Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the money-is-disagreeable dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Nice people finish last when it comes to money: Agreeable people who place less value on money at a financial disadvantage, study says

Nice people may be at greater risk of bankruptcy and other financial hardships compared with their less agreeable peers, not because they are more cooperative, but because they don't value money as much, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

"We were interested in understanding whether having a nice and warm personality, what academics in personality research describe as agreeableness, was related to negative financial outcomes," said Sandra Matz, PhD, of Columbia Business School and lead author of the study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. "Previous research suggested that agreeableness was associated with lower credit scores and income. We wanted to see if that association held true for other financial indicators and, if so, better understand why nice guys seem to finish last."

[...] "We found that agreeableness was associated with indicators of financial hardship, including lower savings, higher debt and higher default rates," said Gladstone. "This relationship appears to be driven by the fact that agreeable people simply care less about money and therefore are at higher risk of money mismanagement."

[...] "Not every agreeable person is at equal risk of experiencing financial hardship," Gladstone said. "The relationship was much stronger for lower-income individuals, who don't have the financial means to compensate for the detrimental impact of their agreeable personality."

Nice guys finish last: When and why agreeableness is associated with economic hardship (DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000220)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 14 2018, @05:23AM (15 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 14 2018, @05:23AM (#748508) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, I know. It was a great shock to me to find out that people who don't need money to be happy put less effort into getting piles and piles of it. Could have knocked me over with a feather.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Touché=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @07:18AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @07:18AM (#748523)

    Since you're made of feathers that seems appropriate.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @07:32AM (12 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @07:32AM (#748525)

    It was a great shock to me to find out that people who don't need money to be happy put less effort into getting piles and piles of it. Could have knocked me over with a feather.

    Did you read beyond the headline?

    To me, it seems a potentially more interesting finding. It doesn't surprise me that people who care less about money end up with less of it. But I'm surprised a bit that "agreeable people" have a significantly higher incidence of bankruptcy, higher default rates, lower credit scores, etc. That's not just caring less about money -- that's being completely irresponsible. I mean, I'd expect perhaps a small trend, though not necessarily a big one.

    After all, one can not care so much about accumulating hoards of money and be a kind and gentle soul, but also still be a reasonably responsible person who pays bills on time. (I'd claim to be one such person.) One can also be an aggressive money-hungry businessman who takes crazy risks, doesn't pay attention to the "details" of management, and ends up declaring bankruptcy multiple times. (Plenty of those types even as CEOs of businesses, though they often get bailed out with their "golden parachutes.")

    Or, in short, responsibility and agreeableness seem to be somewhat orthogonal personality characteristics.

    And the headline doesn't quite seem to match the summary, which implies that the connection is "Agreeable people tend to place less value on money" AND "Agreeable people end up having financial disadvantages." When it's phrased as "agreeable people WHO don't value money have financial disadvantages" it sounds like a tautology, I agree. Because the headline sounds like you're taking a subset of "agreeable people" (i.e., only those who place less value on money), but that's not what the study did... it said agreeable people in general end up with financial disadvantages.

    So why might that be? Some of it might be (as implied in the summary) that they just care less about money in general, which means -- I guess -- that they're "carefree" and loose with it, not practicing responsible spending or budgeting or whatever.

    But I wonder whether there aren't other factors at work here, specifically the likelihood of "agreeable people" being screwed over by more aggressive folks financially (as they are in other things). Or even agreeable people failing to get confrontational enough to deal with financial problems that aren't their own fault. I'm generally an "agreeable person," but quite a few times in my life I've had to get aggressive and fight to correct financial errors for example. I've had medical bills that I've had to call again and again and get them to refile with insurance until they do it properly so things get paid. I've had government bills go to the wrong address even though I had corrected my address with them, and then have had huge fines slapped on me that I needed to dispute multiple times by writing and have aggressive phone calls to finally get someone to listen and correct them. I've had to sometimes contact multiple government agencies to resolve utility bills that were leveled on me in error. I've had quite a few such situations in my life that could have ruined my credit scores if they weren't resolved -- and I had to take care of them, so I gave up my normal "agreeableness" and had to fight with people to fix things.

    In all cases, I was also lucky enough financially that I could have absorbed the loss even if I hadn't been able to resolve these situations. (Though I'd be poorer today.) If I didn't earn a decent salary or if such situations like mine piled up, I might not be able to cope with them financially. And "agreeable" people are probably less likely to ask for what they would perceive as "special treatment" -- offering to pay back a part of a debt, trying to negotiate a better deal after the fact, asking for a salary advance to deal with an unusual situation (or being more aggressive in requesting raises, even you're struggling financially), trying to ask a creditor to remove bad reports (that affect credit scores, etc.). I could easily see someone like me -- who is reasonably responsible with money, even if I don't covet it -- falling into a trap of financial ruin if I had some bad luck and weren't willing to fight to help myself... instead just accepting the bad stuff that comes my way and suffering the consequences.

