Motivations for personal financial management: A Self-Determination Theory perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial knowledge and sound financial decision making are now broadly recognized to be important determinants of both personal and societal prosperity, but research has yet to examine how distinct qualities of motivation may be associated with the way people manage their money. In two studies we applied the framework of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to examine people's autonomous (volitional) and controlled (pressured) motivation for understanding and managing their finances, as well as their amotivation (lack of motivation) for doing so, and the differential associations these motives have with financial knowledge and financial well-being. American participants (Study 1, N = 516; Study 2, N = 534) completed detailed demographic surveys and questionnaires assessing the financial variables of interest. As hypothesized, SDT's motivational constructs were associated with financial outcomes over and above participants' age, gender, income, household wealth, and educational attainment. Autonomous motivation was positively associated with a host of positive financial behaviors and characteristics (e.g., saving/investing and financial self-efficacy, well-being, and self-awareness). Controlled motivation was negatively associated with financial well-being. Amotivation was positively associated with overspending and negatively associated with financial self-efficacy and well-being. These findings support the relevance of SDT's framework in this domain and suggest that interventions aimed at promoting financial knowledge and wellness may benefit by adopting evidence-supported strategies for optimizing more autonomous motivations and addressing amotivations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it