Spendthrift–Tightwad Scale

What it measures

The foundational measure of the spendthrift–tightwad individual difference, validated across multiple studies (total n>13,000) combining large online surveys, laboratory experiments, and archival data. The composite STS score predicts self-reported credit card debt (tightwads carry less debt), household savings rates, hypothetical spending decisions, and willingness to pay in auctions. The construct is largely orthogonal to income, education, and objective financial literacy — the pain of paying is an emotional rather than cognitive mechanism. Tightwads constitute approximately 24% of the population; spendthrifts approximately 15%; the majority (~61%) fall in the middle. Tightwads and spendthrifts both benefit from interventions that 'decoupling' consumption from payment (e.g., prepaid cards, subscription models, all-inclusive pricing) because these reduce payment salience — but for opposite reasons: decoupling allows tightwads to enjoy without anxiety; it prevents spendthrifts from overspending. The STS is a critical moderator of pricing format, payment mechanism, and consumer debt research.

Response format

Mixed formats: one 5-category self-label item; one binary item; two attitudinal items (5-point); items standardised and averaged for a composite STS score. Higher scores = more spendthrift; lower scores = more tightwad.

Scale items

• [Self-label] Which of the following descriptions fits you best? (1) Tightwad (2) More of a tightwad than a spendthrift (3) An equal mix of tightwad and spendthrift (4) More of a spendthrift than a tightwad (5) Spendthrift
• [Spending difficulty] Some people have trouble limiting their spending, and others have trouble spending money even when they know they should. Would you say you are someone who has trouble spending money even when you know you should? (Binary: Yes/No — Yes responses coded as tightwad indicator)
• [Spending regret] Following a purchase, have you ever felt like you spent too much money? (1=never to 5=very often — higher = more spendthrift, reverse-score for tightwad direction)
• [Spending pain] Compared with most people I know, I have difficulty spending money even when I know I can afford to. (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree — higher = more tightwad direction; reverse before combining)

Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.

Usage notes & scoring

The STS uses a mixed-format composite: items are standardised individually before averaging to produce the final STS score. Higher composite scores indicate greater spendthrift orientation (lower pain of paying); lower scores indicate tightwad orientation (higher pain of paying). The scale is administered as four separate items, each with different response formats. The tightwad–spendthrift distinction is independent of frugality (which reflects restrained acquisition and resourceful use — tightwads can be high or low in frugality) and of general self-control (which captures broad impulse regulation). Pricing interventions that decouple payment from consumption (prepayment, subscription, all-inclusive) are effective for both segments: they reduce anxiety for tightwads and create a 'spending budget' for spendthrifts. The Pain-of-Paying measure (Prelec & Loewenstein 1998) provides the theoretical grounding; the STS operationalises chronic individual variation in this affective response. A 4-item Likert version (Stuppy et al. 2020) is available for surveys requiring uniform response formats.

Recommended companion scales

Citation

Rick, S.I., Cryder, C.E., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Tightwads and spendthrifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 767–782.

Keywords