Psychology of Saving: Why Saving Money Is So Hard

Saving money is hard because your brain treats future you like a stranger. That's the short version. Every time you choose between spending now and saving for later, you're being asked to hand something concrete and immediate to a person who exists only as an abstraction, and your decision-making machinery was never built to make that trade well.

Which means the problem usually isn't discipline. It's that saving requires you to win an argument against your own wiring, repeatedly, forever. Here's what's actually happening, and what the research says works better than trying harder.

What Is The Psychology Of Saving?

The psychology of saving is the study of why people don't save as much as they say they want to, and what changes that. It sits inside behavioural economics, the field that emerged when researchers noticed that real humans consistently violate the tidy assumptions economics used to make about rational choice.

The core insight is simple. Saving isn't primarily an information problem. Most people already know they should have an emergency fund and that compound growth favours starting early. Knowing it doesn't do much. What separates savers from non-savers, once income is accounted for, is usually structure rather than knowledge or willpower.

And the gap between intention and behaviour is enormous. According to the Federal Reserve's Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2025, published in May 2026, only 55 percent of adults have emergency savings covering three months of expenses. That's down from 59 percent in 2021, and flat against 2024, so the slide has stalled rather than reversed. Just 63 percent said they could cover a surprise $400 expense entirely from cash, savings, or a card they'd clear at the next statement, and only 35 percent of non-retirees think their retirement savings are on track. Both of those were unchanged from the year before too.

So close to half of all adults don't have three months of breathing room. That's not a nation of people who forgot saving was a good idea.

Why Is Saving Money So Hard?

Several forces stack against you at once, and they're mostly invisible while they're operating.

• The reward is invisible. Spending gives you a thing you can hold. Saving gives you a slightly larger number on a screen you may not even look at. One of those triggers a response in your brain and the other really doesn't.
• Loss aversion works against you. Money moved into savings feels like money taken away, because you framed it as spendable the moment it landed. A transfer out registers as a loss now, while the benefit sits somewhere in the future where it barely registers at all.
• The default is spending. Money in a current account is already available. Saving requires an action. Anything requiring an action loses to anything that happens automatically, every single time.
• Every payday is a fresh negotiation. If saving depends on you deciding again each month, you've got twelve chances a year to talk yourself out of it. You will use some of them.
• Lifestyle keeps pace with income. Raises get absorbed quietly. Our guide to lifestyle inflation covers why the new spending starts feeling like a baseline within a couple of months.

That loss aversion point deserves a caveat, because the version you've probably heard is stronger than the evidence supports. The line that losses hurt roughly twice as much as equivalent gains traces back to a single 1992 estimate by Tversky and Kahneman, who put the coefficient at 2.25. That figure came from 25 graduate students, and it has not held up well.

So losses do sting more than equivalent gains. Just not double, and the honest answer is that the effect is smaller and shakier than a decade of popular finance writing has implied. It still tilts the board against you when you move money out of spending. It just isn't the immovable law it gets described as, which is mildly good news if you've been told your brain is hardwired to resist saving.

None of these are moral failings. They're structural features of how attention and motivation work, and they'd affect anyone.

How Does Present Bias Sabotage Your Savings?

Present bias is the tendency to weight immediate outcomes far more heavily than future ones, and it's the single biggest force working against your savings.

Behavioural economists model it through hyperbolic discounting. The idea is that we don't discount the future at a steady rate. We discount the near future brutally and the distant future much more gently, which produces genuinely inconsistent preferences. Offered $100 today or $110 next week, most people grab the $100. Offered $100 in a year or $110 in a year and a week, most people happily wait. Same week of waiting, same extra $10, opposite answer. The only thing that changed is whether one option is available right now.

That inconsistency is the whole problem. It's why the plan you make on Sunday evening, calmly, feels obviously correct, and then dissolves on Thursday when something you want is in front of you. You're not weak on Thursday. You're a different decision-maker on Thursday, because proximity changes the maths your brain runs.

It also explains why saving for retirement is uniquely difficult, and there's brain imaging to back that up rather than just a nice metaphor. Ersner-Hershfield, Wimmer and Knutson ran fMRI scans while people thought about themselves now, themselves in ten years, and other people, publishing in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (2009, vol. 4, no. 1). The rostral anterior cingulate cortex fired more strongly for the present self than the future self. And the size of that gap in each person predicted how steeply they discounted future rewards, plus how little they'd saved for retirement.

So the bigger the neural gap between you and future you, the less you save. If future you registers as a stranger, funding their retirement genuinely does feel like charity.

This is the same mechanism behind impulse buying, viewed from the other end.

Why Doesn't Knowing Better Make You Save More?

Because knowledge is the weakest of the levers, and there's good data on exactly how weak.

Bawalle, Lal, Nguyen, Khan and Kadoya studied 114,170 active investors in Japan and published the results in Behavioral Sciences (2024, vol. 14, no. 11). They measured how financial knowledge, financial behaviour, and financial attitude each related to hyperbolic discounting.

All three helped. But they didn't help equally. Financial behaviour showed the strongest effect (coefficient -0.212, p < 0.01), financial attitude came next (-0.193), and financial knowledge was the weakest of the three (-0.121). Habits beat information. Attitude beat information.

That finding matches what most people already suspect from experience. You can read every article about emergency funds and still not have one. The article is knowledge. The standing order is behaviour. Only one of those puts money in an account.

It's also why financial education alone has a mediocre track record as an intervention, and the number attached to that is genuinely startling.

Fernandes, Lynch and Netemeyer pulled together 168 papers covering 201 prior studies for a meta-analysis in Management Science (2014, vol. 60, no. 8). Across 90 financial education interventions, the teaching explained just 0.1 percent of the variance in people's actual financial behaviour. Effects were weaker still in low-income samples, and they decayed over time. Even large programmes running many hours of instruction came out close to negligible.

One tenth of one percent. That's the return on telling people what they ought to do. And it's not an argument that education is worthless, because knowing how compound interest works is genuinely useful. It's an argument that education is the wrong tool for changing behaviour, which is what most financial literacy programmes are actually built to do.

So if you've read a stack of personal finance content and your balance hasn't moved, you're not the exception. You're the finding.

Does Saving Happen In Stages?

Yes, and this is probably the most useful reframe in the whole field, because it turns out the thing that stops you starting is not the thing that stops you continuing.

