What’s Math Got to Do with It?: Establishing Nuanced Relations between Math Anxiety, Financial Anxiety, and Financial Literacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the relations between math anxiety, financial anxiety, and financial literacy while extending previous research in three ways. First, we examine the distinct subconstructs that comprise financial literacy (i.e., financial knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and behaviour). Second, we distinguish between financial knowledge items that are confounded with numeracy versus items that are not. Third, we control for trait anxiety. Using survey data from Canadian adults (N = 241), we demonstrate that math anxiety is negatively related to mathematical financial knowledge but is not related to conceptual financial knowledge, financial confidence, or financial behaviour. Financial anxiety, conversely, is negatively related to both mathematical and conceptual financial knowledge, financial confidence, and ideal financial behaviour. Our data suggest that, when considering financial literacy holistically, financial anxiety is more important than previously thought. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between the subconstructs that comprise financial literacy when attempting to understand individual differences that relate to financial literacy. Educators and policymakers looking to improve financial literacy would seemingly benefit from employing a targeted approach to decrease anxiety toward both math and finances.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".