Social Learning Opportunities and the Financial

Behaviors of College Students

Michael S. Gutter
Selena Garrison
University of Florida
Zeynep Copur
Hacettepe University

This study explores the relationship between financial social learning opportunities and financial behaviors of
college students. Data were collected from 15,797 college students age 18 and over throughout the United
States during spring and fall semesters of 2008. Financial behaviors were related to age, race, marital status,
school rank, income level, loan amount, and qualification for financial aid. Results suggest important relation-
ships exist between financial behaviors and financial social learning opportunities. Students who budget and
save tended to have higher scores on the social learning opportunities indices than those who do not budget
and save. Financial behaviors were positively related to social learning opportunities when controlling for
demographic and financial characteristics.

Keywords: college students; financial behavior; financial social learning; socialization

For most young adults, college marks the beginning of greater financial inde-
pendence from their parents and greater responsibility for making sound finan-
cial decisions (Lyons, Scherpf, & Roberts, 2006). At present college life includes
a new dimension of discovery for students: easy access to credit cards. As stu-
dents come to campus for the first time, they are bombarded with credit offers
via on-campus bulletin boards and tables in the student union. It is common
for students to obtain credit cards early in their college careers and remain
loyal customers for up to 15 years (Hultgren, 1998). Once at college, many stu-
dents are dealing with financial challenges such as paying bills, creating a bud-
get, and using credit for the first time in their lives. The ability of students to
cope with these challenges depends on the financial knowledge and behaviors
they acquired before being on their own (Lyons et al., 2006).
Consumer socialization describes the process by which young people acquire
skills, knowledge, and attitudes regarding their role as consumers in the mar-
ketplace (Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Ward, 1974). Some researchers have
extended that definition to include acquiring and developing values, attitudes,
standards, norms, skills, behaviors, motives and knowledge, which are related
to consumption and family financial management (Cohen & Xiao, 1992; Danes,

Authors’ Note: Michael S. Gutter and Selena Garrison, Department of Family, Youth and Commu-
nity Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Zeynep Copur, Department of Family and Con-
sumer Science, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. Please address correspondence to Michael S.
Gutter, Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences, University of Florida, PO Box
110310, 3002C McCarty Hall D, Gainesville, FL 32611; e-mail: msgutter@ufl.edu.
This project was funded by a grant from the National Endowment for Financial Education.
Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4, June 2010 387–404
DOI: 10.1111/j.1552-3934.2010.00034.x
 2010 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
387
388 FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

1994; Hira, 1997; Rettig & Mortenson, 1986). The scope of financial socialization
can be illustrated by considering the many dimensions of money handling, e.g.,
learning about earning, spending, saving, borrowing, and sharing (Danes &
Dunrud, 1993; Schuchardt, Danes, Swanson, & Westbrook, 1991). Based on
social learning theory, consumer socialization research suggests that a great
deal of consumer behavior, such as spending behavior among adults, is learned
during the adolescent years through the influence of socialization agents such
as parents, family members, and other influential individuals and that con-
sumer behavior can be passed on from generation to generation (Churchill &
Moschis, 1979; Moschis & Moore, 1984; Valence, d’Astous, & Fourtier, 1988).
The current movement among legislators, family and consumer science pro-
fessionals, and higher education institutions has focused on how to educate
young people about wise use of credit (Hayhoe, 2002; Stern, 2002). However,
education occurs in both the classroom and social learning experiences. This
study explores the connection between financial social learning opportunities
and financial behaviors of college students to help understand the determinants
of financial behavior. In this research, college students’ financial behaviors rep-
resent the behavioral outcome of financial socialization, an aspect of consumer
socialization. The study is important because a unique measure of social learn-
ing opportunities is used and the sample is very large.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Social Learning Framework

Socialization is often viewed as a social process by which norms, attitudes,

motivations, and behaviors are transmitted from specific sources (commonly
known as socialization agents) to the learner (Brim, 1966; Hira, 1997; McLeod &
O’Keefe, 1972; McNeal, 1987; Moschis, 1981). Socialization begins in childhood
and continues, to some extent, throughout life (McNeal, 1987; Moschis, 1985,
1987). Children who emulate their parents’ behavior through observations pro-
vide a good example of social learning. The basis of social learning is that peo-
ple can learn from others by observing and modeling their behaviors, attitudes,
and emotional reactions (Bandura, 1977; Grossbart, Carlson, & Walsh, 1991;
Maccoby, 1992; Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Moschis & Churchill, 1978).
Various authors have developed models of consumer socialization (Carlson
& Grossbart, 1988; Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Ward, Klees, & Wackman, 1991).
In general, consumer socialization is based on three components: background
factors (e.g., sex, age, socioeconomic status), socialization agents-processes (e.g.,
peers, parents, other family members), and learning mechanism outcomes
(e.g., the process through which parents teach consumer skills to children;
Grossbart et al., 1991; Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Moschis & Churchill, 1978).
Ward (1974) suggested that at least some patterns of adult consumer behavior
are influenced by childhood and adolescent experiences, and the study of these
experiences should help us to understand not only consumer behavior among
young people but also the development of adult patterns of behavior. For
instance Shoda, Mischel, and Peake (1990) found that children’s preschool delay
behavior was significantly related to the ability to cope with frustration and
stress in adolescence.
Gutter et al. / SOCIAL LEARNING AND FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR 389

This study relies on the consumer socialization model developed by Moschis

and Churchill (1978). This model incorporates antecedent variables and sociali-
zation processes. Antecedent variables are related to the social environment
within which a person’s learning takes place. This category includes two differ-
ent types of variables: developmental variables such as age or stage of life cycle,
and social structural variables such as social class, gender, and race. Socioeco-
nomic variables may affect acquisition of consumer learning properties (out-
come) both directly and indirectly through their impact on the socialization
processes (Moschis & Churchill, 1978). In the present study, demographic and
financial characteristics, such as age, gender, race, and income are studied along
with family structure, which are used in the way of control variables whose
effects are held constant in the analysis. Essentially, this model assumes that
young people acquire certain mental and behavioral outcomes through their
interaction with various socialization agents (Moschis, 1987; Ward, 1974). The
learning processes most often relied on include direct interaction, modeling,
mediation, reinforcement, and operant learning (Grossbart et al., 1991; Mascare-
nhas & Higby, 1993; Moschis & Churchill, 1978). These socialization processes
refer to agent–learner relationships, which incorporate socialization agents and
learning mechanisms. In the current study, the term financial socialization is
used to denote the subset of consumer socialization related to financial behav-
iors and financial markets.

