The effect of a financial education intervention
on the financial behavior of MBO students
-
and the moderating role of a window of
opportunity and stress
July 18, 2016
By:
The effect of a financial education intervention
on the financial behavior of MBO students
-
and the moderating role of a window of
opportunity and stress
Master’s thesis, MSc Marketing
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Abstract
The amount of households in the Netherlands that calls upon professional assistance for their debt problems is steadily rising over the past couple of years. Debts are a large cost item for municipalities, not only due to implementation costs of debt relief work, but also because of extra costs in welfare and social housing. To counter debt problems and change financial behavior, organizations like the
NIBUD and Groninger Kredietbank (GKB) organize preventive campaigns, or financial education interventions, focused on enhancing the financial competencies, knowledge and insight of consumers. This study explores the effect of a financial education intervention on the financial behavior of intermediate vocational education students. Also the moderating roles of the window of opportunity and the perceived stress on this effect are investigated.
A survey was conducted among 89 intermediate vocational education students at two different colleges that participated in the financial education intervention ‘Jouw Schuld = Jouw Schuld’. The results show that the intervention only has a small effect on the financial behavior of the students. This would suggest that the parties organizing the interventions should actively search for more effective ways to reach their goals.
Key Words:
Table of contents Introduction 1 Literature Review 2 Financial behavior 2 Financial education 3 Window of opportunity 3 Stress 4
The conceptual model 6
Methodology 6 Participants 6 Design 7 Measures 7 Materials 8 Demographic variables 8
Independent variable: Financial education intervention 8
Moderator variable 1: Window of Opportunity 8
Moderator variable 2: Stress 9
Dependent variable: Attitude to debt 9
Dependent variable: Impulsivity 10
Dependent variable: Keeping track of the bank account 10 Dependent variable: Keeping track of the monthly income 10
Dependent variable: Financial planning 11
Procedure 11
Analysis plan 11
Results 12
Attitude on debt 12
Impulsivity 14
Keeping track of bank account 17
Keeping track of income 20
Financial planning 23
Discussion 26
Limitations and further research 27
References 28
Appendix A: The Questionnaire 33
1
Introduction
The amount of households in the Netherlands that calls upon professional assistance for their debt problems is steadily rising over the past couple of years. A report by Geuns (2011) stated that in 2010 for the first time in Dutch history there were more than 100.000 households that were in debt
counseling. A research by Kerckhaert & de Ruig (2013) stated that in 2012, one in five households had a high risk of getting in problematic debts. The 100.000 households that are known to professional debt counseling form only the tip of the iceberg. A significantly higher amount of households is ‘invisible’ to the debt counseling organizations because they do not seek help. The most recent report of Westhof & de Ruig (2015) estimated the total amount of households with high risk debts between 1322.000 and 1425.000 which is around 18 percent of the total amount of households in the
Netherlands.
All these debts are a huge burden for the debtor, the creditor and the society in material costs as well as immaterial costs. In the report ‘Debt relief work is worth it’ Jungmann et al. (2011) explains that debts are a large cost item for municipalities, not only due to implementation costs of debt relief work, but also because of extra costs in welfare and social housing. Furthermore, the report ‘Debts in the workplace’ by Nibud (2012) shows that problematic debts of employees cause substantial issues for employers. Aarts (2011) showed that just one household with high risk debts costs the society as a whole more than €100.000,-.
These problematic debts are almost always the result of someone’s behavior (Geuns et al. 2011). Jungmann (2012) compares irresponsible financial behavior with smoking cigarettes or eating
unhealthy food. People can explain in words why it is beneficial for them not to get in too much debts. However, when it comes to their behavior, they are drawn into commitments they cannot keep, let unopened letters lie around and spend their money on impulse.
To counter debt problems and change financial behavior, organizations like the NIBUD and Groninger Kredietbank (GKB) organize preventive campaigns focused on enhancing the financial competencies, knowledge and insight of consumers. The goal of this financial education is to give the consumer the ability to make the right financial decisions independently. The campaign ‘Jouw Schuld = Jouw Schuld’ issued by the GKB is an example of a campaign aiming to change the financial behavior of intermediate vocational education students (from now on: MBO students).1 This thesis researches the effects of this campaign on the behavior of the students and shows how stress and the timing of the campaign in the life of a student influence these effects.
