Fpsyg 13 977818

TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 20 September 2022

Cude,
University
of Georgia,
United
O States
P
*
E C
N O
A R
R
C E
C S
ES P
O
S
N
EDI D
TE E
D N
BY C
E
Ev
eli S
ne t
W e
u f
tt a
ke n
, o
G
oe
I
th
.
e
D
U
i
ni
D
ve
o
rsi
m
ty
e
Fr
n
an
i
kf
c
ur
o
t,
s.didomenico@
G
utoronto.ca
er
m SPECIALTY SECTION
an This article
y was
RE
submitted
VIE to
W Personality
ED and Social
BY
Psychology
Ro , a section
la of the
n journal
d Frontiers in
H Psychology
ap
p, RECEIVED 24 June
Le 2022
ip ACCEPTED 05
zi August
g 2022
U PUBLISHED
ni 20
ve September
rsi 2022
ty CITATION
, Di Domenico SI,
G Ryan RM,
er Bradshaw EL
m and Duineveld
an JJ (2022)
y Motivations for
B personal
r financial
e management: A
n Self-
d Determination
a Theory
perspective.
FrontiersinPsychology frontiersin.org
Di Domenico et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.977818
Fr the terms of
o the Creative
nt Commons
. Attribution
Ps License (CC BY).
yc The use,
h distribution or
ol reproduction in
. other forums is
13 permitted,
:9 provided the
77 original
81 author(s) and
8. the copyright
d owner(s) are
oi: credited and
10 that the original
.3 publication in
38 this journal is
9/ cited, in
fp accordance
sy with accepted
g. academic
20 practice. No
22 use,
.9 distribution or
77 reproduction is
81 permitted
8 which does not
comply with
CO
PY these terms.
RI DOI
GH 10.3389/fpsyg.
T 2022.977818
©
20
22
Di
D
o
m
en
ic
Moti
o,
Ry
an
,
Br
ad
vatio
sh
a
w
ns
an
d for
D
ui
ne
pers
onal
ve
ld.
Th
finan
is
is
an
o
pe
n-
cial
ac
ce
ss
man
ar
tic age
le
di
st
ment
:A
ri
b
ut
ed
u
n
Self-
de
r
D ectiv
e e
t Stefano I.
Di
e Domenico
1
*,
r Richard
m M. Ryan2,
Emma L.
i Bradshaw
2
and
n Jasper J.
Duineveld
a 2
t Department of
1
Psychology,
University of
i Toronto
Scarborough,
o Toronto, ON,
Canada,
2
Institute for
n Positive
Psychology and
Education,
T Australian
Catholic
University,
h Sydney, NSW,
Australia
e
o
Financial
knowledge
r
and sound
financial
y
decision
making are
now
p broadly
recognized
e to
important
be
r determinan
ts of both
s personal
and societal
p prosperity,
but
research
has yet to
examine
how distinct
qualities of
motivation
may be
associated
w of Self-
it Determinati
h on Theory
t (SDT) to
h examine
e people’s
w autonomou
a s (volitional)
y and
p controlled
e (pressured)
o motivation
p for
le understandi
m ng and
a managing
n their
a finances, as
g well as their
e amotivation
t (lack of
h motivation)
ei for doing
r so, and the
m differential
o associations
n these
e motives
y. have with
I financial
n knowledge
t and
w financial
o well-being.
st American
u participants
d (Study 1, N
ie = 516;
s Study 2, N =
w 534)
e completed
a detailed
p demographi
p c surveys
li and
e questionnai
d res
t assessing
h the financial
e variables of
fr interest. As
a hypothesize
m d, SDT’s
e motivationa
w l constructs
o were
r associated
k with
fi hold
n wealth, and
a educational
n attainment.
ci Autonomou
al s
o motivation
u was
t positively
c associated
o with a host
m of positive
e financial
s behaviors
o and
v characteris
e tics (e.g.,
r saving/inves
a ting and
n financial
d self-
a efficacy,
b well-being,
o and self-
v awareness).
e Controlled
p motivation
a was
r negatively
ti associated
ci with
p financial
a well-being.
n Amotivation
ts was
’ positively
a associated
g with
e overspendi
, ng and
g negatively
e associated
n with
d financial
e self-efficacy
r, and well-
i being.
n These
c findings
o support the
m relevance of
e SDT’s
, framework
h in this
o domain and
u suggest that
s intervention
e s aimed at
p supported
r strategies
o for
m optimizing
o more
ti autonomou
n s
g motivations
fi and
n addressing
a amotivation
n s.
ci
KEYWORDS
al
k financial
n literacy,
o investing,
w motivation,
le personal
d
finance, Self-
g
Determinatio
e
a n Theory
n
d
w Introdu
el ction
l
n Personal
e finance is
s inescapable.
s From paying
m bills to
a budgeting,
y from
b retirement
e planning to
n filing taxes,
e and from
fi paying the
t debt to
b saving and
y investing,
a people are
d continually
o tasked with
p managing
ti their
n finances.
g Personal
e finance is
vi also woven
d into other
e aspects of
n people’s
c lives.
e Evaluating
- employmen
t w examples
o of common
p goal-setting
p
o
rt 01
u
ni
and
ti
decision
e
-making
s,
activitie
pl
s that
a
are
n
shaped
ni
by the
n
way
g
people
v
manage
a
their
c
money.
a
When
ti
persona
o
l
n
finances
s,
are not
a
at the
n
top of
d
people’s
d
minds,
e
news
ci
media
di
are
n
often
g
there to
w
put it
h
back:
er
Quantit
e
ative
t
easing
o
and
li
inflation
v
, tax
e
cuts and
—
unempl
b
oyment,
u
the
y
stock
o
market
r
and
re
interest
nt
rates,
—
the
ar
prices
e
of food,
ju
oil, and
st
bitcoin
a
—these
fe
a e
n pervasiv
d eness
and
r importa
e nce of
l financial
a decision
t -
e making,
d it is not
surprisi
t ng that
o policy
p advisors
i promot
c e
s financial
literacy
f (e.g.,
l OECD,
o 2005;
o Lusardi
d and
Mitchell
t , 2014;
h Lusardi,
e 2019).
Financi
n al
e literacy
w has
s been
variousl
c y
y defined
c and
l measur
e ed
(Huston
e , 2010;
v Cude,
e 2022).
r Some
y scholars
treat
d financial
a literacy
y as a
. multidi
G mensio
i nal
v constru
e ct that
n subsum
es
t financial
h knowle
d as
g financial
e self-
, efficacy
(Cude,
n 2022).
u Others
m use the
e terms
r financial
a literacy
c and
y financia
, l
knowle
s dge
p intercha
e ngeably
c (Huston
i , 2010).
f Financia
i l
c knowle
dge
a broadly
t refers
t to the
i knowle
t dge and
u skills
d necessa
e ry for
s setting
, financial
goals
a and
n making
d sound
financial
b decision
e s.
h Financia
a l
v knowle
i dge
o entails
r underst
s anding
, basic
econom
a ic
s concept
s (e.g.,
w opportu
e nity
l cost,
l inflation
) and
h and
o interest
w rates).
Because
f financial
i knowle
n dge is
a commo
n n to
c most
i definitio
a ns and
l assessm
ents of
p financial
r literacy
o (Lusardi
d and
u Mitchell
c , 2007;
t Cude,
s 2022),
we here
a focus on
n financial
d knowle
dge.
s Peo
e ple who
r are
v more
i financial
c ly
e knowle
s dgeable
and
w have
o other
r charact
k eristics
related
( to the
e broader
. financial
g ly
. literacy
, constru
ct are
m more
o likely to
r avoid
t credit
g fees,
a have
g better
e credit
s scores,
take
m ide for
e emerge
a ncies,
s and
u have
r greater
e financial
d well-
being
i overall
n (Fernan
v des et
e al.,
s 2014;
t Santini
m et al.,
e 2019).
n Financia
t l
knowle
r dge and
i literacy
s may
k also
s have
, broader
societal
m import.
a Accordi
k ng to
e the U.S.
Financia
b l
e Literacy
t and
t Educati
e on
r Commis
sion
p (2020,
l p. 2),
a “Financi
n al
s educati
, on is
key to
s unlockin
e g the
t foundati
ons of
m econom
o ic
n opportu
e nities
y and
powerin
a g a
s strong
a ills and
n knowle
d dge to
fully
r particip
e ate in
s our
i dynamic
l econom
i y.” In a
e related
n vein,
t Fornero
et al.
e (2021)
c recently
o argued
n that, in
o our
m post-
y COVID
. world,
financial
A and
m econom
e ic
r knowle
i dge is
c especial
a ly
n importa
s nt for
fuller
m particip
u ation
s and
t decision
-making
a in
c contem
q porary
u democr
i atic
r process
e es.
Des
f pite the
i importa
n nce of
a financial
n knowle
c dge and
i sound
a money
l manage
ment
s for
k financial
w otivatio
e ns that
l drive
l people
n to learn
e about
s or
s better
, manage
their
r finances
e .
s Illustrati
e vely, in
a a review
r of more
c than
h 500
peer-
h reviewe
a d
s journal
articles,
y Goyal
e and
t Kumar
(2020)
t found
o three
major
s researc
y h
s themes
t in the
e persona
m l finance
a literatur
t e: the
i degree
c of
a financial
l literacy
l amongs
y t
distinct
e cohorts,
x and the
a influenc
m e of
i financial
n literacy
e on
financial
t behavio
h r, and
e the
impact
m of
f that
i motivati
n onal
a constru
n cts (e.g.,
c risk
i toleranc
a e,
l financial
attitude
e s, and
d financial
u self-
c confide
a nce) are
t diffusely
i represe
o nted in
n the
. extant
literatur
G e,
o
y
a
l 02
a as either
n antecedent
d of financial
literacy or
K as
u correlates
m and
a outcomes of
r financial
education.
( The
2 absence of a
0 comprehens
2 ive
0 framework
) for
researching
a people’s
l motivations
s for personal
o finance is
somewhat
r surprising
e since
p psychologist
o s have long
r understood
t that people
e can behave
d in
s n (e.g.,
u Sternberg,
b 2002).
o Understandi
p ng people’s
ti motivations
m for
al managing
w their
a finances is
ys therefore of
, fundamenta
e l
v importance.
e Doing so
n promises to
w not only
h increase our
e understandi
n ng of why
th people
e manage
y their
“ finances the
k way they
n do, but it
o could also
w help identify
b useful
e targets for
tt enhancing
er financial
,” education
w and
h advising.
e In
n working
th toward
e understandi
y ng people’s
la motivations
c for
k understandi
hi ng and
g managing
h- their
q finances,
u insights may
al be gleaned
it from the
y broader
m fields of
o motivational
ti psychology
v and
a personality
ti developmen
o t, and in
p framework
ar for the
ti study of
c human
ul motivation.
ar It
fr differentiate
o s
m autonomou
S s (volitional)
el qualities of
f motivation
D from
et controlled
er (pressured)
m qualities of
in motivation,
a as well as
ti amotivation
o (a lack of
n motivation),
T as different
h ways people
e may engage
o with their
ry personal
(S finances.
D Research
T; across a
R variety of
y applied
a domains
n (e.g., work,
a education,
n healthcare)
d indicates
D that more
e autonomou
ci s forms of
, motivation
2 are reliably
0 associated
1 with better
7) performanc
. e and
S wellness
D outcomes
T (Ryan et al.,
is 2021). We
a expect the
lo same is true
n for the
gs domain of
ta personal
n finance.
di Importantly,
n SDT offers
g practical
in erefore,
si believe that
g SDT has
ht much to
s offer basic
fo and applied
r research in
e personal
n finance. The
h main
a purpose of
n the present
ci article is to
n bridge
g research
p from
e personal
o finance and
pl public
e’ advocacy
s with SDT to
m more
o comprehens
ti ively
v examine the
a motivations
ti that
