The role of psychological mechanisms in enhancing students’ financial wellbeing: An integration of financial literacy and the conservation of resources theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores how financial literacy affects students’ financial well-being by looking at the psychological factors that play a role—specifically self-control, mental budgeting, and mental accounting—as mediating variables. The research aims to better understand how cognitive and psychological resources help young people achieve financial well-being in a university setting. Using a quantitative, survey-based approach, the study gathered data from 781 students across four Indonesian cities. The data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to examine both the direct and indirect relationships between the variables. The results show that financial literacy has a significant impact on financial well-being, both directly and indirectly, through the influence of self-control, mental budgeting, and mental accounting. Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory, financial literacy serves as a cognitive resource that helps students protect and manage their financial assets more effectively. The findings suggest that universities and policymakers should develop financial literacy programs that also address psychological aspects such as self-control and budgeting habits. Integrating these elements can help students feel more financially secure and maintain better life balance. Overall, this study offers both theoretical and practical insights by connecting financial literacy with the management of psychological resources, and it points to new directions for developing psychology-based financial education to enhance young people’s financial well-being.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".