<%BANNER%>

Gender Differences in Financial Socialization and Willingness to Take Financial Risks

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041701/00001

Material Information

Title: Gender Differences in Financial Socialization and Willingness to Take Financial Risks
Physical Description: 1 online resource (70 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Garrison, Selena
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: college, financial, gender, learning, risk, social, socialization, students, tolerance
Family, Youth and Community Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Family, Youth and Community Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study utilizes social learning and gender role theories as a basis for exploring gender differences in financial socialization as they relate to willingness to take financial risks. Three research questions were proposed: 1) Does willingness to take financial risk differ by gender in college students?; 2) Does exposure to financial social learning opportunities differ by gender in college students?; and 3) Does the relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take financial risks differ by gender? It was hypothesized that 1) male college students would have a greater willingness to take financial risks than female college students; 2) exposure to financial social learning opportunities will differ by gender in college students; and 3) the relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take financial risks would differ by gender. Basic bivariate analysis utilizing cross-tab with the chi^2 statistic and independent sample t-tests were used to test the first two hypotheses. Parallel cumulative logistic regressions were used to test the third hypothesis. Varying levels of comparison of willingness to take financial risks were used as reference variables, with gender as the selection variable. Results indicate that a gender difference in willingness to take financial risks does exist among college students, with males being more likely than females to choose higher levels of financial risk. A gender difference in financial social learning opportunities was also present, with females having higher exposure to financial social learning opportunities across all four dimensions (discussions with parents, discussions with peers, observations of parents? financial behaviors, and observations of peers? financial behaviors). Significant differences were also found for the relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take risks by gender, but only at the discussion levels of financial socialization. Important implications are presented for college students, parents, practitioners, and researchers.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Selena Garrison.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Gutter, Michael S.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-10-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041701:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041701/00001

Material Information

Title: Gender Differences in Financial Socialization and Willingness to Take Financial Risks
Physical Description: 1 online resource (70 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Garrison, Selena
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: college, financial, gender, learning, risk, social, socialization, students, tolerance
Family, Youth and Community Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Family, Youth and Community Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study utilizes social learning and gender role theories as a basis for exploring gender differences in financial socialization as they relate to willingness to take financial risks. Three research questions were proposed: 1) Does willingness to take financial risk differ by gender in college students?; 2) Does exposure to financial social learning opportunities differ by gender in college students?; and 3) Does the relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take financial risks differ by gender? It was hypothesized that 1) male college students would have a greater willingness to take financial risks than female college students; 2) exposure to financial social learning opportunities will differ by gender in college students; and 3) the relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take financial risks would differ by gender. Basic bivariate analysis utilizing cross-tab with the chi^2 statistic and independent sample t-tests were used to test the first two hypotheses. Parallel cumulative logistic regressions were used to test the third hypothesis. Varying levels of comparison of willingness to take financial risks were used as reference variables, with gender as the selection variable. Results indicate that a gender difference in willingness to take financial risks does exist among college students, with males being more likely than females to choose higher levels of financial risk. A gender difference in financial social learning opportunities was also present, with females having higher exposure to financial social learning opportunities across all four dimensions (discussions with parents, discussions with peers, observations of parents? financial behaviors, and observations of peers? financial behaviors). Significant differences were also found for the relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take risks by gender, but only at the discussion levels of financial socialization. Important implications are presented for college students, parents, practitioners, and researchers.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Selena Garrison.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Gutter, Michael S.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-10-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041701:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN FINANCIAL SOCIALIZATION AND WILLINGNESS TO TAKE FINANCIAL RISKS By SELENA T. GARRISON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Selena T. Garrison

PAGE 3

3 To my husband, Curtis Garrison

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Numerous individuals contributed to my success during the comp letion of my masters degree. First, I thank my advisor, Dr. Michael Gutter for providing knowledge and guidance throughout my graduate experience. His support has been invaluable. I also express gratitude to the other members of my committee: Dr. Nayda T orres and Dr. Zeynep opur. I appreciate the support of my family throughout my educational experience. I thank my husband, Curtis Garrison, for all of his love and encouragement without which the completion of this thesis would not have been possible. I thank my parents, Kenneth and Terry Hohenstein, and my sister, Kristen Hohenstein, for their continuous encouragement through all of my personal and educational endeavors

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ 7 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 14 Willingness to Take Financial Risks ........................................................................... 14 Social Learning Theory ............................................................................................... 15 The Socialization Process .......................................................................................... 16 Gender Roles .............................................................................................................. 18 Gender Differences in Financial Knowledg e, Attitudes, and Behaviors ................... 20 Agents of Financial Socialization ............................................................................... 23 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 26 3 METHODS .................................................................................................................. 28 Sampling and Data Collection .................................................................................... 28 Dependent V ariables ........................................................................................... 30 Independent V ariables ......................................................................................... 30 Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 31 4 ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 34 Bivariate Analysis ....................................................................................................... 34 Dependent Variable ............................................................................................. 34 Independent Variables ......................................................................................... 35 Demographic information .............................................................................. 35 Social learning opportunities ......................................................................... 36 Cumulative Logistic Regression Analysis .................................................................. 38 Willingness to Take Financial Risks: Any vs. None ............................................ 39 Willingness to Take Financial Risks: High vs. Low ............................................. 40 Willingness to Take Fin ancial Risks: Substantial vs. Lower ............................... 42 The Combined Influence of Social Learning and Gender on Willingness to Take Financial Risks ......................................................................................... 43

PAGE 6

6 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ..................................................................... 50 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 50 Gender and Willingness to Take Financial Risks ............................................... 50 Gender and Financial Social Learning Opportunities ......................................... 50 Willingness to Take Financial Risks as a Function of Gender and Social Learning Opportunities ..................................................................................... 52 Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................ 54 Implications ................................................................................................................. 55 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONS ............................................................................................... 58 B VARIABLE CODING ................................................................................................... 62 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 64 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................................................................ 70

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 -1 Summary of variables ............................................................................................ 33 4 -1 Sample profile by gender ....................................................................................... 44 4 -2 Exposure to social learning topics by gender ........................................................ 45 4 -3 Willingness to take financial risks: any vs. none ................................................... 46 4 -4 Willingness to take financial risks: high vs. low ..................................................... 47 4 -5 Willingness to take financial risks: substantial vs. lower ....................................... 48 4 -6 Willingness to Take Financial Risk as a Function of Social Learning and Gender .................................................................................................................... 49

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirem ents for the Degree of Master of Science GENDER DIFFERENCES IN FINANCIAL SOCIALIZATION AND WILLINGNESS TO TAKE FINANCIAL RISKS By Selena T. Garrison May 2010 Chair: Michael S. Gutter Major: Family, Youth, and Community Sciences This study utilizes soc ial learning and gender role theories as a basis for exploring gender differences in financial socialization as they relate to willingness to take financial risks. Three research questions were proposed: 1) Does willingness to take financial risk differ by gender in college students?; 2) Do es exposure to financial social learning opportunities differ by gender in college students? ; and 3) Does the relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take financial risks differ by gender? It was h ypothesized that 1) male college students would have a greater willingness to take financial risks than female college students; 2) exposure to financial s ocial learning opportunities w ill differ by gender in college students; and 3) t he relationship of so cial learning opportunities on willingness to take financial risks would differ by gender. Basic bivariate analysis utilizing cross -tab with the 2 statistic and independent sample t -tests were used to test the first two hypotheses. Parallel cumulative log istic regressions were used to test the third hypothesis. Varying levels of comparison of willingness to take financial risks were used as reference variables, with gender as the selection variable. Results indicate that a gender difference in willingness to take

PAGE 9

9 financial risks does exist among college students, with males being more likely than females to choose higher levels of financial risk. A gender difference in financial social learning opportun ities was also present with females having higher expo sure to financial social learning opportunities across all four dimensions (discussions with parents, discussions with peers, observations of parents financial behaviors, and observations of peers financial behaviors). Significant differences were also f ound for t he relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take risks by gender but only at the discussion levels of financial socialization. Important implications are presented for college students, parents, practitioners, and research ers.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Financial wellbeing is an important issue in the life of every individual. Porter and Garman (1993) define financial wellbeing as the satisfaction an individual has with their income and savings, how they perceive opportunitie s, their ability to "make ends meet," their sense of material security, and their sense of fairness of the system in which rewards are distributed. Being financially well is important for every individual, during every stage of life, from childhood, to sta rting out in the workforce, to retirement, to later life issues. While life expectancies in the U S. have been increasing for men and women over many years, this gender gap in life expectancy still exists. According to a recent report released by the Depa rtment of Health and Human Services (Aria, 2007), the average life expectancy in the United States was 75.2 years for males and 80.4 years for females in 2004. This means that many women will potentially outlive their spouses, leaving them to fend for them selves financially and otherwise in their later years of life. In addition, according to the U S Census Bureau (2008), 13% of women over the age of 75 were poor in 2007, compared to only 6% of men. This indicates that not only will women outlive men, but will also potentially have higher levels of poverty than their male counterparts. It has also been generally recognized that, on average, women tend to make less money than men for doing the same or similar jobs. According to Blau and Kahn (2000), from t he late 1950s to about 1980, the female-to -male income ratio remained st eady at approximately 60% In the late 1970s and early 1980s, this ratio began to increase, and by 1999, the inc ome ratio had increased to 76.5% (ibid). While this increase is

PAGE 11

11 substant ial, it should be remembered that this income disparity, when accompanied by a longer life expectancy, can cause many problems for women later in life. Retirement may be one of these complex times for women. Lusardi and Mitchell (2008) found that the major ity of women in the United States have not made any financial plans for retirement. They also found a clear correlation between financial literacy (defined as financial knowledge) and retirement planning, stating that women who display higher financial li teracy are more likely to plan and be successful planners (p. 413). As more and more companies have been switching away from a pension system, workers have been asked to take on a greater responsibility for their own retirement saving and investing. As wa s mentioned previously, women with higher financial literacy are more likely to successfully plan for retirement. However, many studies have shown women to have lower levels of financial literacy than men, in general. Another important issue in considerin g the financial well -being of women is the increasing number of households headed by single mothers (both divorced and never married). In 2002, the U S Department of Commerce reported that the percentage of single females in the United States has consiste ntly grown from 34% in 1950 to 46% in 2002. According to Fields and Casper (2001) the number of single-mother headed households has also increased from three million in 1970 to ten million in 2000. This is partially due to the fact that, in the case of div orce or birth to unmarried parents in the U S. sin gle mothers are more likely than single fathers to live with their children, as women often receive full custody in such situations (Buehler & Gerald, 1995).

