mathematics
Article
Antecedents of Risky Financial Investment Intention among
Higher Education Students: A Mediating Moderating Model
Using Structural Equation Modeling
Ibrahim A. Elshaer 1,2,3, *
Citation: Elshaer, I.A.; Sobaih, A.E.E.
Antecedents of Risky Financial
Investment Intention among Higher
Education Students: A Mediating
Moderating Model Using Structural
Equation Modeling. Mathematics
2023, 11, 353. https://doi.org/
10.3390/math11020353
Academic Editors: Georgeta S, oavă,
Anca Mehedintu and Mihaela Sterpu
Received: 20 December 2022
Revised: 30 December 2022
Accepted: 4 January 2023
Published: 9 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11020353
and Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih 1,2,4, *
1 The Saudi Investment Bank Scholarly Chair for Investment Awareness Studies, the Deanship of Scientific
Research, the Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University,
Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
2 Management Department, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University,
Al-Ahsaa 31982, Saudi Arabia
3 Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
4 Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University,
Cairo 12612, Egypt
* Correspondence: ielshaer@kfu.edu.sa (I.A.E.); asobaih@kfu.edu.sa (A.E.E.S.)
Abstract: The current study examines the direct effect of investment awareness and university
education support on students’ risky financial investment intentions. Additionally, it examines the
mediating effect of social influence and the moderating effect of self-control on these relationships.
For this purpose, we directed an online questionnaire to senior students at three public universities
in Saudi Arabia. The results of SmartPLS showed positive significant effects of investment awareness
and university education support on social influence towards investment. The results also showed
direct positive significant effects of investment awareness and university education support on
students’ risky financial investment intentions. The results confirmed a partial mediating effect
of social influence on the link between investment awareness and university education support
on students’ risky financial investment intentions. Moreover, self-control was found to have a
moderating effect on the link between investment awareness, university education support and
social influence. Self-control failed to confirm the other moderating effects; i.e., the link between
university education support and investment awareness, nor the link between investment awareness,
university education support and risky financial investment intention. Implications of these findings
for academics and policymakers to stimulate investment intention among higher education graduates
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) are discussed.
Keywords: risky investment intention; investment awareness; university education support; self-control;
social influence
MSC: 91-02
1. Introduction
Higher education equips students with knowledge, skills and enhances their abilities to
make financial decisions [1]. However, many higher education students have less attention
regarding money management and investment knowledge, which in turn increases their
dependency on their families and their debt loads [2]. Therefore, earlier studies, e.g., [3,4],
have highlighted the positive influence of investment awareness and financial knowledge
on investment intentions. Investment awareness refers to understanding how to invest
more effectively, including knowledge of investment-related issues [5]. Halim [6] indicated
that investment behavior requires awareness, knowledge and business sense in order to
make the right decision. Mawadah and Ratno [7] found that students’ intention to invest
increased when their knowledge and awareness levels increased. Students will be more
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 2 of 18

effective and accurate in handling information to improve their investment decisions when
they have a greater understanding of investments [8].
The factors influencing the investment intention of higher education students, such
as investment awareness and support given by the education system, have gained the
attention of academics and policymakers in many countries, such as Saudi Arabia [9].
The concept of investment awareness is highly valued as a financial concern [10]. In this
sense, Hastings and Mitchell [11] argued that investment awareness varies according to
the age of individuals. Investment and financial awareness are two critical variables for
the financial market’s long-term growth [12]. Therefore, communities with a high degree
of financial knowledge are more likely to contain individuals who are skilled at making
good investment decisions [13]. Hence, investors who lack proper financial awareness
have less intention to invest mainly in risky investments [14]. According to Mandell
and Klein [15], financial awareness is a factor that emphasizes youth difficulties with
investment. Many fresh investors are clueless and uninformed about the possibilities, rules,
regulations, guidelines and restrictions of investment [16]. Consequently, a study conducted
by Heniawan and Dewi [17] showed that variables such as abilities and awareness influence
investment intentions for young investors.
In the context of education’s impact on investment intentions, Hani et al. [18] indicated
that investment education has a significant role in motivating a student to engage in invest-
ment activities. Similarly, Veciana et al. [19] confirmed that higher education institutions are
vital in inspiring and motivating university students to participate in investment activities.
Higher education students are expected to be upcoming investors if they have proper edu-
cation support through universities [20]. Beyond the scope of the conventional educational
system, investment training is an example of education support that enhances students’
investment skills and, consequently, affects their intention to engage in investment activities
after graduation [8]. In this sense, Mega and Semara [21] emphasized that training can
enhance students’ investment knowledge and awareness to select the convenient kind
of investment. The study results of Ammer and Aldhyani [9] indicated that a person’s
intention to invest increases with the frequency of his participation in investment training,
because students can acquire a lot of information, motivation, rules and guidance through
investment simulation activities, which helps to enhance their intention to invest.
In the context of Saudi Arabia, investment awareness and education support have
received great attention after the inauguration of the Saudi Vision 2030. Despite initiatives
by the Saudi government, there is still a lack of financial awareness and knowledge among
young adults [12]. However, Sedais and Al Shahab [22] argued that Saudi young people
(under 37 years old) have poor financial understanding. According to Alyahya [23], the
majority of students in Saudi Arabia’s higher education lack financial literacy. The Saudi
Vision 2030 recognized the value of the KSA financial sector and paid attention to fostering
a culture of investment in the KSA market through the Capital Market Authority (CMA)
and other private agencies. However, there is a gap in understanding investment knowl-
edge and the role of education support in stimulating risky financial investment intentions
in the Saudi context, which is the focus of the current study. According to Alshebami and
Aldhyani [24], there is a lack of financial awareness in Saudi Arabia, which highlights the
need to understand critical factors affecting investing knowledge and, consequently, affect-
ing investment intentions. Agarwalla et al. [25] argued that family business engagement
increases children’s awareness of their own financial fundamentals. Certainly, adults and
children gain financial abilities in their families through multiple socialization practices,
such as observing their parents’ financial behavior [12]. Social influence, such as family,
peers and university professors, may shape an individual’s behaviors and principles; hence,
it affects the individual’s decisions [26]. Parents have a crucial role in guiding and encour-
aging their children toward financial literacy [27]; thus, families are considered a key source
of motivation for their children regarding financial knowledge and habits, such as saving.
Families should teach their children about money matters and investment activities for a
better life without financial problems [28].
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 3 of 18

