: What shoppers will and

won’t do to save a buck. Consumer Reports. Retrieved from http://consumerreports.org

Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London, U. K.: John

Murray. de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F.,

(2012). Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a

wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 76-99.

Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2007). The evolution of social inference processes: The

importance of signaling theory. In J. P. Forgas, M. G. Haselton, & W. von Hippel (Eds.),

Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp. 33-48). New York: Psychology Press.

Gordon, A. K. & Nebl, P. J. (2015, May). The competitive thriftiness hypothesis:

Sex differences in the use of frugality as a costly signal of conscientiousness, intellect,

self-control, and an aversion to short-term mating and infidelity. Paper presented at the

meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Columbia, M.O.

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T.

(2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives

elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85-

THRIFTY SPENDING 54

102.

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status,

reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

98(3), 392-404.

Gustavsson, L., & Johnsson, J. I. (2008). Mixed support for sexual selection theories of mate

preference in the Swedish population. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 575-585.

Hill, C. J. & Harmon, S. K. (2009). Attitudes toward coupon use and bargain hunting: An

examination of differences by gender. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal 13(1), 67-

78.

Hudders, L., De Backer, C., Fisher, M., & Vyncke, P. (2014). The rival wears Prada: Luxury

consumption as a female competitive strategy. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(3), 570-587.

Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. (2008) Showing off in humans: Male generosity as a

mating signal. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 386-392.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and

54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social

Research.

Kelly, S., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2001). Who dares win: Heroism versus altruism in women’s mate

choice. Human Nature, 12, 89-105.

Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages

of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality,

58, 97-116.

THRIFTY SPENDING 55

Kruger, D. J., & Nesse, R. M. (2006). An evolutionary life-history framework for understanding

sex differences in human mortality rates. Human Nature, 17(1), 74-97

Kruger, D., & Byker, D. (2009). Evolved foraging psychology underlies sex differences in

shopping experiences and behaviors. Journal Of Social, Evolutionary, And Cultural

Psychology, 3(4), 328-342.

Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Partnership

status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for

sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B:

Biological Sciences, 269, 1095-1100.

Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature.

London, England: Heinemann.

Miller, G. (2009). Spent: Sex, evolution, and consumer behavior. New York, NY: Penguin

Books, Ltd.

Moller, A. P., & Petrie, M. (2002). Condition dependence, multiple sexual signals, and

immunocompetence in peacocks. Behavioral Ecology, 13, 248-253.

Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314, 1560-1563.

Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will trust you: The

role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 100(5), 874-886.

Saad, G. (2007). The evolutionary bases of consumption. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shackelford, T. K., Besser, A., & Goetz, A. T. (2008). Personality, marital satisfaction, and

probability of marital infidelity. Individual Differences Research, 6(1), 13-25.

THRIFTY SPENDING 56

Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J. (2011).

Peacocks, porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous consumption as a sexual

signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 664-680

Symons, D. (1975). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford

Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptation of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of

human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual

nature, sexual culture (pp. 80-118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self‐control predicts good

adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of

personality, 72(2), 271-324.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. Campbell, Bernard [Grant], Ed.

Sexual Selection and the Descent Of Man: 1871-1971, 136-179.

Veblen, T. The theory of the leisure class: An economic study in the evolution of institutions.

London, U. K.: Macmillan Wang, Y., Griskevicius, V. (2014). Conspicuous consumption, relationships, and rivals:

Women’s luxury products as signals to other women. Journal of Consumer Research, 40,

834-854.

Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology,

53, 205-214.

Zahavi, A. & Zahavi, A. (1997). The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin’s puzzle.

Oxford University Press.

THRIFTY SPENDING 57

APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT

Department of Psychology

Shopping and Personality – SUMMER 2017

Primary Investigator: Lynzee Murray, Bowling Green State University, Psychology Department

Co-Investigator: Anne Gordon, Bowling Green State University, Psychology Department

Before the study begins, there are several things for you to note:

1. You are invited to participate in a research study in which we are interested in asking you some questions about your perceptions and feelings about the way that people spend their money.