1
2
Literature review
Financial behavior
To understand the relationship between financial education interventions and financial behavior it is important to have an understanding of the concept of financial behavior. This is the behavior that contributes in a negative or positive way to the financial situation of a person. A research by Jungmann et al. (2012) provides us with a definition of healthy financial behavior:
‘Healthy financial behavior is behavior that prevents arrears in payments for the present and future. To be able to perform this behavior it is necessary that the amount of spending is consistent with the income and one has his financial management in order. This final point means that one has a financial planning for the medium and long term and is aware of possible financial risks and takes measures in order to handle these risks. (maintaining a financial buffer, keep their recurring expenses manageable etc.)’. As this definition shows, financial behavior is comprised of a score of different determinants. According to the theory of planned behavior by Ajzen (1991), behavior is predicted by the intention of a person to behave in a certain way. This intention is determined by the attitude about their behavior, the subjective norm of their social environment and lastly, the perceived behavioral control. In order to perform healthy financial behavior a person should have a negative attitude about being in debt. When a person has a more positive attitude about debts, there is a higher risk of getting in problematic debts. (Geuns et al 2011). A problematic debt situation occurs when a person is not able to repay his debts anymore, or has already stopped paying off his debts. (NVVK 2014). Another important factor of healthy financial behavior is the managing of finances. According to Madern and van der Schors (2012) people that are not keeping track of their bank account and income take high risks, which may lead to problematic debts. People should have a financial planning for the medium and long term in order to behave responsible financially. However, Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior has received a lot of critic over the years by people who believe behavior is not always rational and planned in a certain way. A meta-research by Tiemeyer et al (2009) showed that people make choices in a non-rational way. Some people are more focused on the short term, are more sensitive to temptations and show more impulsive buying behavior, which in turn leads to a higher risk of getting in debts
(Westhof & de Ruig 2015). In summary, the attitude a person has about debts, the planning and the degree of keeping track of his finances and the impulsivity of a person determine the financial behavior of a person. According to Lunt & Livingstone (1991), sufficient financial knowledge is a precondition in order to be able to perform healthy financial behavior.
Financial education
3
patterns of financial behavior. On the one hand there are articles like Lyons (2007) and Bell (2009), that showed that students and soldiers who received financial education were less likely to be at-risk financially later on and showed a significant difference in financial behavior. On the other hand, Bernheim and Garrett (1997) did not find a relationship between financial education in high school and household financial welfare or behavior. Moreover, Fernandes, Lynch, and Netemeyer (2014) conducted a meta-analysis that covered 168 papers and found that financial education interventions studied explained only about 0,1% of the variance in the financial behaviors studied. The average effects of the interventions were even weaker when directed at low-income rather than general population samples.
Researchers like Lusardi and Mitchell (2014) are also cautious on the effect of financial education. They did a research on different research papers from around the world and state that it is challenging to establish a causal link between financial literacy and economic behavior. In their research, both instrumental variables and experimental approaches suggest that financial literacy plays a role in influencing financial decision making. and the causality goes from knowledge to behavior.
In contrast, Hilgert et al. (2003) states that it could also be the other way around, consumers could gain financial knowledge by managing their finances effectively, and factors such as family, experiences and economic socialization impact on knowledge, attitudes and ultimately behavior.
Thus, these studies show mixed results on the effectiveness of financial education on changing
financial behavior. In light of these differing results in the literature, it would be interesting to measure if there is indeed an effect of the intervention campaign Jouw Schuld = Jouw Schuld on the financial behavior of the students and this will therefore be the primary aim of this study.
