What is it about?
This paper explores how relationships shape financial risk-taking when people invest money earmarked for others, like a child’s college fund or a spouse’s retirement account, compared to when they invest for themselves. Through experiments, the research reveals three key findings: - People are more cautious with money set aside for others than with their own money. - The degree of caution depends on the relationship—parents are the most risk-averse when investing for their children. - Labeling money for specific purposes, like “college” or “retirement,” makes people even more conservative, as these labels carry cultural and moral significance. This behavior can have real financial consequences, as overly cautious investing for others can lead to lower returns over time, potentially deepening wealth inequalities.
Featured Image
Photo by Mathieu Stern on Unsplash
Why is it important?
This paper is unique because it applies a sociological lens to investing, a field typically dominated by economics and finance. It introduces the concept of “relational investing,” showing how our social ties and cultural values influence financial decisions in ways that standard economic models fail to capture. It’s timely because more people are responsible for managing investments, not just for themselves but for their families, amid rising costs for education and retirement. As financial decisions become increasingly personal and relational, understanding these dynamics can help improve financial outcomes and reduce disparities.
Perspectives
What I find most striking about this paper is how it reveals the emotional and moral weight we attach to money-and the risk level we attach to it-when it’s intended for someone else. The idea that we take fewer risks with a child’s college fund than with our own retirement savings feels intuitive, but this research goes further—it shows how deeply embedded cultural values and relational roles guide our financial behavior, often without us realizing it. For me, the most powerful takeaway is the subtle trade-off this behavior creates. By being overly cautious, we may unintentionally limit the financial growth of funds earmarked for loved ones, potentially shortchanging the very goals we care most about. This insight feels both humbling and empowering: it reminds us to balance care and caution with an understanding of long-term impact. This research doesn’t just apply to parents or investors—it speaks to anyone navigating the complexities of money and relationships. It’s a call to think critically about how we handle financial decisions that affect not just ourselves but the people we care about.
Dr. Adam Hayes
University of Lucerne
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Earmarking Risk: Relational Investing and Portfolio Choice, Social Forces, April 2020, Oxford University Press (OUP),
DOI: 10.1093/sf/soaa025.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