Self-control in this study refers to the individual’s ability to regulate their needs, expec-
tations and behaviors to achieve intended goals [29]. Alshebami and Aldhyani [24] asserted
that it is essential to have self-control in order to maximize the advantages of investment
awareness. Self-control is considered a crucial factor in forming a person’s behavior [30],
because self-control helps improve and focus one’s thoughts, attitude and actions regard-
ing achieving a particular goal [26]. Students with low self-control levels have frequent
income-related challenges, inadequate retirement planning and use credit more regularly,
exposing themselves to extra financial dangers [31,32]. On the other hand, those with
good self-control can professionally handle their funds, fulfill their financial objectives and
consistently expand their savings [33,34]. Therefore, as a psychological impact, self-control
might be connected to an individual’s level of investment awareness, and it is relevant to
research it, especially among university students. Investment intentions can be defined as
an individual’s intention to establish a new business (Engle et al., 2010). Earlier studies,
e.g., [35–37], confirmed that the intention is the primary and initial step towards becoming
an investor; furthermore, the intention is the best predictor of investment behavior. It is
clear that a person’s intellectual ability may influence their attitude toward risk [9]. Fellner
and Maciejovsky [38] argued that an individual’s risk behavior might determine the way of
investment. Additionally, investment risk intention positively correlates with investment
awareness [39].
This study broadens and enriches the existing literature on the interrelationship be-
tween investment awareness, university education support, social influence, self-control
and risky financial investment intentions. Such interrelationships have been mostly insuf-
ficiently investigated, particularly in emergent countries such as Saudi Arabia [40]. The
study investigates the influence of both cognitive factors, such as investment awareness
and university education support and non-cognitive factors; i.e., self-control and social
impact on risky financial intentions of investment. Earlier investigations have focused
mainly on cognitive factors, e.g., [17,41], with limited studies integrating cognitive and
non-cognitive factors. In addition, as far as researchers are aware, there is no published
research on the mediating effect of social influence in the relationship between investment
awareness, university education support and risky investment intention. Furthermore,
this is the first attempt to examine the influence of self-control as a moderator in the link
between investment awareness, university education support, social influence and risky
investment intention. The current study provides a unique perspective on such mediating
and moderating impacts, and addresses gaps in the existing literature on an emergent
country, i.e., Saudi Arabia. The study has major implications for universities, policymakers,
regulators and higher education students by considering the influence of both cognitive
and non-cognitive factors on risky investment intentions. Understating these factors will
enable policymakers to better stimulate higher education graduates’ investment intentions.
This will ultimately positively impact the national economy.
Following the introduction of the research topic, its significance and purpose, the
structure of the next sections of the paper are as follows. The next section (Section 2)
develops the research hypotheses by critically reviewing the literature on the relations
between investment awareness, university education support, social influence, self-control
and risky financial investment intentions. This section discusses the theoretical foundations
of both direct and indirect relationships. Section 3 presents the measures adopted for data
collection. It also includes the procedures for data collection and analysis. Section 4 shows
the findings of the analyzed data and the structural research model. Section 5 discusses
the research results and elaborates on its implications for academics and policymakers in
higher education, especially in Saudi Arabia.

2. Hypothesis Development
2.1. Investment Awareness and Social Influence
According to Agarwalla et al. [25], investment awareness creates a social influence
among families and affects families’ income levels. When a family member, such as parents,
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 4 of 18

has investment information and shares it with other family members, this motivates non-
participant relatives to join in the investments [42]. Social impact may be one of the actions
that shape saving behaviors as a result of investment awareness [12]. In the context of Saudi
Arabia, the 2030 Saudi Vision has promoted investment awareness among Saudi people
through the Capital Market Authority (CMA). Thus, the government intends to make
Saudis more aware regarding the value of the investment. The CMA frequently utilizes
multiple channels and social media to cascade and promote investment awareness among
Saudi people and institutions. The government aims to encourage investment awareness
among the community and has created a social influence towards investment. Hence,
it is expected that individual investment awareness enhances social influence towards
investment. Therefore, we propose:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Investment awareness has a positive direct effect on social influence.

2.2. Investment Awareness and Financial Risky Investment Intentions

According to Aydemir and Aren [43], the intention of risky investment refers to the
level of persons who intend to invest in risky investment choices, such as starting/running
their own business, other than those having a constant rate of return, such as bank deposits
and bonds. Halim [6] argued that investors should have business sense, knowledge and
investment awareness in order to determine the best investment alternative. Investment
awareness is essential to avoid a potential loss in any investment choices. In this sense,
Mawadah and Ratno [7] determined that high investment awareness leads to high intention
to invest. Thus, investment awareness with investment rules, regulations, policies and
knowledge influences intention to invest [44]. Shehata et al. [45] concluded in a recent study
that an investor’s intent to invest in the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange positively correlates
with his or her awareness of investing risks. Despite this, Octarina et al. [46] argued that
investment awareness has no significant impact on the student’s intention to invest; Ammer
and Aldhyani, [9] confirmed that investment awareness positively influences students’
intentions toward investment. Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Investment awareness has a positive direct effect on risky financial investment
intention.

2.3. University Education Support and Social Influence

According to Veciana et al. [19], higher education institutions play an important role
in inspiring university students to participate in entrepreneurship and foster investment
awareness. Thus, education policymakers in Saudi Arabia have provided financial support
and regulations for universities across the Kingdom to include entrepreneurship and in-
vestment curricula in their educational programs [4]. Social influence is associated with
education support and affects behavior to pursue investment activities [47,48]. Students’
intentions to become investors are often made after discussion with respected members
of their close social network, including their professors and academics [49]. As a result,
the attitude of university professors and peers toward students’ investing decisions in-
fluences their decision to pursue a career in investment. Furthermore, students with
strong confidence in their competencies, talents, skills and knowledge may affect their
colleagues’ behavior [20]. Students’ self-efficacy and confidence can be enhanced by the
multi-education courses they acquire over their years of study, leading to a higher sense of
competence to advance with investment activities [50]. To conclude, university education
support affects social influence on university students or the surrounding environment.
Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). University education support has a positive direct effect on social influence.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 5 of 18

Hypothesis 4 (H4). University education support positively and directly affects investment
awareness.

2.4. Unversity Education Support and Risky Investment Intention

A review of the existing literature, e.g., [51–53], revealed that formal education affects
student behavior, determines their possible career options and significantly impacts their
investment. Similarly, Turker and Selcuk [54] argued that high education is key in fostering
student investment intentions. Conversely, Willis [55] and Fernandes et al. [56] proposed
that education has less of an effect on promoting student investment decision-making.
However, Shah et al. [57] argued a significant positive correlation exists between university
education support and students’ intention toward risky investment. Similarly, Nastiti
et al. [58] indicated that higher education graduates are supposed to be successful investors
after graduation because colleges equipped them with investment knowledge and the
required skills; therefore, they have a proper positive intention toward risky investment.
Sánchez [59] reported some key reasons to explain the key role of education support in
encouraging student investment intention. This includes that education enhances student
independence, self-confidence and autonomy.
Moreover, it helps students become aware of career alternatives and choices. Policy-
makers in Saudi Arabia have realized the importance of education support at the university
level and its impact on student intention; therefore, they have added some investment
courses to the existing curricula [12]. Keat et al. [60] and Aliedan et al. [61] confirmed that
university education support positively impacts the entrepreneurial intentions of higher
education students. Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 5 (H5). University education support has a positive direct effect on risky financial
investment intention.

2.5. Social Influence and Financial Risky Investment Intention

Burnkrant and Cousineau ([62], p. 206) stated: “One of the most pervasive determi-
nants of an individual’s behavior is the influence of those around her/him”. Social influence
includes a change in individual emotions, opinions or behavior caused by those in the
external environment [63]. Social influence, i.e., friends, university professors, friends and
family, can influence an individual’s behaviors and principles, and, consequently, might
impact the individual’s intention and decisions to invest [26]. Student parents are crucial in
forming and guiding their children to be financially literate [27]; thus, families play an im-
portant role for their children concerning education and inspiration regarding investment
behaviors, such as saving and spending. Student intentions to invest can be influenced by
their level of self-assurance and the knowledge they gain via social interaction, such as with
parents, friends and teachers [64]. Social influence has less impact on student intentions to
invest, many of which have a strong locus of internal control [65,66]. Thomas [67] indicated
that social influence has a low level of effect on student intentions to invest. Nevertheless,
Kautonen et al. [68] argued that social influence positively impacts student investment
intentions. Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Social influence has a positive direct effect on risky financial investment
intention.

2.6. Social Influence as a Mediator between University Education Support, Investment Awareness
and Risky Investment Intention
Individuals who have investment awareness could better plan their future and have
a high intention to invest [12]. Lim et al. [69] indicated a negative relationship between
investor risk tolerance and investment intention. Investment awareness leads individuals
to gain the knowledge and skills required to make financial decisions [70]. Thus, students
can raise their level of investment awareness through many sources, such as peers, parents,
friends, social channels and their network members, which can affect their intention to
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 6 of 18

invest [26,71,72]. Weber and Milliman [73] indicated that students with more financial
awareness have higher intentions toward investment. Ammer and Aldhyani [9] indicated
that investment awareness positively impacts student intentions, while social influence
also promotes investment intentions [68]. Investment awareness among students’ families
is important in guiding their children toward saving behaviors and affects their intention
to engage in investment [2]. Families and individuals can benefit from a high investment
awareness level [74]. Thus, the surrounding environment of a student, such as parents and
friends, who have investment awareness, affects student intentions toward risky invest-
ments. To that end, social influence could mediate the relationship between investment
awareness and investment intention. Therefore, we propose:

Hypothesis 7 (H7). Investment awareness and social influence have a serial mediating role in the
relationship between university education support and risky financial investment intention.

