Factors Influencing Financial Behavior of Undergraduate Students: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lifestyle of undergraduate students in managing finances determines their future in terms of financial management.Good student financial behavior comes from good financial planning and management as well.Students' financial behavior has various forms, including saving behavior, spending behavior, and financial planning.Financial behavior in university students is determined by the income of parents and the level of education of parents.Financial education provided by parents to children will affect student behavior in managing finances.The research focusedon determining factors influencing the financial behavior of university students.The authors use methods of the systematic literature reviewwithPRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis).The resultsshowed that the factors mentioned in the article that influence financial behavior are financial attitude, financial education, financial planning, financial literacy, financial knowledge, financial socialization, financial self-efficacy, financial skills, financial threat, and demographic factors.The authorsconcludethat financial behavior can be influenced by 10 (ten) factors in which financial attitude and financial education are the most dominant factor because these factors are the basis of individuals' or students' financial behavior.Suggestions for further research is that research should examine financial behavior in households and other relevant sectors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".