Window of opportunity
4
Behavior under the control of habit is improved by changing habits, which can occur more readily when a consumer is in a transition from one environment to another (Verplanken & Roy 2016; Verplanken & Wood 2006). Thus, according to this research, there are specific moments in the life of a person when interventions such as the ‘Jouw Schuld = Jouw Schuld’ campaign are more effective. The moments in life where a person is in a transition from one environment to another can be defined as a ‘window of opportunity’ (Bamberg 2006; Schäfer et al. 2011, Schäfer & Bamberg 2008;
Thøgersen 2009). The change of environment happens for example for students who arrive in the first class of MBO (for the first time). At this moment their social environment changes. Also, when they turn 18, they are provided with an option to borrow money from the government. This brings them in a situation where they have to make certain choices on how to handle their finances. Sometimes they will be living on their own for the first time, or get their first real job. These discontinuities in their environment may force people to renegotiate ways of doing things. It creates a need for information to make the new choices they are facing, and a mind-set of being ‘in the mood for change’. Madern (2015) states in her dissertation on healthy financial behavior that interventions that capitalize on these conditions may be more effective, compared to interventions under default conditions.
There already is some research on the effects of behavioral change interventions that were delivered in the context of a ‘window of opportunity’. Bamberg (2006) and Thøgerson (2012) both did research on travel behavior and found that people who did a recent residential relocation were more responsive to an intervention to increase their use of public transportation. Verplanken and Roy (2016) did a research on an intervention to promote sustainable lifestyles and found that the intervention was more effective among recently relocated participants. However, a research on the effects of an intervention to influence financial behavior in a ‘window of opportunity’ has not yet been done. Based on the above, it is expected that an intervention has a greater effect on the financial behavior of a student that is in a transition of environment. This will be investigated further in this thesis.
Stress
Next to the window of opportunity, another influential variable on changing financial behavior is the stress a person perceives. Stress is defined by Lazarus & Folkman (1984) as an individual’s
5
‘coping’ is defined by Folkman (1984) as: “cognitive and behavioral efforts to master, reduce, or tolerate the internal and/or external demands that are created by the stressful transaction”. There are numerous different coping strategies that people apply in response to stress. Suls and Fletcher (1985) made two meaningful categorizations of the responses to stress: active versus passive, or avoidant coping. Folkman and Lazarus (1980) did a research in which 1300 stressful episodes of people were analyzed. They found that when a situation was assessed as changeable, people used an active approach to solve the situation. When the situation was assessed as not or less changeable, people became more passive or avoidant. Perceived stress is an indicator of the degree to which
environmental demands exceed the abilities to cope. (Cohen 1988). Thus, when the degree of perceived stress increases, there is a higher chance of passive or avoidant behavior. A research by Frenzel et al. (1988) shows that higher perceived stress leads to higher failure from diabetics to control their blood sugar levels. Also, in a research about quitting smoking by Glasgow et al. (1985), a higher perceived stress leads to an increased chance of failure in to quit smoking. According to Sandler (2000) , perceived stress also negatively influences the decision making ability. In relation to financial education, LePine et al. (2004) stated that stress that is experienced as a hindrance has a negative influence on students’ motivation to learn and their learning performance. There is, however, no research available on the influence of stress on the effectiveness on financial education
interventions. The literature suggests that stress is potentially an important factor in the financial behavior of people and / or the effectiveness on financial education interventions. The direct effect on the financial behavior and the moderating effect of stress on the effectiveness of the financial
6
The conceptual model
In the introductory part of the thesis the following concepts were discussed and they will be investigated in this thesis:
- The influence of the financial education intervention on the financial behavior of the students. - The influence of the window of opportunity on the financial behavior of students.
- The influence of the window of opportunity on the effects of the financial education intervention on the financial behavior of students.
- The influence of stress on the effects of the financial education intervention on the financial behavior of students.
- The influence of stress on the financial behavior of students.
Which results in the following conceptual model:
Methodology
Participants
A total of 89 participants took part in this study. The population was selected amongst 2 different MBO schools in Groningen that participated in the ‘Jouw Schuld = Jouw Schuld’ Campaign. These schools are the Alfa-college and the Menso Alting college. Not every class of these schools took part in the campaign. A sample was taken from both classes that did participate and those who did not. Out of all participants, 65 subjects did participate in the campaign and 24 did not participate in the
financial education intervention. The subjects have a varied educational background in; fashion, nursing, financial administration and social care. The survey was conducted amongst 17 men and 70 women. The average age was 18,6 with a range of 16 to 25 years old. All participants received the same questionnaire with an accompanying introduction. (See Appendix A)
Financial Education Intervention Financial behavior
Window of Opportunity
7
Design
The factorial design consists of one factor with two levels. The factor is the participation in the financial education intervention and the condition levels are the people that did and did not participate in the intervention. Furthermore, the influence of two moderators on the relationship between financial education and the financial behavior of the participants was tested. First, if there was a window of opportunity and secondly, the continuous variable of the perceived stress of the participant.