PAGE 12

12 While divorce tends to cause financial dispari ty for both partners, it has been found that women tend to have greater negative financial consequences of divorce than men. For instance, divorced women, as compared with divorced men and married women, have reported more continual financial difficulties such as inability to pay bills or make necessary purchases (Shapiro, 1996). According to Amato (2000), these issues are due to women experiencing more interruptions in work history before divorce, more work family conflict, and more employment and wage dis crimination than their male counterparts. It has already been established that women are less likely to plan for retirement. Lusardi and Mitchell (2007) found that those who do not plan are likely to accumulate significantly less wealth than those who do plan, and are also less likely to take advantage of stocks and tax -favored assets as investments. It has also been established that women live longer than men, while earning less money. Single mothers are also more likely to be head of household than singl e fathers, and divorced women are more likely to report chronic financial issues. These things are known, but it is not yet understood why women tend to fare worse financially than men. In thinking about this divergence, one might ask where people learn th eir financial attitudes and behaviors to begin with. Where does this discrepancy come from ? One answer may be the concept of financial socialization. Social learning, in general, and financial socialization, specifically, will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, but the main idea is that individuals learn their attitudes and behaviors through watching and modeling the attitudes and behaviors of important people in their lives (Bandura 1963, 1977).

PAGE 13

13 This research aims to looks at potential differences in financial socialization between men women and the effects that these differences may have on financial dispositions such as willingness to take risks. Willingness to take risks is an important concept to consider, because it will affect areas such as saving, investing, and retirement planning. All of these areas are important for the financial well -being of both men and women. This research will seek to answer the following questions related to financial socialization and willingness to take risks: Is th ere a gender difference in willingness to take financial risks? Is there a difference in financial socialization between genders? More specifically, a re there differences between genders in talking to parents about financial behaviors? Are there difference s between genders in observing the financial behaviors of parents? Are there differences between genders in talking to friends about financial behaviors? Are there differences between genders in observing the financial behaviors of friends? If there are di fferences in any of these areas, does the relationship of social learning on willingness to take risks differ by gender?

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Willingness to Take Financial Risks One important factor related to financial planning and investing is financial risk tolerance or willingness to take financial risks. As was previously mentioned, this study is interested in exploring potential differences in financial socialization between men women and the effects that these differences may have on financial dispositions such as willingness to take risks. Grable (2000) defines willingness to take financial risks as the maximum amount of uncertainty that someone is willing to accept when making a financial decision (p. 625). Grable and Lytton (1 999) iden tified eight different dimensions of willingness to take financial risks, including 1) guaranteed versus probable gambles, 2) general risk choice, 3) choice between sure loss and sure gain, 4) risk as related to experience and knowledge, 5) risk as a level of comfort, 6) speculative risk, 7) prospect theory, and 8) investment risk (p. 174). While none of these dimensions individually is an accurate representation of willingness to take risk, when combined together they could provide a useful measure. The consideration of willingness to take financial risk s is important in this study, because in general, higher risk in investments has the opportunity to lead to higher returns. If one gender tends to have lower levels of willingness to take risks, this could lead to lower investment returns. As will be discussed later on, research has shown that there does tend to be a gender difference in willingness to take financial risks in older populations, but little has been done to look at gender differences in will ingness to take financial risks tolerance among college students. In addition to gender, several other factors have been found to

PAGE 15

15 influence willingness to take financial risks. Hawley and Fujii (1993) found that education, debt, and income were significant ly related to willingness to take financial risks. These results were consistent with several other studies including Warner and Cramer (1995) and Sung and Hanna (1995). Sung and Hanna (1996) also found that marital status had a significant impact on willi ngness to take financial risks. A definition of willingness to take financial risks has been provided, and it has been established that it is impacted by several factors, but how do people come about their level of willingness to take financial risks? The next section will discuss social learning theory and the idea that attitudes such as willingness to take risks may be brought about through the process of socialization. Social Learning Theory In order to understand the potential impact that gender dif ferences in financial socialization may have on financial attitudes and behaviors, it is important to understand the foundation of the idea of socialization. In his Social Learning Theory, Alfred Bandura (1963, 1977) posited that people learn their own beh aviors and attitudes by observing the behaviors and attitudes of significant people in their lives. This process of learning through observing others is called modeling. Social Learning Theory has been applied extensively to understanding the modification of behaviors. Strategies based on Social Learning Theory have been effective in reducing alcohol abuse among students (Foss, Deikman, Bartley, & Goodman, 2004, Perkins & Craig, 2002), reducing or delaying tobacco use at colleges and universities (Hancock & Henry, 2003), and preventing sexual assault and eating disorders (Berkowitz, 2003). According to Bandura (1977), there are four conditions necessary for effective modeling: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. In order for modeling to be

PAGE 16

16 ef fective, the observer must be paying attention to the behavior or attitude, must remember the behavior or attitude, must be able to reproduce the behavior or attitude themselves, and must be have some motivation to reproduce the behavior or attitude. On e e xample of this socialization is a child who observes their parents behavior and then emulates that behavior. Because modeling has an important impact on behavior change, Bandura (1977) proposed that new behaviors could be taught more quickly and more effi ciently through modeling. The Socialization Process The socialization process begins in childhood and may continue throughout life (McNeal, 1987; Moschis, 1985, 1987). Socialization processes include the development of financial knowledge and skills through multiple life events and personal interactions (Fox, Bartholomae, & Gutter, 2000). Ward (1974) describes consumer socialization as the process through which young people develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding their consumer role in the mark etplace. This definition has been extended to include the acquisition and development of values, attitudes, standards, norms, skills, behavior, motives and knowledge related to family financial management and consumption (Cohen & Xiao, 1992; Danes, 1994; F ox, Bartholomae, & Gutter, 2000; Hira, 1997). Consumer socialization research, based on social learning theory, suggests that a large portion of consumer behavior (i.e. spending behavior among adults) is learned through socialization agents such as parents family members, peers, and other influential individuals during adolescence, and thus can be transferred through generations (Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Moschis & Moore, 1984; Valence, dAstous, & Fourtier, 1988 ). The idea of childhood consumer socializa tion is based on the premise

PAGE 17

17 that behaviors, skills, knowledge, and attitudes learned early in life can, and often do, persist into adulthood (Moschis, 1985). Ward (1974) suggested that consumer behavior among young people, as well as the development of ad ult patterns of behavior, can be understood by studying related childhood and adolescent experiences. Childhood socialization opportunities come from individual, organizational, or institutional agents with whom children come into contact or maintain a rel ationship (Fox, Bartholomae, & Gutter, 2000). Parents, peers, schools, and mass media are the primary agents that play a significant role in consumer socialization (Bush, Smith, & Martin, 1999; Moschis & Moore, 1984). The psychological, emotional, and behavioral developments of young people are strongly influenced by these agents as they become consumers in the marketplace (Moore, Raymond, Mittelstaedt, & Tanner, 2002). Several empirical studies have also found that these same socialization agents act as ty pical sources of financial knowledge for young people (Fox, Bartholomae, & Gutter, 2000; Keller & Staelin, 1987; Lee & Hogarth, 1999). Gutter, Copur, and Garrison (2009) found associations between financial dispositions, financial socialization, and financ ial behaviors. Many authors have developed models of consumer socialization (Carlson & Grossbart, 1988; Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Ward, Klees, & Wackman, 1991), yielding that in general, consumer socialization consists of three components: background fact ors (e.g., sex, age, socioeconomic status), socialization agents processes (e.g., peers, parents, other family members), and learning mechanisms outcomes (e.g., the process through which parents teach consumer skills to children) (Grossbart, Carlson, & Wal sh, 1991; Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993).

PAGE 18

18 Gender Roles In looking at the socialization process, and financial socialization in particular, one might wonder why gender matters. Research suggests that socially constructed gender roles have an impact on behavioral differences in males and females. Gender is often thought of as not necessarily whether an individual is biologically male or female, but as the way they have been socialized to act as feminine or masculine (HareMustin & Marachek, 1990). According to the American Heritage Stedmans Medical Dictionary, a gender role is the pattern of masculine or feminine behavior of an individual that is defined by a particular culture and that is largely determined by a child's upbringing. Thus, while every individu al presumably undergoes socialization and acquires attitudes and behaviors through social learning, social learning may not be equal depending on ones gender. Even more importantly, individuals may be socialized differently regarding money and financial b ehaviors depending on their gender. Historically, evidence of this potential gender difference in socialization has seen in several domains, including education, athletics, and risk -taking, to name a few. In the area of education, differences have been es pecially evident in the areas of mathematics, with girls rating their math skills as lower and expressing less interest than boys in math and professions related to math (Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990). There is evidence in the area of mathematics that parents of junior high aged children hold gender -differentiated views of the math-competence of their children and that these views are associated with the childrens own confidence in their math competence (Eccles -Parsons, 1984). In addition, parents gender differentiated perceptions of their childrens math competence persist even when their male and female children perform

PAGE 19

19 equally well in both their math grades and their performance on math -related standardized tests (Eccles-Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 198 2). There is also evidence of a gender role affect in the area of athletics. Until more recent times, competitive athletics has been primarily dominated by males. Frish (1977), posits that, from birth, males and females are socialized into different categories of physical activity. While males have historically been encouraged into athletics, women have been discouraged from such participation (Lantz & Schroeder, 1999). In their 1999 study, Lantz and Schroeder found that, among their sample of college ath letes and nonathletes, gender role orientation was significantly related to both athletic participation and identification with the athletic role. Both athletes and those who identified themselves as athletic showed a greater endorsement for the masculine gender role, while nonathletes and those who identified themselves as non athletic showed a greater endorsement of the feminine gender role. In her 1999 study, Koivula similarly found that gender and gender based processing correlate with the reasons gi ven for participation in sportsand both the frequency and amount of time spent participating (p.375). Risk -taking is another area in which gender roles seem to play a significant part. Based on several research studies specifically aimed at gender diffe rences in risk taking behavior, it seems that males a re more prone to take risks than females. In their study on gender differences in risk taking with children, Ginsburg and Miller (1982) found that boys were significantly more likely than girls to engage in all four of their risk -taking situations. In their metaanalysis of 150 studies examining gender differences in risk taking, Byrnes, Miller, and Shafer (1 999) found that males indicated significantly higher