NOTE: Some items you will be asked are personal, in nature. You may decide to skip any question that you are not comfortable answering.

2. You are eligible to participate in this study if you are between 18 and 50 years old, are living in the United States, and speak English as your first language.

3. We anticipate that your participation will take approximately 30-40 minutes.

4. The benefits of participating in this project include: helping us to understand people's views and perceptions on spending behaviors. By participating in this study, you will learn about how psychologists conduct research on these kinds of topics. You may also benefit, personally, from an increased awareness of your own views toward spending.

5. Conscientious respondents will receive $1 for their participation in this study. If you miss one or more careless response items you will not receive monetary compensation for your participation.

6. Risks of participating in this study will not exceed those experienced in daily life. If there are any questions in this study that you are not comfortable answering you may skip those items.

7. Your participation is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw at any time. Your participation in this study or choice to not participate in this study will not impact any relationship you may have with Bowling Green State University. You may decide to skip questions or discontinue participation at any time without penalty.

THRIFTY SPENDING 58

8. Please note that your questionnaire answers are anonymous. We will not be collecting any information from you that would enable us to connect you, personally, with your survey responses. Your responses will not be saved until you click the “Submit” button at the end of the survey.

9. Because the Internet is not 100% secure in terms of privacy, please do not leave the partially completed survey open or unattended if completing it on a public computer. You should clear the browser page history and cache when finished with the survey.

10. At the end of the study you will be given information about the purpose of this study.

11. If you have any questions about the study, you may contact the principal investigator or the co-investigator:

 Principal Investigator: Lynzee Murray, Psychology Department, Bowling Green State University, [email protected]  Co-Investigator: Anne Gordon, Psychology Department, Bowling Green State University, [email protected]

 The Institutional Review Board at Bowling Green State University (Institutional Review Board approval, XXXXXXX) approved this research study.

 You may also contact the Chair, Institutional Review Board, Bowling Green State University, (419) 372-7716 ([email protected]), if any problems or concerns arise during the course of the study.

PROVIDING YOUR INFORMED CONSENT:

Please click on the button below to indicate your informed decision regarding participating in this study. If you do not wish to participate, you may simply close the window and not continue.

______Yes, I have been informed of the risks and benefits associated with participating in this study, and I agree to participate. I certify that I meet the eligibility requirements for this study.

206 Psychology Building 419-372-2301 www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-0232 fax 419-372-6013

THRIFTY SPENDING 59

APPENDIX B: CONDITION I INSTRUCTIONS

Shopping & Personality (Condition 1)

In this research, we are interested in learning about how people spend their money and how their spending patterns might connect with other aspects of their personality and lifestyle.

Some people have a pattern of shopping and spending that is characterized by the following kinds of behaviors. Please read the list carefully.

These people:

 Use coupons at the grocery store and other stores  Shop at stores known for offering good prices/good value (e.g., TJ Maxx, Marshall’s)  Search for coupon codes/promotion codes when shopping online  Shop at thrift stores or consignment shops (Plato's Closet, Once Upon a Child, Savers, Salvation Army, Good Will)  Buy items in bulk, at places like Sam's Club or Costco, in order to pay a lower "price per unit"  Compare prices at different stores in order to find the best deal before purchasing an item  Wait for something to go on sale before buying it  Search the clearance racks/clearance sections at stores for good deals  Make a spending budget every week or month and stick to it  Wait until the end of the season to buy certain seasonal/clothing items, when prices are at their lowest  Go to stores specifically when they are having an advertised sale  Go to yard sales /garage sales  Shop on Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving) and/or the days right after Christmas when many items are on sale or clearance  Buy things on Craigslist or eBay  Buy and drive a practical and reliable car  Use apps for selling and buying gently-used merchandise

INSTRUCTIONS

Now, think of someone that you know who does many or most of these things when they shop. This person you know might be a friend, family member, co-worker/colleague, or romantic partner/spouse. We are going to ask you to answer a variety of questions about this person. Some of these questions will be very personal in nature. You cannot answer the questions about yourself, even if you happen to shop and spend your money as described above.