o underlie
n people’s
— financial
a behaviors
p and well-
oi being.
nt
t
o A closer
w
look at
hi
c motiva
h tion:
w
e
Self-
re Determi
tu nation
r
n Theory
in
SDT
th
makes the
e
broad
Di
distinction
sc
between
u
autonomou
ss
s and
io
controlled
n.
qualities of
W
motivation.
e,
Autonomou
th
sl ous, he or
y she concurs
m with or is
o willing to
ti engage in
v particular
at activities.
e Intrinsic
d motivation
b is a type of
e autonomou
h s
a motivation.
vi It refers to
o people’s
rs engagement
ar with
e activities
e that are
n driven by an
a interest or
ct by the
e satisfaction
d that people
w experience
it during the
h enactment
a of the
s activities
e (e.g., an
n individual
s enjoys
e learning
of about
v financial
ol “life hacks”).
iti Identified
o motivation
n. is another
W type of
h autonomou
e s motivation
n that is
a evidenced
p when one
er consciously
s values
o activity and
n endorses its
fe underlying
el goals (e.g.,
s an
a individual
ut builds an
o emergency
n savings fund
o upon
m assenting to
it d
s motivations
i as those in
m which a
p person feels
o compelled
rt or pressured
a to act.
n Introjected
c motivation
e) is one type
. of
In controlled
c motivation.
o It describes
nt behavior
ra that is
st internally
t controlled
o by a sense
th that one
e “should” or
s “must” do
e something.
a Introjected
ut motivations
o are often
n focused on
o obtaining
m approval
o from
u oneself or
s others and
m driven by
o shame,
ti guilt, or
v anxiety
a (e.g., an
ti individual
o adheres to a
n budget to
s, avoid the
S personal
D shame of
T failing to do
d so). External
e motivation
sc is another
ri type of
b controlled
e motivation.
s It refers to
c activities
o that people
nt do in order
r to obtain
ol external
le rewards or
a the
v contingenci
oi es are
d removed,
p people lose
u their
ni motivation
s to persist
h (e.g., an
m individual
e makes sure
nt to pay their
s. bills on time
S because
u they expect
c their spouse
h to be angry
b with them if
e they do not;
h when the
a spouse is
vi not present,
o they are not
rs concerned
ar with their
e bills).
d Both
e autono
p mous
e and
n controll
d ed
e motivati
nt ons
u describe
p the
o reasons
n why
e people
xt act in
er particul
n ar ways
al (Ryan
c and
o Deci,
n 2017).
ti In
n contrast
g , SDT
e charact
n erizes
ci amotiva
e tion as
s; the lack
w of
h intentio
e n to act
n (i.e., a
l her do
a not
c value a
k behavio
r or
o outcom
f e (e.g.,
an
m individu
o al does
t not care
i to learn
v about
a mutual
t funds
i because
o they do
n not
) perceiv
. e any
utility in
W doing
h so), or
e believe
n that
they are
a incapabl
e of
p perform
e ing the
r activity
s (e.g., an
o individu
n al does
not
i invest in
s the
stock
a market
m because
o they do
t not
i believe
v they
a have
t enough
e money
d to do
, so). The
latter
t type of
h amotiva
e tion,
y which
connote
e s
i feelings
t of
h d with
o the
p poorest
e perform
l ance
e and
s affectiv
s e
n outcom
e es.
s SDT’
s s model
of
o motivati
r on
affords
a a
differen
l tiated
a perspec
c tive
k from
which
o to
f examine
how
e people
f manage
f their
i finances
c .
a Conside
c r, for
y example
, , the
varied
i motives
s one
may
t have for
y monitor
p ing their
i budget.
c An
a individu
l al may
l be
y curious
about
a their
s spendin
s g habits
o (intrinsi
c c
i motivati
a on),
t may
e find
b ses
u (identifi
d ed
g motivati
e on),
t may
i compuls
n ively
g watch
their
h spendin
e g to
l manage
p anxiety
f and
u guilt
l (introjec
ted
f motivati
o on) and
r may
follow a
a budget
l because
l others
o pressur
c e them
a to do so
t (externa
i l
n motivati
g on), or
may
f feel that
u followin
n g a
d budget
s is too
hard or
t pointles
o s
(amotiv
i ation).
m How
p might
o these
r various
t motives
a impact
n one’s
t financial
behavio
p rs and
u well-
r being?
c The
h qualities
a of
m variety
o of
t cultural
i settings,
v develop
a mental
t epochs,
i and life
o domain
n s (Ryan
and
s Deci,
p 2017).
e Studies
c have
i consiste
f ntly
i found
e that
d more
autono
b mous
y (vs.
controll
S ed and
D amotiva
T tion)
qualities
h of
a motivati
v on are
e associat
ed with
b greater
e behavio
e ral
n persiste
nce,
r deeper
e learning
s , and
e more
a effectiv
r e
c perform
h ance,
e especial
d ly in
activitie
a s that
c are
r difficult
o or that
s require
s long-
term
a effort.
Autono
m tive
o experie
u nces
s and
greater
m well-
o being.
t This
i literatur
v e is now
a volumin
t ous
i (Ryan et
o al.,
n 2019)
so we
i cite a
s few
example
a s for
l illustrati
s ve
o purpose
s.
r
e
l
i 03
a
b In
l education,
y Domenico
and
a Fournier
s (2015)
s found that
o university
c students
i who were
a more
t autonomou
e sly
d motivated
for their
w schoolwork
i had higher
t grade-point
h averages, a
statistical
m relationship
o that
r remained
e even when
students’
p intelligence
o scores were
s taken into
i
a ealth-
cc related
o changes
u (e.g.,
nt smoking
. cessation,
In improving
h diet,
e exercising
al regularly,
th managing
c glucose),
ar they are
e, more
re successful
s and more
e likely to
ar maintain
c positive
h changes
s over time
h (Ng et al.,
o 2012). The
w benefits of
s autonomou
th s motivation
at (vs. both
w controlled
h motivation
e and
n amotivation
p ) in
e workplace
o settings
pl have also
e been well
ar documente
e d (Deci et
a al., 2017)
ut and
o supported
n metaanalyti
o cally (Slemp
m et al., 2018).
o In a study of
u school
sl principals,
y Fernet et al.
m (2012)
o found that
ti autonomou
v s motivation
at was
e negatively
d related to
fo work
r exhaustion
h but
p ted to
o exhaustion.
si SDT’s model
ti of
v motivation
el has also
y been
re applied to
la examining
te people’s
d idiographic
t goal
o strivings. In
w this
o research,
rk people list
c the personal
o goals that
m they are
m currently
it working
m toward and
e rate the
nt motivation
, quality for
w each goal.
h Studies in
er this line
e show that
a more
s autonomou
c s goals are
o associated
nt with greater
r goal
ol progress
le and
d psychologic
m al well-
o being (e.g.,
ti Holding et
v al., 2017).
a Given the
ti research
o findings
n described
w above, we
a expect
s autonomou
p s motivation
o to be
si associated
ti with sound
v financial
el behaviors
y and greater
re financial
la well-being.
O arch was to
apply SDT’s
v motivational
e framework
to the
r domain of
v personal
i finance.
Specifically,
e we aimed to
w adapt items
from
existing SDT
o questionnair
f es to assess
respondents
t ’ quality of
h motivation
for (a)
e
monitoring
p their
r budgets, (b)
paying bills
e in a timely
s manner,
e and (c)
learning
n about new
t financial
products
r
and
e services. We
s hypothesize
d that the
e subscales
a measuring
SDT’s
r
specific
c qualities of
h motivation
—intrinsic,
T identified,
h introjected,
e external,
g and
o amotivation
al —would
of evidence
th internal
e reliability
p and a
re simplex-like
s pattern of
e inter-
nt correlations,
re such that
s the largest
e correlations
w ke
o association
ul would be
d consistent
a with
p previous
p SDT studies
e and provide
ar evidence of
al construct
o validity by
n suggesting
g that the
th varied
e motives are
m ordered
ai along a
n continuum
di of relative
a autonomy
g (Howard et
o al., 2017;
n Donald et
al al., 2020).
of We also
th hypothesize
e d that the
m broad
at categories
ri of
x autonomou
(R s
y motivation,
a controlled
n motivation,
a and
n amotivation
d would
C evidence a
o differentiate
n d pattern of
n associations
el with
l, respondents
1 ’ degree of
9 financial
8 knowledge,
9) financial
. behaviors
T (e.g., saving
hi and
s investing,
si spending,
m financial
pl self-
e awareness),
x- financial
li self-efficacy,
fi at
n autonomou
a s motivation
n would be
ci positively
al associated
w with
el financial
lb knowledge,
ei better
n financial
g, behaviors,
a financial
n well-being,
d and general
g psychologic
e al well-
n being, and
er we
al expecte
p d
sy controll
c ed
h motivati
ol on and
o amotiva
gi tion to
c evidenc
al e a
w subopti
el mal
l- pattern
b of
ei associa
n tions
g. with
S these
p variable
e s. These
ci hypothe
fi ses
c were
al tested
ly across
, two
w correlati
e on
h studies
y that
p used
o diverse
th measur
e es of
si financial
z behavio
e rs and
d well-
th being.
S itutional
review
t board
u approva
l from
d the
y Human
1 Researc
h Ethics
S Commi
t ttee at
u the
Australi
d
an
y Catholic
1 Universi
m ty.
Particip
e
ants
t were
h 516
o America
n adults
d
recruite
P d by
a Qualtric
s, a
r
professi
ti
onal
ci
panel
p compan
a y. We
n targete
t d adults
s betwee
T n the
h ages of
e 30 and
50 years
s to
t ensure
u that the
d study
y particip
ants
r would
e have
c meanin
e gful
i amount
v s of
e experie
d nce
managi
i ng their
n persona
s l
t finances
. ering
the
P study.
a Table 1
r summar
t izes the
i general
c demogr
i aphic
p informa
a tion of
n the
t sample.
s
c
Measures
o
A
m
list of
p
the
l
constru
e
cts in
t
this
e
study,
d
along
with the
a
descrip
n
tive
statistic
o
s of
n
their
l
measur
i
es, is
n
provide
e
d in
Table 2.
c
We
o
provide
n
a brief
s
descrip
e
tion of
n
each
t
below.
f
Income
o
Parti
r
cipants
m
reporte
d their
b
Persona
e
l
f
Income
o
and
r
Househ
e
old
Incomes
e
for the
n
2020
t
c respond
a ed most
l closely
e with
n their
d annual
a earning
r s before
the
y deducti
e on of
a tax. The
r frequen
cy
b distribu
y tions of
these
s variable
e s are
l present
e ed in
c Table 1.
t The
i median
n househ
g old
income
o bracket
n of our
e sample
($50,
o 001–75,
f 000)
was
n consiste
i nt with
n the
e median
income
c of $64,
a 994 for
t househ
e olds
g betwee
o n 2016
r and
i 2020
e (U.S.
s Census
Bureau,
t 2022).
h
a Household
t wealth
Parti
c cipants
o reporte
r
d the
amount
t of
h money
e you
i would
r have if
you
H cashed
o in all of
u your
s househ
e old’s
h assets—
o e.g.,
l house,
d car,
caravan,
W boat,
e jewelry,
a etc.—
l and
t paid off
h all the
, debts.”
Particip
w ants
h selected
i one of
c 23
h wealth
brackets
w that
a most
s closely
matche
d d their
e househ
s old’s
c wealth.