PAGE 20

20 risk taking than females in 14 out of 16 risk -taking situations, with certain topics producing greater gender differences than others. Levenson (1990) points out that a cognitive-social learning theory of risk -taking behavior suggests that social factors, perhaps in combination with personality pred ispositions, have more influence on various forms of risk -taking behavior than underlying physiological traits (p.1074). We ha ve now examined three different behavior areas in which gender -role oriented social learning seems to play a role in eventual at titudes and behavior formation. This paper seeks to determine if gendered social learning also plays a role in formation of financial attitudes and behaviors such as willingness to take financial risks. The next section will examine this topic more closely Gender Differences in Financial Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors This study would be unnecessary if there were no documented gender differences in financial knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors, but, in fact, such differences have been noted time and t ime again. This section will examine existing gender differences that have been studied in key areas of financial knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Such differences support the reasoning behind determining whether or not gender plays a role in financial socialization. While several studies suggest that women tend to have lower levels of financial knowledge than men, the findings have been mixed. Chen and Volpe (2002) found that, on average, women knew less about personal finance than men when controllin g for other factors. In addition, more men than women ranked personal finance as an important subject, and men ranked themselves as more knowledgeable in personal finance than did women. As has also been seen in previous socialization research related to education (Eccles et al., 1990, Eccles -Parsons, 1984, Eccles et al., 1982),

PAGE 21

21 men ranked m ath and other number -related sciences as important subjects, while more women ranked English and wordoriented liberal arts as important in the Chen and Volpe (2002) stu dy. Not surprisingly, women also scored much lower than men on personal finance questions requiring them to process numerical information. In contrast, Norvilitis, Merwin, Osberg, Roehling, Young, & Kamas (2006) found that females scored significantly high er than males on the Jump$tart financial knowledge scale, although the average score fo r both sexes was only 60% In the area of investment knowledge, Volpe, Chen, and Pavlicko (1996) found that all student groups tend to have inadequate investment knowl edge, but that females tended to have poorer investment knowledge than m ales This is important, because as was discussed in the introd uction, a clear correlation has been found between financial literacy and retirement planning (Lusardi and Mitchell, 2008 ). If women know less about money than men, tend to live longer than men, make less money than men, and plan less for retirement than men, we have a huge problem! Differences in social learning may be a part of the problem, as men tend to be socialized as the breadwinners and women have historically been more dependent on men for financial support than the other way around (Bremner, 1894). Gender differences in financial attitudes such as willingness to take financial risks are also important to consider. As was discussed previously, social learning theory posits that people develop their own attitudes by observing the attitudes of significant people in their lives (Bandura, 1963, 1977). Thus, if there are differences in financial attitudes by gender, it stands to reason that some of these differences may be related to gendered financial socialization.

PAGE 22

22 In fact, differences have been found in the area of willingness to take financial risks. In their study on risk aversion and expected retirement benefits, Watson and McNaughton (2007) found that women tended to choose investment strategies that were more conservative than men. They also found that the lower income of women was a significant contributor to the womens lower projected retirement benefits. Thus, not only were women investing less, but they were also choosing less aggressive investment strategies than men. In their 2004 study, Hallahan, Faff, and McKenzie found that gender was a significant predictor of risk tolerance, with females scoring 6.20 points lower on their Risk Tolerance Scale compared to males who were demographically equivalent. Not only do children learn their attitudes such as willingness to take financial risks, through social learning, but also their behaviors (Bandura, 1963, 19 77). For this reason, it is important to look at gender differences in financial behaviors that have been observed. While women do have some financial behaviors that are worse than those of men, the outlook is not all bad. For instance, Hayhoe et al. (2000) found that female students, compared to male students, were more likely to have a budget, to keep bills and receipts, to save regularly, and to plan their spending. Lyons (2004), however, found that women were more likely to engage in risky credit card behaviors than men. Davies and Lea (1995) also found that women tend to have higher levels of debt. As risky credit behaviors and high levels of debt have a negative effect on the credit score which can later inhibit important milestones such as purchasing a home or getting a job, these findings are concerning.

PAGE 23

23 In relation to womens lower w illingness to take risk studies have found gender differences in financial risk taking. While women may tend to engage in risky credit behaviors more often than men, P owell and Ansic (1997) found that, in general, women tend to be less ri s k -seeking in their finances than men. Females were also more likely to attribute their positive financial performance to good luck than males and also had less financial confidence than males who had similar prior financial experience and similar education. Jianakoplos and Bernasek (1996) found that not only were single women more risk averse in their asset holdings than married couples or single men, but they also perceived themselves to be more risk averse, with a women reporting no willingness to take financial risk. Bernasek and Bajtelsmit (1996) found many gender differences in their review of investment literature, indicating that women tend to be more risk averse than men when inv esting. They address the issue of biological determinism versus socialization in predicting womens willingness to take risk and conclude that interventions focused on changing socialization processes can still positively impact the well -being of women by influencing their decision making (p.8). This study seeks to extend the idea of gender role influences on social learning to financial socialization. We seek to discover whether or not gender has a significant role in financial socialization. Is there a gender difference in exposure to financial socialization? If so, does this difference have an effect on financial attitudes and/or behaviors? To better understand how to answer these questions, i t is important to look at the agent s of financial socializat ion. Agents of Financial Socialization As has been previous established, a childs family is one of their primary socialization agents. Several authors (Danes, 1994; McNeal, 1987; Moschis, 1987)

PAGE 24

24 have found that financial knowledge is learned through childrens observations and participation, as well as through the intentional instruction of their parents. Multiple previous studies have revealed that intentional instruction and reinforcement by parents can both directly and indirectly impact the financial k nowledge and behavior of their children (Drentea & Lavrakas 2000; Hayhoe, Leach, Turner, Bruin, & Lawrence 2000; Lyons, Scherpf, & Roberts 2006; Moschis, 1985). Marshall and Magruder (1960) found that wise financial management by parents can lead to increased knowledge about money in their children. Hira (1997) i dentified family, in general, and mothers and fathers, in particular, as the most important influences on the financial attitudes and beliefs of respondents, suggesting that young people learn thei r symbolic meanings of money from their parents and other family members. The same study established that parents pass down money values to their children through direct and indirect messages. Among younger respondents, the proportion of respondents that i ndicated parents or family members as a strong influence was higher than among older respondents. Friends were also an important influence, but only among the younger age groups (ibid). The extent to which a child is exposed to each socialization agent (f amily, school, media, or peer group) determines the influence of that agent (Alhabeeb, 1999). As children get older, their exposure to each agent changes. For instance, as children age, their major behavioral influence tends to shift from parents to peers, which may be a result of their increased exposure to peers as they get older (Harris, 1995). John (1999) warned parents to start early in modeling good behavior for their children, because while parents are more influential at the information-gathering st age, peers are more

PAGE 25

25 influential later on during the product evaluation stage. She also stated that peer group influences are strengthened through unstable family environments and weak family communication. Thus, early positive parental communication in the home can affect the strength of peer influences on children later on. Bernheim, Garret, and Maki (2001) found that adults who had been encouraged to save using a bank account in childhood saved more than those adults who had not been encouraged in this m anner. In addition, those adults who perceived their parents as having saved more than average also saved more than others themselves. Capital One Financial Corporation (2003), in their third annual back to -scho ol survey, found that 90% of hig h school stud ents and 87% of college students rely on their parents for advice about finances. Pinto, Parente, and Mansfield (2005) found that parents were the only socialization agent significantly correlated with credit card use, indicating that college students lear n more information about credit cards from their parents than any other socialization agent. In addition, they found that greater levels of information from parents on the proper use of credit cards were correlated with lower levels of students outstanding credit card balances. Webley and Nyhus (2006) found that parental behavior (i.e. discussing finances with children) and orientations (i.e. future orientation) had a clear, though weak, impact on childrens financial behavior in childhood and adulthood. T hrough all of this research, we see that various socialization agents, and the family in particular, play a large role in a childs financial socialization. We also have seen gender differences in several other types of socialization related to education, athletics, and risk -taking. If these differences also exist in the area of financial

PAGE 26

26 socialization, it could help to explain gender differences in financial knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in adulthood. Summary Through the lens of social learning theory and research on gender roles, we see that various behavior differences in males and females may be partially affected by differences in socialization. There is evidence that gender differences exist in various areas of financial knowledge, financial att itudes, and financial behaviors. Thus, the following questions present themselves: 1) Does willingness to take financial risk differ by gender in college students? 2) Do es exposure to financial social learning opportunities differ by gender in college stu dents? 3) Does the relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take financial risks differ by gender? It stands to reason that if people are socialized differently based on their gender for some behaviors and attitudes they may also be socialized differently for financial behaviors and attitudes This study seeks to expand that research to the area of financial socialization, with the following hypotheses: 1) Male college students will have a greater w illingness to take financial risk s than female college students. 2) Exposure to financial s ocial learning opportunities will differ by gender in college students. 3) The relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take risks will differ by gender. This research is import ant, in that it is vital for males and females to have adequate knowledge of an d exposure to financial issues. Both male and female college students will eventually be responsible for their own finances. If females are missing out

PAGE 27

27 on early positive financi al socialization opportunities, they may be negatively affected later in life when it comes time to get a job, take care of their families, and invest for retirement. By finding out whether or not individuals are socialized differently in the financial realm, we can determine next steps in closing this potential gender gap.

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Sampling and Data Collection Data for this study was collected as part of a larger study on the impact of financial education on financial behaviors during the spri ng and fall terms of 2008. A stratified random sampling technique based on state policies toward financial education was utilized. Six policy categories were determined using the 2005 National Council on Economic Education report. At least two large univer sities were randomly chosen from each policy category, and each institution was contacted by phone and/or email to obtain student email lists for a webbased survey. The sampling pool consisted of college students, age 18 and over, from 15 public universit ies across the United States. This study utilized a cross -sectional research design and an online survey method. According to de Vaus (2006), the cross -sectional design has four basic elements. First, this design relies on existing independent variable dif ferences in the sample instead of using interventions as in the experimental design. Second, at least two categories must be present, with at least one independent variable. Third, the data is collected at one point in time. Lastly, groups are not randomly allocated. The present study utilized this design through the use of an online survey in order to explore existing differences in financial socialization opportunities between genders. An online survey was utilized for several reasons. As Lyons, Cude, Law rence, and Gutter (2005) point out, online surveys have several practical advantages over traditional survey methods, including faster response rates, larger sample sizes, lower costs, and less data processing. It is important, however, to choose an appropriate audience for an online survey. Using an online survey to glean information from people

PAGE 29

29 with low computer literacy or little internet access would be illogical. However, because the target population for this study was college students (who tend to be easily accessible via email), the use of an online survey method was an appropriate strategy. This strategy also enabled the researcher to reach a very broad sampling pool at 15 different universities through email. In order to obtain student email addres ses, the appropriate official (usually the Registrars office) for each university was contacted to initiate the process. The process for obtaining email addresses was different for each university. Some emailed a list of email addresses for their entire s tudent body; some emailed a list of email addresses for a random sample of their student body Some required no payment; some required a small fee; and some required IRB approval from their respective universities. In the cases that IRB approval was requir ed, appropriate IRB paperwork was filed before receiving email addresses for the students. Student participation was requested using emails delivered to the email addresses obtained from each university. Students were informed that every one thousandth com pleted survey would receive a $100 gift card. The email students received, which contained an informed consent document, took them to the SurveyMonkey based survey, where they had to affirm their assent to the informed consent statement prior to beginning the survey. Students also received two follow up emails to remind them of the survey and encourage participation in the study. In total, emails were sent out to 172,412 students, with 16,876 students responding to the survey. This yields a response rate of 10.22% Students who were not educated in the United States, who were homeschooled, who received a GED, or who

PAGE 30

30 did not indicate their state of high school attendance were removed from the sample, yielding a final sample of 15,797 students. The sample pr ofile is fairly typical, with the majority of students being full -time (94.2%) and an average age of 21.3 years. In addition, most students were female (64.9%), most were white (81.8%), and most were unmarried (85.3%). The sample also contained good repres entation from each class rank, with 20.7% freshmen, 19.3% sophomores, 24.2% juniors, 27.1% seniors, and 8.7% graduate/professional students. The national averages for college students are 62.7% female, 69.8% white, 58.1% single, and 27.8% senior (NASPA, 20 08) Thus, although students in this sample were more likely to be white and single than the general student population, this sample is similar to the overall demographics of the college students in the U.S. Dependent Variables Willi ngness to take financial r isks: The measure for willingness to take financial risk is a theory -based measure of risk tolerance that is used in the Survey of Consumer Finance. Willingness to take financial risks was measured with the following question: Which of the statements on this page comes closest to the amount of financial risk that you are willing to take when you save or make investments? Answer choices were as follows: take substantial financial risks expecting to earn substantial returns; take above average financ ial risks to earn above average returns; take average financial risks expecting to earn average returns; and not willing to take any financial risks. Independent Variables Demographics: Gender was the main independent variable for this study and was m easured by asking the students to indicate their gender as male or female. In accordance with factors previously found to be significantly related to willingness to take

PAGE 31

31 risks, a dditional demographic information was also collected for control purposes. The se include previous financial education, race, marital status, and income Financial social learning opportunities: The financial social learning opportunities score was a composite measure based on four dimensions: financial discussions with parents, financial discussions with peers, observing parents financial behaviors, and observing peers financial behaviors. The score utilized responses to eight items representing these four dimensions. Scores for each dimension ranged from 8 to 40. Each dimension us ed the basic form of how often the participant discussed the following with their parents or peers in the past five years, or how often they observed the following from their parents or peers in the last five years: managing expenses and avoiding overspending; checking credit report; paying bills on time; saving and investing money; working with a mainstream financial institution like a bank or credit union (as opposed to payday lenders); buying and maintaining health insurance; buying and maintaining auto insurance; and buying and maintaining renters insurance. The scale ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (often), and included a dont know option. Analysis In order to determine whether w illingness to take financial risks differs by gender (Hypotheses 1 ), bivariate analysis will be conducted using cross tab analysis T he Chi Square ( )test statistic will be computed to determine whether willingness to take financial risks differs by gender The test will be able to show whether or not there is a significant difference by gender, but it will not tell which risk variables ( substant ial, high, average, and no risk) are significantly different from one other. In order to

PAGE 32

32 determine this, each level of willingness to take risk will be compared to each other level via a t -test to determine significant differences. I n order to determine w hether social learning differs by gender (Hypothesis 2 ), each social learning opportunity dimension (discuss with parents, discuss with friends, observe parents, and observe friends) will be compared by gender via a two sample t test to determine significa nt differences. Most importantly, the relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take risks will be compared by gender (Hypothesis 3) This analysis will be run via a cumulative logistic regression technique, utilizing parallel cumulat ive logits with gender as the selection variable, the varying combinations of willingness to take financial risks as the dependent variable, and social learning opportunities as the independent variable. Control variables will include marital status, race, income, and prior financial education. The cumulative logit is appropriate for this analysis because the dependent variable of willingness to take financial risk is naturally ordered. In this instance, the cumulative logit is superior to the ordered logi t, because the nature of the research question requires the ability to rotate reference variables. This is possible with the cumulative logit, but not with the ordered logit. This model allows for the inde pendent variables of gender and financial socialization to have varying effects on willingness to take financial risks. The cumulative logit model examines the effects of the independent variables on the probability for college students to choose high risk (including above average and substantial risk) vs. low risk ( average ris k and no risk) substantial risk vs. other risk (including none) and no risk vs. any risk (both high risk and average risk) A similar cumulative logit model was used in Yao, Gutter, and Hanna (2005) to compare

PAGE 33

33 racial differences in risk tolerance. This will be the first time that a cumulative logit model will be used to test differences in gender and financial socialization related to financial risk tolerance. Table 3 1. Summary of v ariables Dependent v ariables Independent v ariables Willingness to take financial risks Demographics Substantial r isk Gender Above average r isk Male Average r isk Female No r isk Previous financial e ducation High risk vs. low r isk In high s chool Substantial risk only vs. lower r isk In the c ommunity Any risk vs. no r isk Race White Black Hispanic Asian Other Marital s tatus Single (including divorced, separated, widowed) Married/c ohabitating Income $0 $1 $499 $500 $999 $1000 an d above Social learning o pportunities Financial discussions with parents Financial discussions with peers Observe parents behaviors Observe friends behaviors

PAGE 34

34 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS The previous chapter discussed how each of the three hy potheses would be tested. This chapter will discuss the results of the bivariate and cumulative logistic regression analysis described in Chapter 3. Hypothesis 1 was tested using cross tab analysis with the statistic, followed by independent sample t -te sts to determine significant gender differences between each willingness to take financial risks variable. Hypothesis 2 was tested using independent sample t -tests to determine significant gender differences between ea ch social learning opportunity dimension.Hypothesis 3 was tested using cumulative logistic regression to determine whether the independent variables of gender, financial socialization, and the relationship of these two ha d varying effects on willingness to take financial risks. Bivariate Ana lysis This section wil l pres ent the bivariate results for each of the dependent and independent variables. Table 4-1 presents the results of all the bivariate analysis presented in this section. Dependent Variable Willingness to t ake financial r isks : For willingness to take financial risks, each level of financial risk (substantial risk, above average risk, average risk, no risk) was tested by gender via cross tab analysis with The result of the test indicated that there were overall significant differences in willingness to take financial risks by gender ( 609.14, p<. 01). The results of the test are as follows: 6.6% of males and 2.7% of females were willing to take s ubstantial financial risk to achi e ve substantial financial returns; 32.7% of males and 16.8% of females were willing to take above average

PAGE 35

35 financial risk to achieve above average financial returns; 51.0% of males and 60.6% of females were willing to take average financial risk to achieve average financial returns; and 9.7% of males and 20.1% of female s were willing to take no financial risk to achieve no financial return. These results indicate that proportionately more males than females are willing to tak e substantial and above average financial risks, however, independent sample t -tests were conducted to determine whether these differences are significant at each level Three variables were tested by gender using the independent sample t -tests. These were high risk (substantial and above average risk) vs. low risk (below average and no risk); substantial risk vs. lower risk (above average, average, and no risk); and any risk (substantial, above average, and average risk) vs. no risk. Results of the t tests indicate that there are significant gender differences for all three variables. Males were significantly more likely than females to be willing to take high financial risk versus low financial risk ( t = -22.00, p<. 01). Males were also significantly more likely than females to take substantial risk versus lower levels of risk ( t = -.904, p<. 01). As was expected, females were significantly more likely than males to take no financial risk versus any financial risk at all ( t = -15.75, p<. 01). Independent Varia bles Demographic i nformation As was stated earlier, the sample was composed of 64.9% females and 35.1% males. Of these, 35.5% of males and 41.0% of females had financial education in high school ( 51.44, p <.01), and 12.3% of males and 7.8% of females had financial education in their communities ( 87.71, p <.01). Although the vast majority of both

PAGE 36

36 males and females were white, there were also significant racial differences by gender ( 43.65, p <.01). Significant differences in marital status also existed with 88.1% of males and 85.5% of females single and 11.9% of males and 14.5% of females married or cohabitating ( 22.87, p <.01). Finally, there were also significant differences in income between genders ( 121.39, p <.01). All of these variable s have b een identified in the literature as being associated with willingness to take risks and are controlled for in the cumulative logistic regression. Social learning opportunities For social learning opportunities, each of the four social learning opportunitie s scores was compared by gender via independent sample t -test. The results of the t test indicate overall significant gender differences for each form of financial socialization. For financial discussions with parents, males had an average score of 21.6 an d female had an average score of 21.9 ( t =2.349 p <.05), indicating that females had significantly more social learning opportunities where they discussed financial matters with their parents. For financial discussions with peers, males had an average score of 16.8 and females had an average score of 17.3 ( t =4.861, p <.01), indicating that females also had significantly more social learning opportunities where they discussed financial matters with their peers. For observing parents financial behaviors, males had an average score of 25.7 and females had an average score of 27.5 ( t =11.252, p <.01), indicating that females had significantly more social learning opportunities where they observed their parents engaging in positive financial behaviors. For observing peers financial behaviors, males had an average score of 16.6 and females had an average score of

PAGE 37

37 17.7 ( t =8.795, p <.01), indicating that females had significantly more social learning opportunities where they observed their peers engaging in positive financial behaviors. These t tests indicate that, in general, female college students tend to have had more financial social learning opportunities than male college students. Additional t tests were run by social learning topic within each social learning di mension to determine whether there were also significant gender differences between exposure to individual topics with within each dimension. The results of these tests are presented in Table 4 2 For financial discussions with parents, there were si gnificant gender differences in frequency of exposure to all topics, except checking the credit report and buying/maintaining health insurance. Females were significantly more likely than males to have had discussions with their parents about managing expenses and avoiding overspending ( t= 9.510, p <.001), paying bills on time ( t =7.059, p <.001), and saving and investing money ( t= 4.783, p <.001). Males were significantly more likely than females to have had discussions with their parents about working with a mainstream financial institution ( t= 4.776, p <.001), buying and maintaining auto insurance ( t= -2.914, p <.01), and buying and maintaining renters insurance ( t= 3.572, p <.001). For financial discussions with peers, there were significant gender differences in frequency of exposure to all topics except checking the credit report. Females were significantly more likely than males to have had dis cussions with their peers about managing expenses and avoiding overspending ( t= 21.628, p <.001), p aying bills on time (t =8.493, p <.001), saving and investing money ( t= 3.845, p <.001), and buying and maintaining health insurance (t= 2.870, p <.01). Males were significantly more likely than

PAGE 38

38 females to have had discussions with their peers about working with a mainstream financial institution ( t= --6.157, p <.001), buying and maintaining auto insurance ( t= 2.790, p <.01), and buying and maintaining renters insurance ( t= -4.505, p <.001). For observing parents financial behaviors, there were significant gender d ifferences in frequency of exposure to all topics except working with a mainstream financial institution and buying/maintaining renters insurance. For the remaining topics, females were more likely than males to have observed their peers managing expenses and avoiding overspending ( t= 15.678, p <.001), checking their credit report ( t= 5.211, p <.001), paying bills on time ( t= 12.823, p <.001), saving and investing money ( t= 11.669 p <.001), buying and maintaining health insurance ( t= 12.247, p <.0 0 1), and buying and maintaining auto insurance ( t= 11.320 p <.0 0 1). For observing peers financial behaviors, there were significant gender differences in frequency of exposure to all topics except checking the credit report, working with a mainstream financial institution, and buying and maintaining renters insurance. For the remaining topics, females were more likely than males to have observed their peers managing expenses and avoiding overspending ( t= 19.400, p <.001), paying bills on time (t= 12.858, p <.001), saving and investing money ( t= 10.025, p <.001), buying and maintaining health insurance ( t= 2.741, p <.01), and buying and maintaining auto insurance ( t= 2.955, p <.01). Cumulative Logistic Regression Analysis This section will present the results of the cumulative logist ic regressions. For this analysis, parallel cumulative logits were run utilizing gender as the selection variable. The cumulative logistic regression technique allows for rotation of the reference variable, which, in this case, were the various comparisons of levels of willingness to

PAGE 39

39 take financial risks (any vs. none, high vs. low, and substantial vs. lower). The purpose of this analysis was to determine the effect of gender and financial social learning opportunities on varying levels of willingness to take financial risks, controlling for marital status, race, income, and prior financial education. The results of the cumulative logit analyses are presented in Tables 43 4 -4 and 4 5 Willingness to Take Financial Risks: Any vs. None The first parallel cumulative logit analyzed gender differences in willingness to take any financial risks (substantial, above average, or average) and willingness to take no financial risks. The res ults of this analysis are presented in Table 4-3 Marital status was not a significant predictor for either males or females. Race, however, was a significant predictor for both males and females. Compared to otherwise similar wh ite males, Asian males had a 61.2% decrease, and males of other races had a 59.6% decrease, in the odds of being willing to take any financial risk over no financial risk. Compared to otherwise similar white females, black females had a 59.2% decrease, and females of other races had a 29.5% decrease in the odds of being willing to take any financial risk over no financial risk. Income was a significant positive predictor for both males and females, but only at the $1000 and above level (p <.05). Compared to otherwise similar males with no income, males with $1000 and above in monthly income were had a 55.9% increase in the odds of being willing to take any financial risk over no financial risk. Compared to otherwise similar females with no income, females with $1000 and above in monthly income had a 34.0% increase in the odds of being willing to take any financial risk over no financial risk. Prior personal financial education was only significant for females who had taken personal finance in their communi ty ( p <.05). Compared to otherwise similar females who had not taken a

PAGE 40

40 personal financial class in their community, females who had taken such a class had a 32.0% increase in the odds of being willing to take any financial risk over no financial risk. For t he main independent variable of financial social learning opportunities, varying results were found for males and females. Financial discussions with parents were only mildly significant for males ( p <.10) and not significant at all for females. For every one point increase in the financial sociali zation opportunity score for financial discussions with parents, males we re expected to have a 1.7% increase in likelihood of being willing to take any financial risk over no financial risk. Financial discussions w ith peers were positively associated with choosing any level of willingness to take financial risks over no willingness to take financial risks for both males and females. For every one point increase in the financial socialization opportunity score for fi nancial discussions with peers, males were expected to have a 2.8% increase, and females were expected to have a 1.6% increase in likelihood to choose any risk over no risk. Observing parents and peers behaviors were not significant predictors of willingness to take any financial risks over no financial risks. Willingness to Take Financial Risks: High vs. Low The second parallel cumulative logit analyzed gender differences is willingness to take high financial risks (substantial and above average) and wi llingness to take low financial risks (average and none). The results of t his analysis are presented in Table 4 4. While not a significant predictor for males, m arital status was a significant predictor for females. Compared to otherwise similar single females, married females had an 18.2% increase in the odds of being willing to take high financial risk over low financial

PAGE 41

41 risk. Race was also a significant predictor though its associations differed for both males and females. C om pared to otherwise similar white males Hispanic males had a 42.4% increase, and males of other races had a 41.2% decrease in the odds of being willing to take high financial risk over low financial risk. Compared to otherwise similar white females, Asian females had an 88.3% increase, and females of other races had a 39.0% increase in the odds of being willing to take high financial risk over low financial risk. Income was a significant predictor as well, but again, the associations differed for males and females. Compared to otherwise similar males with no income, males who made $1000 and above per month had a 38.3% increase in the odds of being willing to take high financial risk over low financial risk. Compared to otherwise similar females with no income, females who made between $1 and $499 per month had a 14.7% decrease, and females who made $1000 and above per month had a 25.4% increase in the odds of being willing to take high financial risk over low financial risk. Prior personal financial education was significant for both males and females who had taken personal finance in their community. Compared to otherwise similar males who had not taken a personal finance class in their community, males who had taken such a class had a 40.2% increase in t he odds of being willing to take high financial risk over low financial risk. Compared to otherwise similar females who had not taken a personal finance class in their community, females who had take such a class had a 69.1% increase in the odds of being w illing to take high financial risk over low financial risk. For the main independent variable of financial social learning opportunities, varying results were found for males and females. Financial discussions with parents were not significant predictors for males, but they were significant for females ( p <.05)

PAGE 42

42 For every one point increase in the financial socialization opportunity score for financial discussions with parents, females were expected to have a 1.0% increase in the likelihood of being willin g to take high financial risk over low financial risk. Financial discussions with peers were positively associated with choosing willingness to take high financial risks over low financ ial risks for both males and females For every one point increase in t he financial socialization opportunity score for financial discussions with peers, males were expected to have a 3.1% increase, and females were expected to have a 1.1% increase in the likelihood of being willing to take high financial risk over low financ ial risk. Observing parents and peers behaviors were not significant predictors of willingness to take high financial risks over low financial risks Willingness to Take Financial Risks: Substantial vs. Lower The third parallel cumulative logit analyzed gender differences in willingness to take substantial financial risks and willingness to take lower financial risks (above average, average, and none). The results of this analysis are presented below in Table 4 -5 Marital status was not a significant predictor for either males or females. While not a significant predictor for males, race was a significant predictor for females. Compared to otherwise similar white females, black females had a 44.3% increase, Asian females had an 11.8% increase, and females of other races had a 39.8% increase in the likelihood of being willing to take substantial financial risk over lower financial risk. These results are interesting as they show a reverse of the high risk vs. low risk analysis. I ncome was not a predictor of choosing substantial financial risk over lower levels of financial risk for either gender. Prior personal financial education was only significant for males who had taken personal finance in their community ( p <.05).

PAGE 43

43 Compared to otherwise similar males who had not taken a personal finance class in their communities, males who had taken such a class had a 65.1% increase in the likelihood of being willing to take substantial financial risk over lower financial risk. For the main i ndependent variable of financial social learning opportunities, varying results were found for males and females. For females, none of the social learning opportunities were significant predictors of choosing substantial financial risks or lower levels of financial risk. For males, only discussions with peers were significant. For every one point increase in the financial socialization opportunity score for financial discussions with peers, males were expected to have a 2.9% increase in the likelihood of be ing willing to take substantial financial risk over lower financial risk. The Combined Influence of Social Learning and Gender on Willingness to Take Financial Risks While the results of the parallel cumulative logistic regressions show different signific ant predictors including social learning predictors, of willingness to take risks for males and females, these results do not fully answer the research question. The question asks whether the relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take financial risks differs by gender. In order to fully test the research hypothesis, the coefficients of each social learning variable need to be tested against one another for males and females. In order to do this, the Wald Chi -square statistic was c omputed for each set of coefficients. The results of this test are presented in Table 4 6 As t his table shows, a significant difference between the relationships of social learning opportunities on willingness to take financial r isks only significantly differs by gender when looking at the high risk vs. low risk category. Within this category, the relationship is only significant for the variable of having financial discussions with peers.

PAGE 44

44 For this variable, males who had financial discussions with their peers were significantly more likely than females who had financial discussions with their peers to choose high risk over low risk. Table 4 1. Sample profile by g ender Variable Mean/p roportion Significance t est Male Female Dependent Willingness to take financial r isks 609.14*** Substantial r isk 6.6% 2.7% Above average r isk 32.7% 16.8% Average r isk 51.0% 60.6% No r isk 9.7% 20.1% High risk (1) vs. low r isk (0) .39 .21 t = 22.00*** Substantial risk only (1) vs. lower r isk (0) .07 .03 t = .904*** Any risk (1) vs. No r isk (0) .80 .90 t = 15.75*** Independent Previous financial e ducation High s chool 35.3% 41.0% 51.44*** Community 12.3% 7.8% 87.71*** Race 43.65*** White 81.8% 80.7% Black 3.6% 5.4% Hispanic 4.7% 5.4% Asian 6.3% 5.0% Other 3.7% 3.5% Marital s tatus 22.87*** Single 88.1% 85.5% Married/c ohabitating 11.9% 14.5% Income 121.39*** $0 41.8% 37.6% $1 $499 29.7% 37.8% $500 $999 16.1% 15.2% $1000 and above 12.4% 9.4% Social learning opportunities s core Financial discussions with parents 21.6 21.9 t =2.349* Financial discussions with peers 16.8 17.3 t =4.861*** Observe parents behaviors 25.7 27.5 t =11.252*** Observe peers behavi ors 16.6 17.7 t =8.795*** p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001

PAGE 45

45 Table 4 2. Exposure to social l earning topics by g ender Variable Mean Score t value Male Female Financial discussions with parents Managing expenses/avoiding o verspending 3.5 3.72 9.51 0*** Checking credit r eport 2.03 2.05 1.025 Paying bills on t ime 3.34 3.52 7.059*** Saving and investing m oney 3.54 3.65 4.783*** Working with a mainstream financial i nstitution 2.57 2.45 4.776*** Buying/maintaining health i n surance 2.28 2.32 1.717 Buying/Maintaining auto i nsurance 2.62 2.55 2.914** Buying/Maintaining renters i nsurance 1.78 1.71 3.572*** Financial discussions with peers Managing expenses/avoiding o verspending 2.86 3.36 21.628*** Checking credit r eport 1.69 1.67 1.117 Paying bills on t ime 2.52 2.72 8.493*** Saving and investing m oney 2.83 2.92 3.845*** Working with a mainstream financial i nstitution 1.84 1.72 6.157*** Buying/maintaining health i nsurance 1. 74 1.79 2.870** Buying/Maintaining auto i nsurance 1.79 1.74 2.790** Buying/Maintaining renters i nsurance 1.49 1.42 4.505*** Observe parents behaviors Managing expenses/avoiding o verspending 3.73 4.11 15.678*** Checking credi t r eport 2.25 2.39 5.211*** Paying bills on t ime 3.94 4.25 12.823*** Saving and investing m oney 3.66 3.96 11.669*** Working with a mainstream financial i nstitution 3.37 3.40 1.089 Buying/maintaining health i nsurance 3.33 3.67 12.247 *** Buying/Maintaining auto i nsurance 3.47 3.78 11.320*** Buying/Maintaining renters i nsurance 1.93 1.91 .565 Observe peers behaviors Managing expenses/avoiding o verspending 2.80 3.27 19.400*** Checking credit r eport 1.59 1.6 1 1.392 Paying bills on t ime 2.67 2.99 12.858*** Saving and investing m oney 2.39 2.63 10.025*** Working with a mainstream financial i nstitution 2.22 2.21 .333 Buying/maintaining health i nsurance 1.62 1.68 2.741** Buying/Maint aining auto i nsurance 1.89 1.96 2.955** Buying/Maintaining renters i nsurance 1.40 1.37 1.725 p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001

PAGE 46

46 Table 4 3. Willingness to t ake f inancial r isks: a ny vs. n one Variable Male Female Odds ratio Odds ratio Marital s tatus .016 1.016 .115 .819 Race (reference=w hite) Black .254 .776 .735*** .408 Hispanic .136 .873 .154 .857 Asian .946*** .388 .246 .782 Other .907*** .404 .350* .705 Income (r efere nce=n one) $1 $499 .062 1.064 .063 .939 $500 $999 .006 1.006 .008 1.008 $1000 and above .444* 1.559 .293* 1.340 Personal f inance High s chool .037 1.037 .108 1.114 Community .156 1.169 .278* 1.320 Social l earning Financial discussions with parents .017 1.017 .007 1.007 Financial discussions with peers .028* 1.028 .016** 1.016 Observe parents behaviors .013 1.013 .004 1.004 Observe peers behaviors .007 .993 .008 1.008 Constant 1.243* ** 3.467 .738*** 2.093 Chow test statistic for full vs. reduced model 203.788 <.0001 p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001

PAGE 47

47 Table 4 4. Willingness to t ake f inancial r isks: h igh vs. l ow Variable Male Female Odds ratio Odds ratio Marital status (referen ce=s ingle) .087 .917 .167* 1.182 Race (reference=w hite) Black .198 1.219 .199 1.220 Hispanic .353* 1.424 .074 1.007 Asian .016 .984 .633*** 1.883 Other .531* .588 .329* 1.390 Income (reference=n one) $1 $499 .095 .909 .159* .853 $500 $999 .122 .885 .050 1.051 $1000 and above .324** 1.383 .227* 1.254 Financial e ducation High s chool .128 .880 .032 1.032 Community .338** 1.402 .525*** 1.691 Social l earning Financial discussio ns with parents .002 .998 .010* 1.010 Financial discussions with peers .030*** 1.031 .011* 1.011 Observe parents behaviors .004 1.004 .001 .999 Observe peers behaviors .003 .997 .005 1.005 Constant .933*** .393 2.042*** .130 Chow test statistic for full vs. reduced model 501.321 <.0001 p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001

PAGE 48

48 Table 4 5. Willingness to t ake f inancial r isks: s ubstantial vs. l ower Variable Male Female Odds ratio Odds ratio Marital status (reference=s ingle) .039 1.039 .252 1.286 Race (reference=w hite) Black .358 1.431 1.236*** 3.443 Hispanic .347 1.415 .565 1.759 Asian .302 1.353 1.137*** 3.118 Other .219 .804 .875** 2. 398 Income (reference=n one) $1 $499 .094 .910 .006 1.006 $500 $999 .080 .923 .116 1.123 $1000 and above .030 1.030 .610 .543 Financial e ducation High s chool .100 .905 .295 1.344 Community .501** 1.651 .448 1.565 Social l earning Financial discussions with parents .008 .992 .013 1.013 Financial discussions with peers .029* 1.029 .012 1.012 Observe parents behaviors .008 .992 .003 1.003 Observe peers behaviors .011 .989 .000 1.000 Constant 2.634*** .072 4.659*** .009 Chow test statistic for full vs. reduced model 119.274 <.0001 p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001

PAGE 49

49 Table 4 6. Willingness to take financial risk as a function of social learning and gender Social Learning Opportunity Male Female SE SE Wald Any risk vs. no r isk Financial discussions with parents .017 .009 .007 .005 0.915 Financial discussions with peers .028 .012 .016 .006 0.837 Observe parents behaviors .013 .008 .004 .004 1.023 Observe peers behaviors .007 .010 .00 8 .005 1.663 High risk vs. low r isk Financial discussions with parents 0.002 .006 0.01 .005 2.580 Financial discussions with peers 0.030 .007 0.011 .006 4.645* Observe parents behaviors 0.004 .005 0.001 .005 0.564 Observe peers behaviors 0.003 .0 06 0.005 .005 0.972 Substantial r isk vs. l ower r isk Financial discussions with parents 0.008 .011 0.013 .012 1.666 Financial discussions with peers 0.029 .012 0.012 .014 0.857 Observe parents behaviors 0.008 .009 0.003 .011 0.564 Observe peers beh aviors 0.011 .012 0.000 .013 0.400 p <.05

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPL ICATIONS Conclusions Gender and Willingness to T a ke Financial Risks Hypothesis 1 stated that male college students would have a greater w illingness to take financial risk s than f emale college students. The results of both the test and independent sample t -test confirm this hypothesis. The test indicated an overall gender difference in willingness to take financial risks, and the t -test results indicated that females were less likely to choose higher levels of willingness to take risks at all three levels of comparison. It can be concluded, then, that there are significant gender differences in willingness to take financial risks among college students, with males being more likely to be willing to take higher levels of financial risks than females. Gender and Financial Social Learning Opportunities Hypothesis 2 stated that exposure to financial s ocial learning opportunities w ould differ by gender in college students. The results of the independent samples t -test between soc ial learning dimensions confirm that there is an overall gender difference, with females having exposure to significantly more financial social learning opportuni ties overall. To further explore this difference each financial social learning opportunity dimension was broken down by topic to determine whether there were specific gender differences in topics discussed or behaviors observed with parents and peers. Significant gender differences were observed for many topics within each social l earning dimens ion. For financial discussions with parents, females tended to have had

PAGE 51

51 more discussions with their parents on managing expenses and avoiding overspending, paying bills on time, and saving and investing money, while males had more discussions on working w ith mainstream financial institutions, buying and maintaining auto insurance, and buying and maintaining renters insurance. A similar relationship was found for financial discussions with peers. For this social learning dimension, females tended to have h ad more discussions with their peers on managing expenses and avoiding overspending, paying bills on time, saving and investing money, and buying and maintaining health insurance, while males had more discussions on working with mainstream financial instit utions, buying and maintaining auto insurance, and buying and maintaining renters insurance. For both observing parents financial behaviors and observing friends financial behaviors, females tended to have more overall exposure to observing their parents and friends behaviors. Females were more likely than males to have observed their parents managing expenses and avoiding overspending, checking their credit report, paying bills on time, saving and investing money buying and maintaining health insurance and buying and maintaining auto insurance. Females were more also likely than males to have observed their peers managing expenses and avoiding overspending, paying bills on time, saving and investing money buying and maintaining health insurance and buying and maintaining auto insurance. It can then be concluded that there are not only significant gender differences in overall exposure to financial social learning opportunities among college students, but also in topics discussed and observed with bo th parents and peers.