Hypothesis 8 (H8). Social influence mediates the relationship between investment awareness and
risky financial investment intention.

2.7. Social Influence as a Mediator between University Education Support and Risky Investment
Intention
Aydemir and Aren [43] argued that the degree of individual education has no relation-
ship with investment awareness. In some cases, an individual may have a high level of
education, while he/she has little understanding regarding fundamental financial prin-
ciples, such as the time value of money, stocks, bonds and risk diversification. However,
an individual who is less educated could have a better awareness about certain financial
matters than someone with a higher educational level. Students who attend investment
courses at university tend to obtain the necessary self-confidence to launch their own
firms when proper investment instruction is provided [20]. On the other hand, Mawadah
and Ratno [7] valued the role of university education in promoting student intentions to
invest. Risky investments require a skilled and knowledgeable student [6]. Students might
gain these skills and knowledge through their families and /or universities. There are
different sources of investment awareness, such as education support [75], and students’
surrounding environment, such as peers, parents, friends, neighbors and university profes-
sors. In this sense, Manfrè [76] emphasized that their investment intention will be stronger
once family members gain financial awareness early in life. Families have the power to
significantly alter their children’s attitudes and intentions regarding borrowing, saving and
investing [25]. Similarly, evidence suggests that family members have an impact on the
investment behavior of other family members [77]. Therefore, student intentions toward
risky investments could be shaped through student families and closer relatives, who
could motivate and support them to make the decision toward risky investments. Social
influence can boost the link between university education and investment intentions. Thus,
we propose:

Hypothesis 9 (H9). Social influence mediates the relationship between university education
support and risky financial investment intention.

2.8. The Moderating Impact of Self-Control

Social Cognitive theory (SCT) is a social psychology theory that has gained wide
popularity [78], and which has been used in several fields involving behavioral finance.
The theory primarily focuses on the continual mutual link between environmental influ-
ences and human behavioral variables in explaining the mechanism of social cognitive
learning [79,80]. This theory is based on the premise that individuals gain knowledge
and awareness by observing others. This is required to happen in the immediate social
environment in which a person lives, which includes family, friends, the local community
and the media. According to SCT, one’s behavior is influenced by interactions between
his/her observations of other people, their surroundings and their cognitive ability [81,82].
 nomic and environmental impacts [83].
Self-control is the ability of a person to regulate their needs, expectations and behav-
iors in order to achieve specific goals [26]. Agarwalla et al. [25] argued that psychological
characteristics, such as self-control, are more predictable based on a person’s socioeco-
nomic status. Iram et al. [84] examined the investment awareness of females and indicated
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 that females could develop better investment intentions when they had good self-control 7 of 18
and high financial awareness. A student’s control of his/her current financial situation will
have an impact on their financial future [85]. Self-control is believed to assist a person in
dealing with personal
Additionally, the threemoney management
factors [84]. connections,
of interpersonal Alshebami and Aldhyani
individual [24] reported
experiences and
thatenvironment
the Saudi youthmay at university have anature.
explain human lack of Human
self-control. According
factors to Ali etpreferences,
include desires, al. [12], self-
control substantially
characteristics and other and adversely
specific influences
motivational the connections
elements, between financial
whereas environment effectsliteracy,
reflect
the circumstances
saving habits andand setting inawareness.
investment which an action
Strömbäckis carried
et al. out.
[86] Observational
added that people learning,
with
self-efficacy, end objectives,
stronger self-control are more self-discipline,
likely to exhibit motivation and emotional
better financial behavior, control are afinan-
make wiser few
factors that might play a role in the process of behavioral adjustment [30].
cial decisions and feel more secure regarding their present and future financial conditions. According to the
theory,
A person’ssociallevel
learning is a prerequisite
of self-control for interpersonal,
can predict their intelligencepeer-to-peer,
and overallsocioeconomic
wellbeing inand the
environmental impacts [83].Miotto and Parente [88] argued that individuals with a strong
future [87]. Furthermore,
senseSelf-control is the and
of self-control ability of a person to
a propensity forregulate
makingtheirplans needs, expectations
for the future areand behaviors
better able to
in order to
manage achieve
their financesspecific goals
(Figure [26]. we
1). Thus, Agarwalla
propose:et al. [25] argued that psychological
characteristics, such as self-control, are more predictable based on a person’s socioeconomic
Hypothesis 10 (H10). University education support and investment awareness relationship is
status. Iram et al. [84] examined the investment awareness of females and indicated that
moderated by self-control.
females could develop better investment intentions when they had good self-control and
Hypothesis
high financial11awareness.
(H11). Investment awareness
A student’s andofrisky
control financial
his/her investment
current financialintention
situationrelation-
will
ship is moderated by self-control.
have an impact on their financial future [85]. Self-control is believed to assist a person in
Hypothesis
dealing with 12 (H12). money
personal Investment awareness and
management [84].social influence
Alshebami andtowards investment
Aldhyani relation-
[24] reported
shipSaudi
that is moderated
youth by self-control.have a lack of self-control. According to Ali et al. [12], self-
at university
control
Hypothesissubstantially
13 (H13). and adverselyeducation
University influences the connections
support between
and risky financial financial intention
investment literacy,
saving habits and investment awareness.
relationship is moderated by self-control. Strömbäck et al. [86] added that people with
stronger self-control are more likely to exhibit better financial behavior, make wiser financial
Hypothesis 14 (H14). University education support and social influence relationship is moder-
decisions and feel more secure regarding their present and future financial conditions. A
ated by self-control.
person’s level of self-control can predict their intelligence and overall wellbeing in the
Hypothesis
future 15 (H15). Social
[87]. Furthermore, influence
Miotto and risky[88]
and Parente financial
argued investment intentionwith
that individuals relationship
a strongis
moderated by self-control.
sense of self-control and a propensity for making plans for the future are better able to
manage their finances (Figure 1). Thus, we propose:

Figure 1. The theoretical mediating-moderating model.

Figure 1. The theoretical mediating-moderating model.

Hypothesis 10 (H10). University education support and investment awareness relationship is
moderated by self-control.

Hypothesis 11 (H11). Investment awareness and risky financial investment intention relationship
is moderated by self-control.

Hypothesis 12 (H12). Investment awareness and social influence towards investment relationship
is moderated by self-control.

Hypothesis 13 (H13). University education support and risky financial investment intention
relationship is moderated by self-control.

Hypothesis 14 (H14). University education support and social influence relationship is moderated
by self-control.

Hypothesis 15 (H15). Social influence and risky financial investment intention relationship is
moderated by self-control.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 8 of 18

3. Methods
3.1. Participant Selection and Data Collection Procedures
To accomplish the aims of this study, we selected a representative sample of senior
students from a public university in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). An online ques-
tionnaire based on Google Forms was distributed to senior students at three KSA public
universities (Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, King Faisal University and
Umm Al-Qura University). Our target participants consisted of senior students who had
previously completed courses in areas such as business management, entrepreneurship
principles and finance; these courses provide skills for running their own business. In
addition, these respondents had a greater capacity for reading and comprehending the
questions pertaining to investment awareness and other variables. As all of our measure-
ments were taken from English sources, we found it necessary to translate the questionnaire
into Arabic so that it could be understood by the respondents who spoke Arabic. Follow-
ing the lead of previous research, such as [12], we utilized convenience sampling due
to its time- and cost-saving benefits in terms of contacting respondents. Along with the
various WhatsApp groups, we emailed the questionnaire link to each respondent using
the university’s standard email system. After making the link accessible to respondents
(students) throughout September 2022, 650 responses were received and were valid for
further analysis. Because privacy is such an important concern, we made sure to begin the
survey with an introduction that explained both the purpose of the survey and the strict
secrecy that would be maintained with any information gathered.