THRIFTY SPENDING 60

If you know more than one person who shops in the manner described above, please answer the survey in reference to the person who most vividly comes to mind when you think about this shopping style.

THRIFTY SPENDING 61

APPENDIX C: CONDITION II INSTRUCTIONS

Shopping & Personality (Condition 2)

In this research, we are interested in learning about how people spend their money and how their spending patterns might connect with other aspects of their personality and lifestyle.

Some people have a pattern of shopping and spending that is characterized by the following kinds of behaviors. Please read the list carefully.

These people:

 Regularly buy expensive items and pay full price  Regularly buy things they want, whenever they want them, and without concern for cost  Shop, only or primarily, at stores known for being exclusive, expensive, and/or carrying designer clothing and other items  Purchase, only or primarily, clothing that clearly has a brand name or designer name  Purchase, only or primarily, expensive/designer purses, bags, watches, shoes, jewelry  If relevant, purchases expensive make-up (e.g., MAC, Sephora, Dior, Clinique) versus buying make-up at grocery stores or other retail/drug store chains (e.g., Walgreens, Rite Aid)  Purchasing the newest (expensive) technology items (e.g. cellphones, computers, tablets, gadgets, televisions) whenever they come out  Buy and drive an expensive, luxury car or vehicle  Purchase a new vehicle every few years  Regularly take lavish, expensive vacations  Buy new clothes regularly/often  Spend a lot of money on fine dining, concert tickets, and/or tickets to professional sporting events, etc.  Don't bother with comparison shopping to find the best deals on things  Show off their new, expensive purchases  Do not use coupons  Buy a house that is much larger than what is needed  Purchase expensive glasses/sunglasses (e.g., Oakley, Ray Ban, Gucci)

INSTRUCTIONS

Now, think of someone that you know who does many or most of these things when they shop. This person you know might be a friend, family member, co-worker/colleague, or romantic partner/spouse. We are going to ask you to answer a variety of questions about this person. Some of these questions will be very personal in nature. You cannot answer the questions about yourself, even if you happen to shop and spend your money as described above.

THRIFTY SPENDING 62

If you know more than one person who shops in the manner described above, please answer the survey in reference to the person who most vividly comes to mind when you think about this shopping style.

THRIFTY SPENDING 63

APPENDIX D: MEASURES

Intelligence, creativity, and problem solving

1. This person is intelligent.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person is someone who is original, comes up with new ideas.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person is creative.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. This person is good at solving problems.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. This person is ingenious, a deep thinker.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Conscientiousness

1. This person is someone who does a thorough job.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person is someone who can be somewhat careless. (RS)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person is someone who tends to be disorganized. (RS)

THRIFTY SPENDING 64

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. This person is someone who is a reliable worker.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. This person is someone who perseveres (i.e., keeps going) until the task is finished.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Self-control

1. This person is good at resisting temptation.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person has good self-control.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person often acts without thinking through all of the alternatives. (RS)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. This person is able to work effectively towards long-term goals.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. This person is able to delay gratification.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

THRIFTY SPENDING 65

Agreeableness

1. This person is nice.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person is someone who is considerate and kind to almost everyone.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. This person is someone who likes to cooperate with others.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. This person is someone who is helpful and unselfish with others.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moral Character/Virtue

1. This person is trustworthy.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree\

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person has a good moral character.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person has a strong sense of right and wrong.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. This person tries to do the right thing.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

THRIFTY SPENDING 66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. This person is honest.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Cheap

1.This person is cheap.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person is stingy.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person is tight with their money.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Valuation of Wealth in Others