PAGE 52

52 Willingness to Take Financial Risks as a Function of Gender and Social Learning Opportunities Hypothesis 3 stated that t he relationship of social learning opportunities on willingness to take risks would differ by gender. The results of three parallel cumulative logistic regressions weakly support this hypothesis While it was discovered that discussions with parents and peers had varying influence on the willingness to take financial risk between males and females, the actual difference in the relationship of social learning and gender on willingness to take risks was only significant for discussions with peers in the high risk vs. low risk category. Observations of parents and peers behaviors were not at all associated with gender d ifferences in willingness to take financial risks, when controlling for other variables. When looking at willingness to take any financial risks versus willingness to take no financial risks, there was a slight positive association for males when looking at discussions with parents, but no association for females. Males were expected to have a 1.7% increase in likelihood of being willing to take any financial risk over no financial risk with each one point increase in the financial socialization opportunit y score for financial discussion with parents. Financial discussions with peers were positively associated with choosing any level of financial risk over no financial risk for both genders Males were expected to have a 2.8% increase, and females were expected to have a 1.6% increase in likelihood of being willing to take any financial risk over no financial risk with each one point increase in the financial socialization opportunity score for financial discussion with parents. These results indicate that, when looking at gender differences in willingness to take any financial risks over no financial risks, male college students may be slightly more influenced by discussions with their parents than female

PAGE 53

53 college students. While the t -test results indicated that female college students were significantly more likely than males to choose no risk as opposed to any risk, financial discussions with their peers may increase their likelihood of choosing some risk versus no risk Financial discussions with their par ents had no impact on this relationship for females. When looking at willingness to take high financial risks versus low financial risks, we see a reverse of the significance of discussions with parents. In this comparison, discussions with parents were no t significant predictors for males, but they were significant for females Females were expected to have a 1.0% increase in likelihood of being willing to take high financial risk over low financial risk with each one point increase in the financial social ization opportunity score for financial discussions with parents. As with the previous comparison, f inancial discussions with peers were positively associated with choosing willingness to take high financial risk over low financial risk for both males and females Males were expected to have a 3.1% increase, and females were expected to have a 1.1% increase in likelihood of being willing to take high financial risk over low financial risk with each one point increase in the financial socialization opportuni ty score for financial discussion with peers. These results indicate that, when looking at gender differences in willingness to take high financial risks over low financial risks, female college students may be slightly more influenced by discussions with their parents than male college students. Again while the t -tests indicated that females were more likely to be willing to take lower levels of financial risk than higher levels of financial risk, financial discussions with their parents and/or peers may increase their likelihood of choosing high risk versus low risk.

PAGE 54

54 When looking at willingness to take substantial financial risks only versus lower levels of financial risk, the effects of social learning opportunities fall off all together for females. For males however, discussions with peers are still significant predictors of choosing substantial financial risk over lower levels of financial risk. Males were expected to have a 2.9% increase in likelihood of being willing to take substantial financial ris k over lower financial risk with each one point increase in the financial socialization opportunity score for financial discussion with parents. While the t -test results again indicate that females are more likely to choose lower levels of financial risk o ver substantial financial risks, the influence of financial conversations with parents and peers disappear at this level of comparison. While each risk level comparison by gender seems to reveal varying influence of discussions with parents and peers, the actual difference in the relationship of social learning and gender on willingness to take risks was only significant for discussions with peers in the high risk vs. low risk category. At this level of comparison, males who had financial discussions with their peers were significantly more likely than females who had financial discussions with their peers to choose high risk over low risk. This is the only level of comparison in which Hypothesis 3 is supported. Discussion of Findings The findings of this r esearch study are interesting on several levels. First, from the aspect of gender differences in willingness to take financial risks, previous research has found that women tend to be more risk averse than men; however, these studies did not focus in speci fically on college students. The current study confirms that this gender difference also exists in college students, implying that females tend to show less

PAGE 55

55 willingness to take financial risk from the very beginning of the time when they are likely first e xposed to managing their own finances. Along the same line, when looking at exposure to financial socialization opportunities, female college students have significantly more conversations with their parents and friends about saving and investing money than male college students. At the same time, when controlling for other factors, female college students are significantly more likely to choose lower levels of willingness to take risks at all three levels of comparison. This means that while female studen ts are having more conversations with their parents and peers about money, specifically saving and investing, they may be having conversations that lead them to more conservative saving and investment strategies. It is also interesting to note that there i s a relationship between gender and financial social learning opportunities as they relate to willingness to take financial risks; however this relationship apparently only significant at the discussion level. Discussions with both parents and peers had si gnificant influence on levels of willingness to take financial risk, but observations of their behaviors did not show this effect. This would indicate that it is important for parents to actually talk with their children about money, not just demonstrate p ositive behaviors. While modeling appropriate behavior is still most likely a positive influence, it is the discussions that are showing a significant positive impact. Implications There are several implications that come about as a result of this research For college students, it is important to know that these gender differences exist. If women realize that they are less likely than men to choose higher levels of financial risk and

PAGE 56

56 that they are potentially putting themselves at risk for financial problems down the road, then they can have the opportunity to change their investment behaviors, or at the very least, do some research on the actual risks versus returns of different investment strategies to see the kinds of investments with which they would r e alistically be comfortable For parents, it is important to realize that it is important to talk to their children about financial topics It is also important not to let gender roles prevent them from discussing more risky investment options with their daughters. If parents know the impact that lower levels of willingness to take financial risks may have on their daughters financial futures, they may have the opportunity to have different kinds of conversations with them about saving and investing. For pr actitioners, this research indicates that financial socialization begins at home. While education, specifically in the community, may have an impact as well, it is important to consider intergenerational efforts at financial education. Developing programs that encourage parent participation in their children learning about money may be an effective way to reach not only children, but the whole family. For researchers, this study provides several implications for future research. Future research should look at not only exposure to financial socialization and topics covered, but the content of the topics covered. This research showed that female students tend to talk more to their parents and peers about saving and investing than male students, but it is unclear the kinds of messages these conversations entail. Knowing these messages may prove useful in understanding more clearly why females tend to be more risk averse than men.

PAGE 57

57 It may also be interesting to look at the source of parental financial socializati on. Are girls talking more to their mothers or fathers about these financial topics? Are boys talking more to their mothers and fathers about these financial topics? The present study does not differentiate between which parent has been providing the major ity of the college students financial socialization, but this factor may influence the types of information each gender child is receiving. In addition, this research only looked at the effects of gender and financial socialization on willingness to take financial risks. Future research can look at the effects on other attitudes, such as materialism and financial self efficacy, and on actual behaviors, such as budgeting and saving. This will allow us to determine if the gender differences in financial soci alization persist across topics.

PAGE 58

58 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONS This appendix will present the survey questions that were used in the present study. These questions are taken from a larger online survey that was conducted on the effects of financial educat ion policies in the U.S. Gender Question: What sex are you? Answer Choices: Male Female Marital Status Question: Which of the following best describes your current household status? Answer Choices: Married Living together (not married) Single (never married) Divorced/Separated/Widowed Race Q uestion: Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity? Answer Choices: White (non-Hispanic) African American/Black (non -Hispanic) Hispanic Asian American; Asian (resident) Native American Other (ple ase specify) Income Question : On average, what is your amount of monthly income from working? Answer Choices: $0 (I am not employed at this time) $1$249 $250$4 99 $500$749 $750$999 $1000-$1999 $2000 or more.

PAGE 59

59 Previous Financial Education Question: We re you taught about personal finances in high school? Answer Choices: Yes No Question: Have you ever taken a course, program, or seminar on personal finance issues in your community, religious institution, or 4H -in other words not through school ? An swer Choices: Yes No Social Learning Opportunities Question: How often did your parents/ caregiver discuss each of the following with you in the past five years?: Managing expenses and avoiding overspending C hecking credit report Paying bills on time S aving and investing money Working with a mainstream financial institution like a bank or credit union (as opposed to payday lenders) Buying and maintaining health insurance Buying and maintaining auto insurance Buying and maintaining renters insurance Answer Choices: 1 ( Never) 2 3 4 5 (Often) Dont Know Question: How often do you discuss each of the following with your friends or other students? Managing expenses and avoiding overspending C hecking credit report Paying bills on time Saving and investi ng money Working with a mainstream financial institution like a bank or credit union (as opposed to payday lenders) Buying and maintaining health insurance

PAGE 60

60 Buying and maintaining auto insurance Buying and maintaining renters insurance Answer Choices: 1 (Never) 2 3 4 5 (Often) Dont Know Question: How often have you observed your parents/caregivers involved in the following during the past five years? Managing expenses and avoiding overspending C hecking credit report Paying bills on time Saving and in vesting money Working with a mainstream financial institution like a bank or credit union (as opposed to payday lenders) Buying and maintaining health insurance Buying and maintaining auto insurance Buying and maintaining renters insurance Answer Choic es: 1 (Never) 2 3 4 5 (Often) Dont Know Question: How often have you observed your friends or other students involved in the following? Managing expenses and avoiding overspending C hecking credit report Paying bills on time Saving and investing money Working with a mainstream financial institution like a bank or credit union (as opposed to payday lenders) Buying and maintaining health insurance Buying and maintaining auto insurance Buying and maintaining renters insurance

PAGE 61

61 Answer Choices: 1 (Never ) 2 3 4 5 (Often) Dont Know Willingness to Take Financial Risks Question: Which of the statements on this page comes closest to the amount of financial risk that you are willing to take when you save or make investments? Answer Choices: Take substanti al financial risks expecting to earn substantial returns Take above average financial risks expecting to earn above average returns Take average financial risks expecting to earn average returns Not willing to take any financial risks

PAGE 62

62 APPENDIX B VARIABLE C ODING Variable Coding: Bivariate Analysis Variable Coding Willingness to Take Financial Risks Substantial Risk 3 Above Average Risk 2 Average Risk 1 No Risk 0 Demographics Gender Male 1 Female 0 Fi nancial Education In High School Yes=1; No=0 In the Community Yes=1; No=0 Race White 1 Black 2 Hispanic 3 Asian 4 Other 5 Marital Status Single (including divorced, separated, widowed) 0 Married/Cohabitating 1 Income $ 0 0 $1 $499 1 $500 $999 2 $1000 and above 3 Social Learning Opportunities Financial discussions with parents Scale Score Financial discussions with peers Scale Score Observe parents behaviors Scale Score Observe friends behaviors Scale Score

PAGE 63

63 Variable Coding: Cumulative Logit Variable Coding Gender Male=1; Female=0 Marital Status (Reference=Single) Married=1 Race (Reference=White) Black Black=1; Other Races=0 Hispanic Hispanic=1; Other Races=0 Asian Asian=1; Other Races=0 Other Other=1; Other Races=0 Income (Reference=None) $1 $499 $1 $499=1; Other incomes=0 $500 $999 $500 $999=1; Other incomes=0 $1000 and above $1000 and above=1; Other income=0 Financial Education High School Yes=1; No=0 Community Yes=1; No=0 Social Learning Financial discussions with parents Scale Score Financial discussions with peers Scale Score Observe parents behaviors Scale Score Observe peers behaviors Scale Score Willingness to Ta ke Financial Risks None vs. Any 1=Any; 0=None High vs. Low 1=High; 0=Low Substantial vs. Lower 1=Substantial;0=Lower