3.2. Measurement
The measurements of this study’s variables were taken from the most common and
important previous studies that were related to the topic of this study. The study variables
are listed along with their respective measurement sources, abbreviations and items in
Section 4.

3.3. Methods of Data Analysis

SEM “Structural Equation Modeling” with “partial least squares” (PLS) was chosen
as the main data analysis method so that the hypothesized relationships between the
moderating and mediating effects could be examined and tested. Because it requires a
smaller sample size than CB-SEM and the collected data do not require normal distribution,
PLS-SEM was assumed to be the most appropriate method by which to analyze the current
study data [89]. In addition, PLS-SEM makes it possible to retain a greater number of vari-
ables for each dimension than other methods. The suggested structural model categorizes
the link between latent (unobserved) and observed items as reflective. This is because latent
variable variations influence the measurement of observed variables [90]. In accordance
with the two-stage methodology outlined by Leguina [89], the suggested theoretical model
was assessed after the measurement (outer model) had already been assessed. In order to
evaluate the outer (structural) and the inner (measurement) models in accordance with the
suggestions made by Hair et al. [90], some criteria were utilized such as: the “standardized
factor loading” (>0.7); the “composite reliability” (>0.7); the “average variance extracted”
(>0.5); the “normed fit index” (>0.90); the “Standardized root mean square error” (<0.08);
the R2 (>0.1); and the Stone-Geisser Q2 (>0.0).

4. Findings of Data Analysis

4.1. The Outer Model (Measurement Model)
As suggested by Hair et al. [90], several indices were employed to evaluate the dis-
criminant and convergent validity measurement model. These indices included “composite
reliability” (C.R.), “internal consistency reliability” (Cronbach’s alpha), and “Average Vari-
ance Extracted” (AVE). All of the study measures showed good Cronbach’s alpha values
(>0.7), as shown in Table 1: Inv-Awr (a = 0.973); UES (a = 0.855); Self-Co (a = 0.980); Soc-If
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 9 of 18

(a = 0.960); and FRII (a = 0.964,), demonstrating that the scale has proper internal reliability
(See Table 1).
Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were estimated using
the following [89–92] formulas, as below:

(∑ λi )2
CR =
(∑ λi )2 + (∑ εi )

∑ λi2
AVE =
n
where λ is the standardized factor loading (SFL) for items, i refers to error variance and n is
the number of items.
CR scores were calculated for all the employed factors and showed a high internal
consistency: for example, the CR of investment awareness was as estimated as stated below:

Σ( standardized f actor loadings)2

CR =
(∑ o f standardized f actor loadings)2 + (∑ o f error variance)

For investment awareness (five items), CR = (0.940 + 0.922 + 0.954 + 0.982 + 0.949)2 /
(0.940 + 0.922 + 0.954 + 0.982 + 0.949)2 + 0.070 + 0.13 + 0.098 + 0.183 + 0.144 = (4.747)2 /
(4.747)2 + 0.625 = 0.973, as depicted in Table 1. Similarly, the C.R for UES (C.R = 0.858);
Self-Co (C.R = 0.981); Soc-If (C.R = 0.963); and FRII (C.R = 0.965), exceeded the threshold
value of 0.70 [92]. Additionally, the findings in Table 1 approved the proper convergent va-
lidity of the employed scales, as all the standardized factor loadings (SFL) were sufficiently
high and with significant p values less than 0.05. The average variance extracted (AVE)
exceeded the value of 0.50 for all dimensions. The AVE was estimated using the formula of
Hair et al. [92].
sum squared standardized f actor loadings
AVE =
number o f f actor items
For example, for investment awareness, AVE = (0.940)2 + (0.922)2 + (0.954)2 + (0.982)2 +
(0.949)2 /5 = 0.902, as shown in Table 1. Similarly, the AVE for UES = 0.701; Self-Co. = 0.927;
Soc-If = 0.893; and FRII = 0.903, exceeded the threshold value of 0.50 [92], further approving
a proper convergent validity.

Table 1. Outer model results.

Dimensions/Variables Abbrev. Loadings a Value C.R AVE

Investment Awareness (Inv-Awr) Azhar et al. [41] 0.973 0.973 0.902
“I am aware of different investment avenues”. Inv.Awr1 0.940
“I am aware that investment is important for the near future”. Inv.Awr2 0.922
“I am aware that investments are suitable for financial planning”. Inv.Awr3 0.954
“I am aware that investment can give more income”. Inv.Awr4 0.982
“I am aware that investment has high risk”. Inv.Awr5 0.949
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 10 of 18

Table 1. Cont.

Dimensions/Variables Abbrev. Loadings a Value C.R AVE

University Education Support (UES), Yi, 2021) [93] 0.855 0.858 0.701
“My university offers courses on entrepreneurship principles”. UES1 0.727
“My university motivates students to start a business”. UES2 0.871
“My university offers project work focused on entrepreneurship”. UES3 0.834
“My university provides students with the financial and policies
UES4 0.906
means to start a business”.
Self-Control (Self-Co), Tangney et al. (2018) [29] 0.980 0.981 0.927
I can break my bad habits”. Self.Co1 0.982
I do not get distracted easily”. Self.Co2 0.965
I am good at resisting temptation”. Self.Co3 0.965
I do things that feel good in the moment and not regret later on”. Self.Co4 0.977
I often act with thinking through all the alternatives”. Self.Co5 0.922
Social Influence (Soc-If), Ariffin et al. [94] 0.960 0.963 0.893
“My family is a good example for me regarding financial
Soc.If1 0.981
management”.
“I always talk about financial management with my friends”. Soc.If2 0.974
“I appreciate it when my colleagues advise me on what to do with
Soc.If3 0.911
my money”.
“Saving is something I do regularly because my peers wanted me
Soc.If4 0.913
to save when I was little”.
Risky Financial Investment Intention (FRII) Aydemir and Aren
0.964 0.965 0.903
(2017) [43]
“When making an investment decision, I generally prefer risky
FRII1 0.980
alternatives”.
“If I were going to make an investment, I would consider risky
FRII2 0.949
investment alternatives”.
“The likelihood of buying risky investments is high”. FRII3 0.942
“My willingness to buy risky investments is high”. FRII4 0.929

Furthermore, the discriminant validity of the employed scale was assessed by the three
criteria suggested by Leguina [89]. These criteria have several indices, such as “factor cross-
loading”, the “Fornell-Larcker criterion” and the “heterotrait-monotrait” ratio (HTMT). To
begin, as seen in Table 2, the outer-louter loading latent reflective variable was significantly
higher than the cross-loading associated with the other scale measures.
Second, looking at Table 3, we can see that the diagonal AVE values that are highlighted
in bold are greater than the inter-variable correlation coefficient, which indicates that
discriminant validity is high [90]. Finally, according to Leguina [89], the value of the HTMT
should be lower than 0.90 to approve discriminant validity. According to the findings of
the study, HTMT levels were considerably lower than 0.90 (see Table 4). After conducting
analysis and making certain that the scale possessed sufficient convergent and discriminant
validity, we were able to continue with the assessment of the structural model in order to
test our hypotheses [92].
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 11 of 18

Table 2. Factor loading and cross-loadings.