Socialization Agents

The primary socialization agents that play a significant role in consumer social-
ization include parents, peers, schools, and mass media (Bush, Smith, & Martin,
1999; Moschis & Moore, 1984). These agents influence the psychological, emo-
tional, and behavioral development of young people, as they become consumers
in the marketplace (Moore, Raymond, Mittelstaedt, & Tanner, 2002). Many empir-
ical studies have found that these primary socialization agents also act as typical
sources of financial knowledge (Keller & Staelin, 1987; Lee & Hogarth, 1999).
Several previous studies have revealed that parents’ intentional instruction
and reinforcing activities can directly and indirectly impact their children’s
financial knowledge and behavior (Drentea & Lavrakas, 2000; Hayhoe, Leach,
Turner, Bruin, & Lawrence, 2000; Lyons et al., 2006; Moschis, 1985). Parents
appear to play an important role in the consumer socialization of their off-
spring, and they are instrumental in teaching them the rational aspects of con-
sumption. In addition, youngsters appear to acquire a variety of other
consumption-related orientations and skills from their parents. Parental influ-
ence on the consumer behavior of their offspring is situation specific; it varies
across products, stages in the decision-making process, and consumer charac-
teristics (Danes, 1994; Lachance, Legault, & Bujold, 2000; Lyons et al., 2006;
McNeal, 1987; Moschis, 1985, 1987).
Danes (1994) specifies the family as ‘‘the context in which children learn
about financial knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices’’ and specifies par-
ents as the ‘‘primary agent for financial socialization’’ (p. 132). She found that
the majority of parents (69.5%) believed that children under 9 years of age were
ready to receive an allowance, while 63.9% of parents believed that the same
age group would be ready to open a savings account. She also found that
almost one third of parents believed that children between 9 and 11 could help
390 FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

create a budget and that children between 12 and 14 should be aware of their
family’s living costs.
Hira (1997) indicated that among the various socialization agents, family in
general, and mothers and fathers in particular, were identified as the most
important sources of influence on respondents’ financial attitudes and beliefs.
Money values are passed down from parents to children through direct and
indirect messages. Further, Lyons (2003) found that about 68% of students
reported actually receiving financial information from their parents. Bowen
(2002) also found that there is a significant relationship between the teens’ and
parents’ money knowledge. According to Capital One Financial Corporation’s
(2003) third annual back-to-school survey, 87% of college students rely on their
parents for financial advice. Parents have been the only socialization agent sig-
nificantly correlated with credit card use. The more information received from
parents about the proper use and misuse of credit cards, the lower the students’
outstanding credit card balances (Palmer, Pinto, & Parente, 2001; Pinto, Parente,
& Mansfield, 2005).
Peers also play a pivotal role in the socialization process from early childhood
through adolescence (Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Ward, 1974). The general find-
ing is that parental influence decreases, and peer influence increases, with age for
a variety of purchase acts (Ward, 1974). Other researchers have noted that,
although parents are more influential at the information-gathering stage, peers
become more influential at the product evaluation stage. Materialistic attitudes
are positively related to susceptibility to peer group influences, influenced by
weak family communication and unstable family environments. Therefore, the
positive financial communication that happens in the home, especially by parents,
will affect how influential peers will be on their children. Increased peer influence
might be a result of youth spending more time with peers as they get older, thus
being influenced more by this environment (Harris, 1995; John, 1999).
There are multiple sources of influence on the child’s ability to delay
gratification; children learn in a variety of ways through guidance from
parents, explicit educational programs, and observations of role models
(Webley & Nyhus, 2006).
Studies of college-aged young adults’ financial socialization have consistently
shown influence from their parents and friends about financial issues (Lyons,
2003; Palmer et al., 2001; Pinto et al., 2005). However, these studies did not use
a social learning opportunities measure and they did not address the behaviors
that are the focus of this study. Additionally, the current sample is large
enough to gain additional insight. This study provides a current assessment of
college students’ sources of financial socialization and specific financial behav-
iors. We also examine conditioning factors that influence students’ financial
social learning opportunities, including age, gender, race, school rank, marital
status, and part-time ⁄ full-time status, income, being listed as a dependent on
their parents’ tax return, financial aid, and amount of student loans.
For this study, parents and friends were considered as financial socialization
agents. Furthermore, the two interactions of discussions (direct teaching) with,
and observations (modeling) of, these two financial socialization agents were
then assumed to influence consumer decision-making and subsequent behav-
iors. The outcomes in the consumer socialization model are the development of
behavioral, cognitive, and affective characteristics related to an individual’s role
as a consumer.
Gutter et al. / SOCIAL LEARNING AND FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR 391

RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES

Figure 1 is an outline of the conceptual model used in this research. The

main elements of the model are classified into demographic and financial char-
acteristics, socialization agents-processes, and outcomes.
The primary objectives were to determine the impact of selected demographic
and financial characteristics on financial social learning opportunities and exam-
ine the relationship between financial social learning opportunities and financial
behaviors of college students focusing on two financial behaviors: using a
budget and saving. While previous studies have focused on credit behaviors,
this study focused on budgeting and saving because (i) all students can use
budgeting regardless of having credit and (ii) savings represents future-oriented
financial planning behavior. Understanding most credit patterns may be
challenging since many parents may be more involved in the credit repayment
process. Finally, by focusing on budgeting and saving, this study provides more
breadth to the research into college student financial behavior. Thus, several
research questions are evident; first what are the college students’ profiles of
demographic and financial characteristics, financial social learning opportunities,
and financial behaviors? Second, do the profiles of financial social learning
opportunities differ by the financial behaviors of college students? Finally, how
are financial social learning opportunities related to financial behaviors when
controlling for demographic and financial characteristics? We expect to find a
significant relationship between social learning opportunities and financial
behaviors.

