Pacific Standard Debut Cover

The Poisonous Proceeds of Penny-Pinching

Researchers report the shame evoked by miserly behavior may have negative long-term health consequences.

Study suggests stinginess could be harmful to your health, but only if your tightwad tendencies arouse feelings of shame. (Dan Fletcher / istockphoto)

Is stinginess harmful to your health? Newly published research suggests the answer may be yes — if your tightwad tendencies arouse feelings of shame.

Writing in the Journal of Health Psychology, a research team led by University of British Columbia psychologist Elizabeth Dunn describes an experiment in which 50 students were given an opportunity to be generous.

Specifically, each received 10 one-dollar coins as compensation for their participation. They were then given the option of donating some or all of this payment to a randomly selected classmate who was not involved in the experiment. Those who chose to do so put a portion of their earnings in an envelope and handed it to the presumably pleased recipient.

Both before and after the experiment, all the participants rated their mood — specifying their levels of such emotions as excitement, anxiety and shame — and provided a saliva sample, so their cortisol could be measured. Cortisol is a hormone that gets activated in times of emotional stress; frequent or prolonged elevation of cortisol levels has been shown to increase one’s vulnerability to disease.

“Participants who kept more money for themselves reported … more negative (emotions) and more shame,” the researchers report. “Shame predicted higher levels of post-game cortisol, controlling for pre-game cortisol.”

This suggests “stingy economic behavior can produce a feeling of shame, which in turn drives secretion of the stress hormone cortisol,” Dunn and her colleagues conclude. “Over time, such behavior may have compounding consequences for health.”

They added, “To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to identify the pathways through which a specific economic decision may ‘get under the skin’ to influence a health-related biological process.”

So, in terms of wear and tear on the body, there’s a price to be paid for being Scrooge-like. But the researchers add that this effect appears to depend upon “one’s proneness to shame” and whether a particular decision to give or withhold money “holds implications for one’s moral character.”

This leads to an unfortunate irony. Plenty of ungenerous people feel no shame at all in ignoring the less well-off (note the recent resurgence of interest in Ayn Rand), and this research suggests their moral obliviousness may actually ward off this threat to their long-term health.

Unless, of course, they’re merely repressing such uncomfortable emotions, which could have its own long-term health consequences. All things considered, it’s probably wiser to not be a miser.

About Tom Jacobs

Staff writer Tom Jacobs is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience at daily newspapers. He has served as a staff writer for The Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. His work has also appeared in The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Ventura County Star.

  • http://randex.org Mark Wickens

    You will have to explain how interest in Ayn Rand makes one ungenerous. On the contrary, I find those who are interested in her philosophy to be some of the most benevolent, generous people I know.

  • Pingback: Money Makes You Less Likely to Savor Small Pleasures | Miller-McCune Online

  • Doug Tarnowski

    How in the world can you map the the response to, "Would you like to give this money away for no reason or keep it, HMMM??" to the effects of being "miserly". This study induces shame in people (rather randomly) and then pretends to be studying something completely different. And I agree — the Rand parenthetical is idiotic.

  • Alex

    we don't know what the entire study found. we do understand that higher levels of shame and cortisol were associated with the "group" that chose not to share their own rather easily acquired bounty. evaluation of the research has to recognize substance in what is reported in M-McC article. most research of this type does not readily specify individual exceptions, and, yes, researcher always interpret, so its the heuristic value that's important.

  • Wowbagger

    The study appers to focus primarily on stinginess as it relates to philanthropy/charity. What if I decide not to spend money on my children, wife or, quite often, even * myself *? What another defines as "stingy", I might consider good fiscal sense.

    While I am rather free with my money in regards to charitable contributions, my friends may only view my behavior, say, when I refuse to order drinks or desert at a restaurant or when I purchase a cheaper car. They use these observations to arrive that the conclusion that I am "tight".