Barrafrem, Tinghög and Västfjäll tracked 2,619 real savings goals set by 808 people in Sweden and published the results in Frontiers in Behavioral Economics (2024). These weren't hypothetical goals in a lab. They were goals people set inside an actual savings app, with actual money, which the researchers then watched succeed or fail.

They split saving into three stages: planning the goal, making the first deposit, and then accumulating over time. And the predictors were different at each one.

Here's the finding that should change how you think about your own failures. Self-control strongly predicted how much people accumulated once they'd started, with a one-unit increase in self-control linked to 37.4 percent more saved. But self-control did not predict whether someone made that first deposit at all. Starting and sustaining are two different problems, and self-discipline only solves one of them.

So if you've never opened the account, more willpower isn't your missing ingredient. Something else is in the way, and the study points at what. Bigger target amounts made people less likely to start, not more motivated. Setting a huge, admirable goal actively reduced the odds of a first deposit ever happening, even though people who did start with a high target ended up saving considerably more.

That's a trap worth naming. A $10,000 emergency fund is the right goal and the wrong starting line. Set the target you want, then make the first deposit absurdly small, because the first deposit is a separate psychological event with its own barrier.

Two other findings are worth acting on. Group goals, where people saved toward something with someone else, produced 53.4 percent more savings than individual goals and were much more likely to get started in the first place. And goals for something enjoyable beat goals for something sensible, with hedonic goals accumulating 32.6 percent more than utilitarian ones. Saving for a trip really does work better than saving for "financial security," which is annoying if you're the responsible type, but the numbers are the numbers.

The last result is the one that stings. Objective financial literacy, meaning how well people actually scored on a financial knowledge test, had no significant relationship with how much they accumulated. Knowing more didn't mean saving more. Which is the same lesson as the section above, arriving from a completely different direction.

What Does The Research Say Actually Works?

The interventions with the strongest evidence all share a design principle. They remove the need to decide.

The landmark example is Save More Tomorrow, designed by Richard Thaler and Shlomo Benartzi and published in the Journal of Political Economy (2004, vol. 112, no. S1). Employees committed in advance to putting a portion of future pay rises into their retirement account, so contributions increased automatically whenever they got a raise.

Participants' savings rates went from 3.5 percent to 13.6 percent. Nearly quadrupled, without anyone taking a pay cut in real terms, because the increases came out of money they'd never held.

Look at what that design solves. Present bias gets neutralised because you're committing future money, not current money. Loss aversion gets sidestepped because you never see a reduction in take-home pay. Inertia switches sides and starts working for you. The approach worked well enough that automatic enrolment and auto-escalation became US policy defaults for new workplace retirement plans.

That policy shift rests on an even older finding, and it's the most dramatic number in this whole field. Madrian and Shea studied a large US corporation that switched its 401(k) from opt-in to automatic enrolment, publishing in The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2001, vol. 116, no. 4), summarised by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Participation in tenure months 3 to 15 went from 37 percent to 86 percent.

Nobody got a raise. Nobody sat through a seminar. The form changed from "tick here to join" to "tick here to leave," and participation more than doubled.

But the same study carries a warning that usually gets left out when people quote the headline. Around 75 percent of the automatically enrolled stayed at the default contribution rate of 3 percent, roughly 80 percent stayed in the default money market fund, and about 61 percent changed nothing at all. So the default didn't just get people in. It also decided how much they saved, and where, and most of them never revisited either choice.

Defaults are powerful in both directions. That cuts against you if your workplace default is set low, because a 3 percent default quietly becomes your savings rate for years. Check what yours is set to. If you've never actively chosen a contribution percentage, you almost certainly haven't chosen it, and that one afternoon of admin is worth more than any amount of budgeting discipline.

The other pillar of this literature is commitment devices, where you deliberately restrict your own future access. Ashraf, Karlan and Yin ran a randomised trial with a Philippine bank, published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2006, vol. 121, no. 2). Clients were offered an account that locked their money until they hit a date or an amount they'd chosen themselves. Of 710 people offered it, 202 took it, about 28 percent. After twelve months, average savings balances in the treatment group were up 81 percentage points against the control group.

The account paid no extra interest. The only thing it offered was a harder time getting the money out, and that alone nearly doubled savings. Which tells you something slightly uncomfortable about what actually helps: not more options, fewer.

One caveat the headline number hides. When the same researchers followed the group out to two and a half years, the effect had shrunk to a 33 percent increase and was no longer statistically significant. So a lock on your money buys you a strong first year, not a permanent fix. Treat commitment accounts as a way to build a balance and a habit while the constraint is still doing the work, and expect to need a new arrangement once you've gotten used to the old one.

It's worth putting the opposite case next to that, because the gap between the two is the whole lesson. Structural change is one thing. Being reminded to save is another, and it's been tested at a scale almost nothing in social science ever reaches.

Milkman and a large team including Benartzi, Karlan and Duckworth ran a megastudy on 1,925,785 bank customers, randomly assigning them to a control group or one of seven email reminder campaigns, and published it in PNAS Nexus (2025, vol. 4, issue 9). They tried weekly reminders, reminders with inspirational quotes attached, month-start and month-end timing, and reminders triggered automatically when a deposit over $300 landed.

The overall effect on making a one-off transfer to savings was 0.05 percentage points. The best-performing email of the seven managed 0.13 percentage points. On recurring transfers, the thing that actually builds savings, there was no significant effect from any of the seven.

Nearly two million people, seven well-designed campaigns from some of the best behavioural scientists working, and reminders barely moved the needle. To be fair to the authors, they read it more kindly. An email costs almost nothing to send, and they estimate that rolling the best campaign out to everyone in the study would have added somewhere between $6.1 million and $9.9 million in savings. That's real money in total. Spread across nearly two million people, it's roughly $3 to $5 each. Compare that to auto-escalation taking savings rates from 3.5 to 13.6 percent. The contrast isn't subtle, and it's the most useful thing in this article: being reminded to save is close to useless, and being enrolled in saving works. Notifications are not a system.

You can borrow the same logic without an employer scheme:

1. Automate on payday, not month end. Set a standing order for the day after your salary lands. What's left is your spending money, and you'll adjust to it within a couple of months.
2. Pre-commit your next raise. Decide now what share of your next pay rise goes straight to savings, and set it up the week the raise arrives, before it reaches your spending account.
3. Add friction to withdrawals. Keep savings in a separate bank with no card attached. Two days of delay kills most impulses on their own.
4. Give the account a name. Sounds trivial, but labelled accounts get raided less than generic ones. "Emergency fund" is harder to spend than "Savings 2."
5. Start smaller than feels serious. A tiny automated amount that survives six months beats an ambitious one you cancel in week three. You're building a habit, and the amount can rise later.