FRII Inv-Awr Self-Co Soc.If UES

FRII1 0.980 0.412 0.708 0.584 0.641
FRII2 0.949 0.411 0.656 0.540 0.593
FRII3 0.942 0.480 0.671 0.535 0.574
FRII4 0.929 0.421 0.653 0.564 0.562
Inv.Awr1 0.428 0.940 0.381 0.476 0.452
Inv.Awr2 0.422 0.922 0.369 0.454 0.416
Inv.Awr3 0.440 0.954 0.370 0.433 0.424
Inv.Awr4 0.434 0.982 0.370 0.434 0.396
Inv.Awr5 0.429 0.949 0.374 0.457 0.430
Self.Co1 0.691 0.359 0.982 0.566 0.617
Self.Co2 0.680 0.386 0.965 0.535 0.581
Self.Co3 0.680 0.386 0.965 0.535 0.581
Self.Co4 0.691 0.387 0.977 0.559 0.598
Self.Co5 0.664 0.373 0.922 0.532 0.578
Soc.If1 0.570 0.465 0.549 0.981 0.630
Soc.If2 0.585 0.469 0.565 0.974 0.654
Soc.If3 0.501 0.424 0.520 0.911 0.554
Soc.If4 0.551 0.436 0.506 0.913 0.632
UES1 0.507 0.352 0.436 0.527 0.727
UES2 0.559 0.403 0.603 0.529 0.871
UES3 0.467 0.375 0.483 0.555 0.834
UES4 0.552 0.363 0.527 0.578 0.906

Table 3. Discriminant validity results.

Fornell-Larcker Criterion Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)-Matrix

FRII Inv-Awr Self-Co Soc.If UES FRII Inv-Awr Self-Co Soc.If UES
FRII 0.950
Inv-Awr 0.454 0.950 0.469
Self-Co 0.708 0.393 0.963 0.728 0.402
Soc.If 0.585 0.475 0.567 0.945 0.607 0.491 0.584
UES 0.624 0.446 0.614 0.655 0.837 0.687 0.490 0.670 0.723

Table 4. Model GoF indices.

Endogenous Variables (R2 Adjusted ) (Q2)

Financial risky investment intention 0.583 0.480
Investment awareness 0.220 0.190
Social influence 0.518 0.422
SRMR NFI
Model Fit
0.049 0.942

4.2. The Structural Model for Hypotheses Testing

After adequately evaluating and confirming the outer model, structural equation
analysis was employed to assess the study hypotheses. Several criteria were used to test the
model GoF, as recommended by [89,92]. To evaluate the model fit, the estimated covariance
matrix (k) should be statistically compared with the real tested covariance matrix (S). When
these two matrices are close, the model fits the data well [92]. All of the requirements
depicted in Table 5 prove that the model is a good fit for the data and has good predictive
power [92,94]. In other words, the R2, Q2, SRMR and NFI values exceeded the threshold
values, so we could evaluate the study hypotheses [92].
A 5000 bootstrapping approach was conducted in SmartPLS 4 to repeat the 650 re-
sponses to evaluate the regression weights, t-values and the significant level of the direct,
mediating and moderating impacts. In the current study, we assumed, as seen in Table 5,
six direct, three mediating and six moderating hypotheses.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 12 of 18

Table 5. The proposed model’s results.

Beta
Hypotheses Relationships (t-Value) p Values Results
(β)
H1 Investment Awareness -> Social Influence 0.243 7.097 0.000 Accepted
H2 Investment Awareness -> Risky Investment Intention 0.117 3.333 0.001 Accepted
H3 University Education Support -> Social Influence 0.387 8.097 0.000 Accepted
Direct hypotheses
H4 University Education Support -> Investment Awareness 0.321 7.591 0.000 Accepted
H5 University Education Support -> Risky Investment Intention 0.188 4.446 0.000 Accepted
H6 Social Influence -> Financial Risky Investment Intention 0.132 2.969 0.003 Accepted
University Education Support -> Investment Awareness ->
H7 0.010 2.576 0.010 Accepted
Social Influence ->Risky Investment Intention
Specific indirect
Investment Awareness -> Social Influence -> Risky Investment
effects (Mediating H8 0.032 2.762 0.006 Accepted
Intention
hypotheses)
University Education Support -> Social Influence -> Risky
H9 0.051 2.651 0.008 Accepted
Investment Intention
Self-Control × University Education Support -> Investment Not-
H10 −0.027 0.638 0.523
Awareness Accepted
Self-Control × Investment Awareness -> Risky Investment Not-
H11 0.007 0.193 0.847
Intention Accepted
Moderating H12 Self-Control × Investment Awareness -> Social Influence 0.120 4.544 0.000 Accepted
hypotheses Self-Control × University Education Support -> Risky Not-
H13 −0.041 1.097 0.273
Investment Intention Accepted
H14 Self-Control × University Education Support -> Social Influence 0.119 4.797 0.000 Accepted
Not-
H15 Self-Control × Social Influence -> Risky Investment Intention 0.007 0.193 0.847
Accepted

As seen in Table 5 and Figure 2, the Smart PLS outcomes demonstrated that invest-
ment awareness was found to directly, positively and significantly impact social influence
(β = 0.243, t = 7.09, p < 0.001) and risky investment intention (β = 0.117, t =3.333, p < 0.01),
therefore, hypotheses H1 and H2 were supported. Similarly, university education sup-
port has a direct, significant and positive impact on social influence (β = 0.387, t = 8.097,
p < 0.001), investment awareness (β = 0.321, t = 7.591, p < 0.001) and risky investment inten-
tion (β = 0.188, t = 4.446, p < 0.001), therefore, hypotheses H3, H4 and H5 were supported.
In return, social influence was found to have a direct, positive and significant impact on
risky investment intention (β = 0.132, t = 2.969, p < 0.01), which supports hypothesis H6.
To test the mediating effect, the specific indirect effect in the bootstrapping report of
the SmartPLS 4 output was checked. The report indicated that social influence significantly,
positively and partially mediates the impact of investment awareness and risky investment
intention (β = 0.032, t = 2.762, p < 0.01); hence, H8 was supported. Furthermore, social
influence was found to partially, positively and significantly mediate the impact of uni-
versity education support and risky investment intention (β = 0.051, t = 2.651, p < 0.01),
which supported hypothesis H9. Finally, both investment awareness and social influence
were found to mediate the relationship between university education support and risky
investment intention (β = 0.010, t = 2.567, p < 0.01); therefore, H7 could be accepted.
For the moderating effect, as depicted in Figure 3, the SmartPLS 4 report provides
evidence that only two out of the six moderating hypotheses were supported, where
self-control significantly and positively moderates the relationship between investment
awareness and social influence (H12, β = 0.120, t = 4.544, p < 0.01), and successfully
moderates the relationship between university education support and social influence (H14,
β = 0.119, t = 4.797, p < 0.01), as seen in the simple slope analysis pictured in Figure 3. On the
other hand, self-control failed to moderate the relationship between university education
support and investment awareness, investment awareness and risky investment intention,
university education support and risky investment intention, and between social influence
and risky investment intention; therefore, H10,H11, H13 and H15 were not supported.
 = 0.119, t = 4.797, p < 0.01), as seen in the simple slope analysis pictured in Figure 3. On the
other hand, self-control failed to moderate the relationship between university education
support and investment awareness, investment awareness and risky investment inten-
tion, university education support and risky investment intention, and between social in-
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353
fluence and risky investment intention; therefore, H10,H11, H13 and H15 were not sup- 13 of 18
ported.

Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

Figure
Figure2.2.The
Thestudy tested
study testedmodel.
model.

Figure
Figure3.3.Simple slope
Simple analysis.
slope analysis.