r The five
i most
b commo
e nly
d selected
wealth
t brackets
o were
“less
t than
h $25,000
e ,”
m “$25,00
1-
a $50,000
s ,”
“$50,00
“ 1-
$ with
1 27.13%,
0 10.65%,
0 10.65%,
, 6.78%
0 and
0 6.78%
0 respons
, e
” proporti
ons,
“ respecti
$ vely.
1
0
0
, 04
0
0 TABLE 1
1 Demographic
information
– and frequency
distributions.
$
1
Study 2
5
0
, N
534
0
0 % Female
50
0
, Range in Age
”
18–55
a Median Age
39
n
d Standard
Deviation of
Age
“ 10.03
$ Ethnicity
2
% White
0
71
0
, % Black
14
0
0 % Other
15
1
– Current
employment
$ status
2
% employed
5 full-time 59
0 46
,
% employed
0 part-time 8
0 10
1 % self-
, employed 7
” % unemployed
9 15
000 13
re 16
tir
e % $25,001–
d $35,000 10
14
2
% $35,001–
$50,000 9
si
ck % $50,001–
n $75,000 11
es 13
s
% $75,001–
b
$100,000 12
e
n
% >$100,000
e
26
fit
(i Household
nc Income
a
p % <$15,000
ac 10
it
y % $15,001–
fo $25,000 10
r 13
w
or % $25,001–
k) $35,000 8
6 % $35,001–
$50,000 11
16
ot
h % $50,001–
er $75,000 15
16
1
1 % $75,001–
$100,000 14
1 12
1
% >$100,000
P 32
er
Educational
so
Attainment
n
al
% some high
in
school 2
co
m % high school
e diploma or
equivalent
28
<
$ % business or
1 trade school 2
5, 4
0
0 % some college
0 15 20
1 % Associate’s
9 degree 9
2 % Bachelor’s
6 degree 27
22
$
1 graduate or
5, professional
0 school
0 1
1
– % graduate or
$ professional
2 degree
5, 11
6-question
All multiplechoi
pe ce test that
rc
en
assessed
ta their
ge
financial
s
ar knowledge.
e These six
ro
TABLE 2 Study 1
un
means,
de
standard
d
deviations, and
to
internal
th
e reliabilities for
ne study
ar questionnaires.
es M
t
w
Financial motivations
ho
Intrinsic motivation 4.97
le
nu Identified motivation 5.45
m
Introjected 4.08
be
motivation
r.
External motivation 3.19
Amotivation 2.64
Financial knowledge 2.57
Fi Personal finance
behaviors
n
Saving and investing 1.60
a
Overspending 1.91
n
Financial self- 4.69
ci awareness
al Financial self-efficacy 0.85
k Financial well-being 0.00
n
o
Overspending
w was measured
le using a single
Likert-type item.
d
Financial Self-
g Efficacy was
e measured using
a single binary-
P
response item.
ar Financial Well-
ti Being was scored
as the aggregate
ci of five
p standardized
items.
a
*Chowdhry and
nt Dholakia (2019;
s Study 3) used
data from the
w 2015 National
er Financial
Capability Study
e
(NFCS; N =
p 27,564), in which
re the mean score
across the six
s Financial
e Knowledge
questions was M
nt = 3.29 (SD =
e 1.67). The lower
mean in the
d
present sample
w may have been
it produced by
sampling error
h given our
a relatively small
sa ere
m
pl obtained
e. from Lusardi
Al
and
te
rn Mitchell’s
ati (2007)
ve
ly, widely
th recognized
es
e
measure of
m “financial
ea
literacy”
n
di (Lusardi and
ffe Mitchell,
re
nc
2007). This
es measure
m
has been
ay
re adopted by
fle the FINRA
ct
ge Foundation’
nu s National
in
Financial
e
di Capability
ffe Studies
re
nc (FINRA
es Investor
ac
ro
Education
ss Foundation,
th
2022) and
e
NF has been
CS used in
pa
rti
other
ci publications
pa
to validly
nt
s assess
an respondents
d
th ’ financial
e knowledge
pr
es
(e.g.,
en Chowdhry
t and
co
m Dholakia,
m 2019).
un
ity
These
sa questions
m
concerned
pl
e. financial
concepts
such as
q interest
u rates,
e differences
s between
ti stocks and
o mutual
n funds, and
s basic
w economic
concepts. A
s onse
a options to
m this
pl question
e were, “They
q will rise,”
u They will
e fall,” They
s will stay the
ti same,”
o “There is no
n relationship
is between
: bond prices
“I and the
f interest
in rate,” “I
te don’t
re know,” and
st “Prefer not
ra to answer.”
te Correct
s responses
ri were coded
s as 1; others
e, were coded
w as 0.
h
at Saving and
w investing
ill Three
ty items
pi measured
c saving and
al investing
ly behavior
h (Chowdhry
a and
p Dholakia,
p 2019): “Do
e you
n regularly
t contribute
o to a
b retirement
o account like
n a 401(k) or
d IRA?”;
p “Have you
ri set aside
c emergency
e or rainy day
s? funds that
” would cover
R your
e expenses
s for 3
p months in
c g retirement
a accounts,
s do you have
e any
of investments
si in bonds,
c mutual
k funds, or
n other
e investments
ss ?” “Yes”
, responses
jo were coded
b with a value
lo of 1 and the
ss sum of
, “yes”
e responses
c was used to
o quantify
n participants’
o saving and
m investing.
ic Oversp
d ending
o Spe
w nding
nt pattern
u s were
r measur
n, ed with
o the
r questio
o n,
th “Over
er the past
e year,
m would
er you say
g your
e spendin
n g was
ci less
e than,
s? more
”; than, or
a equal to
n your
d income
“ ?”
N Followi
o ng
t Chowdh
in ry and
cl Dholaki
u a
di (2019),
n “spendi
ng ded as
les 3.
s
th Financi
an al self-
in awaren
co ess
m Nin
e” eteen
w items
as assesse
co d
de financia
d l self-
as awaren
1, ess
“s (Chowd
pe hry and
nd Dholaki
in a,
g 2019).
ab Particip
ou ants
t were
eq instruct
ua ed to
l “indicat
to e how
in well
co you
m know
e” the
w exact
as value
co (dollar
de amount
d ,
as interest
2, rate,
an etc.)”
d for
“s items
pe like
nd “Your
in total
g net
m worth,”
or “Your
e student
th loan
an debt,”
in and
co “The
m amount
e” of
w money
as in your
co savings
ac ectively
co as 2, 1,
un and 0.
t(s Particip
).” ants
Th could
ey also
th indicate
en if a
in particul
di ar
ca questio
te n was
d not
w applica
he ble to
th them.
er Scores
th were
ey comput
kn ed as
e the
w mean
th across
e applica
ex ble
ac items.
t
val Financi
ue al self-
, efficacy
th This
e constru
ap ct refers
pr to
ox feelings
im of
at confide
e nce
val about
ue successf
, ully
or handlin
di g of
d financia
no l
t matters
kn (Cude,
o 2022).
w A single
at item, “I
all am
, good at
co dealing
de with
d day-to-
re day
sp
fin f-
an efficacy
cia (Chowd
l hry and
m Dholaki
att a,
er 2019).
s, This
su item
ch was
as present
ch ed with
ec a binary
ki respons
ng e
ac format:
co “Yes”
un (coded
ts, as 1;
cr “No”
ed coded
it as 0).
an
d Financi
de al well-
bit being
ca Five
rd items
s, were
an standar
d dized
tra and
cki aggrega
ng ted to
ex form a
pe compos
ns ite
es, measur
” e of
w financia
as l well-
us being.
ed These
to items
as were
se adapted
ss from
pa questio
rti nnaire
ci package
pa s used
nt in
s’ FINRA
fin Founda
an tion’s
cia Nationa
l l
sel
Fi lly
na secure
nc do you
ial feel?”
Ca which
pa particip
bil ants
ity rated
St on a 1–
ud 4 scale
ies from
(FI “Insecu
N re” to
RA “Secure
In .” The
ve second
st item
or read,
Ed “All
uc things
ati conside
on red,
Fo how
un satisfied
da or
tio dissatis
n, fied are
20 you
22 with
). your
Th standar
e d of
fir living?”
st The
ite respons
m e scale
re for this
ad item
, ranged
“T from
hi “Very
nk Dissatis
in fied,”
g coded
of as 1, to
th “Very
e Satisfie
ne d,”
xt coded
10 as 7.
ye The
ar third
s, item
ho read,
w “Overall
fin ,
an thinking
cia of your
as m 1,
se “Not at
ts, All
de Satisfie
bt d,” to 7,
s, “Very
an Satisfie
d d.” The
sa fourth
vi item
ng read,
s, “How
ho often
w does it
sa happen
tis that
fie you do
d not
ar have
e enough
yo money
u to
wi afford
th the kind
yo of food
ur or
cu clothing
rr that
en you/yo
t ur
fin family
an should
cia have?”
l rated
sit on a
ua scale
tio from
n? “Almost
” Never,”
wi coded
th as 1, to
th “Almost
e Always,
sc ” coded
al as 5.
e This
fo item
r was
thi reverse
s scored.
ite Finally,
m the fifth
ra item
ng read,
in “How
g much
fr difficult
o y do
yo reverse
u scored.
ha
ve
in
m 05
ee
tin TABLE 3
g Financial
motivation
th PLOC items.
e
pa I try to
y monitor my
m budget
en because...
t 1. I’m curious
about
of tracking my
bil own
spending
ls?
habits.
” (Intrinsic)
wi 2. I enjoy
th understand
ing the
re ways I
sp spend my
money.
on
(Intrinsic)
se 3. I enjoy
s planning
ra how to
spend my
ng money.
in (Intrinsic)
g 4. It helps me
spend my
fr money in
o ways that I
m believe are
most
1, important.
“N (Identified)
o 5. It helps me
Di reach the
important
ffi goals that I
cu have for
myself and
lty
my family.
at
(Identified)
All 6. It helps me
,” make sure I
to dedicate
enough
5, money for
“A important
purchases.
Lo
(Identified)
t
7. I’d feel bad
of about
Di myself if I
didn’t.
ffi
(Introjectio
cu n)
lti 8. I’d feel like
es guilty if I
didn’t.
”, (Introjectio
als n)
o
9. I n’t.
d (External)
o 11. I don’t
n’ want
t others to
w think I’m
a irresponsibl
nt e.
ot (External)
h
er 12. I have no
p choice;
e others
o force to.
pl (External)
e 13. Actually, I
to gave up
th trying to
in keep track
k of a
th budget.
at (Amotivatio
I’ n)
m
14. Actually, I
“t
don’t have
o
a budget; I
o
don’t
lo
believe I
os
really need
e”
one.
wi
(Amotivatio
th
n)
m
y 15. Honestly, I
m don’t have
o
a budget; I
n
ey don’t know
. how to
( createone.
I
(Amotivatio
n
t n)
r I try to pay my
o bills on time
j because...
e
16. I enjoy the
c
feeling of
t
staying on
i
top of my
o
bills.
n
(Intrinsic)
)
17. I feel a
10. Ot
sense of
h
accomplish
er
ment when
s
I pay bills.
w
(Intrinsic)
o
ul 18. I’m
d interested
ge to see how
t my bills
a change
ng from
ry month-to-
wi month.
th (Intrinsic)
m 19. Paying bills
e on time
if helps me
I keep my
di spending
d well-
organized.
(Identified)
20. I believe in
the
importance
of score will
re help me
sp achieve the
ec financialgo
tf als that are
ull important
y to me.
p (Identified)
ay 22. I’d be
in embarrasse
d if I didn’t.
g (Introjectio
ot n)
h 23. I’d feel like
a
er
“deadbeat”
s or “loser” if
fo I didn’t.
(Introjectio
r
n)
th
24. I’d get
e angry with
se myself if I
didn’t.
rv
(Introjectio
ic n)
es 25. When I get
th a bill
notification
ey
, it feels like
pr a threat or
ov warning.
(External)
id
26. I feel
e threatened
m at the
e. possibility
of getting a
(I bad credit
d score.
(External)
e
27. Other
n
people
ti would get
fi angry with
me if I
e
didn’t.
d) (External)
21. M 28. Actually, I
ai easily
nt forget to
ai pay bills on
ni time.
ng (Amotivatio
a n) 29.
n Honestly, I
d don’t really
i try; I just
m wait for
pr notification
ov s.
in (Amotivatio
g n).
m 30. I’m not
y sure; I
sometimes
cr
wonder what
e would happen
di if I didn’t pay.
t
(A savings
m accounts)
o
ti because...
va 31. I find these
ti topics
o really
n) interesting.
I (Intrinsic)
tr 32. It’s fun to

