Four Questions To Discover ‘Actual’ Risk Tolerance Differences In Couples

When I was in high school, my teacher decided to tell the class that it would be "miraculous" if any of us ever got married. He grabbed a marker and started listing all the things that would have to go right – compatible personalities, shared values, and the serendipity of being in the same place at the same time, both looking for a partner. (He was married then, and as far as I know, still is. Who knows what was on his mind that day?!)

But one thing was missing from his list: alignment on financial values and goals. Which is a factor that many financial advisors would argue is just as crucial to a relationship's longevity and quality.

While past surveys have suggested that money is one of the most common sources of marital conflict, research on the subject by Papp et al. published in 2009 complicates that narrative.  Their study, which analyzed real-time diary reports of marital conflicts, found that while money wasn't necessarily the most frequent point of contention, it was often one of the most intense and difficult-to-resolve issues in a relationship.

That reality is all too familiar to many financial advisors, who often find themselves playing the role of part-time therapist and part-time referee for couples navigating financial differences in real time. Diverging short- and long-term goals, spending habits, and risk tolerance can all become hot topics in the financial advisor's office – sometimes more than the clients expect.

Risk Tolerance Differences In Couples Can Be Frustrating, But Are Normal

One of the most fundamental financial differences in couples stems from risk tolerance, which affects everything from portfolio allocation to spending decisions and withdrawal rates. For example, during their prime earning years, one partner may be worried about maximizing income, while the other may be concerned about preserving capital for long-term security – both of which are valid financial concerns.

Among heterosexual couples, research has documented some differences between women and men in risk tolerance. Historically, men have tended to be more risk-tolerant, investing more heavily in higher-risk assets, while women have tended to be more conservative, less likely to be invested in the stock market. However, a more recent study from Fidelity suggests that women are becoming more proactive investors and closing the investment gap.

That being said, risk tolerance is not inherently good or bad, and while broad patterns may be observed for different genders at a macro level, every individual and couple is unique. Some individuals – regardless of gender – are highly risk-tolerant, just as others are more risk-averse. Ultimately, the key is recognizing and navigating differences within couples so that both partners' financial goals are supported.

Differences in risk tolerance between partners aren't necessarily a bad thing – they're just a part of being human and reflect individual perspectives and priorities. A more useful lens than gender alone may be the dynamic between the "Family Financial Officer" (FFO) and their partner. The FFO is the primary decision maker for the household's spending and investments, while their partner takes a more hands-off approach. Usually (but not always), the FFO is also the more highly educated and higher-earning member of the household.

This is an example of role specialization, where partners 'specialize' in different areas of life tasks to be done. When a person becomes an expert in one area and takes on the bulk of the associated mental load, then the work related to their area of specialization is done more quickly and efficiently, with fewer errors. For instance, one partner may specialize in meal planning and cooking, while the other takes charge of washing and clean-up afterward.

Most households develop some degree of role specialization because it improves efficiency. Likewise, having one partner manage most of the household's financial details isn't inherently problematic. However, financial decisions affect both partners, even if the non-FFO partner may not be actively involved in the process. While they may not have the same level of technical knowledge, they still have opinions – and real stakes – in the outcomes.

Engaging Both Partners In Conversations About Risk Tolerance

While both partners may have different risk tolerances, it's easy for financial conversations to be dominated by the FFO partner, inadvertently sidelining the perspective of the non-FFO partner.

For example, the FFO is often the one reaching out to an advisor in the first place and may be more comfortable leading the conversation. While the FFO may feel some level of anxiety and vulnerability by hiring an advisor, they also have spent years as the family's primary financial decision maker and may feel more comfortable having financial conversations.

At the same time, the non-FFO partner may experience a different kind of vulnerability – the discomfort of acknowledging their gap in financial knowledge. As a result, they may 'step out' of the conversation, reasoning that they don't really care about asset allocation "as long as it's all taken care of". However, even if a non-FFO partner truly doesn't care about asset allocation, they probably do care about what their assets allow them to do – whether that's spending in retirement, gifting to loved ones, or creating a legacy. Misalignment on these priorities can lead to future disagreements, with the advisor caught in the middle.