5.5.Discussion
Discussionand
andImplication
Implication
The current study examined the effects of investment awareness and university educa-
The current study examined the effects of investment awareness and university ed-
tion support on students’ intention of risky investments. Additionally, the study examined
ucation support on students’ intention of risky investments. Additionally, the study ex-
the mediating effect of social influence and the moderating effect of self-control on these
amined the mediating effect of social influence and the moderating effect of self-control
relationships. The results of SmartPLS on higher education senior students in Saudi Ara-
on these relationships. The results of SmartPLS on higher education senior students in
bia supported all the direct and mediating hypothesized relationships. First, the results
Saudi Arabia supported all the direct and mediating hypothesized relationships. First, the
confirmed the positive, significant and direct effect of investment awareness on social
results confirmed the positive, significant and direct effect of investment awareness on
social influence. These findings support the work of Agarwalla et al. [25], that investment
awareness positively correlates with social influence shaped by families and other sur-
roundings. This also supports the efforts of CMA, which adopts multiple communication
channels to promote investment awareness among Saudi people, to create social influ-
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 14 of 18

influence. These findings support the work of Agarwalla et al. [25], that investment aware-
ness positively correlates with social influence shaped by families and other surroundings.
This also supports the efforts of CMA, which adopts multiple communication channels
to promote investment awareness among Saudi people, to create social influence. The
results also confirmed that this investment awareness significantly affects students’ risky
investment intentions in higher education. This means that students with high investment
awareness are more likely to engage in investment, which supports the previous literature
review [6,7,9].
The results showed that university education support has a direct, significant and
positive effect on investment awareness, social inference and risky investment intentions.
This confirms that higher education has a crucial role in shaping student awareness and
social influence towards investment, as well as stimulating their risky investment inten-
tions [19,20,61], through the educational programs and training given to students. Further-
more, social influence was found to have a direct, positive and significant effect on risky
investment intentions. This confirms that the student’s network, e.g., colleagues, parents
and professors, is crucial in shaping their intention to engage in risky investment [68].
With regard to the mediating effect of social influence on the link between invest-
ment awareness, university education support and risky investment intention, the results
showed that social influence significantly, positively and partially mediates the impact of
investment awareness and risky investment intention. This means that social influence has
the ability to increase or decrease the effect of investment awareness on risky investment
intentions. This also shows that the influence gained through surroundings, e.g. families,
peers and professors, ensures the provision of risky investment intentions. In addition,
social influence was found to partially, positively and significantly mediate the impact of
university education support and risky investment intentions. This confirms that invest-
ment intention is affected by social influence because of investment awareness. This is in
line with the previous literature review; financial behavior is formed by social influence and
awareness of the surrounding community [12]. The serial mediating roles of investment
awareness and social influence were confirmed in the link between university education
support and risky investment intention. This confirms the value of investment awareness
and social influence in the aforementioned relationship.
For the moderating effect, the results supported only two hypothesized moderating
effects. It was confirmed that self-control significantly and positively moderates the rela-
tionship between university education support, investment awareness and social influence.
Self-control was found to increase the effect of both university education support and invest-
ment awareness on social influence. The current findings confirm the work of Alshebami
and Aldhyani [24] regarding the role of self-control in order to maximize the advantages
of investment awareness and to stimulate investment intentions. However, the results of
Smart PLS self-control failed to confirm the other moderating effects, i.e., the link between
university education support and investment awareness, nor the link between investment
awareness, university education support and risky financial investment intentions.
The current study contributes to the existing literature by adopting a comprehen-
sive model to investigate the interrelationship between investment awareness, university
education support and risky investment intentions mediated by social influence. These
interrelationships have yet to be sufficiently investigated, particularly in emergent countries
such as Saudi Arabia. The current study confirmed the positive, significant and direct
effects of university education support and investment awareness on risky investment
intentions. The current study confirmed the mediating role of social influence in the link
between university education support, investment awareness and risky investment inten-
tions. The study demonstrated, for the first time, the moderating effect of self-control in
the link between investment awareness, university education support and social influence.
This study provides a unique perspective on such mediating and moderating impacts, and
addresses gaps in the current literature on an emergent country, such as Saudi Arabia. The
results of the current study can put forward some important suggestions to policymakers in
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 15 of 18

order to simulate investment intentions among higher education students in Saudi Arabia.
This includes raising investment awareness among university students, as it is the main
antecedent of social influence and risky investment intentions. Social media campaigns
could be undertaken to enhance social influence towards investment. Entrepreneurship
curricula are also important to provide students with the basic investment knowledge and
information required to initiate their own businesses. University business administrators
can also play a role in developing student skills and providing the required support for
starting their businesses to stimulate their investment intentions. Training is important
to enhance student self-control, which was found to have a significant moderating effect
on the link between university education support and investment awareness, and social
influence toward investment.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.A.E. and A.E.E.S.; methodology, I.A.E. and A.E.E.S.;
software, I.A.E.; validation, I.A.E. and A.E.E.S.; formal analysis, I.A.E. and A.E.E.S.; investigation,
I.A.E. and A.E.E.S.; resources, I.A.E. and A.E.E.S.; data curation, A.E.E.S. and I.A.E..; writing—original
draft preparation, I.A.E. and A.E.E.S.; writing—review and editing, I.A.E. and A.E.E.S.; visualization,
I.A.E. and A.E.E.S.; supervision, I.A.E.; project administration, A.E.E.S.; funding acquisition, A.E.E.S.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by The Saudi Investment Bank Scholarly Chair for Investment
Awareness Studies, the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and
Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (Grant No. 2524).
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the deanship of scientific research ethical committee, King
Faisal University (project number: 2524, date of approval: 1 February 2022).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data is available upon request from researchers who meet the eligibility
criteria. Kindly contact the first author privately through the e-mail.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Danes, S.M.; Hira, T.K. Money Management Knowledge of College. J. Stud. Financ. Aid 1987, 17, 1. [CrossRef]
2. Lusardi, A.; Mitchell, O.S. The Economic Importance of Financial Literacy: Theory and Evidence. J. Econ. Lit. 2014, 52, 5–44.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Marcolin, S.; Abraham, A. Financial Literacy Research: Current Literature and Future Opportunities. Available online: https:
//ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/223/ (accessed on 6 November 2022).
4. Binswanger, J.; Carman, K.G. How real people make long-term decisions: The case of retirement preparation. J. Econ. Behav.
Organ. 2012, 81, 39–60. [CrossRef]
5. Amhalmad, I.; Irianto, A. Pengaruh Pengetahuan Investasi dan Motivasi Investasi Terhadap Minat Berinvestasi Mahasiswa
Pendidikan Ekonomi Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Negeri Padang. Jurnal Ecogen. 2019, 2, 734–746. [CrossRef]
6. Halim, A. Analisis Investasi, Penerbit PT. Salemba Emban Patria Jakarta 2005, 2, 89–100.
7. Mawadah, S.; Ratno, F.A. Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Minat Mahasiswa Menjadi Anggota KSPM UIN Walisongo
Semarang dalam Perspektif Islam. Jurnal Muqtasid 2018, 8, 141–153. [CrossRef]
8. Ummah, A.; Ahsan, M.; Anas, A. Students’ Investment Decisions with Intention as an Intervening Variable. Equilib. J. Èkon.
Syariah 2021, 9, 135. [CrossRef]
9. Ammer, M.A.; Aldhyani, T.H.H. An Investigation into the Determinants of Investment Awareness: Evidence from the Young
Saudi Generation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13454. [CrossRef]
10. Saber, A. The Impact of Financial Literacy on Household Wealth in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University,
Victoria, Australia, 2020.
11. Hastings, J.; Mitchell, O.S. How financial literacy and impatience shape retirement wealth and investment behaviors. J. Pension-
Econ. Financ. 2018, 19, 1–20. [CrossRef]
12. Ali, M.A.S.; Ammer, M.A.; Elshaer, I.A. Determinants of Investment Awareness: A Moderating Structural Equation Mod-eling-
Based Model in the Saudi Arabian Context. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3829. [CrossRef]
13. Alekam, E.; Mohammed, J.; Salleh, B.; Salniza, M. The Effect of Family, Peer, Behavior, Saving and Spending Behavior on Financial
Literacy among Young Generations. Int. J. Orga. Lead. 2018, 7, 309–323.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 16 of 18