Some of your money can't be automated, though. Freelance income, bonuses, the cash from selling something, overtime that varies month to month. For those, there's a technique with a surprising amount of evidence behind it, and it costs nothing but a sentence.

It's called an implementation intention, and it just means writing your plan as an if-then rule instead of a goal. Not "I'll save more of my freelance income." Instead: "If a client payment lands, then I move 30 percent to the savings account before I do anything else." The cue and the action get welded together, so when the cue shows up you don't have to decide anything. Gollwitzer and Sheeran meta-analysed 94 independent tests covering more than 8,000 people in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (2006, vol. 38) and found a mean effect of d = 0.65 on goal attainment over holding the goal alone. That's a medium to large effect from changing how a plan is phrased.

Notice why it works, because it's the same principle as everything else in this section. An if-then rule is a decision made once, in advance, when you're calm. It's automation you run yourself, for the money a standing order can't catch.

One question that comes up constantly: how long before this stops taking effort? Lally and colleagues tracked 96 people forming new daily habits over 12 weeks for a study in European Journal of Social Psychology (2010, vol. 40, no. 6). The median time to reach near-full automaticity was 66 days, but the spread was enormous, from 18 days to 254 depending on the person and how complex the behaviour was. The finding worth holding onto is a different one though. Missing a single day didn't measurably damage the habit. One skipped transfer doesn't reset anything, which is the opposite of what the streak-tracking apps train you to believe.

If you want structured exercises for the money beliefs underneath the behaviour, the science-backed worksheets at PositivePsychology.com are a useful complement to the mechanical fixes above.

Can You Make Future You Feel Real?

Yes, and it's one of the stranger findings in this field. If the core problem is that future you registers as a stranger, the obvious question is whether you can close that gap deliberately. Turns out you can, and the effect is bigger than most things you could do with a budgeting app.

The same researcher behind the brain scans went looking for the fix.

Hershfield, Goldstein, Sharpe, Carstensen, Bailenson and colleagues ran four randomised experiments using virtual reality, published in the Journal of Marketing Research (2011, vol. 48, special issue, pages S23 to S37). Participants, mostly aged 18 to 35, met a computer-generated version of themselves aged into their late sixties, then made decisions about splitting a hypothetical paycheque. As NYU Stern summarises the work, people who saw their age-progressed self allocated roughly 33 percent more to retirement than controls. In the immersive VR condition, the amount put toward long-term savings roughly doubled.

A third more, from looking at a picture. No new information, no extra income, no lecture about compound interest.

What that suggests is that the future self isn't a fixed setting. It's something your brain renders on demand, and it renders badly by default. Give it better raw material and the discounting eases off.

You probably don't have a VR headset, but the mechanism travels:

• Use an age-progression app once. Several free ones do this now. It feels like a gimmick and that's fine, because the effect doesn't depend on you taking it seriously.
• Write to your future self with specifics. Not "I hope you're doing well." Where you're living, what a Tuesday looks like, what you stopped worrying about. Detail is what makes the person real.
• Date your goals to an age, not a year. "Me at 58" lands differently than "2058." One is a person and the other is a number.
• Put a face on the account. The envelope study found that photos of the workers' children raised savings. Same trick, and your banking app almost certainly supports it.

Set against automation this is the smaller lever, and it's worth being honest about that ordering. Automate first. But if you've automated and still find yourself cancelling transfers, this is aimed at the part automation can't reach, which is whether you want to fund that person at all.

Does Zooming Out Make You Save More?

Yes, and by more than you'd expect from something this small. How abstractly you happen to be thinking at the moment you decide changes how much you're willing to put away.

Joanna Rudzinska-Wojciechowska tested this across three experiments in PLOS ONE (2017), and the title is the finding: focus on the forest rather than on trees. Participants were nudged into either an abstract mindset or a concrete one, then asked to make money decisions.

• Given a sum to split, the abstract group put more away. 5,797 PLN to long-term savings against 4,709 for the concrete group, and 2,008 to luxury spending against 2,919.
• Asked how much of an offered sum to save, the gap was wider. High-construal participants saved 59 percent on average. Low-construal participants saved 43 percent. F(1,77) = 10.417, p below .01.
• Offered a smaller reward now or a bigger one later, the abstract group waited more often. 48 percent against 41 percent, a smaller effect but pointing the same way.

Abstract here doesn't mean vague. It means thinking about why rather than how. Why does this money matter, what does it make possible, what is it in service of. Concrete thinking is the mechanics: which account, which day, what transfer amount.

And that's worth sitting with for a second, because the mechanics are where most of us go first. You open the banking app, you look at the number, you try to work out what you can spare. That's about as concrete as thinking gets, and on this evidence it's the mindset that produces the smaller figure.

Now, you might have noticed this seems to contradict something further up this page. The implementation intention research says the concrete version wins, that "if a client payment lands, then I move 30 percent" beats "I'll save more." Both of those are true, and the reason they don't clash is that they're doing different jobs.

Zoom out to decide. Zoom in to do. Abstract thinking is what gets you to a number you actually believe in, because it puts the money next to what it's for. Concrete if-then phrasing is what gets that number out of your current account on the right day. Use the wrong one at the wrong stage and you get either a beautiful plan that never executes, or an efficiently automated transfer of an amount you picked while feeling pinched.

In practice that's two minutes, not a project. Before you set or revisit a savings amount, answer the why question first and the how question second. What is this for. What does having it change. Then, and only then, open the app. If sitting with the why part is harder than it sounds, PositivePsychology.com's values and goal-setting exercises are built for exactly that kind of reflection.

Two honest limits. These were priming experiments with 126, 73 and 79 participants, Polish students and community members aged 19 to 54, so the effect is real but it's a nudge rather than a personality change. And it tells you nothing about whether the money exists in the first place, which the section on saving when money is genuinely tight deals with properly.

Why Do You Avoid Checking Your Own Balance?

Because looking is itself a decision, and your brain treats it as one. This has a name and it has been measured at enormous scale.

