Merging money may boost marriage longevity

Managing finances can be a challenge for just about any newlyweds. Working together to budget, save, and set goals requires a lot of time and effort – even with someone you love. Whether or not these efforts strengthen or test a relationship, however, is somewhat up for debate.

Popular opinion is mixed, but some research seems to suggest merging bank accounts could be a net positive – a study from 2010 found that joint accounts were linked with higher relationship quality, while research published as recently as 2022 found that couples who pool all their money were significantly more likely to be together 12–14 years later than couples who didn't.

Newly published work expands on these findings, and provides the first experimental look at how bank account structure affects the quality of new marriages. Writing in the Journal for Consumer Research, a US-based research team finds that increased financial interdependence could help newlyweds keep their relationships strong for a longer time. 

The first study sought to explore whether joint or separate bank accounts are better for relationship quality. To do this, the team recruited 230 heterosexual couples entering their first marriage via social media and local internet postings. Most of these couples (~44%) had separate accounts, while some had a blend of separate and joint (~33%), and others, completely joint accounts (~24%). 

After completing an intake survey, participants were assigned to one of three conditions. In one, couples were told to continue using separate accounts and to not open joint accounts for the duration of the two-year long experiment. Another group were asked to take the opposite route, being told to open joint accounts and discontinue any separate accounts. Couples assigned to the third, no-intervention condition were given freedom to choose, and allowed to manage their money however they liked. 

Over the next two years, participants independently completed surveys focusing on relationship quality and financial harmony six times. Questions on relationship quality focused on relationship satisfaction and conflict tactics, with participants indicating how much they agreed with statements such as "my relationship with my partner makes me happy", "within the last three months I shouted or yelled at my partner", and "over the past month interactions with my partner generally went smoothly". Questions on financial harmony looked at to what extent money was a source of conflict in participants' marriages, and their satisfaction towards how they managed money together. 

Analysis of this data found that, similarly to previous research, those in the no-intervention condition reported a significant decline in the quality of their relationship quality over time; a fate shared by those assigned to keep separate bank accounts. However, couples assigned to hold joint bank accounts had a much more positive relationship trajectory. This, the data suggest, was partly driven by greater financial harmony; those in the joint condition expressed greater satisfaction in how they discussed money with their partners, which seemed to provide a boost to relationship satisfaction. 

Factors beyond financial harmony, of course, are likely to be at play. This is what spurred the team into their second investigation, for which they recruited a fresh batch of 507 married, US-based participants (48% female). 

First, these participants indicated how they manage their money with their partner, and again answered questions on financial harmony. The team then probed communality within the sample's marriages. To do this, participants were asked to consider two types of marriage: one, a communal relationship, was described as a relationship in which "when one person does something for the other, the other should not owe the giver anything". The other, the 'exchange' relationship type, was summarised as "members of the relationship ought to keep track of benefits given and received in order to keep them in balance". 

After reading each description, participants indicated how much their relationship was like each of the statements. During this part of the study, they were also asked to imagine their spouse had received a $1000 bonus at work, and asked whether they considered it "my spouse's money" or "our money". Lastly, participants indicated how important the following things like saving for retirement, saving for special circumstances (e.g., holidays or emergencies), and paying down debt for themselves and (separately) their spouse were when considering saving.

As in the first study, financial harmony was highest among couples who had completely joint accounts. These couples also reported higher communality, along with more alignment in financial goals, and were more likely to be transparent about money. Partial financial merging was not associated with the same benefits. 

It is important to note that the results of this second study are correlational, not causal: the study did not prove that joint bank accounts caused communality, or whether communality increased the likelihood of opening joint bank accounts. Similarly, as the team notes, financial merging is a highly involved, somewhat risky endeavour, and may not work for everyone. 

Even so, some of the findings of the study could be taken on as positive advice. Merging bank accounts, the authors say, may have helped to establish a more communal view of marriage in new couples, or perhaps helped maintain those views for longer. They suggest that supporting higher levels of communality could give new marriages an advantage when it comes to longevity. 

Read the paper in full: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad020