Increasing financial confidence in Canadian women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Women tend to be underconfident about their financial knowledge. In this longitudinal study, we tested two interventions intended to raise financial confidence and engagement in positive financial management behaviors among young Canadian women ( N = 1119). One intervention included a brief educational task, teaching participants definitions of financial terms. Another intervention challenged social beliefs about financial competence by prompting participants to describe and browse other women’s stories about financial competence experiences on a website. Directly after the interventions, financial confidence ratings from women assigned to either or both of the intervention conditions were about 6% higher than ratings in a control condition. This effect persisted one week later, though a month later the size of the effect had dropped to non-significance. Confidence was linked to better financial management behaviors and more savings. Results also showed that participants in all conditions reported higher financial confidence and better financial management behaviors at later vs. earlier surveys. We conclude that simply reporting on financial attitudes and behaviors over time can increase women’s financial confidence and recommend fostering discourse about finances to close the gender gap in financial confidence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".