Factors and Determinants of Financial Behaviors That Undermine Financial Well‐Being: A Qualitative Study
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
ABSTRACT This paper aims to identify the factors, their determinants, and indicators contributing to financial behaviors that may be detrimental to people's financial well‐being. A qualitative methodology was employed, involving financial professionals and members of the general population. The theory of planned behavior was inductively used as an analytical framework. The results suggest that detrimental financial behaviors are shaped by (1) attitudes such as financial apprehension, rigid financial mindsets, and lack of awareness; (2) social influences including relational pressure, sociocultural norms, geographic context, social media, and marketing; (3) perceived behavioral control factors such as limited knowledge, environmental conditions, financial ecosystem, and insufficient education; and (4) ingrained financial habits, including avoidance, cognitive biases, overconsumption, and lifestyle orientation. The originality of this research lies in the new insights it offers into the cognitive and psychological processes shaping financial behaviors. The findings interest stakeholders such as government bodies, financial education developers, researchers, and regulators.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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