Niklas Karlsson, George Loewenstein and Duane Seppi called it the ostrich effect in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in 2009. The idea is that people monitor their money more when they expect good news and quietly stop looking when they expect bad news. Attention itself becomes something you ration to protect how you feel.

Then came the version with real data behind it. Nachum Sicherman at Columbia, Loewenstein and Seppi at Carnegie Mellon, and Stephen Utkus at Vanguard analysed over 852 million observations of day-to-day logins and trades from 1.1 million investors across two years, published in the Review of Financial Studies in 2015.

Logins fell by 9.5 percent after a negative market day. Nothing had changed about how easy it was to look. People simply looked less when they expected to dislike what they saw.

Two details make it more interesting. Attention dropped when the VIX signalled expected volatility, so people were reacting to anticipated bad news rather than confirmed bad news. And after extreme declines, logins actually went up, which the researchers put down to curiosity overtaking avoidance. There's a threshold where it gets too dramatic to ignore.

The demographics are worth a mention because they cut against the stereotype. Older investors, men, and wealthier individuals showed the effect more strongly, not less. This is not a beginner's mistake.

Now bring it back to saving, because that is where it does quiet damage.

Everything that works in this article depends on a feedback loop. You set an amount, you see what happened, you adjust. Avoidance breaks that loop at exactly the point where correction matters most. The month you overspent is the month you don't open the app, so the overspend never gets seen, never gets adjusted for, and turns up later as a balance that seems to have appeared from nowhere.

It also compounds. The longer you avoid looking, the worse you assume it is, so looking gets harder. What started as a bad week becomes a subject you cannot approach at all.

What actually helps here is lowering the emotional stakes of looking rather than trying to be braver:

• Make it a fixed appointment, not a decision. Same day each week, five minutes, whether or not you want to. A scheduled check doesn't require you to feel ready.
• Check on a boring day. Not after a big spend, not payday. The neutral moment is the one you'll actually keep.
• Look at one number. Full budget reviews are what people avoid. Opening an app and reading the balance is a much smaller ask, and it keeps the loop alive.
• Separate looking from fixing. You're allowed to check the number and do nothing that day. Most avoidance is really avoidance of the response you think is required.

If the avoidance is strong enough that you have unopened post or apps you have deleted, that has moved past a habit problem. Our guide on money avoidance covers the pattern, and financial anxiety covers the feeling underneath it. Working with a professional helps when the numbers and the dread have fused, and online therapy is one way to start that without a long wait. For structured exercises you can work through yourself, PositivePsychology.com has practitioner grade material on avoidance and values-based action.

Why Do You Keep Raiding Your Own Savings?

Because money in a single undifferentiated pot is psychologically fungible, which is a technical way of saying it's all just money and any of it can pay for anything. Getting money into savings is only half the job. Keeping it there is a separate problem with its own fixes.

The mechanism that helps is mental accounting, and you can use it deliberately. Two moves matter: giving the money a job, and splitting it up.

Soman and Cheema tested exactly this with 146 day labourers in Indian slums, publishing in the Journal of Marketing Research (2011, vol. 48, special issue). Workers were paid partly in cash earmarked for savings. Some got it in one envelope. Some got the identical amount split across two. The two-envelope group saved 414 rupees on average against 241 rupees for the single-envelope group, roughly 72 percent more. Adding a visual reminder of what the money was for, a photo of the workers' children on the envelope, pushed the savings rate higher again.

Same money, same people, same week. The only difference was how it was packaged.

Why does splitting work? Because breaking into the second envelope requires a fresh decision, and the first envelope being open no longer gives you permission. With one pot, once you've dipped in, the pot is already broken and there's nothing psychologically stopping you finishing it. Anyone who's opened a packet of biscuits knows this feeling.

Translated into how most people actually bank:

• Split by purpose, not convenience. Separate pots for emergencies, a specific goal, and irregular bills beat one large balance, even at the same total.
• Name them concretely. "Vet bills" or "December" resists raiding far better than "Savings." Vague accounts fund vague impulses.
• Attach something visual. Most banking apps let you set a photo or emoji on a pot. It sounds childish and it measurably works.
• Keep the emergency fund boring and separate. Different bank, no card, no app on your phone. You want a small amount of friction between the impulse and the money.

And if you do dip in, replace it on a schedule rather than promising yourself you'll catch up. Vague intentions to make it back are how a one-off withdrawal becomes a new baseline.

Does How You Pay Change What You Save?

Yes, but by less than the internet tells you, and the honest version of this finding is more useful than the myth.

The idea behind it is called the pain of paying. Handing over cash produces a small unpleasant jolt that registers as a loss. Tapping a card produces almost nothing, because the money leaves as an abstraction and the receipt arrives weeks later. Less pain, less friction, more spending. And what doesn't get spent is what ends up saved, so the payment method sits upstream of your savings rate whether you think about it or not.

The classic demonstration is a good one. Prelec and Simester ran real auctions for tickets to a sold-out professional basketball game, published in Marketing Letters (2001, vol. 12, no. 1). Bidders told they'd pay by credit card bid more than twice what bidders told they'd pay cash did. Same tickets, same game, same week. The premium ran as high as 100 percent.

That number gets quoted constantly, usually with the implication that your card is quietly doubling everything you buy. It isn't, and here's the corrective.

So switching to cash is not going to fix your savings rate. Anyone selling that as the answer is overselling a small effect.

But look at where the effect concentrates, because that's the practically useful bit. It's biggest on discretionary, status-flavoured purchases, which happens to be the exact category that eats the money you meant to save. Nobody's emergency fund gets destroyed by contactless grocery shopping. It gets destroyed by the things you buy partly to feel a certain way, and those are precisely the purchases where the payment method does the most work.

What to do with a small effect that's concentrated in the right place:

• Don't go all cash. It's inconvenient, you'll quit, and the average effect doesn't justify it. Target it instead.
• Pick your one leaky category and make that one harder. Clothes, takeaways, gadgets, whatever yours is. Use cash or a separate card with a fixed monthly top-up for that category only.
• Delete stored card details. One-click checkout removes the last bit of friction that existed. Making yourself fetch the card back adds thirty seconds, and thirty seconds kills a decent share of impulse purchases.
• Turn on transaction notifications. Not as a budgeting tool. As a way of putting some of the pain back at the moment of paying, rather than at the end of the month.

This is the same lever as the separate accounts and the commitment savings product above. Friction, applied deliberately, in the one spot where it earns its keep. Our guide to emotional spending triggers covers how to work out which category is actually yours.