Measures
In order to answer the main question and to investigate the effects of the variables, different concepts were measured in the questionnaire.
The questionnaire is divided in four parts:
1) Part one measures the demographic characteristics of the population.
2) Part two deals with the topic of financial behavior and consists of four sub-parts:
a. The first sub-part is titled: ‘How do you feel about money?’ and measures the attitude
to debt scale (Davies & Lea, 1995) and impulsiveness.
b. The second sub-part is titled: ‘Financial problems’ and measures the knowledge on
financial aid and the intention on asking for help.
c. The third sub-part is titled: ‘Your own financial situation’ and measures to what
extent the participant is keeping track of his/her finances, the financial behavior and to what extent the participant is worried about his/her financial matters.
d. The fourth sub-part is titled: ‘Distributing money’ and measures the priorities of
spending income.
3) Part three measures the concepts of the window of opportunity and the Perceived Stress Scale
(Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein 1983; Cohen & Williamson 1988).
4) Part four measures the optimism of the participants, but was not part of this research. In total
8
Materials
Demographic variables
Apart from questions to test the different hypotheses and measure the different constructs, the
participants are asked for a few demographic variables. These variables are: age, sex, study type, study level, and in which year of the study they are in. These variables could help determine if there are significant differences between certain segments of students and how they are influenced by the different constructs. Study type is a discrete nominal variable and it shows that the participants come from 7 different study types. The study level variable is related to the study type of the participants and ranges from 1 to 4 in which level 1 has the lowest requirements and level 4 the highest. For example, the study type ‘Bedrijfsadministrateur’ is only taught on level 4.
Independent variable: Financial education intervention
This part consists only of one closed question: ‘Did you participate in the campaign of ‘Jouw Schuld = Jouw Schuld?’. The ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer puts the subject in one of the two levels of the factorial design. In total, 65 did participate and 24 did not participate. The intervention consisted of mandatory workshops in cooperation with the Groninger Krediet Bank (GKB) and the Dienst Uitvoering
Onderwijs (DUO). The first organization handles debts of the inhabitants of Groningen and the second one student debts. During these workshops, students were taught how to handle their income and expenses, their spending temptations, and how to deal with debts and the prevention of debts.
Moderator variable 1: Window of Opportunity
9
the possibility of a student loan2. It is therefore expected that students who will turn 18 in the near future will have a higher involvement with regard to financial behavior. There is no measurement of months until a person will live on his own. Firstly, this is because a student does not always know up front whether or not he will be living on his own in the coming months. The decision of moving to a place of their own can be made at any given time. Secondly, students are not always aware of the changes in their environment they will be experiencing in case they are moving on their own. These inconsistencies would give messy data for the analysis. When the range of three months prior to, and after, reaching the age of 18 is taken into consideration, a total of 15 people were in a window of opportunity. There are 3 participants that moved out of their parents’ house to a place of their own within a three-month period. In conclusion, there is a total of 18 participants that fall in the category of a window of opportunity.
When a range of 6 months is used, a total of 41 participants is within the category of window of opportunity. Both the 3-month and the 6-month window of opportunity will be analyzed to investigate if there is a significant difference between a narrow and a wide timeframe of the window of
opportunity.
Moderator variable 2: Stress
To measure the stress construct, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is used (Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein 1983; Cohen & Williamson 1988). This list of questions measures to what extent someone perceived life in the past month as stressful and to what extent someone had control over situations in the past month. (For example ‘How often did you feel stressed in the past month?’ and ‘In the last month, how often have you been angered because of things that were outside of your control?’). The original version of the PSS consisted of 14 items, however the authors advise to use the version with 10 items. (Cohen et al. 1988) The items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ (score= 0) to ‘very often’ (score= 4). Four items of the scale are formulated negatively and are therefore recoded. The scores of the individual items were averaged into an interval scale (α = .85; M = 3,43, SD = 0,69) A higher value indicates higher perceived stress. For this research the questions are translated from English to easy to understand Dutch.
Dependent variable: Attitude to debt
The first part of the survey tests the attitude on having debts. This attitude to debt scale is based on the article by Lea et al. (1995). It consists of an 8 item scale that measures the attitude on theorems related to debt (for example: ‘It is important to live within one’s means’). The items are scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The items 1 and 8 in this scale are negatively formulated (for example: ‘Taking out a loan is a good thing because it allows you to enjoy
2
10
life’). The scores of the individual items were averaged into an interval scale (α = .50; M = 5,60, SD = 0,62). A higher value indicates a more negative attitude towards having debts.
In this research, with a deleted item 3 (e.g.: ‘Being in debt is never a good thing’), there was a Cronbach’s Alpha of only 0,501. This means the reliability of the theoretical scale in this research is poor compared to the results in prior research. This could be due to the fact that the Cronbach’s Alpha is obtained by only measuring the response of the sample of 89 participants. The research by Lea et al. (1995) showed a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,830. In the research by Haultain (2009) the alphas of a several studies using the Attitude to debt scale are compared. Lea et al (1993) found an alpha of 0,70 in a study on households in the United Kingdom. A study of New Zealand university students conducted by Boddington and Kemp (Boddington & Kemp, 1999) found a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,67. In unpublished New Zealand studies, Tang (2004) found an alpha of 0,65 (amongst Asian students in New Zealand), and Haultain (2006) found 0,67 in a small secondary school sample. Two studies of New Zealand university graduates found an alpha of 0,64 (Rawson, 2005), and 0,68 (Zhang, 2007). Even though the alpha for the scale is low for this sample, prior research indicates that the Attitude to debt scale used in this research is reliable and it will therefore still be used for the analysis.
Dependent variable: Impulsivity
The impulsiveness to spend of the respondent is measured with two questions (e.g.: ‘I am often
tempted to buy things’ and ‘I often buy things spontaneously’). The items are scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The scores of the individual items were averaged into an interval scale (α = .80; M = 4,80, SD = 1,48). A higher score indicates a more impulsive spending behavior.
Dependent variable: Keeping track of the bank account
This item measures to what extent the participant is keeping track of his or her bank account. The question is: ‘I approximately know how much money is currently in my bank account’. The item is scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The score was averaged into an interval scale (M = 6,47, SD = 1,08) A higher score indicates that the participant keeps better track of his or her bank account.
Dependent variable: Keeping track of the monthly income
11 Dependent variable: Financial Planning
The financial planning is measured using a 4 item scale that measures the attitude on theorems
concerning the financial planning of the participant (for example: ‘I try to save money for the future’). The items are scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The scores of the individual items were averaged into an interval scale (α = .68; M = 5,53, SD = 1,00). A higher score indicates a more positive financial behavior. Item 4 (e.g.: ‘When I have money, I spend it instantly’)was deleted to get an acceptable internal consistency.
Procedure
The surveys were filled in during class with a supervisor present. The supervisor saw to it that consultation between participants was kept to a minimum and possible questions about the survey questions were answered. Beforehand, there was a small introduction speech to explain the purpose of the survey. Filling in the questionnaire took about 20 minutes..
Analysis plan
When the questionnaires were returned, they were numbered and put into a data-set. The results were then analyzed using SPSS version 22. All data was first examined for outliers, faults and missing values. The different scales were tested for their reliability by measuring the Cronbach’s Alpha of the scales. When the scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,6 or higher it is seen as reliable.