1. I can see this person going after guys/girls for their money (e.g., being a gold digger). (RS)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person values how much money their (potential) romantic partner makes. (RS)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person is attracted to people for their wealth. (RS)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

THRIFTY SPENDING 67

Vanity (conceited, narcissistic, egotistical)

1. This person is vain.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person is shallow.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person is superficial.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. This person is materialistic.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. This person is a show-off.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

6. This person is greedy.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. This person is selfish.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Infidelity probability

1. This person could/does remain sexually faithful within a long-term relationship. (RS)

THRIFTY SPENDING 68

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person is likely to have (or has had) a one-night stand with someone while in a committed relationship with someone else.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person is likely to have (or has had) an ongoing affair with someone while in a committed relationship with someone else.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Mating Effort

1. This person would knowingly hit on someone else’s partner.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person wears flashy, expensive clothes.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person has slept with a large number of people in his/her lifetime.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. This person is considered attractive to others for a brief sexual relationship.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Desirability as a Long-Term Mate

THRIFTY SPENDING 69

1. This person is emotionally stable.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person would/does make a good long-term partner.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Parenting Effort

1. This person would be/is good at taking care of children.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person would be/is caring and emotionally supportive in a long-term relationship.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person would be/is a loyal and faithful wife/husband.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. This person uses (or will use in the future) most of his/her money to support his/her family.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

THRIFTY SPENDING 70

APPENDIX E: CONTROL/EXPLORATORY ITEMS

Perceived Similarity to Target

1. This person is similar to me.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person's shopping style is similar to my own personal shopping style.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Concern with Quality of Purchased Items

1. When this person shops he/she is concerned with getting high-quality items.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sexual Attractiveness (Schmidt and Buss 2000) (3 questions)

1. This person is physically attractive.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person is flirtatious.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person is sexy.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Healthy (2 items)

1. This person is healthy.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

THRIFTY SPENDING 71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person works out/exercises regularly.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Boring/Exciting Personality (2 items)

1. This person has an exciting personality.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person is boring.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

THRIFTY SPENDING 72

APPENDIX F: MANIPULATION CHECK ITEMS

1. This person is a smart shopper.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. This person likely carries a lot of credit card debt.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. This person shops at stores like TJMaxx and Marshalls.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. This person shops at stores like Bloomingdales and Saks 5th Ave.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. Being thrifty means that someone uses their money and other resources carefully and not wastefully. Someone who is thrifty might use coupons, buy in bulk, wait for sales, search clearance racks, etc.

How thrifty is the person you referred to in your answers throughout this study?

1 - - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - - 4 - - - - - 5 - - - - - 6 - - - - - 7 - - - - - 8 - - - - - 9

Not at All Extremely

Thrifty Thrifty

6. Engaging in conspicuous consumption means that someone engages in lavish or wasteful spending. Someone who engages in conspicuous consumption might wear only expensive or designer clothing (or watches or purses/bags), pay full price for things, buy what they want when they want it without concern for price, not comparison shop to find the best deal, etc.

To what extent does the person you referred to in your answers engage in conspicuous consumption?

THRIFTY SPENDING 73

1 - - - - - 2 - - - - - 3 - - - - - 4 - - - - - 5 - - - - - 6 - - - - - 7 - - - - - 8 - - - - - 9

Not at All Very Much So

7. (Thrifty Condition) Earlier you read a list of shopping behaviors and were asked to think of someone you know who does many or most of those things. Check which behaviors that person engages in.