Why Do Bonuses And Tax Refunds Vanish So Fast?

Because your brain files them under "extra" instead of "income," and money in the extra pile follows completely different rules. This is the same mental accounting habit behind the payment findings above, except here it's operating on a lump sum big enough to actually matter.

You've probably lived it. A $1,200 refund lands and it's gone in five weeks, while an identical $1,200 spread across your normal pay would have mostly disappeared into ordinary life without a single splurge. Same money. Different bucket.

The cleanest evidence for how arbitrary that bucket is comes from Nicholas Epley and Ayelet Gneezy at the University of Chicago, published in The Journal of Socio-Economics (2007, vol. 36, pages 36 to 47). They handed people unexpected money and changed nothing but the word attached to it.

Nothing about the amount changed. Nothing about the person changed. The only difference was whether the money got framed as a gain on top of where you already stood, or as a return to where you were before. Gains feel spendable. Getting back to even doesn't.

Which explains the refund thing precisely. A tax refund is your own money coming back, but almost nobody experiences it that way. It arrives as a windfall, so it gets spent like one. Epley and Gneezy were writing partly about the 2001 US rebate, where the government sent out $38 billion in cheques of $300, $500, or $600 specifically hoping people would spend it. The framing did a lot of that work.

There's a formal name for what's going on here, and knowing it makes the pattern easier to spot in yourself. Hersh Shefrin and Richard Thaler called it the Behavioral Life-Cycle Hypothesis, published in Economic Inquiry (1988, vol. 26, pages 609 to 643). Standard economics assumed a dollar is a dollar wherever it sits. Shefrin and Thaler argued that households actually split their wealth into three mental accounts that don't swap freely: current income, current assets, and future income. And the temptation to spend is highest for current income, lower for current assets, and lowest of all for future income.

That single idea explains a lot of otherwise baffling behaviour. It's why people carry credit card debt at 22 percent while sitting on savings earning 2 percent, because the savings live in a different account and raiding them feels like a real loss. It's why money moved into a retirement account becomes so much harder to spend, well beyond whatever the withdrawal penalty is. And it's why a windfall is dangerous: it lands in the current income account, which is exactly the bucket with the weakest defences.

You can use this deliberately. Every barrier you put between money and your current income account moves it toward a bucket you're less willing to touch. Separate bank, separate login, no card attached, a name on the account that means something to you. None of that stops a determined person, and it doesn't need to. It just needs to move the money out of the pile your brain treats as fair game.

The practical move here is unusually cheap, because you get to pick the frame yourself.

• Rename it before it arrives. Not "my bonus." Call it what it functionally is: deferred pay, or money that was already yours. It sounds like semantics. The research says the word is doing real work on how much survives.
• Decide the split before the money exists. Pick the percentage in advance, while it's still hypothetical and you're not staring at a balance. Deciding after it lands means deciding while the windfall feeling is at full strength.
• Move it the day it clears. Irregular money has no assigned job, and unassigned money gets absorbed. Give it a job within 24 hours and the effect mostly disappears.
• Fix the refund at source if it's large. A big annual refund means you overpaid all year. Adjusting your withholding converts it back into ordinary income, which is exactly the bucket you're less inclined to blow.
• Carve out a deliberate slice to spend. Ring-fencing say 10 percent for something enjoyable works better than a total ban, because a total ban tends to collapse all at once.

And this stacks with the automation point from earlier. Automation handles your predictable money well and irregular money not at all, which is why windfalls slip through even for people whose regular saving runs perfectly. The gap isn't discipline. It's that nothing was ever set up to catch it.

Does Matching Savings Goals To Your Personality Help?

Yes, and this is one of the more useful recent findings, because it explains why generic savings advice bounces off some people entirely.

Matz, Gladstone and Farrokhnia tested whether savings goals work better when they fit someone's personality, and published in the American Psychological Association's flagship journal American Psychologist (2023). In a survey of 2,447 UK adults, people whose savings goals matched their personality traits had more money put away, and the fit explained roughly 5 percent of the variance in savings across every income level.

Then they ran the field experiment, which is the part that matters. They took 6,056 people in the SaverLife programme, all of whom had under $100 saved, and challenged them to save $100 in a month. Everyone got an email, except the control group. The messages were the only thing that differed.

• Personality-matched message: 11.4 percent hit the target.
• Standard savings message: 7.42 percent.
• Deliberately mismatched message: 7.85 percent.
• No email at all: 3.4 percent.

People who got the personality-matched nudge were 3.57 times more likely to hit $100 than the control group. Same money, same target, same month. The only change was how the goal was framed.

Here's the practical read. If you're high in agreeableness, you're statistically less likely to save, but framing it as protecting the people you love works far better than framing it as building wealth. If you're competitive, a target you can beat helps. If novelty drives you, saving for an experience beats saving for an abstract number. This isn't fluff. It's the difference between an 11 percent success rate and a 7 percent one.

Worth knowing your own pattern before you pick a goal, which is what the money personality quiz and our money personality types guide are for.

Does Turning Saving Into A Game Actually Work?

It gets people to open accounts. Whether it makes them save more than a normal account would is a much weaker claim than the marketing around it suggests.

The idea is called prize-linked saving, and you've probably met it without knowing the name. Instead of paying you interest, the account pools everyone's interest and hands it out as prizes. UK Premium Bonds are the largest example anywhere, running since 1956. In the US, a group of Michigan credit unions launched Save to Win in 2009 on the same principle.

On paper it should work beautifully, and the reason why is everything in this article so far. Saving loses to spending because a certain, boring, far-off reward is no match for an uncertain, exciting, immediate one. Prize-linked saving flips which side of that trade your savings account sits on. It borrows the machinery that makes gambling sticky and points it at your own balance.

And people really do respond to the gambling half. Peter Tufano at Harvard analysed decades of Premium Bond sales for a paper in the American Economic Review (2008, Vol. 98, Issue 2, pages 321 to 326). Sales moved with the size of the top prize and the skew of the prize distribution, which is gambling behaviour. But sales also moved with the expected return compared to other assets, which is investing behaviour. People treat the product as both at once, which is exactly what its designers were hoping for.

Then someone ran the proper test.

Look at that confidence interval before you get excited about the headline. It runs from 0.96 to 2.74, which means it crosses 1. The effect could genuinely have been nothing. The gap in dollars saved didn't reach significance either. This is a small, short, encouraging-looking study that stopped short of proving its own point, and the authors report it that way rather than dressing it up.