Figure 1: A conceptual model of college students’ financial socialization.

392 FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Hypotheses
Based on the model in Figure 1, the following hypotheses are suggested:

• There is a difference in the financial social learning opportunities between

college students who were budgeting and saving and those who were not
budgeting and saving.
As an agent of socialization, the family can have a significant influence on
the child’s acquisition of financial behavior. Early researchers speculated that
young people learn rational aspects of consumption from their parents. Recent
research findings support this assertion (e.g., Danes, 1994; Hira, 1997; Lyons
et al., 2006). For example, research by Lyons (2003) shows that college students
learn financial information from their parents. These findings suggest the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
• There is a positive relationship of the frequency of discussing finances with
parents and observing parents’ financial behavior on the likelihood of stu-
dents budgeting or saving when controlling for demographic and financial
variables.
Also, the socialization literature suggests that peers can influence consump-
tion-related attitudes and behaviors (Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Moschis &
Moore, 1979; Ward, 1974). Furthermore, through peer influence, a young person
develops autonomy and grows into adulthood, especially during college, when
familial influences are expected to decline significantly (Brown & Huang, 1995;
Harris, 1995). Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis was developed:
• There is positive relationship of the frequency of discussing finances with
friends and observing friends’ financial behavior on the likelihood of stu-
dents budgeting or saving when controlling for demographic and financial
variables.

METHOD

Data and Sample

College students in the United States represent a significant population of
interest and were accessible for this study. The data were collected during
spring and fall of 2008 using a web survey of college students throughout the
United States. This study used a stratified sampling technique. The 50 states
and the District of Columbia were divided into six categories of mandate poli-
cies based on the 2004 National Council on Economic Education report. Then,
using random numbers, states were selected from each of the categories, with
the target campuses being large state universities. A total of 15 campuses were
sampled. Random lists of student email addresses were obtained for each cam-
pus, and, in some instances, entire student populations were made available.
The sample was limited to currently enrolled college students age 18 and over.
Students were emailed three times over a course of 1 month, requesting their
participation; 172,412 emails were sent with about 16,876 students responding
to the survey. After removing students who were educated abroad, educated
Gutter et al. / SOCIAL LEARNING AND FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR 393

by home school, received a GED, or did not indicate their state of high school
attendance, the final sample was 15,797 students.
The average age of the students was 21.3, and almost all students were full-
time (94.3%). The sample was about two-thirds (65.8%) female, 83.3% white,
85.7% single, and 27.4% senior. The profile of the college student sample is
summarized in Table 1. This sample profile is reasonable when compared with
the national averages for college students (90.6% full-time students, 62.7%
female, 69.8% white, 58.1% single, and 27.8% senior). Thus, this sample is simi-
lar to the overall demographics of the college students, although students in
this sample were more likely to be white and single than the general student
population (NASPA, 2008).

Procedure

Student participation was requested using emails delivered to their email

addresses on record. Students were informed that every one thousandth com-
pleted survey would receive a $100 gift card. The email students received,
which contained an informed consent document, took them to the survey,
where they had to affirm their assent to the informed consent statement prior
to beginning the study.

Measurement of Variables

Independent variables. Demographic variables: The study involved college

students’ demographic variables: age, gender, race, school rank, marital status,
and part-time ⁄ full-time student.
Financial status: Financial status was measured using monthly income, being
listed as a dependent on their parents’ tax return, financial aid, and amount of
student loans.
Financial social learning opportunities: The financial social learning opportuni-
ties score was a composite measure based on four dimensions: discussions with
parents, discussions with peers, observing parents, and observing peers. The
score utilized responses to eight items representing these four dimensions.
Scores for each dimension ranged from 8 to 40. This measure is based on the
work of Gutter and Garrison (2008). That study used a small sample of college
students to explore the relationship of financial social learning opportunities on
perceived norms behaviors. The score accounts for the frequency of the obser-
vation or discussion across the various topics.
Discussion: Students were asked how frequently in the past 5 years they had
discussed the following with their parents and friends or other students:
managing expenses and avoiding overspending, checking their credit report,
paying bills on time, saving and investing, working with a mainstream financial
institution, and buying and maintaining health insurance, auto insurance, and
renter’s insurance. The students answered by using a 5-point scale from 1 = never
to 5 = often. The average ‘‘discuss finances with parent’’ score for students was
21.9 (SD = 7.84) and the average ‘‘discuss finances with friends’’ score was 17.0
(SD = 6.68; Table 1). In order to test the reliability of the measure, Cronbach’s
alpha was selected. Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency reliability was
calculated to be .86 for both discussion with parents and discussion with friends.
This result suggests that the inner consistency of the inventory is high.
394 FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE 1: Description of the Sample College Students (N = 15,797)

Definitions % Mean SD

Dependent variables
Financial behaviors
Budgeting =1 if student is currently budgeting, 0 if
otherwise
No 51.7
Yes 48.3
Saving =1 if student is currently saving, 0 if
otherwise
No 47.8
Yes 52.2
Independent variables
Demographic characteristics
Age 21.3 4.33
Gender =1 if student is male, 0 otherwise
Female 65.8
Male 34.2
School rank
Freshman =1 if student is freshman, 0 otherwise 20.9
Sophomore =1 if student is sophomore, 0 otherwise 19.5
Junior =1 if student is junior, 0 otherwise 24.5
Senior =1 if student is senior, 0 otherwise 27.4
Graduate ⁄ professional =1 if student is graduate or other, 0 7.8
otherwise
Race =1 if student is White, 0 otherwise
White (non-Hispanic) 83.3
Other 16.7
Marital status =1 if student is single, 0 otherwise
Single 85.7
Other 14.3
Full-time ⁄ part-time student =1 if student is full-time, 0 otherwise
Full-time 94.3
Part-time 5.7
Financial characteristics
Monthly income ($)
0 =1 if student has no income, 0 39.1
otherwise
1–499 =1 if student is $1–$499 income, 0 35.5
otherwise
500–999 =1 if student is $500–$999 income, 0 15.5
otherwise
1,000 or more =1 if student is $1,000 or more income, 9.8
0 otherwise
Dependent on parents’ tax =1 if student dependent on parents’ tax
return return, 0 otherwise
Yes 69.3
Other 30.7
Financial aid
None =1 if student has no financial aid, 0 19.7
otherwise
Federal student loans =1 if student has Stafford loans, 0 45.2
otherwise
Federal work study =1 if student has federal work financial 8.5
aid, 0 otherwise
Need based (i.e., Pell) =1 if student has need-based financial 22.1
aid, 0 otherwise
Gutter et al. / SOCIAL LEARNING AND FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR 395

TABLE 1: (Continued)

Definitions % Mean SD

Scholarships =1 if student has scholarship financial 52.4

aid, 0 otherwise
Tuition waiver =1 if student has tuition waiver financial 5.3
aid, 0 otherwise
Amount of students loans ($)
None =1 if student has no loans, 0 otherwise 47.4
1–4,999 =1 if student has $1–$4,999 loans, 0 10.9
otherwise
5,000–9,999 =1 if student has $5,000–$9,999 loans, 11.7
0 otherwise
10,000–19,999 =1 if student has $10,000–$19,999 12.1
loans, 0 otherwise
20,000 or more =1 if student has $20,000 or more 12.2
loans, 0 otherwise
Not sure =1 if student not sure about loans 5.7
amount, 0 otherwise
Financial social learning
Discussed finance with = Index of frequency of personal 21.9 7.84
parent finance discussions with parents
Discussed finance with = Index of frequency of personal 17.0 6.68
friends finance discussions with peers
Observed parents’ = Index of frequency of personal 27.0 8.77
behavior finance observations of parents
Observed friends’ behavior = Index of frequency of personal 17.3 7.23
finance observations of peers

NOTE: Since students can have more than one type of financial aid, this category does not sum to 100%.
Percentages are reported for categorical variables, Mean and SD reported for continuous variables.

Observing: Students were asked how frequently in the past 5 years they
had observed their parents ⁄ caregivers and friends or other students involved
in the following: managing expenses and avoiding overspending, checking
credit report, paying bills on time, saving and investing, working with a
mainstream financial institution, and buying and maintaining health insur-
ance, auto insurance, and renter’s insurance. The students answered by using
a 5-point scale from 1 = never to 5 = often. The average ‘‘observing parents’
financial behavior’’ score was 27.0 (SD = 8.77), and ‘‘observing friends’ finan-
cial behavior’’ 17.3 (SD = 7.23). The inter-item reliability was high for both
observing parents (Cronbach’s alpha = .87) and observing friends (Cronbach’s
alpha = .86).

Dependent variables. Financial behaviors: This includes budgeting and saving.

Budgeting was measured with the question, ‘‘Do you currently use a system to
manage expenses and avoid overspending?’’ Saving was measured with the
question, ‘‘Are you currently depositing ⁄ investing money on a regular basis
into some sort of account (includes employer plans, mutual funds, individual
retirement account, savings, CDs)?’’ Responses included yes or no.

Analyses
The hypotheses were tested in the following manner. The analyses compared
the financial social learning opportunities of college students who budget and
396 FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

save or did not budget and save. t Tests were used to compare the means of
the outcome variables: discussed finance with parents and friends, observed
parents’ and friends’ financial behaviors. Logistic regression was used to assess
the financial social learning opportunities means comparison on financial
behaviors after controlling for the demographic and financial characteristics.
The design allowed for the comparison of financial behaviors related to
financial social learning opportunities, as well as students’ demographic
and financial characteristics. In the regression equation, demographic variables
were listed first, followed by financial status and financial social learning
opportunities. These results are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

RESULTS

Comparing Students’ Financial Social Learning Opportunities by Financial Behaviors

The first hypothesis tests explored whether the average area-specific financial
social learning opportunities score, including financial discussions with parents,
financial discussions with friends, observing parents’ and observing friends’
indices differed by financial behaviors (budgeting and saving) of students.
Table 2 summarizes the comparison of students’ financial social learning oppor-
tunities toward financial behaviors. The averages for specific items are listed
for budgeting, saving, and the total sample. In general more than half of the
students (51.7%) reported that they do not use a budget and a majority
of students (52.2%) reported that they are saving. Students who budget and save
reported more discussion of finances with parents and friends and observed
more parents’ and friends’ financial behaviors, on average (i.e., higher scores),
regarding the financial social earning opportunities on both the overall index
and on each component items (statistically significant differences are indicated
with superscript a and b) than those who do not budget and save. This result
suggests that students who actively budget their money and save are more
likely to have engaged in or be engaging in financial discussions with parents
and peers. The same is true of observing financial habits of parents and peers.
Also, results suggest that social learning opportunities for students are more fre-
quent with their parents than their peers. This result indicated that parents seem
to be more influential than friends on college students’ personal finances. Stu-
dents who budget and save reported more frequently discussing finances with
their parents compared to those who do not budget and save on all but two of
the items, particularly with regard to managing expenses and avoiding over-
spending and saving and investing money. However, there were no significant
differences between students who save and those who do not save for discuss-
ing managing expenses and avoiding overspending with their parents (p < .01).
Students who budget and save also reported frequently observing parents’
financial behaviors compared to those who do not budget and save on all but
three of the items, particularly with regard to managing expenses and avoiding
overspending, saving and investing money, and paying bills on time. Thus,
there appears to be a link between social learning opportunities and financial
behaviors. Students who discussed finances more frequently with their parents
and friends and who observed their parents’ and friends’ financial behaviors
more frequently tended to budget and save.
Gutter et al. / SOCIAL LEARNING AND FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR 397

TABLE 2: Comparison of Mean Values (and Standard Deviations) of Financial Social

Learning Opportunities, by Financial Behaviors of Respondent (N = 15,797)

Budgeting Saving
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Financial Social Total
Learning Opportunities Mean (SD) No Yes No Yes

Discussed finances with 2.74 (0.98) 2.60 (0.93) 2.85 (0.99)a 2.62 (0.93) 2.82 (0.99)b
parents
Managing expenses and 3.66 (1.36) 3.53 (1.37) 3.76 (1.33)a 3.60 (1.35) 3.68 (1.36)
avoiding overspending
Checking credit report 2.05 (1.30) 1.88 (1.19) 2.14 (1.34)a 1.94 (1.25) 2.07 (1.29)b
Paying bills on time 3.47 (1.47) 3.34 (1.48) 3.59 (1.45)a 3.43 (1.47) 3.50 (1.47)
Saving and investing 3.62 (1.35) 3.46 (1.37) 3.74 (1.33)a 3.36 (1.37) 3.82 (1.31)b
money
Working with a 2.50 (1.50) 2.34 (1.43) 2.63 (1.54)a 2.33 (1.44) 2.63 (1.53)b
mainstream financial
institution like a bank or
credit union (as opposed
to payday lenders)
Buying and maintaining 2.30 (1.41) 2.20 (1.37) 2.43 (1.43)a 2.21 (1.37) 2.41 (1.43)b
health insurance
Buying and maintaining 2.58 (1.44) 2.45 (1.40) 2.72 (1.46)a 2.48 (1.41) 2.67 (1.45)b
auto insurance
Buying and maintaining 1.74 (1.67) 1.61 (1.05) 1.82 (1.20)a 1.63 (1.06) 1.80 (1.19)b
renter’s insurance
Discussed finances with 2.13 (0.83) 2.06 (0.77) 2.24 (0.85)a 2.08 (0.79) 2.20 (0.84)b
friends
Managing expenses and 3.19 (1.36) 3.12 (1.36) 3.32 (1.33)a 3.19 (1.37) 3.24 (1.33)
avoiding overspending
Checking credit report 1.66 (1.03) 1.57 (0.94) 1.74 (1.07)a 1.61 (0.98) 1.69 (1.04)b
Paying bills on time 2.64 (1.39) 2.57 (1.36) 2.76 (1.39)a 2.65 (1.38) 2.67 (1.37)
Saving and investing 2.89 (1.31) 2.77 (1.27) 3.05 (1.30)a 2.71 (1.27) 3.09 (1.28)b
money
Working with a 1.75 (1.13) 1.65 (1.05) 1.86 (1.19)a 1.67 (1.07) 1.84 (1.18)b
mainstream financial
institution like a bank or
credit union (as opposed
to payday lenders)
Buying and maintaining 1.75 (1.12) 1.73 (1.09) 1.84 (1.18)a 1.74 (1.10) 1.83 (1.16)b
health insurance
Buying and maintaining 1.74 (1.09) 1.68 (1.02) 1.83 (1.13)a 1.70 (1.05) 1.80 (1.10)b
auto insurance
Buying and maintaining 1.43 (0.87) 1.38 (0.80) 1.49 (0.91)a 1.39 (0.81) 1.47 (0.90)b
renter’s insurance
Observed parents’ 3.37 (1.10) 3.27 (1.06) 3.46 (1.08)a 3.27 (1.07) 3.45 (1.07)b
financial behaviors
Managing expenses and 4.00 (1.34) 3.91 (1.36) 4.12 (1.29)a 3.94 (1.35) 4.08 (1.30)b
avoiding overspending
Checking credit report 2.35 (1.60) 2.14 (1.52) 2.41 (1.62)a 2.19 (1.54) 2.35 (1.60)b
Paying bills on time 4.16 (1.29) 4.11 (1.30) 4.23 (1.26)a 4.11 (1.30) 4.23 (1.26)b
Saving and investing 3.87 (1.41) 3.77 (1.42) 3.97 (1.39)a 3.69 (1.45) 4.03 (1.35)b
money
Working with a 3.41 (1.70) 3.31 (1.70) 3.55 (1.68)a 3.28 (1.72) 3.56 (1.66)b
mainstream financial
institution like a bank or
credit union (as opposed
to payday lenders)
398 FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE 2: (Continued)

Budgeting Saving
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Financial Social Learning Total
Opportunities Mean (SD) No Yes No Yes

Buying and maintaining 3.58 (1.57) 3.51 (1.57) 3.68 (1.55)a 3.52 (1.58) 3.65 (1.54)b
health insurance
Buying and maintaining 3.70 (1.51) 3.63 (1.51) 3.80 (1.48)a 3.65 (1.52) 3.77 (1.48)b
auto insurance
Buying and maintaining 1.92 (1.63) 1.76 (1.53) 1.94 (1.64)a 1.77 (1.54) 1.92 (1.62)b
renter’s insurance
Observed friends’ financial 2.16 (0.90) 2.10 (0.84) 2.24 (0.91)a 2.12 (0.86) 2.22 (0.89)b
behaviors
Managing expenses and 3.12 (1.40) 3.08 (1.38) 3.22 (1.37)a 3.12 (1.39) 3.17 (1.36)
avoiding overspending
Checking credit report 1.59 (1.07) 1.52 (1.00) 1.61 (1.08)a 1.54 (1.02) 1.59 (1.06)
Paying bills on time 2.88 (1.45) 2.86 (1.42) 3.00 (1.43)a 2.92 (1.42) 2.94 (1.43)
Saving and investing 2.55 (1.34) 2.46 (1.28) 2.64 (1.35)a 2.43 (1.30) 2.65 (1.33)b
money
Working with a 2.21 (1.46) 2.16 (1.42) 2.34 (1.49)a 2.16 (1.44) 2.33 (1.48)b
mainstream financial
institution like a bank or
credit union (as opposed
to payday lenders)
Buying and maintaining 1.64 (1.15) 1.60 (1.10) 1.71 (1.20)a 1.61 (1.12) 1.69 (1.18)b
health insurance
Buying and maintaining 1.92 (1.29) 1.88 (1.25) 2.01 (1.32)a 1.90 (1.27) 1.98 (1.30)b
auto insurance
Buying and maintaining 1.37 (0.95) 1.30 (0.87) 1.42 (0.97)a 1.32 (0.89) 1.39 (0.95)b
renter’s insurance

NOTES: Items use a 5-point Likert scale; with higher values indicating more discussed and observed
responses. Statistically significant differences were tested using t test.
a. Differences between no and yes responses for budgeting are statistically significant (p < .01).
b. Differences between no and yes responses for saving are statistically significant (p < .01).

Relationship between Financial Behaviors and Financial Social Learning

Opportunities

Table 3 summarizes the results of logistic regressions predicting budgeting

and saving behaviors. This section addresses the second and third hypotheses
and explores which factors are associated with a specific element of financial
behaviors. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship
between financial behaviors and the level of financial social learning opportuni-
ties a student has had when controlling for demographic and financial charac-
teristics. As seen in Table 3, the model of the logistic regression analysis with
the outcome variable of ‘‘budgeting’’ and ‘‘saving’’ was significant.
There was strong support for the second hypothesis (Table 3) which pro-
posed that increasing frequency of social learning opportunities with parents
would be associated with greater likelihood of budgeting or saving, when
controlling for demographic and financial variables. Students who discussed
personal finances more frequently with their parents and more frequently
observed their parents’ financial behaviors were more likely to be budgeting
and saving than those who did not discuss finance with their parents and
observed parents’ financial behaviors when controlling for other factors. The
Gutter et al. / SOCIAL LEARNING AND FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR 399

TABLE 3: Logistic Regression of Financial Behaviors (N = 15,797)

Budgeting Saving

Independent variables B (SE) Odds ratio B (SE) Odds ratio

Demographic variables
Age .007 (0.007) 1.007 .015 (0.007)* 1.015
Male ).035 (0.045) 0.966 .023 (0.046) 1.024
White .191 (0.059)*** 1.210 .294 (0.060)*** 1.341
Single ).290 (0.067)*** 0.749 ).274 (0.069)*** 0.761
Sophomore ).106 (0.070) 0.899 ).250 (0.071)*** 0.778
Junior ).192 (0.069)** 0.825 ).421 (0.070)*** 0.656
Senior ).351 (0.071)*** 0.704 ).621 (0.073)*** 0.537
Graduate ⁄ professional ⁄ other ).204 (0.112) 0.815 ).347 (0.117)** 0.707
Full-time student .063 (0.097) 1.065 ).386 (0.103)*** 0.680
Financial variables
Income
$1–$499 ).093 (0.051) 0.911 .427 (0.052)*** 1.533
$500–$999 .024 (0.065) 1.024 .532 (0.067)*** 1.703
$1,000 or more .339 (0.090)*** 1.404 .954 (0.094)*** 2.597
Dependent parents’ tax return ).054 (0.054) 0.947 ).049 (0.055) 0.952
Federal student loans .096 (0.079) 1.101 .089 (0.081) 1.093
Federal work study .004 (0.083) 1.004 .035 (0.085) 1.035
Need based .058 (0.057) 1.059 ).224 (0.058)*** 0.800
Scholarships .090 (0.044)* 1.094 .131 (0.045)** 1.140
Tuition waiver .148 (0.096) 1.160 .075 (0.099) 1.078
Loans $1–$4999 ).041 (0.093) 0.959 ).452 (0.095)*** 0.636
Loans $5,000–$9,999 ).130 (0.097) 0.878 ).544 (0.099)*** 0.581
Loans $10,000–$19,999 ).143 (0.097) 0.867 ).737 (0.100)*** 0.479
Loans $20,000 or more ).158 (0.099) 0.854 ).892 (0.102)*** 0.410
Not sure ).227 (0.117) 0.797 ).361 (0.117)** 0.697
Social learning
Discuss finance with parent .024 (0.003)*** 1.024 .019 (0.004)*** 1.019
Discuss finance with friends .020 (0.004)*** 1.020 .017 (0.004)*** 1.018
Observing parents .010 (0.003)*** 1.010 .011 (0.003)*** 1.011
Observing friends .001 (0.004) 1.001 ).003 (0.004) 0.997
Constant )1.173 (0.235)*** 0.310 )495 (0.246)* 0.610
v2 goodness-of-fit test 339.94*** df 27 723.01*** df 27
Cox & Snell R2 .035 .072
Nagelkerke R2 .046 .097
H-L goodness-of-fit test v2 7.055 > .05 df 8 4.570 > .05 df 8

NOTE: Odds ratio and unstandardized coefficients are reported, with standard errors in parentheses.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

odds of budgeting and saving increased 2% and 1%, respectively, with a one-
unit increase in the parental discussion and parental observation measures.
Thus the more frequently parents modeled saving and budgeting for their chil-
dren, the greater the odds that students were doing those behaviors as well.
Friends have some influence as well. There was some support for the third
hypothesis which proposed a positive relationship between the likelihood of
students’ budgeting or saving and the frequency of discussing finances with
friends and observing friends’ financial behavior when controlling for demo-
graphic and financial variables. As seen in Table 3 there was a positive relation-
ship between students’ financial behaviors and discussing finances with
friends. Students who more frequently discussed personal finances with their
400 FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

friends were more likely to be budgeting and saving than others when control-
ling for demographic and financial characteristics. The odds of budgeting
increased by 2% for each one-unit increase in the peer discussion measure.
However, observing friends’ financial behaviors was not significantly related to
the likelihood of budgeting and saving after controlling for demographic and
financial characteristics.
The regression results show that demographic variables including race, mari-
tal status, and school rank of junior and senior were all significant determinants
of the likelihood of budgeting. The odds of budgeting were 21% higher for
whites than for other races. However, students who were single had a 25%
decrease in the odds that they were budgeting as their counterparts, after con-
trolling for other variables. Juniors and seniors had about 17% and 30%
decreases in the odds of budgeting compared to freshman.
Factors significantly related to the likelihood of saving of students included
age, race, marital status, school rank, and full-time ⁄ part-time status. The odds
of saving increased about 2% for each year of age. The odds of saving were
34% higher for Whites compared to other races. Single students had a 24%
decrease in the odds of saving compared to their counterparts. Compared to
freshman, sophomore students had a 22%, junior students had a 34%, senior
students had a 46%, and graduate ⁄ professional ⁄ other students had a 29%
decrease, respectively, in the odds of saving. The odds of saving were 32%
lower for full-time compared with part-time students. The odds of budgeting
increased with higher income. The odds of budgeting were 40% higher for
those with income over $1,000 per month compared to those with no monthly
income. It could be the case that these students with higher income or more
responsible for their own expenses and thus budgeting is a greater necessity.
The odds of budgeting were 9% higher for students with scholarships com-
pared to those without financial aid. Since these students would typically be
receiving lump sum amounts, budgeting would be a necessity lest a student
spend their loan or scholarship prior to the end of the term. Factors related to
saving included income, receiving need-based scholarships, and having student
loans. Students with any income level were more likely than those with no
income to be saving. As seen in Table 3, the odds of saving increased with
greater income. For instance, the odds of saving were 160% higher for students
with income over $1,000 per month compared with students with no monthly
income. Also students with scholarships had an increase in the odds of saving
by 14% compared with those without financial aid. However, students who
had need-based scholarships, and all levels of student loans, and those not sure
about levels of loans were less likely than those with no financial aid and loans
to be saving. Those students with need-based financial aid had a 20% decrease
in log odds of saving compared with those without financial aid. In addition,
the odds of saving decreased with greater loans. For instance, the odds of
saving were 59% lower for students with loans over $20,000 compared with
students with no loans.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study explored the relationship between college students’ financial behav-
iors and financial social learning opportunities, controlling for demographic
Gutter et al. / SOCIAL LEARNING AND FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR 401

and financial characteristics. The study was based on data from a web survey
collected during 2008 from college campuses across the United States to explore
these relationships. Logistic regressions were used to identify the relationship
of social learning opportunities to the likelihood that students were budgeting
and saving when controlling for demographics and financial characteristics.
The results of this study provide several important conclusions.
First, financial social learning opportunities were significantly related to
financial behaviors. This study found a positive relationship between financial
social learning opportunities and saving and budgeting behaviors of college
students. Specifically, the likelihood of college students’ budgeting and saving
was positively related to social learning opportunities including discussing
finances with their parents or friends and having observed their parents’ finan-
cial behaviors. According to this result, the first hypothesis was accepted. This
finding supports previous research focusing on the parental influence on young
adults’ financial behavior (Moschis, 1985). Consistent with earlier studies
(Danes, 1994; Hira, 1997; Lyons, 2003; Lyons et al., 2006; Moschis & Churchill,
1978; Palmer et al., 2001; Pinto et al., 2005) results showed that generally par-
ents have a strong influence on college students’ financial behaviors, including
budgeting and saving.
Second, according to Moschis and Churchill’s (1978) consumer socialization
model, socioeconomic variables may affect financial behaviors through their
impact on the socialization processes. Consistent with this model, the results
demonstrated that increasing frequency of financial social learning opportuni-
ties associated with more rigorous financial behaviors, except observing friends’
financial behaviors after controlling for selected demographic and financial
characteristics of college students. Financial behaviors tended to be related to
age, race, marital status, school rank, income level, loan amount, and qualifica-
tion for financial aid. All of these variables were significantly related to at least
one of the financial behaviors. Based on these results, the second and third
hypotheses were accepted.
Although previous research suggests that peer influence may increase and
parental influence decrease with age (Brown & Huang, 1995; Moschis &
Churchill, 1978; Ward, 1974), this study revealed that anticipatory parental
influence still plays an important role in financial socialization process. How-
ever, as student age increased, there was a decrease in discussing personal
finance with parents and friends and observing parents’ financial behaviors.
There is growing evidence that financial socialization may play an important
role in shaping the attitudes about personal financial management issues as
well as the behaviors themselves. The results of this study provide some
evidence as to these relationships. Several implications arise for various stake-
holders. In the present study, individual characteristics such as race, school
rank, and amount of loans as control variables were used that had not been
previously studied in this context.
Financial education-related outreach aimed at improving youth and
emerging adults’ financial management beliefs, attitudes, preferences, or
behaviors may need to incorporate some element of modeling. This could
include media-based examples or messages. It could also include interaction
with the participant’s own family. Family-oriented programming may be bene-
ficial since many parents may not have a strong background in personal
finance. It might also suggest that working in cohorts or in existing peer
402 FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

groups may be useful, since close friends were an important source of social
learning along with parents. Both should be considered in designing financial
education programming.
Researchers studying financial education effectiveness need to consider the
role social learning can play as a mitigating factor in the influence of formal
financial education. Social learning opportunities are related to financial behav-
iors. Future studies should consider both influences in better understanding
financial behavior and outreach in this area. Having a deeper understanding
about the socialization process and how it might differ by race, ethnicity,
gender, and region might also help to explain why race for example was a
significant predictor of behavior when controlling for other factors.
One implication to be considered for states that are contemplating financial
education is that families should be engaged at the grassroots level. Additional
support and cooperation should be suggested among various state agencies to
provide opportunities, especially for youth, to be exposed to positive financial
management behaviors and information.
There are limitations that should be considered in interpreting the results.
First, the data did not have measures for several possibly relevant factors
including family size and religion. These might have provided additional infor-
mation in understanding social learning opportunities. Further research should
include more descriptive variables that might aid in an understanding of the
factors that affect financial social learning opportunities. Although this study
focused on determining the college students’ financial behaviors influenced by
their parents and friends, future studies should investigate other types of finan-
cial socialization agents, such as the media, school, and Internet influence of
college students’ financial behaviors. Future studies could also examine
whether there is a difference between the influence of mothers and fathers as a
source of college students’ financial socialization.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bowen, C. F. (2002). Financial knowledge of teens and their parents. Financial Counseling and
Planning, 13(2), 93–102.
Brim, O. G. (1966). Socialization through the life cycle. In O. Brim & S. Wheeler (Eds.), Socialization
after childhood (pp. 1–49) New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Brown, B. B., & Huang, B. H. (1995). Examining parenting practices in different peer contexts:
Implications for adolescent trajectories. In L. J. Crockett & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Pathways through
adolescence: Individual developmental in relation to social contexts (pp. 151–174). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bush, A. J., Smith, R., & Martin, C. (1999). The influence of consumer socialization variables on
attitude toward advertising: A comparison of African-Americans and Caucasians. Journal of
Advertising Research, 28(3), 13–24.
Capital One Financial Corporation. (2003). College, high school students need better financial education,
August 6. EFT Report, 26, 1.
Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental style and consumer socialization of children. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(1), 77–94.
Churchill, G. A., & Moschis, G. P. (1979). Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent
consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 23–35.
Cohen, S., & Xiao, J. J. (1992). Consumer socialization—Children and money. Childhood Education,
69(1), 43–44.
Gutter et al. / SOCIAL LEARNING AND FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR 403

