# A Penny Saved is a Partner Earned: The Romantic Appeal of Savers



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Wow. These guys at the University of Michigan wrote a 51 page paper about whether spenders or savers are more romantically appealing to a partner. You can download the paper for free if you want. I only read the abstract. Couldn't help but smile. Who knows. Maybe they are right.

------------------------------------

A Penny Saved is a Partner Earned: The Romantic Appeal of Savers


Abstract: 
The desire to attract a romantic partner often stimulates conspicuous consumption, but we find that people who chronically save are more romantically attractive than people who chronically spend. Saving up to make a particular purchase also enhances one’s romantic appeal, as long as the planned purchase is not materialistic. Savers are viewed as possessing greater general self-control than spenders, and this perception mediates the relationship between spending habits and attractiveness. Because general self-control also encourages healthy behaviors that promote physical attractiveness, savers are viewed as more physically attractive as well. However, general self-control is not always coveted in potential mates: dispositional and situational factors that increase the need for stimulation reduce the preference for savers. Nevertheless, capitalizing on the general preference for savers over spenders, people are more likely to deceptively describe themselves as savers when completing a dating profile than when completing a private questionnaire. Our work sheds light on how a fundamental consumption behavior (spending and saving decisions) influences the formation of romantic relationships. 


Number of Pages in PDF File: 51


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2281344


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I guess achedemia has validated my approach.

About 20 years ago, while dating, I got tired of hearing that she never had any money. We only used to cross paths on weekends. We were living about 30km apaprt at the time, and my working another 30km in the other direction kind of kept diring the week meeting to special outings.

We jointly went over her finances and found where the holes were. 
Things like about $150 per week because she was always eating out because she never shopped for groceries, $80 a month for cable with a slew of chanels because 'I can't find the time to take the converter back or get to the service centre'. $ not sure but a chunk monthly to a gym she had not goone to in 4 months. Whole life insurance policy that I have no idea how she got into, that she dod not understand. 

We went though her kitchen to identify stuff she needed to cook with weekly, and donated away all of the other useless stuff relatives had foisted on her as being one of the first to move out ( she is the youngest of five, and the second one to leave home). Two electric bun warmers cut glass serving tray, you get the idea. Got her down to six place settings so fewer dishes could sit dirty before being washed up. 

After a review of her fixed expenses, and reasonable allocations for variable ones, we identified there should be a $400 a month surplus. 

Next weekend stayed over and got her out of bed saturday am to go grocery shopping

Over a few months she started to brown bag lunch regularly, eat breakfast before leaving to the office, and have something at home to cook for dinner. 

I double parked as she took the converter back and cancelled premium cable.

She argued to quit the gym ,and after a long fight the deductions stopped. I guess some things never change. 

She cancelled whole life, and recovered most of her contributions, but none of the promised gains the investments should have been making per the original promotional material. Get into a reasonable amount of term life.
Put the money into an RRSP to start investing more directly, took the refund and paid off a stalled load repayment to her dad for her car.
Started to regularly contribute about 300 to RRSP/investments monthly.

Well after she had been at that for a year or so, of her own accord, I decided that this saver could tolerate my former spend thrift. We have been together for over 20 years, and married about 18 years to this point.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I don't know,In reality i have a hard time accepting this.It would take month(S) before one would/can disclose there finances with another/partner(it's not like a bank balance or a assets breakdown is stapled to one's forehead)stealth wealth is like a hidden surprise i would think(people that have net-worth are not quick to announce it & for good reason)Only slowly discovered over time.
How would a women/man decipher someone's wealth on first impressions?Everything about being money smart is @ the other end of the spectrum of showing a good 1st impression(the kind that turn women on) imo.(i don't know what that impression looks like)
The frugal millionaire that drives up to the red light in a 10 yr old toyota and dressed in his 50% off costco special pants and shirt i doubt sticks out compared to the guy leveraged out on his harley tatted with ftw on his back..........In my experience women are seldom attracted to the first example,women love the bad-boy ahole,you can hang your hat on that.(I'm talking courtship/early on sex appeal or whatever you want to call it)Just my thoughts.maybe im wrong though,could be thinking young here.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

If savers are indeed sexy, then I'm Brad Pitt - 75% savings rate are my six pack abs. :biggrin:


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

And I would be Angelina Jolie; long legs. :biggrin:


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

lol you guys are funny. Who pays for the dinner bill? lol
BTW I am George Clooney then.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Jungle said:


> BTW I am George Clooney then.


What all 3 have in common = a big heart!

But I think that character is best suited for J.Snow, as I don't think he [as Mr. Pitt], would manage a 75% savings rating with 6 children, could you JS? 

I see nothing wrong being attracted to those that are 'chronic' givers, however!


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

T.Gal, I can confidently state that our savings rate is largely attributable to the fact we have NO CHILDREN (decent salaries doesn't hurt either) . Not sure that kids cost as much as some claim, but if we had kids, we would have definitely had to move into a bigger home - that would mean having a mortgage again. :hopelessness:

My wife and I get a few raised eyebrows about our chosen life path, but if you are going to go through life without experiencing the wonders of parenthood, you might as well do so saving a ton of money, and quitting mandatory work at an early age. Having a boatload of nieces and nephews helps ease the kid craving a bit too.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Jon : you would still be a saver even with kids. You probably wouldn't spend nearly as much as we choose to. Our friends who also don't have kids but have always been spenders have decided since hey don't have kids,they should just live it up.

Their say they have no reason to save because its just the two of them.

If you want to experience raising children I could lend mine to you for a couple of weeks. Heck, I will even pay for their expenses, I could use a little trip. :tongue-new:


----------