___Use coupons at the grocery store and other stores

___Shop at stores known for offering good prices/good value (e.g., TJ Maxx, Marshall’s)

___Search for coupon codes/promotion codes when shopping online

___Shop at thrift stores or consignment shops (Plato's Closet, Once Upon a Child, Savers,

___Salvation Army, Good Will)

___Buy items in bulk, at places like Sam's Club or Costco, in order to pay a lower "price per

unit"

___Compare prices at different stores in order to find the best deal before purchasing an item

___Wait for something to go on sale before buying it

___Search the clearance racks/clearance sections at stores for good deals

___Make a spending budget every week or month and stick to it

___Wait until the end of the season to buy certain seasonal/clothing items, when prices are at

their lowest

___Go to stores specifically when they are having an advertised sale

___Go to yard sales /garage sales

___Shop on Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving) and/or the days right after Christmas

when many items are on sale or clearance

THRIFTY SPENDING 74

___Buy things on Craigslist or eBay

___Buy and drive a practical and reliable car

___Use apps for selling and buying gently-used merchandise

8. (Conspicuous Consumer Condition) Earlier you read a list of shopping behaviors and were asked to think of someone you know who does many or most of those things. Check which behaviors that person engages in.

___Regularly buy expensive items and pay full price

___Regularly buy things they want, whenever they want them, and without concern for cost

___Shop, only or primarily, at stores known for being exclusive, expensive, and/or carrying designer clothing and other items

___Purchase, only or primarily, clothing that clearly has a brand name or designer name

___Purchase, only or primarily, expensive/designer purses, bags, watches, shoes, jewelry

___If relevant, purchases expensive make-up (e.g., MAC, Sephora, Dior, Clinique) versus buying their make-up at grocery stores or other retail/drug store chains (e.g., Walgreens, Rite Aid)

___Purchasing the newest (expensive) technology items (e.g. cellphones, computers, tablets, gadgets, televisions) whenever they come out

___Buy and drive an expensive, luxury car or vehicle

___Purchase a new vehicle every few years

___Regularly take lavish, expensive vacations

___Buy new clothes regularly/often

___Spend a lot of money on fine dining, concert tickets, and/or tickets to professional sporting events, etc.

___Don't bother with comparison shopping to find the best deals on things

___Show off their new, expensive purchases

THRIFTY SPENDING 75

___Do not use coupons

___Buy a house that is much larger than what is needed

___Purchase expensive glasses/sunglasses (e.g., Oakley, Ray Ban, Gucci)

THRIFTY SPENDING 76

APPENDIX G: ATTENTION CHECK ITEMS

1. If you are currently taking this survey and reading this question, please select "agree"

from the options below.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

2. If you are NOT a robot, please select "neutral" from the options below.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

3. If you are able to read this, please select "disagree" from the options below.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

THRIFTY SPENDING 77

APPENDIX H: TARGET DEMOGRAPHICS

Instructions: Now that the main portion of the study is over, we would like to know a bit more information about the person you answered the previous questions about.