That's roughly where the wider evidence sits too. Prize-linked accounts reliably pull people in, including people who have never held a savings product before, which is a real achievement and not a small one. What nobody has shown is that they generate extra saving compared with an ordinary account paying a similar return. The lottery gets you through the door. It doesn't appear to keep you saving once you're inside.

So here's the practical read, and it's more useful than a straight yes or no.

• If the game is what gets you to open the account, take the win. Opening it is the step most people never complete, and everything in the automation section above only starts working once an account exists.
• Don't let the prizes do the ongoing work. Set the standing transfer anyway. The boring mechanism is still the one carrying the result.
• It's a better home for the lottery impulse than the lottery. If you buy scratch cards, a prize-linked account scratches a similar itch and you keep your stake. That's a genuine upgrade, just not a savings strategy on its own.
• Check what you're giving up. You're trading a known return for a lottery ticket. When rates are low that costs you almost nothing. When they're not, it can quietly cost you a lot.

Does Comparing Yourself To Others Affect How You Save?

Yes, and mostly in the wrong direction. This is the part of saving psychology that gets ignored, probably because the obvious intervention seems so sensible: tell people what everyone else is saving, and they'll want to keep up. It's been tested properly, and that's not what happens.

Beshears, Choi, Laibson, Madrian and Milkman ran a field experiment inside a real 401(k) plan and published it in The Journal of Finance (2015, vol. 70, no. 3, pages 1161 to 1201). Low-saving employees got simplified enrolment forms. A randomised subset of those forms also mentioned what share of their age-matched colleagues were in the plan, or what share were contributing at least 6 percent of pay.

Among nonparticipants who weren't eligible for automatic enrolment, the peer information decreased saving. And the higher the peer savings rate they were shown, the worse the effect got. The authors put it down to discouragement from upward social comparison.

Sit with how backwards that is. Telling someone that their colleagues are doing better made them save less, and telling them their colleagues were doing much better made them save even less than that. The nudge everyone assumes will work turns out to be demotivating for exactly the people it was aimed at.

Why? Because a comparison that feels unreachable doesn't read as a target. It reads as evidence that you're behind, and being behind is uncomfortable enough that disengaging fixes the feeling faster than saving does. Which is the same reason people stop opening their banking app when things get tight.

There's a second mechanism, and this one drives spending rather than avoidance. Kim, Callan, Gheorghiu and Matthews ran five studies published in the British Journal of Social Psychology (2016, vol. 56, no. 2, pages 373 to 392) on personal relative deprivation, the feeling of having less than people like you. In their fifth study, with 799 participants, higher relative deprivation predicted spending more of a windfall on things they wanted rather than giving it away (B = 485.45, p = .002), and that held after controlling for actual income.

After controlling for actual income. That's the finding. It isn't being poor that drives the spending, it's feeling behind, and those two come apart more often than you'd expect. Someone comfortable who feels behind their peer group will spend like someone trying to catch up, because psychologically that's exactly what they're doing.

What to do with this:

• Compare to your own past balance, not to other people. It's the only comparison where the gap shrinking is fully within your control, and progress against yourself is motivating in a way that ranking against strangers isn't.
• Be careful what you read when you're already discouraged. Personal finance content full of people who retired at 34 is upward social comparison with a subscribe button. If it leaves you deflated rather than moving, it's costing you.
• Treat the feeling of being behind as information about your inputs. Usually it's tracking who you follow and who you spend time around, not your actual finances. Our guide to comparison spending covers how that loop runs.
• Watch windfalls specifically. Bonuses and refunds are where relative deprivation does its damage, because that money hasn't been assigned to anything. Route it to savings before it arrives anywhere it can be spent.

None of that means peer effects are always bad. Saving alongside someone with a similar income and a similar goal works fine, because the comparison is reachable. The damage comes from gaps big enough to feel hopeless.

Does Saving Work Differently When You Share Money?

Yes, and the structure of your accounts turns out to matter more than most couples assume.

Everything above treats saving as a solo problem. For a lot of people it isn't. You're saving alongside someone whose spending you can see, whose priorities differ from yours, and whose opinion about money you may have learned to avoid raising over dinner.

Most of the research here is correlational, which makes one study stand out. Olson, Rick, Small and Finkel ran an actual randomised experiment and published it in the Journal of Consumer Research (2023). They took 230 engaged and newlywed couples, 460 people, and randomly assigned them to open joint accounts, keep separate accounts, or carry on as they were. Then they followed them for two years across six waves of data.

Random assignment is the important bit. It means the result isn't just happier couples choosing to merge.

Here's what happened. Relationship quality in the joint account group stayed flat over 24 months. Both other groups declined significantly, at about 0.021 and 0.022 points per month. By month 24 the joint account couples were ahead of the separate account couples by 0.539 standardised points, and ahead of the no-intervention group by 0.624.

And roughly 75% of that effect ran through what the researchers called financial harmony. Not the account itself. How satisfied people felt with the way they talked about and handled money together.

Their second study, a survey of 507 married people averaging 15 years of marriage, backs this up on the specific thing you care about if you're trying to save. Couples with fully merged accounts reported better financial goal alignment (d = 0.57) and higher financial transparency (d = 0.52) than couples keeping money separate.

Goal alignment is the mechanism worth noticing. Every design in this article, the automatic transfer, the named account, the commitment device, works better when both of you are pulling toward the same number. It's hard to hold a savings target that your partner doesn't know about and hasn't agreed to.

Two honest caveats before you go and merge everything.

• This is about transparency, not obedience. The gains came through talking about money more comfortably. A joint account with one person quietly controlling it isn't the thing that was tested, and if that's your situation, our guide on financial boundaries is the more useful read.
• Merging isn't right for everyone. If money has been used against you before, keeping some financial independence is a reasonable safety decision, not a psychological failing. The research describes an average across couples, and you are not an average.

If money conversations reliably turn into arguments, that's usually worth working on before the savings rate is. Our sister site covers the relationship side of this in more depth, and PositivePsychology.com has structured worksheets on values and goal setting that work well for couples doing this together.

Which Comes First, Paying Down Debt Or Saving?

Most people trying to save are also carrying debt, and the order you tackle them in has a psychology problem sitting right in the middle of it.