To prevent this, advisors can use risk assessments as a tool to engage both partners from the outset. And while discussing portfolio allocation and spending preferences won't eliminate all financial disagreements, it can certainly create the foundation for more productive conversations – helping partners feel heard and involved in the planning process.

The Challenges Of Accurately Capturing Differences In Risk Tolerance

Effectively capturing differences in a couple's risk tolerance is no easy feat – and assessments alone often fall short. The key is to begin with a well-designed assessment that accounts for the social and psychological influences that can (consciously or unconsciously) influence how clients respond, using them as a foundation for deeper conversations that uncover how each partner truly thinks about risk.

As social creatures, humans are constantly adjusting their behavior based on their environment – often without realizing it. For example, if an advisor directly leads the risk tolerance conversation, the way questions are phrased can unintentionally shape the client's response. Research by Dr. John Grable and Dr. Sonya Lutter (née Britt) found that responses to risk assessments can vary depending on the gender implied by the sound of the advisor's voice. Furthermore, clients may feel pressured to give the 'right' answer to impress their advisor — even though what the advisor truly needs is an honest response!

A best practice is to select a psychometrically sound risk assessment that each partner in the couple completes individually. These assessments evaluate a client's long-term habits and traits, rather than their short-term emotions and immediate behavior. External factors – such as market dips, upcoming legislation, or personal events like being laid off or an upcoming retirement – can strongly influence how clients feel about risk in the short-term (their "state"). While this is helpful information in its own right, it doesn't reveal their deep-seated behavioral tendencies (their "traits"). Assessing 'trait' behavior creates a neutral starting point for deeper conversations, helping advisors separate temporary emotional reactions from long-term financial attitudes.

Follow-Up Conversation To Capture Nuances In Risk Tolerance

While risk assessments are a valuable starting point, they should be followed up by a conversation to gain a fuller picture of how a couple engages with risk – especially when their assessment results appear conflicting or misaligned with their stated preferences. For example, a client may receive an average risk score but then tell the advisor they only want to invest in bonds.

Some attitudes toward risk – like longevity and mortality perceptions – are deeply personal and difficult to quantify in an assessment. These perceptions can vary based on factors such as gender, family history, or personal beliefs. One advisor shared a case where a client expressed that she didn't expect to live long past retirement. Her family history didn't indicate any impending health risk – it just wasn't something she could easily envision. As a result, her investment preferences were very different from her partner's, illustrating how personal perspectives shape financial decision-making.

Assessments also struggle to capture the dynamic influence partners have on each other's risk preferences. Consider a couple where both partners work:

• If Partner A is entrepreneurially inclined and takes financial risks in their career, Partner B may become less risk-tolerant in their own career to ensure stability. They may prioritize a steady flow of income, health insurance, and reliable hours to balance the household finances while Partner A is working through the tough early years of building their own business.
• Similarly, in investing, if Partner B is more inclined toward riskier and newer investment strategies, Partner A may feel the need to compensate by using conservative choices like bonds, even if they would otherwise behave like an average investor.

This push-and-pull dynamic is tough to capture in risk assessments alone. However, combining a psychometric risk assessment with a follow-up conversation helps advisors identify gaps between self-reported preferences and actual behaviors, uncovering underlying problems that are worth discussing together.

Setting Up The Risk Tolerance Conversation For Success

A well-structured risk tolerance conversation helps ensure that clients provide genuine and useful responses. Advisors can set the stage by making the following points clear:

• There are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers – the goal of the questionnaire is to capture how each person truly thinks about risk.
• Each partner should take their own assessment separately.
• The type of risk being assessed should be defined upfront, as different types of risk (e.g., investment risk, longevity risk, income risk, etc.) can influence how they respond.

Even a brief explanation when discussing the incoming risk tolerance questionnaire can significantly impact how clients engage with it. Consider the sample script below.

Advisor: You'll be receiving a risk tolerance assessment soon, and I want to emphasize that there are no 'right' and 'wrong' answers – this is simply a way to understand how you each approach risk based on your past experiences. Each of you will receive your own assessment so that we can see how you, individually, think about financial decision-making.