1. What is this person’s sex? (Please check one.)

_____ Male

_____ Female

_____ Trans-Male

_____ Trans-Female

_____ Questioning

_____ Not Listed

2. How old is this person? (in years, to the best of your knowledge)

______Years

3. What is this person's sexual orientation? (Please check one)

_____ Straight

_____ Gay/Lesbian

_____ Bisexual

_____ Not Listed

_____ Not sure/Unknown

4. What is this person's current relationship status? (Please check all that apply.)

_____ Single

_____ Dating

_____ In a committed relationship

_____ Cohabitating/Living Together

_____ Married/Engaged

_____ Not Sure/Not Known

THRIFTY SPENDING 78

Other: ______

5. Does this person have any children? Yes or No (This can include step-children, adopted, etc.)

If yes, how many? ______

6. Which of the following best describes this person's race/ethnicity? Please check one.

_____ White/Caucasian

_____ Hispanic or Latino/a

_____ Black/African American

_____ Native American/American Indian

_____ Asian/Pacific Islander

_____ Biracial or Multiracial

_____ Other

7. What is your relationship to this person? (Please check all that apply.)

_____ Friend

_____ Co-worker

_____ Boss

_____ Sister

_____ Brother

_____ Mother

_____ Father

_____ Girlfriend

_____ Boyfriend

_____ Fiance/e

_____ Husband

_____ Wife

THRIFTY SPENDING 79

_____ Acquaintance

_____ Self

Other: ______

8. How long have you known this person?

______Years ______Months

9. How close are you to this person?

1 - - - - 2 - - - -3 - - -- -4 - - - -5 - - -- -6 - - - --7 - -- - -8 - - - - 9

Not at All Close Extremely Close

10. How much do you like/dislike this person?

1 - - - - 2 - - - -3 - - -- -4 - - - -5 - - -- -6 - - - --7 - -- - -8 - - - -9

Dislike Greatly Like Very Much

11. Which of the following items best describes this person's employment status? (Please check all that apply.)

_____ Employed Part-Time

_____ Employed Full Time

_____ Out of work and looking for work

_____ Out of work and not looking for work

_____ Homemaker/Stay-at-Home Mom/Dad

_____ Military

_____ Student

_____ Retired

THRIFTY SPENDING 80

_____ Unable to work

Other: ______

12. What is this person’s yearly salary? (to your best estimation, please check one)

_____ None

_____ Less than $10,000

_____ $10,000 to $19,999

_____ $20,000 to $29,999

_____ $30,000 to $39,999

_____ $40,000 to $49,999

_____ $50,000 to $59,999

_____ $60,000 to $69,999

_____ $70,000 to $79,999

_____ $80,000 to $89,999

_____ $90,000 to $99,999

_____ $100,000 to $149,999

_____ $150,000 or more

Other : ______

THRIFTY SPENDING 81

APPENDIX I: PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

Instructions: We would now like to know some basic information about you.

1. What is your sex? (Please check one.)

_____ Male

_____ Female

_____ Trans-Male

_____ Trans-Female

_____ Questioning

_____ Not Listed

2. What is your age? (in years)

3. What is your sexual orientation? (Please check one)

_____ Straight

_____ Gay/Lesbian

_____ Bisexual

_____ Not Listed

_____ Not sure/Unknown

4. What is your current relationship status? (Please check all that apply.)

_____ Single

_____ Dating

_____ In a committed relationship

_____ Cohabitating/Living Together/ Married/Engaged

Other: ______

THRIFTY SPENDING 82

5. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity? (Please check one.)

_____ White/Caucasian

_____ Hispanic or Latino/a

_____ Black/African American

_____ Native American/American Indian

_____ Asian/Pacific Islander

_____ Biracial or Multiracial

_____ Other

7. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (if currently enrolled, please select the last degree received)

_____ Some high school, no diploma

_____ High school graduate or equivalent (e.g., GED)

_____ Some college, no degree

_____ Technical school training, certificate, or degree

_____ Associate's degree

_____ Bachelor's degree

_____ Master’s degree

_____ Professional degree (e.g., M.D., DDS, J.D.)

_____ Doctorate degree

8. What is your current employment status? (Please check one.)

_____ Employed Part Time

THRIFTY SPENDING 83

_____ Employed Full Time

_____ Out of work and looking for work

_____ Out of work and not looking for work

_____ Homemaker/Stay-at-Home Mom/Dad

_____ Military

_____ Student

_____ Retired

_____ Unable to work

_____ Other

THRIFTY SPENDING 84

APPENDIX J: DEBRIEFING

Shopping and Personality Summer 2017

Thank you for participating in our study!

In this study, you were given a list of spending behaviors that a person that you know might engage in. Then you were asked to answer questions about this person’s personality. Following this, you completed a survey regarding your perception of this person’s sexual attitudes and behaviors. Then, you were asked a variety of questions pertaining to your relationship to this person, as well as questions about this person’s age, sex, relationship status, and salary.

With this study, we are trying to see whether or not people communicate personal information about themselves with their purchases and style of spending. It has been proposed that males that spend conspicuously are signaling an interest in short-term mating. Our research is interested in exploring the qualities that thrifty people communicate with their purchases and behaviors. Some of these traits could be intelligence, contentiousness, agreeableness and self-control, as well as, an interest in long-term mating.