The regression analysis will be performed by regressing these variables over the DV’s of financial behavior. For each of the outcome variables of financial behavior (Attitude to debt, Impulsivity, Keeping track of bank account, Keeping track of income, and Planning) a seven-stage hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between financial education intervention (coded no = -1 and yes = 1) and the moderating effects of perceived stress and window of opportunity (coded no = -1 and yes =1)on this relationship. The Intervention variable was entered at stage one of the regression to measure the effect of the intervention on behavior. Perceived stress was entered at stage two of the regression to measure the effect of perceived stress on behavior. The interaction term between intervention and stress was entered in stage three, to investigate the
12
Results
Attitude on debt
The regression statistics of the analysis are reported in Table 1. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one the intervention did not significantly contribute to the regression model, R2 = .02, F (1, 85) = 1.83, p = .180. This variable accounted for 2,1% of the variance in attitude to debt. The intervention did not significantly predict attitude on debt, B = .10, t (1,85) = 1.353, p = .180 In model 2, perceived stress did not significantly contribute to the regression model, R2 = .02, F (2, 84) = .97, p = .721. The variables accounted for 2,3% of the variance in attitude to debt. Additionally, perceived stress did not significantly correlate withattitude on debt, B = -.02, t(1,84) = -0.36, p = .721. In model 3, the interaction term between intervention and perceived stress was added. This interaction did not contribute significantly to the model, R2 = .05, F (2, 83) = 1.39, p = .141. The variables accounted for 4,8% of the variance in attitude to debt. In this model, both intervention, t (1,83) = 1.51, p = .141, and perceived stress t (1,83) = -1.14, p = .257, remained not significant. The interaction term was also not significant t = 1.49, p = .141. In model 4, the window of opportunity did not significantly contribute to the regression model R2 = .05, F (2, 82) = 1.08, p = .684. These
variables accounted for 5% of the variance in attitude to debt. Also, the intervention t(1,82) = 1.53, p = .131 and perceived stress t (1,82) = -1.19, p = .238 and interaction term between intervention and perceived stress t (1,82) = 1.15, p = .148 remained non-significant predictors for attitude on debt. The window of opportunity did not influence the attitude on debt, B = .03, t(1,82) = 0.41, p = .684. In model 5, the interaction term between intervention and window of opportunity was added. This interaction did not contribute significantly to the model, R2 = .05, F (2, 81) =.85, p = .894. These variables accounted for 5% of the variance in attitude to debt. In this model, the intervention t (1,81) = 1.52, p = .132, perceived stress t (1,81) = -1.19, p = .239 and window of opportunity t (1,81) = .42, p = .674 remained not significant. The interaction term between the intervention and window of
13
interaction term between intervention and perceived stress t (1,79) = 1.22, p = .225, the window of opportunity t (1,79) = 0.15, p = .881, and both the interaction terms between window of opportunity and the intervention t (1,79) = -0.09, p = .932 and stress t (1,79) = -0.07, p = .947 were not significant. Finally, the interaction between all the independent variables was tested and was found not to be significant, with t (1,79) = 1.52, p = .132.
Table 1. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting attitude to debt.
14
Impulsivity
The regression statistics of the analysis are reported in Table 2. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one the intervention contributed significantly to the regression model, R2 = .05, F (1, 85) = 4.26, p = .042, and accounted for 4,8% of the variance in impulsivity. There is a negative relationship between the intervention and impulsivity B = -0.38, t (1,85) = -2.07, p = .042.