    Bottom line: Some "agreeable" people may simply be happy-go-lucky irresponsible folks with money, but I wonder if the effect here isn't also measuring a lot of "agreeable" people who get screwed over by the system.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by crafoo on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:59PM (1 child)

      by crafoo (6639) on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:59PM (#748593)

      Some very good points.
      They say agreeable people, but do they mean conflict-adverse people or just weak, pussified people-pleasers? Someone who runs from conflicts and aggression. Someone that can be easily manipulated once you know they won't confront you over theft, dishonesty, and abuse? Someone who won't even admit to themselves their real life desires and build a plan to achieve them?

      If so, I think it's quite logical these people end up failing. It's actually quite fitting. Everyone competes in the game whether they enjoy that fact or not.

      • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday October 15 2018, @12:51AM

        by krishnoid (1156) on Monday October 15 2018, @12:51AM (#748772)

        This relationship appears to be driven by the fact that agreeable people simply care less about money

        Wait, this is a *fact*? They may care *more* about being agreeable than about money, but this doesn't sound right.

        Could it be that in some situations, just being agreeable can directly impact people financially, negatively, and substantially? I'd think that some folks want to be agreeable with a bunch of people, and eventually find some friends who notice that and are able to collect significant fractions of your money. The same $100 for groceries or consumer goods that those acquaintances get from you could be a large fraction for "... lower-income individuals, who don't have the financial means to compensate for the detrimental impact of their agreeable personality."

        I've also seen people equate "being agreeable" to "not taking money when people offer it", which also makes sense.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @01:58PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @01:58PM (#748605)

      To me, it seems a potentially more interesting finding. It doesn't surprise me that people who care less about money end up with less of it. But I'm surprised a bit that "agreeable people" have a significantly higher incidence of bankruptcy, higher default rates, lower credit scores, etc. That's not just caring less about money -- that's being completely irresponsible. I mean, I'd expect perhaps a small trend, though not necessarily a big one.

      The US (and World) financial systems are geared toward greed, acquiring as much capital as possible and/or incurring as much debt as possible. Having more debt "experience" leads to better credit ratings (even if they are living check to check, or hunting for lose change in their couch). So when someone who is not a "I need all the dollars douche" finds themselves in a financial bind they don't have the creditors ready and willing to bury them in more debt. Fewer credit options ends up meaning more defaults and bankruptcies.

      • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:24PM (3 children)

        by acid andy (1683) on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:24PM (#748613) Homepage Journal

        Doesn't it all depend on how you look at it though? Isn't someone who owes $30,000 worth $30,000 less than someone who's just completed a bankruptcy leaving them with exactly nothing? This society has come to worship credit debt.

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:22PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:22PM (#748629)

          Well ... um ... you are correct (and very much so), but someone who has declared bankruptcy is not worth anything in the eyes of the financial community because then are not (and will not be for a while) a source of revenue (e.g., interest on your credit cards, on your store cards, on your car loans, on your mortgage, etc). So someone with lots of debt is worth less in a "the math is easy" sort of way, but they are worth more to the world because they are living beyond their means and fueling the economy and financial industry.

          Sadly, in America people's financial worth is measured with the "how much can they buy" metric, whereas in places like Europe their financial worth would be measured in the "how much can they save" metric. The US economy did not learn much from the credit industry collapse from 10 years ago (and we never will).

          • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday October 15 2018, @12:31AM (1 child)

            by krishnoid (1156) on Monday October 15 2018, @12:31AM (#748768)

            On the flip side of that, isn't someone who owes $30E3 and hasn't defaulted yet, basically the same as the lender holding a bond for that amount? That's like an investment, which is worth mumble time value of money mumble something with accompanying risk.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:41AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:41AM (#748925)

              In a way, yes. But bonds have a much lower risk and that is reflected in their lower yield. The loan has greater risk and pays accordingly.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:57PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:57PM (#748622) Homepage Journal

      You must be new here.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:04PM (3 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:04PM (#748623) Homepage Journal

      You don't sound particularly agreeable. I mean you did just type a big ole wall-o-text to disagree with a joke. Mind you, disagreeable doesn't mean also being assertive in psych context. It's quite possible to be disagreeable and fail to assert your disagreements. That may be where your confusion is coming in.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:27PM (#748631)

        You don't sound particularly agreeable.

        Disagreeable people generally sound agreeable to themselves and those who echo their beliefs. To the rest of us? Not so much.

        I mean you did just type a big ole wall-o-text to disagree with a joke.

        I think AC may have missed the joke, and would have also missed a 36pt font Whoosh!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @10:16PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @10:16PM (#748728)

        You're a known troll. And where is the joke? What you said in your previous comment is true -- the headline DOES (as AC asserts) sound like a tautology, and your reaction to it seems perfectly reasonable if you were looking at the study the way the headline implied. So your comment may have been said in a lighthearted manner, but were you actually joking or being somewhat serious. (I know with trolls that it's hard to tell -- probably even for yourself. I assume you turned off that mechanism that understands when you're sincere long ago.)

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by mcgrew on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:40PM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:40PM (#748639) Homepage Journal

    Everyone needs SOME money. I have a modest pension and Social Security, which buys me all I need and most of what I want. Why should I bust my ass to be able to buy newer, shinier stuff?

    A Tesla would be nice, though.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org