Contact information:

Principal Investigator

Lynzee Murray

Bowling Green Department of Psychology [email protected]

References:

If you are interested in learning more on topics related to this research, see:

Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J. (2011).

Peacocks, porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous consumption as a sexual

signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 664-680

Wang, Y., Griskevicius, V. (2014). Conspicuous consumption, relationships, and rivals:

Women’s luxury products as signals to other women. Journal of Consumer Research, 40,

834-854.

THRIFTY SPENDING 85

APPENDIX K: MTURK ADVERTISEMENT

Shopping and Personality

In this study, you will be asked to think of someone you know who shops in a certain way (to be defined later) and complete a series of questionnaires that measures various aspects of this person's personality and lifestyle.

To participate in this study you must be between the ages of 18-50, currently living in the United States, and speak English as your first language. You will be awarded $1 for the completion of this survey.

If you have any questions about the study, you may contact the principal investigator:

 Lynzee Murray, Psychology Department, Bowling Green State University, [email protected]

THRIFTY SPENDING 86

APPENDIX L: TABLES Table 1. Most to Least Commonly-Endorsed Shopping Behaviors Engaged in by Thrifty Targets, as Perceived by Participants Shopping Behavior % of Targets who engage in behavior 1. Shop at stores that offer good prices 81.8 2. Use coupons 81.8 3. Search sales racks/clearance 76.6 4. Compare prices at different stores 70.8 5. Search for coupon codes online 69.3 6. Wait for something to go on sale 68.6 7. Buy items in bulk 62.0 8. Buy/drive practical car 62.0 9. Go to stores when having a sale 60.6 10. Shop at thrift/consignment stores 52.6 11. Go to yard/garage sales 47.4 12. Make a spending budget 42.3 13. Wait until end of season to buy certain 40.9 items 14. Shop on Black Friday/after Christmas 38.0 15. Buy on Craigslist/EBay 38.0 16. Use apps for selling/buying used 22.6 merchandise 17. Cook meals at home* 4.4 18. Walk/take public transport* 2.2 Note. *These categories were not included in the original list. They were created based on being mentioned as examples of “Other” things the target person did that constituted being thrifty.

THRIFTY SPENDING 87

Table 2. Most to Least Commonly-Endorsed Shopping Behaviors Engaged in by Conspicuous Consumption Targets, as Perceived by Participants Shopping Behavior % of Targets who engage in behavior 1. Regularly buy expensive items/pay 79.7 full price 2. Regularly buy things when they want 77.5 3. Doesn’t compare prices for best deal 66.7 4. Buy new clothes regularly/often 65.9 5. Doesn’t use coupons 63.0 6. Buy only expensive purses, bags, 61.6 watches, shoes, jewelry 7. Show of new, expensive purchases 58.7 8. Purchase the newest/expensive tech 58.7 items 9. Only buy clothing that has 56.5 brand/designer name 10. Buy expensive glasses/sunglasses 55.1 11. Shop only at stores known for being 55.1 exclusive/expensive 12. Spend a lot of money on 52.2 dining/concert tickets/sports tickets 13. Regularly take expensive/lavish 51.4 vacations 14. Purchase expensive makeup 49.3 15. Purchase a new vehicle every few 48.6 years 16. Buy/drive an expensive/luxury vehicle 46.4 17. Buy larger house than needed 37.0 18. Brag about possessions* 10.9 19. Throw expensive parties* 2.2 20. Make it known when they give to 1.4 charity*

Note. *These categories were not included in the original list. They were created based on being mentioned as examples of “Other” things the target person did that constituted being thrifty