Participating in a financial education intervention does lead to a lower impulsivity. In model 2,
perceived stress did not significantly contribute to the regression model, R2 = .05, F (2, 84) = 2.23, p = .630. The variables accounted for 5% of the variance in attitude to debt. Additionally, perceived stress did not significantly correlate withimpulsivity, B = .08, t(1,84) = 0.48, p = .630. The intervention remained a significant predictor of impulsivity, t (1,84) = -2.09, p = .040. In model 3, the interaction term between intervention and perceived stress was added. This interaction did not contribute
significantly to the model, R2 = .06, F (2, 83) = 1.70, p = .424. The variables accounted for 5,8% of the variance in attitude to debt. In this model, the intervention remained a significant predictor of
impulsivity, t (1,83) = -2.00, p = .049. Perceived stress t (1,83) = -0.06, p = .951, remained not significant. The interaction term was also not significant t (1,83)= 0.804, p = .424. In model 4, the window of opportunity did not significantly contribute to the regression model R2 = .06, F (2, 82) = 1.39, p = .479. These variables accounted for 6,4% of the variance in impulsivity. The intervention remained a significant predictor of impulsivity, t (1,82) = -2.05, p = .044. Perceived stress t (1,82) = 0.06, p = .956 and interaction term between intervention and perceived stress t (1,82) = 0.83, p = .410 remained non-significant predictors for attitude on debt. The window of opportunity did not
significantly correlate with impulsivity, B = -.12, t(1,82) = -0.71, p = .479. In model 5, the interaction term between intervention and window of opportunity was added. This interaction did not contribute significantly to the model, R2 = .07, F (2, 81) =1.29, p = .341. These variables accounted for 7,4% of the variance in impulsivity. In this model, the intervention remained a significant predictor of impulsivity, t (1,81) = -2.03, p = .046. Perceived stress t (1,81) = 0.02, p = .988 and window of opportunity t (1,81) = -0.20, p = .840 remained not significant. The interaction term between the intervention and window of opportunity was also not significant t (1,81) = -0.96, p = .341. In model 6, the interaction term between the moderators perceived stress and window of opportunity was added. This interaction did not contribute significantly to the model, R2 = .07, F (2, 80) = 1.07, p = .881. These variables accounted for 7,4% of the variance in impulsivity. In this model, the intervention remained a significant predictor of impulsivity, t (1,80) = -2.02, p = .047. Perceived stress t (1,80) = 0.00, p = .997, the interaction term between intervention and perceived stress t (1,80) = 0.98, p = .333, the window of opportunity t (1,80) = -0.20, p = .844 and both the interaction terms between window of opportunity, intervention t (1,80) = -0.96, p = .338 and stress t (1,80) = 0.15, p = .881, were not
15
16
Table 2. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting impulsivity.
17
Keeping track of bank account
The regression statistics of the analysis are reported in Table 3. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one the intervention did not contribute significantly to the regression model, R2 = .00, F (1, 85) = 0.10, p = .752, and only accounted for 0,1% of the variance in keeping track of the bank account. There is no significant relationship between the intervention and keeping track of the bank account B = -0.04, t (1,85) = -014, p = .752. This result indicates that participating in a financial education intervention does not lead to keeping a better track of the bank account. In model 2,
18
19
20
Keeping track of income
The regression statistics of the analysis are reported in Table 4. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one the intervention did not contribute significantly to the regression model, R2 = .01, F (1, 85) = 0.39, p = .354, and only accounted for 1% of the variance in keeping track of income. There is no significant relationship between the intervention and keeping track of income, B = 0.08, t (1,85) = 0.63, p = .534. This result indicates that participating in a financial education intervention does not lead to keeping a better track of income. In model 2, perceived stress did not significantly contribute to the regression model, R2 = .01, F (2, 84) = 0.41, p = .517. The variables accounted for 1% of the variance in keeping track of income. Perceived stress did not significantly correlate with keeping track of income, B = -0.08, t(1,84) = -0.65, p = .517. The intervention remained not significant, t (1,84) = 0.67, p = .503. In model 3, the interaction term between intervention and perceived stress was added. This interaction did not contribute significantly to the model, R2 = .01, F (2, 83) = 0.27, p = .966. The variables accounted for 1% of the variance in keeping track of the bank account. In this model, the intervention t (1,83) = 0.67, p = .504 and perceived stress t (1,83) = -0.56, p = .579, remained not significant. The interaction term was also not significant t (1,83)= 0.04, p = .966. In model 4, the window of opportunity did significantly contribute to the regression model R2 = .07, F (2, 82) = 1.43, p = .030 and accounted for 5,6% in the variance of keeping track of income. These variables together accounted for 6,5% of the variance in keeping track of income. The
