Financial Decision Making during Midlife Crisis among Citizens of Mangalore through the lens of Behaviour Finance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Midlife crisis is a period often marked by emotional and psychological changes, usually between the ages of 40 and 60 years, where individuals may re-evaluate their achievements, future goals, and personal identity. These experiences, combined with responsibilities such as raising children, paying loans, and preparing for retirement, can strongly influence financial behaviour. Since financial decisions made in midlife play a key role in shaping retirement security and long-term well-being, understanding this link has become increasingly important. This study focuses on people in Mangalore, aged 40-60 years, to explore how midlife crisis intensity affects financial decision-making. Primary data was collected using a structured questionnaire, and responses were analysed through statistical tools and structural equation modeling. The study examined three psychological factors emotional instability, psychological stress, and midlife crisis intensity and tested their influence on financial decision-making, as well as the mediating role of financial decisions in building financial resilience. The findings show that psychological stress has a more significant impact on financial behaviour compared to emotional instability or midlife crisis intensity. While midlife crisis does not always lead to poor financial choices, it often encourages individuals to reassess their spending and saving habits. Results further confirm that financial decisions strongly improve financial resilience, aligning with earlier research that highlights the role of budgeting, saving, and disciplined planning in financial stability. By focusing on the cultural and social setting of Mangalore, this research contributes to behavioral finance literature with a regional perspective. The insights are valuable for financial advisors, policymakers, and individuals, as they emphasize the importance of integrating emotional well-being with financial planning to strengthen resilience during midlife transitions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".