THRIFTY SPENDING 88

Table 3. Two Versions of Dependent Variable Presentation Order 1 Order 2 1. Intelligence 1. Agreeableness 2. Conscientiousness 2. Desirability as a Long-Term Mate 3. Self-Control 3. Moral Character/Virtue 4. Likeability 4. Likeability 5. Agreeableness 5. Self-Control 6. Moral Character/Virtue 6. Conscientiousness 7. Cheap 7. Parenting Effort 8. Valuation of Wealth in Others 8. Intelligence 9. Vanity 9. Short-Term Mating Effort 10. Infidelity Probability 10. Infidelity Probability 11. Short-Term Mating Effort 11. Vanity 12. Desirability as a Long-Term Mate 12. Valuation of Wealth in Others 13. Parenting Effort 13. Cheap Note. In Order 1 constructs were measured according to which prediction they pertained to, with those pertaining to Prediction 1 appearing first, Prediction 2 appearing 2nd, etc. In Order 2, constructs were measured in a pseudo-random fashion. The data from the 80 participants who completed the dependent variables in Order 2 was collected roughly two weeks after the first round of data collection. These participants did not differ from Order 1 participants on any demographic variables.

THRIFTY SPENDING 89

Table 4. Main Effects of Shopping Style on Manipulation Check Items Thrifty Target CC Target Measure M (SD, Mm) M (SD, Mm) Smart shopper 7.41 (1.76, 6.66) 3.41 (2.16, 4.19) Carries credit card debt 3.24 (2.08, 3.38) 5.85 (2.20, 5.74) Shops at TJ Maxx 6.72 (2.19, 6.18) 3.57 (2.27, 4.01) Shops at Bloomingdales 2.54 (1.92, 3.21) 6.63 (2.14, 5.77)

THRIFTY SPENDING 90

Table 5.

Effect Sizes that Accompany Main effects of Shopping Style on all Major Dependent Measure, by Prediction, as a Function of Method of Calculation Measure Uncorrected Cohen’s d F-statistic Cohen’s d Prediction 2 Intelligence 1.10 0.44 Conscientiousness 1.22 0.39 Self-control 1.59 0.67 Prediction 3 Likeability 0.90 0.32 Prediction 4 Agreeableness 0.61 0.17 Moral character/virtue 0.85 0.26 Vanity 1.60 0.68 Valuation of wealth 0.95 0.47 Cheap 0.93 0.34 Prediction 5 Short-term mating effort 1.42 0.55 Prediction 6 Infidelity probability 0.77 0.29 Parenting effort 0.98 0.23 Desirability as a long- 0.82 0.21 term mate Note. According to Cohen (1969), d = .2 corresponds to a small effect; d = .5 corresponds to a medium effect, and d = .8 corresponds to a large effect.

THRIFTY SPENDING 91

Table 6. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Predictors of Likeability Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Predictor B SE 훽 p B SE 훽 p B SE 훽 p Variables Constant 3.982 .568 <.001 3.353 .597 <.001 4.721 .700 <.001 Age -.019 .010 -.118 .067 -.019 .010 -.120 .059 -.019 .008 -.117 .016 Relationship .069 .188 .019 .714 .030 .185 .008 .872 -.209 .142 -.057 .142 Status Number of .059 .077 .045 .446 .034 .076 .026 .656 -.065 .059 -.050 .266 Children Length Known .041 .010 .241 <.001 .037 .010 .220 <.001 .034 .008 .200 <.001 Salary -.001 .032 -.002 .964 .017 .032 .028 .596 .010 .024 .017 .674 Similarity .472 .045 .546 <.001 .363 .057 .420 <.001 .114 .047 .132 .016 Concern with .090 .050 .094 .071 .143 .052 .150 .006 .070 .040 .074 .082 Quality Spending Style .161 .053 .224 .003 -.043 .046 -.060 .346 Agreeableness .499 .056 .473 <.001 Vanity -.286 .054 -.340 <.001 R2 .368 .39 .649 ΔR2 .021 .259 ΔF 21.918 9.164 95.924