PAGE 64

64 LIST OF REFERENCES Alh abeeb, M. J. (1996). Teenagers money, discretionary spending and saving. Journal of Financial Co unseling and Planning, 7 123 -132. Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1269-1287. Aria, E. (2007). United States life tables, 2004. National Vital Statistics Reports, 56 (9), 1 -40 Bajtelsmit, V. L. & Bernasek, A. (1996). Why do women invest differently than men? Financial Counseling and Planning, 7, 1 10. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press. Bandura, A. & Walters, R. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Berkowitz, A. D. (2003). Applications of social norms theory to other health and social justice issues. In H.W. Perkins (Ed.). The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Ag ed Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, Clinicians. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Bernheim, B. D., Garrett, D. M., & Maki, D. M. (2001). Education and saving: The long term effects of high school financial curriculum mandates. Journal of Public Economics, 80 (3), 435 465. Blau, F. D. & Lawrence, M. K. (2000). Gender differences in pay. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 75-99. Bremner, C. S. (1894). The financial dependence of women. The North American Review, 158 (448), 382384. Buehler, C. & Gerald, J. M. (1995). Divorce law in the United States: A focus on child custody. Family Relations, 44 (4), 439 458. Bush, A. J., Smith, R., & Martin, C. (1999 ). The influence of consumer socialization variables on attitude toward advertising: A comparison of African Americans and Caucasians. Journal of Advertising Research, 28 (3): 1324. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Shafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (3), 367 -383. Capital One Fi nancial Corporation (2003). College, High School Students Need Better Financial Education, August 6. EFT Report 26 1

PAGE 65

65 Carlson, L. & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental style and consumer socialization of children. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 77 -94. C ohen S., & Xiao, J. J. ( 1992 ). Consumer socialization children and money. Childhood Education, 69(1) : 43 -44. Churchill, G. A., & Moschis, G. P. ( 1979) Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research 6 (1): 2335 Danes, S. M. ( 1994). Parental perceptions of childrens financial socialization. Financial Counseling and Planning, 5 127-149. Davies, E., & Lea, S. E. G. (1995). Student attitudes to student debt. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 663-679. Drentea, P., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2000). Over the limit: the association among health, race and debt. Social Science and Medicine, 50 (4): 517 529. Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46 (2), 183-201. Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310321. Eccles-Parsons, J. (1984). Sex differences in math participation. In M L. Maehr & M. W. Steinkamp (Eds.), Women in Science (pp. 93 138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Eccles-Parsons, J., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C. (1982). Fields, J. M. & Casper, L. C. (2001). Americas Families and Living Arrangements Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. Foss, R., Deikkman, S., Bartley, C., & Goodman, A. (2004). Social Norms Program Reduces Measured and Self -Reported Drinking at UNC -CH. The Report on Social Norms: Working Paper #14, Little Falls, NJ, PaperClip Communications. Fox, J. J., Bartholoma e, S., & Gutter, M. S. (2000). What do we know about socialization? Consumer Interest Annual, 46. Frish, H. L. (1977). Sex stereotypes in adult -infant play. Child Development, 48, 1671 1675. Gender R ole. (n.d.). In The American Heritage Stedman's Medic al Dictionary Retrieved September 13, 2009, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender role Ginsburg, H. J. (1982). Sex differences in childrens risk -taking behavior. Child Development, 53(2), 426-428.

PAGE 66

66 Grable, J. E. (2000). Financial risk tolerance and additional factors that affect risk taking in everyday money matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(4), 625630. Grable, J. & Lytton, R. H. (1999). Finan cial r isk tolerance revisited: T he development of a risk assessment instrument Financial Services Review, 8, 163181. Grossbart, S., Carlson, L., & Walsh, A. (1991), Consumer socialization and frequency of shopping with children. Journal of the Academy of Mark eting Science, 19 (3), 155-63. Gutter, M ., Copur, Z. & Garrison, S. T. (2009). Which Students are More Likely to Experience Financial Socialization Opportunities? Networks Financial Institute Working Paper No. 2009-WP -07. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1432523 Hallahan, T. A., Faff, R. W., & McKenzie, M. D. (2004). An empirical investigation of personal financial risk tolerance. Financial Services Review, 13, 57 -78. Hancock, L. & Henry, N. (2003). Perceptions, norms, and tobacco use in college residence hall freshmen: Evaluation of a social norms marketing intervention. In H.W. Perkins (Ed.). The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Aged Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, C ounselors, Clinicians. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. HareMustin, R. T. & Maracek, J. (Eds.). (1990). Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Harris, J. R. (1995). What is the childs environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102(3): 458 -489. Hawley, C. B. & Fujii, E. T. (1993). An empirical analysis of preferences for financial risk: further evidence on the FriedmanSavage model. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 16 (2) 197 -204. Hayhoe, C. R., Leach, L. J., Turner, P. R., Bruin, M. J., & Lawrence, F. C. (2000). Differences in spending habits and credit use of college students. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34(1) : 113133. Hira, T. K. (1997). Financial a ttitudes, beliefs and behaviors: differences by age. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 21, 271290. Jiankoplos, N. & Bernasek, A. (1996). Are women more risk averse? Colorado State University: Working Paper. John, D. R. (1999). Consumer soci alization of children: A retrospective look at twenty five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research 26 (3): 183-213.

PAGE 67

67 Keller, K. L., & Staelin, R. ( 1987 ). Effects of quality and quantity of information on decision effectiveness. Journal of Consumer R esearch, 14 (2) 200 213. Koivula, N. (1999). Sport participation: Differences in motivation and actual participation due to gender typing. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(3), 360380. Lantz, C. D. & Schroeder, P. J. (1999). Endorsement of masculine and femin ine gender roles: Differences between participation in and identification with the athletic role. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(4), 545 -557. Lee, J., & Hogarth, J. ( 1999 ). The price of money: consumers' understanding of APRs and contract interest rates', J ournal of Public Policy and Marketing, 18 (1): 66-76. Levenson, M. R. (1990). Risk taking and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (6), 1073 -1080. Lusardi, A. & Mitchell, O. S. (2007). Baby Boomer retirement security: The roles of planning, financial literacy, and housing wealth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 98, 205224. Lusardi, A. & Mitchell, O. S. (2008). Planning and financial literacy: How do women fare? American Econo mic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 98(2), 413417. Lyons, A. C., Scherpf, E., & Roberts, H. (2006). Financial education and communication between parents and children. Journal of Consumer Education, 23, 64 -76. Marshall, H., & Magruder, L. (1960). Relations between parent, money, education practices, and childrens knowledge and use of money. Child Development, 31 253-284. Mascarenhas, O A. J. & Higby M. A. (1993). Peer, p arent, and m edia i nfluences in t een a pparel s hopping Journal of the Academy of M arketing Science, 21(1), 5358. McNeal, J. V. (1987 ). Children as consumers: insights and implications Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Moore, J. N., Raymond, M. A., Mittelstaedt, J. D., & Tanner, J. F. ( 2002). Age and consumer socialization agent influenc es on adolescents sexual knowledge, attitudes and behavior: Implications for social marketing initiatives and public policy. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1): 37-52 Moschis, G. P. (1985). The role of family communication in consumer socializ ation of children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4): 898 -913. Moschis, G. P. ( 1987) Consumer socialization: A life cycle perspective. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

PAGE 68

68 Moschis, G. P. & Churchill G. A. (1978) Consumer s ocialization: A t heoretical and e mpirical a nalysis Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 599609. Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. (1984). Anticipatory consumer socialization. Academy of Marketing Science, 12 (4) : 109-123. Norvilitis, J. M., Merwin, M. M., Osberg, T. M., Roehling, P. V., Young, P. & Kamas, M. M. (2006). Personality factors, money attitudes, financial knowledge, and credit card debt in college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36 (6), 1395 1413. Perkins, H. W. & Craig, D. A. (2002). A Multi faceted Soc ial Norms Approach to Reduce High-Risk Drinking: Lessons from Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Newton, MA: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Porter, N. M. & Garman, E. T. (1993). Testing a conceptual model of financial wellbeing. Financial Counseling and Planning, 4, 135 -164. Shapiro, A. M. (1996). Explaining psychological distress in a sample of remarried and divorced persons. Journal of Family Issues 17 186203. Sung, J. & Hanna, S. (1995 ). Factors related to househol d risk tolerance: An ordered probit analysis. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the American Council on Consumer Interests 221-228. Sung, J, & Hanna, S. (1996). Factors related to risk tolerance. Financial Counseling and Planning, 7 1119. Uni ted States Census Bureau. (2008). POV01: Age and sex of all People, family members and unrelated i ndividuals iterated by income -to poverty ratio and r ace: 2007. Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/pov/new01_100_01.htm United States Department of Commerce. (2000). Educational Attainment in the United States, Population Characteristics Prepared by the Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1 1 14. Ward, S., Klees, D. M., & Wackman, D. B. (1991). Consumer socialization research: Content analysis of post -1980 studies and some i mplications for future work, in advances in consumer research, R.H. Holman and M .R. Solomon, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 798-803. Warner, N. & Cramer, S. (1995). Saving behavior. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 19 5 7 67.

PAGE 69

69 Watson, J. & McNaughton, M. (2007). Gender differences in risk aversion and expected retirement benefits. Financial Analysts Journal, 63(4), 52-62. Webley, P., & Nyhus, E. K. (2006). Parents influence of childrens future orientation and saving. Jou rnal of Economic Psychology, 27, 140164. Yao, R., Gutter, M. S., & Hanna, S. D. (2005). The financial risk tolerance of blacks, Hispanics, and whites. Financial Counseling and Planning, 16(1), 5162. Valence, G., dAstous, A., & Fourtier, L. (1988) Compu lsive buying: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Policy, 11 419 -433.

PAGE 70

70 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Selena Garrison graduated from The Kings Academy (West Palm Beach, FL) in 2004. She began coursework at the University of Florida in fall of 2004, graduating with a Bachelor of Science in p sychology and a Bachelor of Science in Family, Youth, and Community Sciences in May of 2008. She began her graduate studies at the University of Florida in August of 2008, pursuing a Master of Science degree in Family, Y outh, and Community Sciences, with special interest in family financial management.