learn new,
y and
to sometimes
le better,
ways to
ar manage my
n money.
a (Intrinsic)
b 33. I’m just
o naturally
ut curious
fi about
n these
a things.
n (Intrinsic)
ci 34. Keeping
al up to date
pr with such
o matters
d helps me
u plan for the
ct future.
s (Identified)
a 35. Learni
n ng
about
d such
se matte
rs
rv
helps
ic me
es make
the
(e
best
.g financ
., ial
decisi
di
ons.
ff
(Identified)
er
e
(Continued)
nt
TABLE 3
ty (Continue
p d)
es
of 36. I think
it’s
in
really
v useful
es to
stay
t
infor
m med
e about
such
nt matte
s rs.
(Identi
a
fied)
n
37. I want
d others
to on
thi such
nk matte
I’m rs.
kno (Introj
wle ection
dge )
abl 40. I’m
e
ab worri
out ed
the
that
se
typ others
es (e.g.,
of
my
thi
ngs emplo
. yer,
(Introje banks,
ction)
credit
38. I
card
do
comp
n’t
anies)
wa
might
nt
take
to
advan
sou
tage
nd
of me.
like
(Exter
“an
nal)
idi
41. I’m
ot”
not a
to
“suck
oth
er”; I
ers
stay
wh
infor
en
med
suc
to get
h
the
top
best
ics
for
co
mysel
me
f and
up
my
inc
family
onv
.
ers
(Exter
ati
nal)
on.
42. I feel
(Int like
roj I’m
forced
ecti
to;
on) others
39. I’d depen
fee d on
l me to
guil know
ty about
if I financ
did es.
n’t (Exter
kee nal)
p
43. To be
up
hones
to
t, I
dat
tried
e
to
lea en I
rn try.
but
I (Amo
gav tivatio
e
n)
up.
(A
mo
tiva
tio
n)
44. Act
uall Financi
y, I al
do motiva
n’t
tion
try
to We
lea develop
rn
ab ed a 45-
out item
the
financia
se
thi l
ngs motivati
;
it’s on
just questio
not
nnaire
im
por that
tan was
t to
me
closely
. based
(Amoti on
vation)
previou
45. Act
s SDT-
uall
based
y, I
assessm
kin
ents
d
(Center
of
for Self-
gav
Determi
e
nation
up
Theory,
tryi
ng
2022).
to
The
lea questio
rn nnaire’s
ab instructi
out ons
the stated:
se
P
thi
eop
ngs
le
;I
hav
usu
e
ally
diff
get
ere
ove
nt
rw
rea
hel
son
me
s
d
for
wh
mana rated
ging each of
their the
perso stateme
nal nts
financ using a
es. By Likert
perso scale
nal anchore
financ d from
es, we “Not at
mean
all
spendi
True,”
ng,
coded
budge
as 1, to
ting,
“Very
saving
True,”
, and
coded
investi
ng. In as 7. To
other broadly
words represe
, all nt the
the domain
differe of
nt persona
ways l
you finance,
can the
use stateme
your nts on
mone this
y. questio
Please nnaire
rate began
each with
of the one of
follow three
ing stems:
state
“I try to
ments
monitor
in
my
terms
budget
of
because
how
...,” “I
true it
try to
is for
pay my
you
using bills on
the time
scale because
below ...,” and
. “I try to
learn
P about
ar financia
tic l
ip product
an s and
ts services
(e. estion
g., stem,
di for a
ffe total of
re 9 items
nt each for
ty intrinsic
pe ,
s identifie
of d,
in introjec
ve ted,
st external
m , and
en amotiva
ts tion.
an The
d complet
sa e list of
vi items is
ng present
s ed in
ac Table 3.
co Table 4
un shows
ts) that the
be differen
ca t types
us of
e.. motivati
.” on
Ea evidenc
ch ed an
re expecte
gu d
lat simplex
or -like
y pattern
st of
yl associa
e tions,
w such
as that the
as largest
se correla
ss tions
ed appeare
wi d along
th the
3 main
ite diagona
m l of the
s matrix
fo (Ryan
r and
ea Connell,
ch 1989).
qu Followi
ng gulation
pr was
ev scored
io as the
us average
SD of
T intrinsic
st and
ud identifie
ies d
, motivati
au on, and
to controll
no ed
m
ou
s
re 06
TABLE 4 Study 1 correlations

among the five motivation
subscales (below the diagonal)
and 95% confidence intervals
(above the diagonal).
Intrinsic
Identified Introjected
External Amotivation
Intrinsic – [0.78,0.84] [0.42,

Identified 0.81* –
Introjected 0.49*
External 0.28*
Amotivation – 0.04 –
N = 516; *p < 0.001.
regulation as the average of introjected and

(Ryan and Deci, 2017).
Agea −0.17 −0.19

−0.09
[−0.19,0.00] [−0.26, −0.08] [−0.27, −0.09]
Genderb 0.15 0.16 0.14

[0.06,0.23] [0.07,0.24] [0.05,0.22]
Income 0.31 0.26 0.13

[0.23,0.38] [0.17,0.34] [0.04,0.21]
Household wealth 0.26 0.19 0.07

[0.18,0.34] [0.11,0.28] [−0.01,0.16]
Educational attainmentc 0.28 0.18 0.02

[0.20,0.36] [0.10,0.27] [−0.07,0.10]
Financial knowledge 0.12 0.04 −0.15

[0.04,0.21] [−0.05,0.12] [−0.23, −0.06]
Saving and Investing 0.38 0.24 0.05

[0.30,0.45] [0.16,0.32] [−0.04,0.14]
Overspendingd −0.05 0.06 0.26

[−0.14,0.04] [−0.02,0.15] [0.17,0.34]
Financial self-awarenesse 0.39 0.11 −0.13

[0.32,0.46] [0.03,0.20] [−0.22, −0.05]
FrontiersinPsychology Financial self-efficacy 0.31 0.05

frontiersin.org −0.15
[0.23,0.38] [−0.04,0.14] [−0.24, −0.07]
Financial well-being 0.40 0.07 −0.16

[0.33,0.47] [−0.02,0.15] [−0.24, −0.07]
attainment than amotivation; autonomo
motivation did not differ in their assoc
demographic characteristics. Age was ne
with both controlled motivation and a
patterns of associations indicated th
controlling for demographic characteristi
analyses.
The autonomous motivation was po
with financial knowledge, whereas amotiva
related, and controlled motivation
Interestingly, whereas autonomous and co
were both associated with saving and inve
was
Data analytic
approach
We conducted two
types of statistical
analyses. First, we
conducted correlational
analyses to broadly
examine the relationships
between different
qualities of financial
motivation, personal
finance variables, and
well-being. We report the
95% confidence intervals
of the correlations to
compare the magnitudes
of the different
relationships;
nonoverlapping intervals
allow for the inference
that correlations differ in
magnitude. We then
conducted a hierarchical
multiple regression
procedure to examine the
extent to which
autonomous motivation,
controlled motivation,
and amotivation predict
financial knowledge,
saving and investing,
spending, financial self-
efficacy, and financial
well-being after
controlling for a host of
factors from age to
income. Partial F-tests
were utilized to examine
whether models
explained significantly
greater amounts of
variance in the dependent
variables.
Study 1 results
Correlational analyses
08
Saving and models

investing at Step
In 1 and
Step 1, 1R2
2, =
househ
old 0.02,
wealth, F(3,426)
income, = 6.61,
and <
p
educati
0.001.
onal
attainm Overspendi
ent ng
were In
significa Step 1,
nt age
positive held a
predicto signific
rs of ant
saving negativ
and e
investin relatio
g. In nship
Step 2, with
autono oversp
mous ending.
motivati In Step
on 2,
evinced amotiv
a ation
significa was a
nt signific
positive ant
associa positiv
tion e
with predict
saving or of
and spendi
investin ng. This
g. This signific
significa ant
nt increm
increme ental
ntal effect
effect was
was suppor
further ted
support with a
ed with partial
a partial F-test
F-test that
that formall
formally y
compar compar
ed the ed the
models
at Step were
1 and 2, suppor
1R
2
= ted
0.04, with a
partial
F(3,399) =
F-test
7.32, p
that
< 0.001.
formall
Financial y
self-efficacy compar
In ed the
Step 1, models
income at Step
held a 1 and
significa 2
2, 1R =
nt 0.08,
positive
F(3,426)
relation
= 4.79,
ship
p <
with
0.001.
financial
self- Financial
efficacy. self-
In Step awareness
2, In
autono Step 1,
mous gender
motivati held a
on was signific
a ant
significa positiv
nt e
positive relatio
predicto nship
r of with
financial financi
self- al self-
efficacy awaren
and ess. In
amotiva Step 2,
tion autono
held a mous
significa motiva
nt tion
negativ was a
e signific
associa ant
tion positiv
with e
financial predict
self- or of
efficacy. financi
These al self-
significa awaren
nt ess.
increme This
ntal signific
effects ant
increme wherea
ntal s
effect control
was led
support motiva
ed with tion
a partial evince
F-test d a
that signific
formally ant
compar negativ
ed the e
models associa
at Step tion
1 and 2, with
1R
2
= financi
0.14, al well-
being.
F(3,424) =
Amotiv
24.98, p
ation
< 0.001.
was
Financial negativ
well-being ely
In associa
Step 1, ted
househ with
old financi
wealth al well-
and being,
income though
each this
held relatio
significa nship
nt was of
positive margin
relation al
ships statistic
with al
financial signific
well- ance.
being. These
In Step signific
2, ant
autono increm
mous ental
motivati effects
on were
evinced suppor
a ted
significa with a
nt partial
positive F-test
associa that
tion formall
with y
financial compar
well- ed the
being, models
at Step my
1 and 2, (Howar
1R
2
= d et al.,
0.10, 2017).
F(3,426) =
25.30, p
=<0.001 09
.
Regression
analyses
Study 1
controlling
brief for
discussio demograph
n ic
characteris
The tics showed
results that: (a)
of Study Autonomo
1 were us
generall motivation
y was
supporti positively
ve of associated
our with saving
hypothe and
ses. investing,
Financia financial
l self-
motives awareness,
evidenc financial
ed a self-
simplex- efficacy,
like and
pattern financial
of well-being;
associa (b)
tions, Controlled
consiste motivation
nt with was
previou negatively
s associated
researc with
h in SDT financial
showing well-being,
that and (c)
these Amotivatio
qualities n was
of negatively
motivati associated
on are with
ordered financial
along a knowledge
continu and
um of financial
relative self-efficacy
autono and
positively FinHealth
associated Score
with Toolkit
overspendin (Financial
g. Health
Network,
2022a).
Study 2 This
instrument
In Study is widely
2, we aimed used by
to human
conceptuall resource
y replicate professiona
and extend ls to assess
the findings and
from Study promote
1 using a financial
different set well-being
of among
instruments stakeholder
to measure s.
financial According
behaviors to the
and well- Financial
being. Health
Specifically, Network,
in addition “Financial
to assessing health is a
the simplex- composite
like pattern measurem
of ent of an
associations individual’s
among the financial
different life. Unlike
qualities of narrow
motivation metrics
and such as
examining credit
the scores,
differential financial
associations health
that assesses
autonomou whether
s people are
motivation, spending,
controlled saving,
motivation, borrowing,
and and
amotivation planning in
hold with ways that
financial will enable
knowledge, them to be
we used the resilient
Financial and pursue
Health opportuniti
Network’s es”
R
(Financial
Health hypothesiz
Network, ed that
2022b). The autonomou
R s
FinHealth
motivation
Score
would be
Toolkit
positively
assesses
associated
respondents
with
’ financial
financial
health
knowledge
across four
and
domains:
indicators
Spending
of healthy
(e.g.,
financial
spending
manageme
less than
nt whereas
income),
amotivatio
saving (e.g.,
n would be
having
negatively
sufficient
associated
liquid
with these
funds),
outcomes,
borrowing
direct
(e.g., having
replication
manageable
of Study 1.
debt), and
Previous
planning
work in SDT
(e.g., being
has shown
financially
that
prepared).
autonomou
We also
s
measured
motivation
respondents
is especially
’ general
beneficial
psychologic
for
al wellness
endeavors
by assessing
that are
their
complex,
feelings of
require
vitality and
sustained
depletion
effort, and
(Ryan and
have a
Frederick,
longer time
1997) and
horizon
their life
(Ryan and
satisfaction
Deci, 2017).
(Diener et
We
al., 1985).
accordingly
Hypothe hypothesiz
ses for ed that
Study 2 autonomou
were s
preregistere motivation
d would
(https://osf.i evidence
o/ qsker). the
We strongest
positive
associations
with the
more
deliberate
and effortful
aspects of
financial
health,
namely,
planning
and
borrowing.
We
expected
amotivation
to hold the
strongest
negative
associations
with these
aspects of
financial
health.
Finally, we
hypothesize
d that
whereas
autonomou
s motivation
would be
associated
with greater
vitality, less
depletion,
and more
life
TABLE 8 Study 2 correlations among the five motivation subscales (below the diagonal) and 95% confidence intervals (above the diagonal).
Intrinsic Identified Introjected External Amotivation
Intrinsic –
[0.78,0.84] [0.43,0.56] [0.25,0.41] [−0.09,0.00]
Identified 0.82* – [0.40,0.53] [0.17,0.33] [−0.31, −0.15]
Introjected 0.50* 0.47* – [0.55,0.67] [0.15,0.31]
External 0.33* 0.25* 0.66* – [0.49,0.61]
Amotivation – 0.09* – 0.23* 0.23* 0.55* –
N = 534; *p < 0.001. 13.67%, 10.30%, 7.30%, and 3.93% response proportions,
respectively. This distribution was similar to that reported
in Study 1.
satisfaction, amotivation would have the opposite
associations with these variables.
Financial knowledge
Participants completed the financial knowledge test
that was used in Study 1.
Study 2 method Financial motivation
We administered the same 45-item financial
Participants motivation questionnaire developed in Study 1. Table 8
The study received institutional review board approval shows that the different types of motivation once again
from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the produced the expected simplex-like pattern of
Australian Catholic University. Participants were 534 associations. The point estimates of these correlations
American adults recruited by Qualtrics, a professional were very similar to those obtained in Study 1.
panel company. Participants completed an online consent Autonomous regulation was again computed as the
form before entering the study. Table 1 summarizes the average of intrinsic and identified motivation and
general demographic information of the sample. controlled regulation as the average of introjected and
external motivation.
Measures FinHealth Toolkit

®
A list of the assessments in this study, along with their This 8-item questionnaire was developed by the
descriptive statistics, is provided in Table 7. We provide a Financial Health Network (Financial Health Network,
brief description of each below. 2022a) to assess four domains of financial health, each
assessed with two items. Respondents are presented with
Income
a series of questions to which they may respond by
Participants reported their Personal Income and
selecting an answer that is most descriptive for them. The
Household Incomes for the 2020 calendar year using the
instrument’s scoring manual assigns a specific score for
question used in Study 1. Again, the median household
each possible answer. Scores are computed as the mean
income bracket of our sample was $50,001–$75,000.
across the two items for that domain. A sample item reads
Personal and household income were highly correlated (r =
as follows: “How would you rate your credit score?” to
0.73, df = 532, p < 0.0001) and were accordingly
which respondents and answer, “Excellent” (100 points),
standardized and aggregated into a composite measure of
“Very good” (80 points), “Good” (60 points), “Fair” (40
income.
points), “Poor” (0 points), and “I don’t know” (0 points).
Household wealth
Psychological well-being
Participants also reported their Household Wealth
Subjective vitality was measured with Ryan and
using the questionnaire used in Study 1. The five most
Frederick’s (1997) 6-item scale. The scale’s three positively
commonly selected wealth brackets were “<$25,000,”
worded items were used to assess feelings of Vitality
“$25,001–$50,000,” “$50,001–$100,000,” “$100,001–
proper (e.g., I have a lot of positive energy and initiative.”).
$150,000,” and “$150,001– $200,000,” with 41.20%,
The scale’s three negatively worded items were used to
FrontiersinPsychology 64 frontiersin.org
assess feelings of Depletion (e.g., “I feel drained.”). The 5- Life satisfaction 0.35 0.14 0.01
item Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) asked [0.27, 0.42] [0.06, 0.23] [−0.08, 0.09]
participants to rate their agreement with each item on a 7-
point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to
“Strongly Agree.” A sample item is as follows: “In most Gender: −1 = Female, 1 = Male; 95% confidence intervals displayed beneath
correlation coefficients in brackets.
ways, my life is close to my ideal.”
different types of motivation once again evidenced the

Study 2 results
expected simplex-like pattern of associations, such that the
Correlational analyses largest correlations appeared along the main diagonal of
Consistent with Study 1 and with the broader SDT the matrix (Ryan and Connell, 1989).
literature (Ryan and Deci, 2017), Table 8 displays that the Table 9 displays correlations between the financial
TABLE 9 Study 2 correlations of SDT financial motivations (N= 534).
motivations and all other variables. The pattern of
correlations between the financial motivations and the
Autonomous Controlled Amotivation demographic variables was directionally consistent with
Motivation Motivation the results obtained in Study 1 with a few notable
exceptions. In this sample, the motivations were unrelated
Age −0.14 −0.17 −0.06 to gender, whereas in Study 1 females tended to score
lower on all types of financial motivation. Furthermore, in
[-0.22, −0.06] [−0.25, −0.09] [−0.14, 0.03]
the present sample, amotivation was negatively associated
Gender −0.01 0.03 −0.06 with income.
[−0.09, 0.08] [−0.05, 0.12] [−0.14, 0.03] We hypothesized that autonomous motivation would
again be positively associated with financial knowledge
Income 0.20 0.07 −0.12
and that amotivation would again be negatively associated
[0.11, 0.28] [−0.01, 0.16] [−0.20, −0.03] with financial knowledge. Autonomous motivation did not
Household wealth 0.11 0.00 −0.10 evidence this association. As a further exploratory analysis,
we separately examined intrinsic motivation (i.e., acting
[0.02, 0.19] [−0.08, 0.08] [−0.18, 0.05]
out of enjoyment or interest) and identified motivation
Educational attainment 0.09 0.09 −0.03 (i.e., acting consistently with abiding values or attributed
[0.01, 0.18] [0.01, 0.18] [−0.12, 0.10] importance). We found that whereas intrinsic motivation
had no association with financial knowledge
Financial knowledge 0.07 0.05 −0.20
(r = 0.02, df = 532, p = 0.601), identified motivation did (r =
[−0.01, 0.16] [−0.03, 0.14] [−0.27, −0.11] 0.12, df = 532, p = 0.004). Amotivation held the expected
Spend 0.18 −0.01 −0.20 negative association with financial knowledge.
Continuing with the correlations in Table 9, we further
[0.10, 0.27] [−0.09, 0.08] [−0.28, −0.12]
hypothesized that autonomous motivation would evidence
Save 0.30 0.16 0.02 the strongest positive associations with planning and
[0.22, 0.37] [0.07, 0.24] [−0.06, 0.11]
borrowing, the ostensibly more deliberate and effortful
aspects of financial health. We also expected amotivation
Borrow 0.27 0.11 −0.12
to hold the strongest negative associations with these
[0.19, 0.34] [0.02, 0.19] [−0.20, −0.03] outcomes since deliberation and effort are depleted by
amotivation. Contrary to our expectations, autonomous
Plan 0.37 0.17 −0.03
motivation held pronounced positive associations with
[0.30, 0.45] [0.09, 0.25] [−0.11, 0.05]
each component of financial health. Moreover,
Vitality 0.45 0.14 −0.05 amotivation held the strongest negative associations with
participants’ spend and borrow scores. The controlled
[0.39, 0.52] [0.05, 0.22] [−0.14, 0.03]
motivation was positively correlated with three of the four
Depletion −0.21 0.23 0.38 components of financial health, though inspection of the
[−0.29, −0.13] [0.14, 0.31] [0.30, 0.45] correlation confidence intervals indicated that the
magnitude of these correlations tended to be smaller than controlled motivation was positively associated with both
those obtained for autonomous motivation. vitality and life satisfaction, albeit, to a lesser degree than
As predicted, autonomous motivation was associated autonomous motivation, yet also positively associated
with greater vitality, less depletion, and more life with depletion. Though not hypothesized,
satisfaction. Amotivation was positively associated with we note that this latter association with depletion is
depletion but did not evince significant associations with consistent with controlled motivation as a suboptimal
the other psychological well-being variables. We note that quality of motivation that is experienced as effortful
compliance with external demands and internal pressures
(Ryan and Deci, 2017).
Regression analyses
We again used hierarchical regression to examine the
incremental validity of autonomous motivation, controlled
motivation, and amotivation in the prediction of financial
knowledge and well-being. Like Study 1, demographic
characteristics were entered in Step 1 and the three
qualities of motivation were entered in Step 2. Partial F-
tests were used to assess the incremental prediction of the
overall models across Steps 1 and 2. In the unstandardized
models, each predictor was group-mean centered so that
the intercept could be interpreted as the unstandardized
value of the outcome at the mean of all predictors. The
VIFs for each predictor in the models were checked and
problematic multicollinearity was not found, nor did we
find evidence of heteroscedasticity in the model residual
plots. The results of these regression analyses are
summarized in Table 10.
Financial knowledge
The results for financial knowledge mirrored those
obtained in Study 1. In Step 1, both age and educational
attainment were significantly predictive of financial
knowledge. Inconsistent with the results of Study 1,
gender was also significantly associated with financial
knowledge in Step 1. In Step 2, amotivation once again
evidenced a significant negative association with financial
knowledge. Deviating from the results of Study 1,
controlled motivation evidenced a positive association
with financial knowledge in Step 2. We suspect this effect
may have been obtained because of the associations
between introjected and external motivation with
amotivation (Table 8); with both autonomous motivation
and amotivation partialled out of controlled motivation,
the residual variance in controlled motivation may be an
unstable predictor of financial knowledge. Nonetheless,
the significant incremental effects found at Step 2 were
supported with a partial F-test that formally compared the
2
models at Step 1 and 2, 1R = 0.04, F(3,517) = 9.34, p < 0.001.
Spend of financial knowledge, we suspect that this regression

Income was the only significant predictor of spending result is an artifact of the correlations among the qualities
scores at Step 1. In Step 2, autonomous motivation of motivation and is not discussed further. These
showed a significant and positive incremental association significant incremental effects were supported with a
with respondents’ spend scores, whereas amotivation had partial F-test that compared the models at Step 1 and 2,
a significant and negative incremental association with R2
1 = 0.06, F(3,517) = 13.09, p < 0.001.
spend scores. These significant incremental effects were
supported with a partial F-test that compared the models Borrow
2
at Step 1 and 2, 1R = 0.04, F(3,517) = At Step 1, age held a marginally significant, negative
association with borrow scores and income was positively
7.78, p < 0.001.
associated with borrow scores. At Step 2, autonomous
Save motivation evidenced an incrementally positively
Age was negatively associated with save scores at Step 2
association with borrow scores, 1R = 0.05, F(3,517) = 8.79, p
1 whereas income was positively associated with saving < 0.001.
scores at Step 1. In Step 2, autonomous motivation yielded
a significant and positive incremental association with Plan
respondents’ save scores. Unexpectedly, amotivation also Age held a significantly negative association with plan
held a significant and positive incremental association with scores at Step 1, whereas income held a significantly
saving scores. Like controlled motivation in the prediction positive association with this health measure. In Step 2,
autonomous
motivation was a significant and positive predictor of plan financial well-being. Consistent with SDT, we expected that
scores, whereas amotivation held a marginally significant, financial motives would array along a continuum of
negative association with plan scores. A partial F-test relative autonomy and that more autonomous forms of
supported the incremental difference between Steps 1 and motivation would be associated with more effective
2
2, 1R = 0.10, F(3,517) = 22.50, p < 0.001. financial management. We also predicted that controlled
motivation, and especially amotivation, would be
associated with less effective financial management and
lower financial well-being. The results across two studies
Study 2 brief discussion
largely supported our hypotheses.
The correlational and regression analyses in Study 2 As expected, correlational analyses found that the
were largely consistent with the results obtained in Study financial motives were arranged into a simplex-like pattern
1. The financial motives again displayed the expected of associations (Ryan and Connell, 1989), such that the
simplex-like pattern of associations (Howard et al., 2017). largest correlations appeared along the main diagonal of
Autonomous motivation held consistently positive the matrix (Tables 4, 8). The simplex-like associations
associations with most indicators of financial health suggest that these motives are systematically ordered
whereas amotivation mostly held negative associations along a continuum of relative autonomy as the theory
with these variables. Income was a consistent positive predicts (Howard et al., 2017). Comparing autonomous
predictor of financial health. and controlled qualities of motivation, the confidence
intervals of correlational analyses also revealed that
autonomous motivation was positively and more strongly
General discussion associated with financial knowledge, financial self-efficacy,
awareness, well-being, and overall psychological wellness.
How people manage their personal finances has Amotivation was negatively associated with financial
become a salient concern for financial decision-making knowledge, financial self-efficacy, self-awareness, financial
experts, economists, and policy advisors (OECD, 2005; well-being, and psychological well-being. These results are
Financial Literacy U.S. and Education Commission, 2020). broadly consistent with previous SDT studies showing that
The present research utilized SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2017) more autonomous qualities of motivation are predictive of
and its differentiated framework of human motivation to enhanced quality of performance and well-being outcomes
elucidate how the quality of people’s motivation for (Ryan and Deci, 2017).
managing their finances is related to people’s financial Across both Studies 1 and 2, age evidenced a
knowledge, behaviors such as saving and investing, and significant negative correlation with controlled motivation.
It is possible that as people mature and take on more knowledge and management. Amotivations arise when
financial responsibilities, they become more accustomed people feel incapable or when they do not ascribe value to
to managing their personal finances and feel less a particular activity or outcome (Ryan and Deci, 2017).
pressured for doing so. Future studies could more closely Interventions aimed at addressing amotivation may
examine this relationship. Longitudinal designs will be accordingly focus on providing effecting-related feedback
necessary for elucidating the possible developmental to foster a sense of competence. They may also focus on
mechanisms mediating this negative association between clarifying the possible benefits (and costs) of an activity so
age and controlled motivation. that individuals can find personally valued reasons for
Regression analyses further revealed that amotivation undertaking it. In light of the current findings, financial
was negatively associated with financial knowledge over educators and service agents may benefit from using SDT
and above key demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, as a framework for distinguishing different qualities of
household wealth, annual income, educational motivation and for addressing possible amotivations
attainment). This result highlights the importance of among their current and prospective clients to help them
motivational factors in the development of financial make fuller use of the financial services available to them.
knowledge. Specifically, it suggests that feelings of Amotivations may also be sensitive to broader societal
indifference and ineffectiveness are detrimental to the factors. Specifically, macroeconomic conditions (e.g.,
acquisition of financial knowledge. Regression analyses employment rate, inflation, wealth concentration) may
also examined whether autonomous motivation, represent contextual influences that can exacerbate or
controlled motivation, and amotivation were predictive of ameliorate amotivations (Di Domenico and Fournier, 2014;
financial behaviors and well-being. Over and above key Ryan et al., 2019). For example, in the face of rampant
demographic variables, we found that autonomous asset inflation (e.g., fast rise in the costs of home
motivation was generally positively associated with several ownership relative to increases in wages), individuals may
financial well-being indicators and that amotivation was feel increasingly frustrated and hopeless about achieving
generally negatively associated with financial well-being longer-term financial goals (e.g., saving for a home or
indicators. Together, these results attest to the importance retirement) and may be more likely disengage from
of motivation beyond demographic characteristics such as effective financial practices. Future studies should examine
age, education, and income status. this possibility.
The present results bear important implications for Previous studies in SDT suggest that autonomous
interventions that aim to improve people’s financial motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation may
knowledge and money management. Field studies and have synergistic and compensatory interactions with other
interventions using SDT across a variety of applied independent variables in the prediction of some
domains (e.g., education, work, healthcare) have shown consequential life outcomes (e.g., Di Domenico and
that social-contextual factors can promote the Fournier, 2014). This may also be the case within the
development of more autonomous forms of motivation domain of personal finance, especially in light of the fact
(Ryan and Deci, 2017). Specifically, teachers, managers, that some financial literacy scholars see financial literacy
and advisors promote the development of autonomous as a broad, multidimensional construct that includes
motivation for specific activities by supporting the relevant financial attitudes and behaviors (Huston, 2010;
autonomy and competence of those they wish to motivate Cude, 2022). For example, individuals with greater
(Ng et al., 2012; Slemp et al., 2018). Autonomy support financial knowledge may have greater financial well-being
entails relating to target individuals by taking their if they are also autonomously motivated to mobilize their
perspective, providing a meaningful rationale for a knowledge in the management of their finances (a
recommended behavior, encouraging initiation, providing synergistic interaction). Alternatively, a high degree of
meaningful choices, and being responsive to their needs financial selfefficacy may be a protective factor among
and concerns. Controlling contexts, in contrast, pressure those who feel amotivated, particularly when people do
people to think, feel, or behave in specific ways. In fact, not value personal financial management (a compensatory
SDT specifies an array of strategies to increase the interaction). Testing for statistically reliable interaction
internalization of new values, thus leading to more effects require suitably sized samples and the current
autonomous motivations and their positive consequences samples were not collected to examine interaction effects.
(e.g., Bradshaw et al., 2021). Future studies with adequately sized samples will be
The results also underscore the deleterious needed.
associations that amotivation has with both financial
The current findings combined with previous applied their financial behaviors (Campbell and Fiske, 1959).
studies in SDT encourage us to envision financial education Another limitation concerns the demographic
programs and practices that use autonomy-supportive characteristics of the present samples. We recruited
practices. Such a program would seem very useful. The exclusively American participants. The sample was range-
2018 National Financial Capability Study (Lin et al., 2019), restricted in terms of age and the majority of them
which tested financial knowledge in a nationally identified as Caucasian. Future studies should test whether
representative sample of American Adults, found that the present findings generalize to distinct segments of the
financial knowledge continues to decline among population, including people living in other nations and
Americans. Although 71% of respondents believed that older adults. Also interesting would be assessing
they have a high level of financial knowledge, the study motivation in young adults, who may just be forming their
results indicated that financial knowledge dropped from habits and attitudes toward money management. Finally,
42% in 2009 to only 34% in 2018. The 2018 study found we highlight the crosssectional nature of these data. The
that only 7% of respondents obtained perfect test scores, present findings suggest that financial motivations are
that only 43% correctly answered a question about predictive of financial outcomes and well-being but
investment risk, and that only 26% were able to correctly longitudinal data are required to decisively evaluate these
identify the relationship between bond prices and interest relationships.
rates. Given the importance of financial knowledge and
Conclusion
active personal finance management for individuals to
make sound decisions and fully participate in the economy We believe that the present findings advance research
(Financial Literacy U.S. and Education Commission, 2020), on the determinants of personal financial management
these results are alarming and signal a strong need for and demonstrate the potential utility of SDT as a
schools and financial institutions to improve the delivery of framework for understanding the varied reasons why
financial education. We believe these institutions can people enact or fail to enact sound financial practices. The
make use of SDT principles to enhance the quality of results of the current study may have important
financial education and promote higher qualities of implications for the design of effective interventions to
financial motivation. enhance people’s knowledge and efficacy in dealing with
their money, especially given SDT’s evidence-supported
principles for enhancing autonomous motivation and its
associated beneficial outcomes. Given the importance, and
Limitations the apparent struggles, of people managing their personal
finances, a focus on motivation may have potentially broad
The current study is not without its limitations. We effects.
measured respondents’ qualities of motivation across
three financial domains, namely, monitoring budgets,
paying bills, and learning about new financial products and Data availability statement
services. People’s motivations for other important financial
domains— e.g., retirement planning, paying taxes, The datasets presented in this article are not readily
purchasing insurance, and investing—were not directly available. We are open to sharing the dataset once we
captured by our assessment. Future research will be have finished publishing all relevant findings from it.
needed to examine if people’s quality of motivation in Requests to access the datasets should be directed to
other financial domains is similarly linked to important s.didomenico@utoronto.ca.
outcomes. Moreover, we developed the question stems
for assessing financial motivations using the style of past
SDT-based assessments (Center for Self-Determination Ethics statement
Theory, 2022) but future studies might benefit by trying to The studies involving human participants were
refine our measure, for example, by trialing multiple items reviewed and approved by Human Research Ethics
stems for each different financial domains. Committee at the Australian Catholic University. The
We utilized self-report personal finance questionnaires patients/participants provided their written informed
used in previous studies. Future research should use more consent to participate in this study.
objective, behavioral measures to more precisely assess
the associations between people’s motivation quality and
Author contributions Publisher’s note

SD and RR conceptualized the studies and wrote the All claims expressed in this article are solely those of
manuscript. SD conducted the data analysis with inputs the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their
from all co-authors. EB and JD assisted with data collection affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the
and all aspects of manuscript preparation. All authors editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be
contributed to the article and approved the submitted evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
version. manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the
publisher.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted
in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships
that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Fernet, C., Austin, S., and Vallerand, R. J. (2012). The effects of work
References motivation on employee exhaustion and commitment: an extension of the
JD-R model. Work Stress 26, 213–229. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2012.713202
Bradshaw, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Noetel, M., Saeri, A. K., Slattery, P., Grundy,
E., et al. (2021). Information safety assurances increase intentions to use Financial Health Network (2022a). Eight Ways to Measure Financial
COVID19 contact tracing applications, regardless of autonomy-supportive Health. Available online www.finhealthnetwork.org/research/eight-ways-
or controlling message framing. Front. Psychol. 11, 3772. doi: to-measure-financial-health/ (accessed March 2022).
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591638 Financial Health Network (2022b). Defining Financial Health. Available
online www.finhealthnetwork.org/about/what-is-financial-health/
Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant
(accessed March 2022).
validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bullet. 56, 81–105.
doi: 10.1037/h0046016 Financial Literacy U.S. and Education Commission (2020). U.S. National
Strategy for Financial Literacy 2020. Available online
Center for Self-Determination Theory (2022). SelfRegulation
http://www.home.treasury.gov/ system/files/136/US-National-Strategy-
Questionnaires (SRQ). Available online
Financial-Literacy-2020.pdf (accessed January 2022).
www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/self-regulation-questionnaires/
(accessed January 2022). FINRA Investor Education Foundation (2022). 2021. National Financial
Capability Study State-by-State Survey Instrument. Available online
Chowdhry, N., and Dholakia, U. M. (2019). Know thyself financially: How
www.finra foundation.org/sites/finrafoundation/files/NFCS-2021-State-by-
financial self-awareness can benefit consumers and financial advisors.
Financ. Plan. Rev. 3, e1069. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3474625 State-Questionna ire.pdf (accessed March 2022).
Fornero, E., Prete, A. L., and Oggero, N. (2021). “Now more than ever:
Cohen, J., Cohen, P.,West, S. G., and Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple
Why financial literacy is a key element of post-COVID-19 recovery,” in The
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd Edn.
Routledge Handbook of Financial Literacy (London: Routledge), 137–152.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goyal, K., and Kumar, S. (2020). Financial literacy: a systematic review and
Cude, B. J. (2022). “Defining financial literacy,” in The Routledge
bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Consum. Stu. 45, 90–105. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.
Handbook of Financial Literacy, eds G. Nicolini and B. J. Cude (New York,
12605
NY: Routledge), 5–17.
Holding, A. C., Hope, N. H., Harvey, B., Marion Jetten, A. S., and Koestner,
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., and Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination
R. (2017). Stuck in limbo: motivational antecedents and consequences of
theory in work organizations: the state of a science. Ann. Rev. Org. Psychol.
experiencing action crises in personal goal pursuit. J. Pers. 85, 893–905. doi:
Org. Behav. 4, 19–43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
10.1111/jopy. 12296
Di Domenico, D. I., and Fournier, S. I. (2014). Socioeconomic status,
Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., and Bureau, J. S. (2017). Testing a continuum
income inequality, and health complaints: a basic psychological needs
structure of self-determined motivation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bullet.
perspective. Soc. Ind.
143, 1346–1377.
Res. 119, 1679–1697. doi. 10.1007/s11205-013-0572-8
doi: 10.1037/bul0000125
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., and Griffin, S. (1985). The
Huston, S. J. (2010). Measuring financial literacy. J. Consum. Affairs 44,
satisfaction with life Scale. J Pers Assess 49, 71–75. doi: 10.1037/t01069-
000 296–316.
doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01170.x
Domenico, D. I., and Fournier, S. I. (2015). Able, ready, and willing:
examining the additive and interactive effects of intelligence, Lin, J. T., Bumcrot, C., Ulicny, T., Mottola, G., Wlash, G., Ganem, R., et al.
conscientiousness, and autonomous motivation on undergraduate (2019). The State of U.S. Financial Capability: The 2018 National Financial
academic performance. Learn. Ind. Diff. 40, 156–162. doi: Capability Study. Washington, DC: FINRA Foundation.
10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.016 Lusardi, A. (2019). Financial literacy and the need for financial education:
Donald, J. N., Bradshaw, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Basarkod, G., Ciarrochi, J., evidence and implication. Swiss J. Econ. Stat. 155, 1–8.
Duineveld, J. J., et al. (2020). Mindfulness and its association with varied doi: 10.1186/s41937-019-0027-5
types of motivation: a systematic review and meta-analysis using self- Lusardi, A., and Mitchell, O. S. (2007). Financial literacy and retirement
determination theory. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bullet. 46, 1121–1138. doi: planning: New evidence from the Rand American Life Panel (CFS Working
10.1177/0146167219896136 Paper No. 2007/33).
Fernandes, D., Lynch, J. G., and Netemeyer, R. G. (2014). Financial Lusardi, A., and Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The economic importance of
literacy, financial education, and downstream financial behaviors. Manage. financial literacy: theory and evidence. J. Econ. Lit. 52, 5–44. doi:
Sci. 60, 1861–1883. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2013.1849 10.1257/jel.52.1.5
Ng, J. Y. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R.
M., Duda, J. L., et al. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health
contexts: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. Sci. 7, 325–340. doi:

10.1177/1745691612447309
OECD (2005). Improving Financial Literacy: Analysis of Issues and Policies.
Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ryan, R. M., and Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and
internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 57, 749–761. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic
Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York,
NY: The Guildford Press.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Vansteenkiste, M., and Soenens, B. (2021).
Building a science of motivated persons: self-determination theory’s
empirical approach to human experience and the regulation of behavior.
Motiv. Sci. 7, 97–110.
doi: 10.1037/mot0000194
Ryan, R. M., and Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health:
subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J. Pers. 65, 529–
565. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
Ryan, R. M., Ryan, W. S., Domenico, D. I., and Deci, S. I. (2019). “The
nature and the conditions of human autonomy and flourishing: self-
determination theory and basic psychological needs,” in The Oxford
Handbook of Human Motivation, eds R. M. Ryan. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press), 89–110.
Santini, F. D. O., Ladeira, W. J., Mette, F. M. B., and Ponchio, M. C. (2019).
The antecedents and consequences of financial literacy: a meta-analysis.
Int. J. Bank Market. 37, 1462–1479. doi: 10.1108/IJBM-10-2018-0281
Slemp, G. R., Kern, M. L., Patrick, K. J., and Ryan, R. M. (2018). Leader
autonomy support in the workplace: a meta-analytic review. Motiv.
Emotion 42, 706–724. doi: 10.1007/s11031-018-9698-y
Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
U.S. Census Bureau (2022). QuickFacts. Available online
www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/INC110220 (accessed March
2022).

Fpsyg 13 977818

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fpsyg 13 977818

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 20 September 2022

tr 32. It’s fun to

TABLE 4 Study 1 correlations

Intrinsic – [0.78,0.84] [0.42,

N = 516; *p < 0.001.

regulation as the average of introjected and

Agea −0.17 −0.19

Genderb 0.15 0.16 0.14

Income 0.31 0.26 0.13

Household wealth 0.26 0.19 0.07

Educational attainmentc 0.28 0.18 0.02

Financial knowledge 0.12 0.04 −0.15

Saving and Investing 0.38 0.24 0.05

Overspendingd −0.05 0.06 0.26

Financial self-awarenesse 0.39 0.11 −0.13

FrontiersinPsychology Financial self-efficacy 0.31 0.05

Financial well-being 0.40 0.07 −0.16

Saving and models

Introjected 0.50* 0.47* – [0.55,0.67] [0.15,0.31]

External 0.33* 0.25* 0.66* – [0.49,0.61]

Amotivation – 0.09* – 0.23* 0.23* 0.55* –

Measures FinHealth Toolkit

different types of motivation once again evidenced the

Spend of financial knowledge, we suspect that this regression

Author contributions Publisher’s note

contexts: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. Sci. 7, 325–340. doi:

You might also like