MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3009693226 · doi:10.7939/r3-dkff-dc34

Family Financial Socialization among Latino Immigrant Families – A Mixed Methods Study

2019· article· en· W3009693226 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leidy Johana Zuluaga Osorio

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésImmigrationSocializationSociologyDemographic economicsPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Parents are the most important influence on children’s financial learning. Several studies have detailed the various ways in which children’s financial literacy is associated with their parents’ financial socialization practices. The majority of these studies focus on individual-level variables and retrospective evaluations of childhood experiences. However, little is known about the mechanisms that underlie parents’ engagement in financial socialization. This study focused on Latino families because dealing with finances may be especially difficult for Latino immigrant families who do not fully understand Canadian financial products and services. Drawing on the reasoned action approach and family systems theory; the purpose of this dyadic, embedded mixed methods design study was to address the limitations in the literature by answering four research questions: (a) is participants’ financial socialization self-efficacy associated with their own and their partners’ family financial socialization practices?; (b) are participants’ attitudes towards educating children about money management associated with their own and their partners’family financial socialization practices?; (c) what do Latino parents think about financial socialization?; and (d) how do parents’ perspectives about financial socialization inform the results found in the quantitative strand? In the quantitative component, the present study analyzed data from 80 heterosexual Latino couples. An actor-partner interdependence model revealed that self-efficacy and two attitudes (hoping children learn to make the right financial decisions outside of home and thinking that teaching children about family finances is important) were linked to financial socialization, but a third attitude (children will learn money management by themselves when they grow up) was not a predictor of financial socialization. Regarding partner effects, there was support for the beneficial impact of ‘hoping children learn to make right financial decisions outside of home’ and ‘thinking that teaching children about family finances is important’ on partners’ financial socialization. Findings support the roles of self-efficacy and attitudes in shaping family financial socialization. In the qualitative strand, five families from diverse countries of origin (Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, and Salvador) participated in an interview. Qualitative findings supported the notion that financial socialization is influenced by parents’ attitudes and self-efficacy. Results highlighted that the participants had positive attitudes towards financial socialization which inspired them to engage, or to want to engage, in financial socialization. However, they assumed that modeling is the main mechanism to teach money management. Parents also needed to overcome individual and contextual barriers in order to engage in financial socialization. Overall, results were consistent with the reasoned action approach and family systems theory. However, the results underscore the importance of looking at the intersection of other family and individual constructs. The study has some limitations including the sample size, cross-sectional design, and reliance on self-report methods. Yet, the study added to the existing literature on financial socialization. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,003
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,202
Écart entre enseignants0,195 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Alberta LibraryMême sujetFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisTravaux en français237 207