Moderating Role of Personality in Relationship to Financial Attitude, Financial Behaviour, Financial Knowledge and Financial Capability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancements in financial system and technology, enlarged individual responsibility for financial decisions, and rapid information expansion, have fundamentally transformed women's need to be functionally literate and financially capable, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. The personality also has long term implications on financial well-being. The aim of the paper is to study the dominating role of financial attitude, financial awareness & skills, and financial behaviour on financial competence and the moderating role of personality on financial knowledge, financial behaviour, financial attitude, and financial capability. Multi stage stratified random sampling has been used to collect data from 530 urban working women in both the Public and Private sectors, self-employed professionals, and entrepreneurs. Smart-PLS is used by applying Structure Equation Modelling (SEM) to study the moderating role of personality on financial attitude, behaviour, knowledge, and capability. Further the Chi-square test and Tukey test and Kruskal Wallis Test are used to test the hypothesis. The study found that Financial Knowledge of working women with gold personalities influences their financial capability (Beta, 0.578) the most, While, Financial Behaviour is the primary influencer having green (Beta, 0.396) & blue (Beta, 0.638) personalities. Working women having Green Personality are found to be superior with respect to Financial Behaviour, Financial Capability and Financial Knowledge. It is also observed that working women having blue personality characteristics, have comparatively better financial attitude.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".