When we talk about risk in financial planning, we're usually referring to investment risk – how we invest your portfolio and whether we will focus on maximizing returns or minimizing losses from market fluctuations. Once you complete the assessment, we'll discuss the results together and explore how your preferences fit into your broader financial goals, so we can develop a strategy that you're both comfortable with.

Do you have any questions about the assessment?

This explanation doesn't need to be very complicated, but setting expectations upfront helps clients understand the purpose of the assessment and approach it with confidence. As mentioned earlier, psychometric assessments are especially valuable because they provide more accurate insights into how clients engage with risk over the long-term. However, while assessments help establish a baseline, they don't always capture the nuances of how each partner truly feels about risk. That's why the follow-up conversation is where the real insights emerge – giving couples the space to openly discuss their concerns, influences, and priorities.

Holding An Effective Same-Page Assessment

Once the risk assessment results are in and the follow-up meeting begins, a few best practices can make the conversation more successful.

As a starting point, it may be helpful to allow the 'non-FFO' partner to speak first, as they may be less confident in financial topics and may be accustomed to deferring to their partner. So, by letting them share their perspectives first, they have a better opportunity to express their thoughts without simply reacting to their partner's opinions. This can help create a more balanced discussion.

Also, be mindful of leading questions, which can unintentionally suggest a 'right' answer within their phrasing. A clear example comes from a study on risk comprehension and the public perception of smoking risks, which noted that comprehension was often measured by asking leading questions that included the 'right' answer within the question itself (e.g., "Does smoking cigarettes cause diseases like heart disease and lung cancer?" Respondents who were asked this question acknowledged the link between smoking and diseases more often than those asked open-ended questions (e.g., "What, if any, are the health hazards related to smoking?") because the question itself contained the expected answer – even if they had never considered those risks before.

In risk tolerance conversations, consider the difference between these two approaches:

• Leading question: "Do you hold your investments during bear markets?" (This implies that holding investments is the correct response.)
• Neutral question: "How do you respond to bear markets?" (This encourages an open-ended and honest response.)

While leading questions can appear in both questionnaires and conversations, they are especially easy to inadvertently introduce into conversations through tone, body language, or facial expressions (e.g., nodding or smiling when someone gives the 'correct' answer).

During this risk "discovery" conversation, the main goal – especially in the early stages – is to draw out each client's true perspectives on risk. Keeping the conversation neutral and giving both partners space to contribute will lead to more accurate insights and a stronger financial planning process.

Questions To Explore Risk Tolerance More Deeply

Advisors may opt to ask a variety of follow-up questions, depending on how the risk assessment results turned out. When engaging in these discussions – especially with couples who report opposite risk tolerances – the goal is to determine where the differences stem from. Do both partners have a well-informed perspective on investment risk, but differ in their natural inclinations? Or does the reported gap arise from differences in risk education (e.g., one partner lacks knowledge and defaults to emotional reactions created by fundamental risk memories or learned experiences)? Could an unspoken dynamic within the couple be shaping their responses (e.g., one partner is so risk-averse that the other compensates by taking a more aggressive stance)?

Key Questions To Ask

1. What did you think of the risk assessment? Did you have any questions?

Why ask this? This is a natural starting point that allows clients to voice their observations and takeaways.

What to watch for:

• Clients may surface the questions they found interesting, what they disagreed with, or uncertainties about how to answer.
• Some may reveal personal circumstances that impact their risk tolerance but weren't explicitly reflected in the assessment (e.g., a client with impending caretaking responsibilities may make them less risk-tolerant). The conversation may highlight gaps in risk education, or specialized roles in the relationship (e.g., "I didn't have much of an opinion – I'd assume that in those circumstances, you or my partner would guide me.").

2. Tell me how you think about financial risk. What does it mean to you?

Why ask this? This helps give insight into a client's personal 'risk script' – the stories and experiences that shape their relationship with risk and the role of investing. This is perhaps best articulated as a subsection of 'money scripts', or a person's personal history with risk.