Danes, S. M. (1994). Parental perceptions of children’s financial socialization. Financial Counseling

and Planning, 5, 127–149.
Danes, S. M., & Dunrud, T. (1993). Children and money: Teaching children money habits for life.
Minnesota Extension Service Publication, HE-FO-6116-C, University of Minnesota.
Drentea, P., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2000). Over the limit: The association among health, race and debt.
Social Science and Medicine, 50(4), 517–529.
Grossbart, S., Carlson, L., & Walsh, A. (1991). Consumer socialization and frequency of shopping
with children. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 155–163.
Gutter, M. S., & Garrison, S. (2008). Perceived norms, financial education, and college student credit
card behavior. Journal of Consumer Education, 24, 73–88.
Harris, J. R. (1995). What is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development.
Psychological Review, 102(3), 458–489.
Hayhoe, C. R. (2002). Comparison of affective credit attitude scores and credit use of college
students at two points in time. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 94(1), 71–77.
Hayhoe, C. R., Leach, L. J., Turner, P. R., Bruin, M. J., & Lawrence, F. C. (2000). Differences in
spending habits and credit use of college students. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34(1), 113–133.
Hira, T. K. (1997). Financial attitudes, beliefs and behaviors: Differences by age. Journal of Consumer
Studies and Home Economics, 21, 271–290.
Hultgren, A. (1998). Help students handle cards. Credit Union Magazine, 64, 10.
John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183–213.
Keller, K. L., & Staelin, R. (1987). Effects of quality and quantity of information on decision
effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 200–213.
Lachance, M. J., Legault, F., & Bujold, N. (2000). Family structure, parent-child communication, and
adolescent participation in family consumer tasks and decisions. Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, 29, 125–152.
Lee, J., & Hogarth, J. (1999). The price of money: Consumers’ understanding of APRs and contract
interest rates. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 18(1), 66–76.
Lyons, A. C. (2003). Credit practices and financial education needs of Midwest college students.
Champaign, IL: Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Lyons, A. C., Scherpf, E., & Roberts, H. (2006). Financial education and communication between
parents and children. Journal of Consumer Education, 23, 64–76.
Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006–1017.
Mascarenhas, O. A. J., & Higby, M. A. (1993). Peer, parent, and media influences in teen apparel
shopping. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 53–58.
McLeod, J. M., & O’Keefe, G. J. (1972). The socialization perspective and communication behavior.
In F. G. Kline & P. J. Tichenor (Eds.), Current perspectives in mass communication research (pp. 121–
168) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McNeal, J. V. (1987). Children as consumers: Insights and implications. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Moore, J. N., Raymond, M. A., Mittelstaedt, J. D., & Tanner, J. F. (2002). Age and consumer
socialization agent influences on adolescents’ sexual knowledge, attitudes and behavior:
Implications for social marketing initiatives and public policy. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 21(1), 37–52.
Moschis, G. P. (1981). Socialization perspectives and consumer behavior. In B. M. Enis & K. J.
Roering (Eds.), Review of marketing 1981 (pp. 43–56). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Moschis, G. P. (1985). The role of family communication in consumer socialization of children and
adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 898–913.
Moschis, G. P. (1987). Consumer socialization: A life cycle perspective. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. (1978, November). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and
empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 599–609.
Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. L. (1979). Family communication patterns and consumer socialization.
In K. L. Berndart, N. Beckwith, M. Houston, R. Mittelstaedt, K. B. Monroe, & S. Ward (Eds.),
AMA Educator’s Conference proceedings (pp. 226–230). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. (1984). Anticipatory consumer socialization. Academy of Marketing
Science, 12(4), 109–123.
NASPA (2008). Profile of the American college student. NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in
Higher Education. http://www.naspa.org/divctr/research/profile/results.cfm
404 FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Palmer, T. S., Pinto, M. B., & Parente, D. H. (2001). College students’ credit card debt and the role
of parental involvement: Implications for public policy. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20,
105–113.
Pinto, M. B., Parente, D. H., & Mansfield, P. M. (2005). Information learned from socialization
agents: Its relationship to credit card use. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33(4),
357–367.
Rettig, K. D., & Mortenson, M. (1986). Household production of financial management
competencies. In R. Deacon & W. Huffman (Eds.), Human resources research 1887–1987 (pp. 137–
145). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Schuchardt, J., Danes, S., Swanson, J., & Westbrook, E. (1991). Financial management literacy for
American youth. In V. Haldemann (Ed), Proceedings of the 37th Conference of American Council on
Consumer Interests (pp. 277–278). Columbia, MO.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory
competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Develop-
mental Psychology, 26, 978–986.
Stern, L. (2002, August 25). Give students a crash course in personal finance before college. Los
Angeles Times, p. C3.
Valence, G., d’Astous, A., & Fourtier, L. (1988). Compulsive buying: Concept and measurement.
Journal of Consumer Policy, 11, 419–433.
Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 1–14.
Ward, S., Klees, D. M., & Wackman, D. B. (1991). Consumer socialization research: Content analysis
of post-1980 studies and some implications for future work. In R. H. Holman & M. R. Solomon
(Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 798–803). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
Webley, P., & Nyhus, E. K. (2006). Parents’ influence of children’s future orientation and saving.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 27, 140–164.