14. Tuffour, J.K.; Amoako, A.A.; Amartey, E.O. Assessing the Effect of Financial Literacy Among Managers on the Performance of
Small-Scale Enterprises. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2022, 23, 1200–1217. [CrossRef]
15. Mandell, L.; Klein, L.S. The impact of financial literacy education on subsequent financial behavior. J. Financ. Couns. Plan. 2009,
20, 12–24.
16. Lokhande, M.A. A study of investment awareness and patterns of savings and investments by rural investors. Indian J. Financ.
2015, 9, 22–31. [CrossRef]
17. Heniawan, D.A.; Dewi, A.S. Factors Affecting Investment Awareness: Case Study on Productive Age in Surabaya City. Asian J.
Bus. Manag. 2021, 3, 147–152.
18. Hani, S.; Heru, S.S.; Isworo, E.S. The effect of investment education and investment experience on investment decision with
financial knowledge as intervening variable. Russ. J. Agric. Soc.-Econ. Sci. 2020, 99, 143–150.
19. Veciana, J.M.; Aponte, M.; Urbano, D. University students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison. Int.
Entrep. Manag. J. 2005, 1, 165–182. [CrossRef]
20. Aliedan, M.M.; Elshaer, I.A.; Alyahya, M.A.; Sobaih, A.E.E. Influences of University Education Support on Entrepreneurship
Orientation and Entrepreneurship Intention: Application of Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13097. [CrossRef]
21. Mega, I.P.; Semara, J. Kemampuan Pelatihan Pasar Modal Memoderasi Pengaruh Pengetahuan Investasi Dan Penghasilan Pada
Minat Berinvestasi Mahasiswa. J. Ilm. Akunt. Dan Bisnis. 2015, 10, 105–118.
22. Sedais, K.I.; Al Shahab, O. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Banking Sector of Saudi Arabia. 2020, pp. 1–19. Available
online: https://home.kpmg/sa/en/home/insights/2020/04/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-banking-sector.html (accessed
on 5 November 2022).
23. Alyahya, R.Y. Financial Literacy among College Students in Saudi Arabia. 2017. Available online: https://espace.library.uq.edu.
au/view/UQ:677345 (accessed on 5 November 2022).
24. Alshebami, A.S.; Aldhyani, T.H.H. The Interplay of Social Influence, Financial Literacy, and Saving Behaviour among Saudi
Youth and the Moderating Effect of Self-Control. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8780. [CrossRef]
25. Agarwalla, S.K.; Barua, S.K.; Jacob, J.; Varma, J.R. Financial Literacy among Working Young in Urban India. World Dev. 2015, 67,
101–109. [CrossRef]
26. Mpaata, E.; Koskei, N.; Saina, E. Financial literacy and saving behavior among micro and small enterprise owners in Kampala,
Uganda: The moderating role of social influence. JEFAS 2020, 2, 22–34.
27. Amari, M.; Salhi, B.; Jarboui, A. Evaluating the effects of sociodemographic characteristics and financial education on saving
behavior. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 2020, 40, 1423–1438. [CrossRef]
28. Jorgensen, B.L. Financial literacy of college students: Parental and peer influences. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA,
USA, 2007.
29. Tangney, J.P.; Baumeister, R.F.; Boone, A.L. Highself-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, bettergrades, and interper-
sonal success. J. Pers. 2004, 72, 271–324. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Lown, J.M.; Kim, J.; Gutter, M.S.; Hunt, A.-T. Self-efficacy and Savings Among Middle and Low Income Households. J. Fam. Econ.
Issues 2014, 36, 491–502. [CrossRef]
31. Gathergood, J. Self-control, financial literacy and consumer over-indebtedness. J. Econ. Psychol. 2012, 33, 590–602. [CrossRef]
32. Biljanovska, N.; Palligkinis, S. Control Thyself: Self-Control Failure and Household Wealth. SAFE Working Paper No. 69.
Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2509080 (accessed on 5 November 2022).
33. De Ridder, D.T.; Lensvelt-Mulders, G.; Finkenauer, C.; Stok, F.M.; Baumeister, R.F. Taking stock of self-control: A me-ta-analysis
of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. J. Econ. Psychol. 2012, 16, 76–99. [CrossRef]
34. Griesdorn, T.S.; Lown, J.M.; DeVaney, S.A.; Cho, S.H.; Evans, D.A. Association between Behavioral Life-cycle Constructs and
Financial Risk Tolerance of Low-to-moderate-income Households. J. Financ. Couns. Plan. 2014, 25, 27–40.
35. Bird, B. Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1988, 13, 442–453. [CrossRef]
36. Krueger, N.F., Jr.; Reilly, M.D.; Carsrud, A.L. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Bus. Ventur. 2000, 15, 411–432.
[CrossRef]
37. Luthje, C.; Franke, N. the ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at
MIT. R&D Manag. 2003, 33, 135–147. [CrossRef]
38. Fellner, G.; Maciejovsky, B. Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from experimental asset markets. J. Econ. Psychol. 2007,
28, 338–350. [CrossRef]
39. Ramanujam, V. Does Investment Awareness Have Effect On Decision Making Among the Information Technology Professionals?
Int. J. Bus. Manag. Invent. 2018, 7, 1–8.
40. Alshebami, A.S.; Al Marri, S.H. The Impact of Financial Literacy on Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediating Role of Saving
Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1–10. [CrossRef]
41. Azhar, Z.; Azilah, N.; Syafiq, A. Investment awareness among young generation. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Business and Management Research, Padang, Indonesia, 1–3 November 2017; pp. 126–135.
42. Li, G. Information Sharing and Stock Market Participation: Evidence from Extended Families. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2014, 96, 151–160.
[CrossRef]
43. Aydemir, S.D.; Aren, S. Do the effects of individual factors on financial risk-taking behavior diversify with financial literacy?
Kybernetes 2017, 46, 1706–1734. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 17 of 18

