Social Media for Investment Advice and Financial Satisfaction: Does Generation Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the relationship between social media usage for investment advice and financial satisfaction across different generations. Ten ordered logit models were estimated using Stata to explore this relationship. Ordered logit analyses using data from the 2021 National Financial Capability Study State-by-State and Investor survey reveal that Generation X and millennials are less financially satisfied than baby boomers. While general social media use shows no statistically significant association, platform-specific analysis finds that Instagram and TikTok users report higher financial satisfaction, whereas YouTube users report lower satisfaction. Notably, millennials who use social media for investment advice are more financially satisfied than their peers. Detailed analyses reveal that Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter positively influence financial satisfaction across Gen Z, millennials, and Gen X, with more platform-specific associations observed for Facebook, LinkedIn, and Reddit among millennials and Gen X, respectively. These findings provide valuable insights for policymakers, financial professionals, and researchers, highlighting the need for targeted strategies to enhance financial well-being through social media.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".