What to watch for:

• Many clients will reference personal history when answering this question. People's perceptions of risk are often deeply shaped by past experiences, even if they don't consciously realize it.
• As an anecdotal example, when I asked my friends this question (yes, I'm super fun at parties!), nearly all of them referenced personal stories ranging from childhood lessons to early adulthood financial decisions, highlighting how life experiences influence long-term financial behavior. Their responses included:
• Joining a startup immediately after college without realizing the risk – until the company went under.
• Going 'house-broke' on a mortgage and how it ultimately paid off over time.
• Being raised with the belief that "only an idiot" sells in a market downturn and that recessions are just a stock market 'sale'.

3. How has your approach to risk changed over time?

Why ask this? This reveals more about the client's risk script by building on the previous question and encouraging reflection on how past experiences shaped their risk tolerance.

What to watch for:

• If both partners bring up the same story but highlight different takeaways, it may indicate differences in how they perceive risk.
• Personal life events such as job loss, unexpected inheritance, or major financial wins/losses can significantly impact risk attitudes.

4. When do you want me to reach out to you regarding your portfolio performance? How do you want me to communicate with you if…?

Why ask this? This helps set expectations and helps the advisor understand how responsive a client may be to market shifts. This also allows both the advisor and client to express their communication styles.

What to watch for:

• Some clients catastrophize market downturns and need reassurance and proactive communication, while others prefer a more hands-off approach. Understanding each client's preferences ensures the advisor provides the right level of reassurance.
• A fundamental question that clients often ask – regardless of risk tolerance – is "Will I be okay?"
  • For clients who catastrophize, advisors might say: "If market volatility worries you, we'll have regular check-ins so you never feel left in the dark."
  • For clients who are hands-off, advisors might say: "If you prefer fewer updates, we'll check in annually unless there's a major event that needs your attention."
• The discussion allows the advisor to proactively walk clients through what to expect in a downturn, helping clients feel more prepared and less likely to panic:
  • "First, before a downturn happens, we'd ensure that your portfolio is well-balanced, protecting you against bad market days."
  • "If the market drops, you'd get a call from me and we'd evaluate whether any adjustments or tax-loss harvesting opportunities make sense."
  • "And then, we'd continue monitoring and adjusting as needed – always keeping your long-term plans in mind."

Other Notes

Most of the above questions are designed to highlight differences in a couple's financial history and education. However, when partners have fundamentally different approaches to risk, the best strategy is to focus on finding common ground.

In the short term, when roles are still being established, it helps to identify shared priorities. Are there imminent financial goals that they can both agree upon? Consider where visualization tools may be helpful in educating clients. Walking clients through worst-case scenarios with clear projections and emphasizing where the advisor can be a sounding board can help clients stay grounded, especially when there are opportunities to educate clients about risk. Language choices also matter – reframing "probability of failure" as "probability of adjustment" when discussing spending analyses can reduce anxiety and encourage constructive decision-making.  Being specific about what an 'adjustment' might actually look like can further ease concerns.

In the long-term, as everyone becomes more comfortable with each other, consider ways to honor each partner's risk preferences. Does the more risk-tolerant partner need a small designated portion of 'play money' for speculative investments? What reassurances does the more risk-averse partner need to feel comfortable spending or staying invested? What type of communication does each partner need when coming into annual planning meetings?

With all of these factors in mind, the advisor can build a framework for ongoing, productive discussions – even when partners approach risk from opposite directions.

---

Ultimately, a couple's risk tolerance is shaped by a combination of personal history, future concerns, and the ways partners influence each other. Working through these differences isn't a one-time challenge – it requires ongoing conversations. And while risk assessments provide a useful starting point, it's the conversation afterward that ensures both partners feel heard, aligned, and confident in their financial future.

By proactively measuring, discussing, and addressing these differences from the outset, advisors can create a space where both partners feel understood and engaged. More importantly, surfacing these discussions early helps prevent misunderstandings, uncovers key questions, and allows for thoughtful adjustments over time. This leads to greater clarity, confidence, and alignment — making financial decisions (and the advisor-client relationship) more productive in the long run!

Thank you to Edward Coambs of Healthy Love and Money and Ashley Quamme of Beyond The Plan for their contributions to this article.