44. Maziriri, E.T.; Mapuranga, M.; Madinga, N.W. Navigating selected perceived risk elements on investor trust and intention to
invest in online trading platforms. J. Econ. Financ. Sci. 2019, 12, 1–14. [CrossRef]
45. Shehata, S.M.; Abdeljawad, A.M.; Mazouz, L.A.; Aldossary, L.Y.K.; AlSaeed, M.Y.; Sayed, M.N. The Moderating Role of Perceived
Risks in the Relationship between Financial Knowledge and the Intention to Invest in the Saudi Arabian Stock Market. Int. J.
Financ. Stud. 2021, 9, 9. [CrossRef]
46. Octarina, E.; Hartoyo, H.; Beik, I.S. CUSTOMER PURCHASE INTENTION ON SHARIA MUTUAL FUND PRODUCTS: A TPB
APPROACH. J. Consum. Sci. 2019, 4, 37–47. [CrossRef]
47. Abou-Moghli, A.A.; Al-Abdallah, G.M. A Systematic Review of Women Entrepreneurs Opportunities and Challenges in Saudi
Arabia. J. Entrep. Educ. 2019, 22, 1–14.
48. Iqbal, A.; Melhem, Y.; Kokash, H. Readiness of The University Students Towards Entrepreneurship in Saudi Private University:
An Exploratory Study. Eur. Sci. J. 2012, 8, 23.
49. Vinothkumar, M.; Subramanian, S. Self-Efficacy, Attitude and Subjective Norms as Predictors of Youth’s Intention to Enlist in
Defence Services. J. Indian Acad. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 42, 310–319.
50. Zhao, H.; Seibert, S.E.; Hills, G.E. The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions. J. Appl.
Psychol. 2005, 90, 1265–1272. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Alnemer, H.A. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among students of management stream in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Entrep. Educ. 2021, 4, 425–445. [CrossRef]
52. Martin, B.C.; McNally, J.J.; Kay, M.J. Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of
entrepreneurship education outcomes. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 211–224. [CrossRef]
53. Shamsudin, S.F.F.B.; Al Mamun, A.; Nawi, N.B.C.; Nasir, N.A.B.; Bin Zakaria, M.N. Factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Intention
and the Moderating Role of Entrepreneurship Education: A Conceptual Model. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2017, 23, 3006–3008. [CrossRef]
54. Turker, D.; Selcuk, S.S. Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2009, 33, 142–159.
[CrossRef]
55. Willis, L.E. Evidence and ideology in assessing the effectiveness of financial literacy education. San Diego L. Rev. 2009, 46, 415.
56. Fernandes, D.; Lynch, J.G., Jr.; Netemeyer, R.G. Financial literacy, financial education, and downstream financial behaviors.
Manag. Sci. 2014, 60, 1861–1883. [CrossRef]
57. Shah, I.A.; Amjed, S.; Jaboob, S. The moderating role of entrepreneurship education in shaping entrepreneurial intentions. J. Econ.
Struct. 2020, 9, 19. [CrossRef]
58. Nastiti, T.; Indarti, N.; Rostiani, R. Minat berwirausaha mahasiswa indonesia dan cina. J. Manag. Bus. 2010, 9, 187–200. [CrossRef]
59. Sánchez, J.C. University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Its impact on intention of venture creation. Int. Entrep. Manag.
J. 2011, 7, 239–254. [CrossRef]
60. Keat, O.Y.; Selvarajah, C.; Meyer, D. Inclination towards Entrepreneurship among University Students: An Empirical Study of
Malaysian University Students. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Soc. Sci. 2011, 2, 15.
61. Aleidan, F.A.; Alkhelaifi, H.; Alsenaid, A.; Alromaizan, H.; Alsalham, F.; Almutairi, A.; Abdel Gadir, A.G. Incidence and risk
factors of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infection in intensive case–control study. Expert Rev. Anti-Infect. Ther. 2021, 19,
393–398. [CrossRef]
62. Burnkrant, R.E.; Cousineau, A. Informational and Normative Social Influence in Buyer Behavior. J. Consum. Res. 1975, 2, 206–215.
[CrossRef]
63. Krezel, J.; Krezel, Z.A. Social influence and student choice of higher education institution. J. Educ. Cult. Soc. 2017, 8, 116–130.
[CrossRef]
64. Hellström, J.; Zetterdahl, E.; Hanes, N. Loved Ones Matter: Family Effects and Stock Market Participation. Available online:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A658287&dswid=-4666 (accessed on 16 October 2022).
65. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proc. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
66. Liñán, F. Skill and value perceptions: How do they affect entrepreneurial intentions? Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2008, 4, 257–272.
[CrossRef]
67. Thomas, A.; Passaro, R.; Scandurra, G. The Perception of the Contextual Factors as Predictor of Entrepreneurial Intent: Evidences
from an Empirical Survey. J. Entrep. Cult. 2014, 22, 375–400. [CrossRef]
68. Kautonen, T.; van Gelderen, M.; Tornikoski, E.T. Predicting Entrepreneurial Behaviour: A Test of the Theory of Planned Behaviour.
Appl. Econ. 2013, 45, 697–707. [CrossRef]
69. Lim, T.S.; Mail, R.; Karim, M.R.A.; Ulum, Z.K.A.B.; Jaidi, J.; Noordin, R. A serial mediation model of financial knowledge on the
intention to invest: The central role of risk perception and attitude. J. Behav. Exp. Financ. 2018, 20, 74–79. [CrossRef]
70. Lajuni, N.; Abdullah, N.; Bujang, I.; Yacob, Y. Examining the Predictive Power of Financial Literacy and Theory of Planned
Behavior on Intention to Change Financial Behavior. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Invent. 2018, 7, 60–66.
71. Putri, D.N.; Wijaya, C. Analysis of Parental Influence, Peer Influence, and Media Influence Towards Financial Literacy at
University of Indonesia Students. SSRG Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2020, 7, 66–73. [CrossRef]
72. Hayta, A.B. Socialization of the Child as a Consumer Family and Consumer. Sci. Res. J. 2008, 37, 167–184.
73. Weber, E.U.; Milliman, R.A. Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice. J. Manag. Sci. 1997, 43, 123–144.
[CrossRef]
74. Stolper, O.; Walter, A. Financial literacy, financial advice, and financial behavior. J. Bus. Econ. 2017, 87, 581–643. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2023, 11, 353 18 of 18

75. Galloway, L.; Brown, W. Entrepreneurship education at university: A driver in the creation of high growth firms? Educ. + Train.
2002, 77, 398–405. [CrossRef]
76. Manfrè, M. Saving Behavior: Financial socialization and self-control. Inf. Retr. J. 2017, 24, 2021.
77. Kaur, M.; Vohra, T. Understanding Individual Investor’s Behavior: A Review Empirical Evidences. PBR 2012, 5, 10–18.
78. Bandura, A. The evolution of social cognitive theory. Great Minds Manag. 2005, 6, 9–35.
79. Bandura, A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol. 1989, 44, 1175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Eun, S.J. Avoidable, amenable, and preventable mortalities in South Korea, 2000–2017: Age-period-cohort trends and impact on
life expectancy at birth. Soc. Sci. Med. 2019, 237, 112482. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
82. Mozahem, N.A. Social cognitive theory and women’s career choices: An agent—Based model simulation. Comput. Math. Organ.
2020, 28, 1–26. [CrossRef]
83. Chaulagain, R.P. Financial Literacy and Behavior of Small Borrowers in Nepal. 2019. Available online: https://www.nrb.org.
np/contents/uploads/2019/12/NRB_Working_Paper-NRB-WP-45finan-cial_Literacy_and_Behavior_of_Small_Borrowers_
in_Nepal%E2%80%94RameshPrasad_Chaulagain_Ph.D.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
84. Iram, T.; Bilal, A.R.; Latif, S. Is Awareness That Powerful? Women’s Financial Literacy Support to Prospects Behaviour in Prudent
Decision-making. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2021, 2, 1–26. [CrossRef]
85. Younas, W.; Javed, T.; Kalimuthu, K.R.; Farooq, M.; Khalil-ur-Rehman, F.; Raju, V. Impact of self-control, financial literacy and
financial behavior on financial well-being. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2019, 5, 5211–5218.
86. Strömbäck, C.; Lind, T.; Skagerlund, K.; Västfjäll, D.; Tinghög, G. Does self-control predict financial behavior and financial
well-being? J. Behav. Exp. Finance 2017, 14, 30–38. [CrossRef]
87. Moffitt, T.E.; Arseneault, L.; Belsky, D.; Dickson, N.; Hancox, R.J.; Harrington, H.; Houts, R.; Poulton, R.; Roberts, B.W.; Ross,
S.; et al. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108,
2693–2698. [CrossRef]
88. Miotto, A.P.S.; Parente, J. Antecedents and consequences of household financial management in brazilian lower-middle-class.
Rev. De Adm. De Empresas 2015, 55, 50–64. [CrossRef]
89. Leguina, A. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38, 220–221.
[CrossRef]
90. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); SAGE
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016.
91. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. Modern methods for business research. 1998, 295,
295–336.
92. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New
Challenges to International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009;
Volume 20, pp. 277–319.
93. Yi, G. From green entrepreneurial intentions to green entrepreneurial behaviors: The role of university entrepreneurial support
and external institutional support. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2021, 17, 963–979. [CrossRef]
94. Ariffin, M.R.; Sulong, Z.; Abdullah, A. Students’ perception towards financial literacy and saving behavior. World Appl. Sci. J.
2017, 35, 2194–2201.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.