The arithmetic is simple enough. Money going into a savings account earning almost nothing, while a card charges you twenty percent, is money losing value. On paper you clear the expensive debt first, highest rate down, and only then build savings properly.

Almost nobody does that.

Moty Amar, Dan Ariely, Shahar Ayal, Cynthia Cryder and Scott Rick built a debt repayment game where participants held several debts at different sizes and rates, and had to decide where to put their money each round. Real payoffs were attached, so getting it wrong cost them. The results appeared in the Journal of Marketing Research in 2011, volume 48, pages S38 to S50.

People paid off the small debts. Repeatedly, across variations. And as Washington University summarised it, no participant in the sample consistently put their money toward the highest-interest loans. Not a minority getting it wrong. Essentially everyone.

The researchers called it debt account aversion. What people are actually minimising is not the money owed. It's the number of open accounts. Closing one entirely produces a clean, visible result, and a payment against a big balance produces almost nothing you can see.

This is the same tension running through the gamification section above. The method that feels motivating and the method that costs least are different methods, and pretending otherwise helps nobody.

Two interventions did work in their experiments. Consolidating debts, which cuts the account count directly and removes the pull toward closing things. And putting the interest each debt is accumulating in front of people in actual money rather than as a percentage, which makes the expensive one finally look expensive.

So what do you actually do?

• Get a small buffer first, then attack the debt. Not six months. A few hundred, enough that the next flat tyre doesn't go back on the card. Clearing debt with zero buffer usually means re-borrowing within months, which is the most demoralising loop there is.
• Convert the rates into money. Work out what each debt costs you per month in interest and write those numbers next to each other. Twenty percent on a small balance and six percent on a large one look very different once they're both in pounds or dollars.
• If you need the wins, buy them deliberately. If you genuinely won't stick with the optimal order, the small-balance-first approach is not stupid. It costs more and it gets finished. A slightly expensive plan you complete beats a cheap one you abandon in month three.
• Automate the payment, not the decision. Set the amount going to the priority debt before you can re-litigate it each month, for the same reason automation works everywhere else in this article.

And one thing worth naming. If the debt itself is the thing generating the shame that makes you avoid the whole subject, that's a separate problem to solve, and our guide on the psychology of debt goes into it properly.

Which Matters More, Your Income Or How You Feel About It?

Both, but not in the order you'd expect. How you perceive your financial situation predicts whether you have savings at all, somewhat independently of what you actually earn.

Maison and colleagues surveyed 1,048 adults in Poland and published the results in PLoS One (2019) under a title that gives away the punchline: you don't have to be rich to save money. They measured two things separately. Objective financial situation, meaning actual income and assets. And subjective financial situation, meaning how well off someone felt.

Those two turned out to be only moderately related, correlating at r = .37 to .46. Plenty of people on decent incomes feel financially squeezed, and plenty of people on modest incomes feel fine. That gap is where the interesting result lives.

When the researchers added subjective financial situation into the model, the effect of objective income on whether someone had savings became only marginally significant. Perception was doing most of the work. And for the amount saved, income only predicted savings among people whose subjective sense of their finances was good. As the authors put it, people with more money do have more savings, but only as long as their perception of their financial situation is good.

Read that twice, because it cuts both ways.

If you feel broke, you'll behave broke, and a raise won't automatically fix it. This is why people who get a significant pay rise sometimes save no more than they did before. The money changed and the internal story didn't. It's also why the scarcity mindset is such a stubborn thing to carry out of a difficult period, and why lifestyle inflation can eat a raise so quietly.

But it also means something more hopeful. If you're genuinely on a low income and you've written yourself off as someone who can't save, the research doesn't back that. Subjective financial situation is more movable than income is. It shifts when you get accurate about what you actually have, when you stop measuring yourself against people whose numbers you don't know, and when you have any visible buffer at all, however small.

The practical move is unglamorous. Go and look at the real numbers rather than the feeling. Most people who feel financially precarious are working off a vague dread rather than a balance, and the dread is usually either worse than the reality or pointing at something specific that can be dealt with. Either answer is more useful than the fog.

How Do You Save When Money Is Genuinely Tight?

Here's where a lot of savings advice becomes insulting. Sometimes the reason you're not saving is that there isn't a surplus, and no amount of behavioural cleverness creates money that doesn't exist.

Being honest about that matters, because psychological framing gets misused. Telling someone whose income barely covers rent that they have a mindset problem is both wrong and cruel.

And that group is not small. The same Federal Reserve survey found 12 percent of adults could not cover a surprise $400 expense by any method at all. Not from savings, not on a card, not by borrowing from someone. For those households the binding constraint is arithmetic, not psychology, and no reframing fixes it.

What research does show is that scarcity itself makes financial decisions harder. When money is tight, the constant mental load of managing it eats cognitive bandwidth that would otherwise go to planning. And the size of that effect is not subtle.

Read that carefully, because it reverses the usual story. It wasn't that poorer people are less capable. The same person tested worse while broke and better once paid, which means the money worry was doing the damage, not some fixed trait. The situation actively degrades the very capacity you'd need to plan your way out of it. That's a feature of scarcity, not a flaw in you. Our scarcity mindset guide goes deeper on how this operates.

If you're in that position, a few things still help. Automate something genuinely small, even $5, because the habit matters more than the amount right now. Direct any irregular money like tax refunds or overtime straight into savings before it merges with everyday funds. And treat the income side as the main lever, because at low margins it usually is.

What If Your Income Is Not The Same Every Month?

Then most of the advice above needs adjusting, because it quietly assumes a payday of predictable size. Automate a transfer, set it and forget it, pay yourself first. All of that works beautifully on a salary and can actively backfire on income that moves.

And this is far more common than the standard advice implies. The JPMorganChase Institute went through its own banking data and published Earnings Instability in September 2025. For the typical hourly worker, month-to-month earnings move by about 9 percent. One month in four brings a swing of at least 21 percent. An annual income can look perfectly steady while the months underneath it are nothing of the sort.

Here is the figure that says the most about what that costs. The typical hourly worker in that research would give up as much as 11 percent of their income in exchange for the kind of stability a salary provides. People are willing to be paid meaningfully less to stop the guessing. Unpredictability is not a minor inconvenience sitting on top of the real problem. For a lot of households it is the problem.

