Money, Emotions, and Age: Understanding Our Decisions to Change Them
We don’t make decisions with a spreadsheet in our head. We make them with what we feel, what we fear, what we’ve lived. Understanding our financial decisions — and how they change with age — is not just useful: it’s necessary to build a real, possible… and shared freedom.
Do we save because we want to… or because we can?
Economics isn’t decided only with a calculator. It’s also decided with a tight stomach, with the euphoria of an unexpected income, with Monday fatigue or the fear of falling behind. When it comes to money, we’re not as rational as we think. And perhaps that’s precisely why we need policies that not only inform but accompany. That don’t dictate, but design.
Behavioral psychology — with key contributions from figures like Shlomo Benartzi and Richard H. Thaler — has taught us something essential: the way we make financial decisions is shaped by our emotions, our biases, our age, and our personal history. Understanding this isn’t academic trivia: it’s the foundation for building a fairer, longer-living society.
Emotions do matter (a lot)
Why do so many people avoid checking their bank statements, even when they know they should? Why do we delay savings decisions that we know are necessary? Why do we spend more with a card than with cash?
The answer isn’t just a lack of knowledge, but emotion: the fear of scarcity, guilt from past decisions, the momentary relief of a purchase, or the hope that tomorrow will be easier. Money activates areas of the brain linked to pleasure, stress, control… and shame.
The data confirms it: people with traumatic financial experiences (crises, prolonged unemployment, family debt) tend to have different decision patterns — even when their objective situation improves. Emotion weighs more than information.
Age changes our decisions
Our financial decisions at 20 are not the same as at 60. Over time, our goals, priorities, and horizons change. But so do our biases: while younger people tend to underestimate risks and prioritize the present, older people can fall into excessive caution or distrust.
In a longevity-oriented society, understanding these changes is key. It’s not about creating “products for seniors,” but designing environments that respect the diversity of life paths and capacities. Not infantilizing, not overburdening — just supporting well.
From education to design: a shift in perspective
For decades, financial education has been promoted as the solution to economic behavior problems. But evidence suggests that “teaching” good decision-making is not enough. Most people don’t make financial decisions in a classroom, but at an ATM, on an app, or during a tense family conversation.
That’s why the behavioral approach goes further: designing environments — what Benartzi calls choice architecture — that make good decisions easier. Not forcing but enabling. For example:
- Presenting options clearly and without tricks
- Setting default choices that benefit people (like automatic enrollment in savings plans, with opt-out options)
- Avoiding technical language or unreadable contracts
- Sending reminders that are empathetic, not threatening
This isn’t paternalism. It’s justice applied to the real contexts where decisions are made.
The danger of financial paternalism
Public policies and banking services often take on a paternalistic tone: assuming people don’t know, can’t, or won’t improve their situation. That’s not only unfair — it’s also ineffective. Distrust leads to more distance, more fear, more paralysis.
What many people need is not someone deciding for them, but environments that don’t push them toward error. That they can ask for help without being judged. That autonomy isn’t a privilege reserved for those who got a head start.
Financial wellbeing doesn’t come from imposition — it comes from building trust.
Designing freedom: the architecture of wellbeing
The architecture of wellbeing proposes something more ambitious than just informing: it proposes redesigning decision-making environments so that choosing well becomes easier, more natural, more accessible. It’s not about eliminating freedom — it’s about making it reachable for everyone.
This means rethinking everything from how a pension is communicated to how a social benefit is presented or how a banking offer is structured. Every detail matters: the form, the timing, the language.
And it also means integrating age as a variable in that architecture: knowing how emotions, motivations, and resources shift over the life course is essential to building truly intergenerational financial policies.
What financial advice do you wish you had given yourself 20 years ago?