So here is why the automation advice misfires. If you size a standing transfer to a decent month, a lean month will take it out anyway and you will go overdrawn, and an overdraft fee turns the whole exercise into a net loss. Do that twice and you cancel the transfer, and it feels like you failed at discipline. You did not. You applied a tool built for fixed income to income that is not fixed.

Three adjustments do most of the work:

• Size the automatic transfer to your worst month, not your average. A small amount that never gets reversed beats a respectable amount you claw back every quarter. The floor is the point.
• Sweep the good months manually on top. Keep the automatic floor low and permanent, then move a percentage of anything above your baseline when it actually lands. That way a strong month raises your savings without raising your commitments.
• Build the smoothing buffer before the long-horizon goal. The same institute's earlier work on volatility found that middle-income families needed roughly 4,800 dollars in liquid savings to absorb the ups and downs they actually experienced, while typically holding about 3,000, a shortfall of some 1,800 dollars.

That last one comes with a reframe worth holding onto. The section above on raiding your own savings treats dipping in as a problem to solve, and on a steady salary it usually is. On irregular income it is not. If you pull from the buffer in a thin month and refill it in a fat one, the buffer is doing precisely the job you built it for. That is the system working, not a relapse, and confusing the two is how people conclude they are hopeless at saving when they are actually managing volatility rather well.

One practical note on sequencing. Until the smoothing buffer exists, almost every other savings goal is standing on sand, because the next lean month will simply reach through and take it. Get the months level first. The longer-horizon saving that the rest of this guide is about becomes far easier once the floor underneath it stops moving.

When Is It Not A Psychology Problem?

Sometimes the block isn't present bias or bad structure. It's something older and heavier.

Worth paying attention if you recognise these:

• You avoid checking your balance entirely, sometimes for weeks.
• Money conversations produce a physical stress response, tight chest or racing heart.
• You build up savings and then find a reason to destroy the progress.
• You feel deep shame about money that doesn't match your actual situation.
• You can't spend on yourself even when you comfortably can afford it.

Those patterns tend to point at financial self-sabotage or older money wounds rather than a system that needs tweaking. Automation won't reach them, because the problem isn't the mechanism.

If money is affecting your sleep, your relationships, or your sense of safety, talking with a licensed therapist is a reasonable step. Financial therapy is a recognised field now, and CBT-based approaches work well on the avoidance and anxiety that keep people from engaging with their money at all.

What Else Do People Ask About Saving Money?

The deeper point in all of this is that saving is a design problem, not a willpower problem. Once you stop asking yourself to be disciplined twelve times a year and start building something that runs whether you're motivated or not, the whole thing gets quieter. Our guide to why budgets fail and the one on delayed gratification both come at the same idea from different angles.

You can dig into the psychology behind these habits with the free quizzes at Decode Within.

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2025, May 2026; Thaler, R.H. and Benartzi, S. Save More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving, Journal of Political Economy, 2004, 112(S1), S164 to S187; Madrian, B.C. and Shea, D.F. The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2001, 116(4), 1149 to 1187; Bawalle, A.A., Lal, S., Nguyen, T.X.T., Khan, M.S.R. and Kadoya, Y. Navigating Time-Inconsistent Behavior, Behavioral Sciences, 2024, 14(11), 994; Ersner-Hershfield, H., Wimmer, G.E. and Knutson, B. Saving for the Future Self: Neural Measures of Future Self-Continuity Predict Temporal Discounting, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2009, 4(1), 85 to 92; Ashraf, N., Karlan, D. and Yin, W. Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence From a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2006, 121(2), 635 to 672; Matz, S.C., Gladstone, J.J. and Farrokhnia, R.A. Leveraging Psychological Fit to Encourage Saving Behavior, American Psychologist, 2023; Soman, D. and Cheema, A. Earmarking and Partitioning: Increasing Saving by Low-Income Households, Journal of Marketing Research, 2011, 48(SPL), S14 to S22; Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C.H.M., Potts, H.W.W. and Wardle, J. How Are Habits Formed: Modelling Habit Formation in the Real World, European Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, 40(6), 998 to 1009; Fernandes, D., Lynch, J.G. and Netemeyer, R.G. Financial Literacy, Financial Education, and Downstream Financial Behaviors, Management Science, 2014, 60(8), 1861 to 1883; Hershfield, H.E., Goldstein, D.G., Sharpe, W.F., Fox, J., Yeykelis, L., Carstensen, L.L. and Bailenson, J.N. Increasing Saving Behavior Through Age-Progressed Renderings of the Future Self, Journal of Marketing Research, 2011, 48(SPL), S23 to S37; Milkman, K.L., Ellis, S.F., Gromet, D.M. et al. Can Reminder Emails Compel Americans to Save? A Two-Million-Person Megastudy, PNAS Nexus, 2025, 4(9), pgaf280; Beshears, J., Choi, J.J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B.C. and Milkman, K.L. The Effect of Providing Peer Information on Retirement Savings Decisions, The Journal of Finance, 2015, 70(3), 1161 to 1201; Kim, H., Callan, M.J., Gheorghiu, A.I. and Matthews, W.J. Social Comparison, Personal Relative Deprivation, and Materialism, British Journal of Social Psychology, 2016, 56(2), 373 to 392; Gollwitzer, P.M. and Sheeran, P. Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Effects and Processes, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2006, 38, 69 to 119; Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, J. If you want to save, focus on the forest rather than on trees. The effects of shifts in levels of construal on saving decisions, PLOS ONE, 2017, 12(5), e0178283; Prelec, D. and Simester, D. Always Leave Home Without It: A Further Investigation of the Credit-Card Effect on Willingness to Pay, Marketing Letters, 2001, 12(1), 5 to 12; Schomburgk, L., Belli, A. and Hoffmann, A.O.I. Less Cash, More Splash? A Meta-Analysis on the Cashless Effect, Journal of Retailing, 2024, 100, 382 to 403; Tufano, P. Saving whilst Gambling: An Empirical Analysis of UK Premium Bonds, American Economic Review, 2008, 98(2), 321 to 326; Moscoe, E., Agot, K. and Thirumurthy, H. Effect of a Prize-Linked Savings Intervention on Savings and Healthy Behaviors Among Men in Kenya: A Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA Network Open, 2019, 2(9), e1911162; Olson, J.G., Rick, S.I., Small, D.A. and Finkel, E.J. Common Cents: Bank Account Structure and Couples' Relationship Dynamics, Journal of Consumer Research, 2023, 50(4), 704 to 726. All linked above.