intervention t (1,82) = 0.52, p = .608, perceived stress t (1,82) = -0.20, p = .841 and interaction term between intervention and perceived stress t (1,82) = 0.13, p = .901 remained non-significant
predictors. The window of opportunity did significantly correlate with keeping track of income. The window of opportunity has a negative influence on keeping track of income B = -0.26, t (1,82) = -2.21, p = .030. In model 5, the interaction term between intervention and window of opportunity was added. This interaction did not contribute significantly to the model, R2 = .08, F (2, 81) = 1.18, p = .637. These variables accounted for 6,8% of the variance in keeping track of bank account. In this model, the window of opportunity B = -0.27, t (1,81) = -2.17, p = .033 remained significant. The intervention t (1,81) = 0.51, p = .615, perceived stress t (1,81) = -0.18, p = .858 and the interaction term between intervention and stress t (1,81) = 0.04, p = .965 remained not significant. The interaction term between the intervention and window of opportunity was also not significant t (1,81) = 0.47, p = .637. In model 6, the interaction term between the moderators perceived stress and window of opportunity was added. This interaction did not contribute significantly to the model, R2 = .08, F (2, 80) 1.08, p = .424. These variables accounted for 7,5% of the variance in keeping track of income. In this model, the intervention t (1,80) = 0.47, p = .643, perceived stress t (1,80) = -0.24, p = .812, the interaction term between intervention and perceived stress t (1,80) = 0.24, p = .812 and both the interaction terms between window of opportunity and intervention t (1,80) = 0.35, p = .724, and window of opportunity and stress t (1,80) = 0.80, p = .424, were not significant. The window of opportunity remained
21
moderators perceived stress and window of opportunity and the independent variable of the
22
Table 4. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting keeping track of
23
Financial planning
The regression statistics of the analysis are reported in Table 5. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one the intervention did not contribute significantly to the regression model, R2 = .01, F (1, 85) = 0.84, p = .362, and only accounted for 1% of the variance in financial planning. There is no significant relationship between the intervention and financial planning, B = 0.11, t (1,85) = 0.92, p = .362. This result indicates that participating in a financial education intervention does not lead to better financial planning. In model 2, perceived stress did not significantly contribute to the regression model, R2 = .04, F (2, 84) = 1.72, p = .111. The variables accounted for 4% of the variance in financial planning. Perceived stress did not significantly correlate withfinancial planning, B = 0.17, t(1,84) = -1.61, p = .111. The intervention remained not significant, t (1,84) = 1.04, p = .300. In model 3, the interaction term between intervention and perceived stress was added. This interaction did not contribute significantly to the model, R2 = .06, F (2, 83) = 1.56, p = .273. The variables accounted for 5,5% of the variance in financial planning. In this model, the intervention t (1,83) = 0.94, p = .350 and perceived stress t (1,83) = -0.70, p = .484, remained not significant. The interaction term was also not significant t (1,83)= -1.10, p = .273. In model 4, the window of opportunity did not significantly contribute to the regression model R2 = .08, F (2, 82) = 1.68, p = .162. The variables together accounted for 7,8% of the variance in financial planning. The intervention t (1,82) = 1.05, p = .296, perceived stress t (1,82) = -0.94, p = .350 and interaction term between intervention and perceived stress t (1,82) = -1.17, p = .245 remained non-significant predictors. Also, the window of opportunity did not significantly correlate with financial planning B = 0.16, t (1,82) = 1.41, p = .162. In model 5, the interaction term between intervention and window of opportunity was added. This interaction did not contribute significantly to the model, R2 = .08, F (2, 81) = 1.34, p = .853. These variables
24
the intervention t (1,79) = 0.78, p = .436, perceived stress t (1,79) = -0.63, p = .533, the interaction term between intervention and perceived stress t (1,79) = -1.16, p = .250, the window of opportunity t (1,79) = 1.01, p = .314 and both the interaction terms between window of opportunity and the
intervention t (1,79) = 0.19, p = .848 and window of opportunity and stress t (1,79) = 0.06, p = .949 remain not significant. Finally, the interaction between all the independent variables was tested and was found not to be significant, with t (1,79) = 0.85, p = .397.
25
Table 5. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting financial planning.
26
Discussion
The main reason for this research was to find out if financial education intervention had an effect on the financial behavior of MBO students. Organizations like the NIBUD and Groninger Kredietbank (GKB) invest substantially in these preventive campaigns focused on enhancing the financial
competencies, knowledge and insight of consumers. Past research has shown that the effects of these financial education interventions on financial behavior are marginal. As it turns out, the same result was obtained in this research. No significant effects were measured in the analysis. It seems that the students that did receive the financial education do not change their financial behavior significantly.
Scientific literature suggested that the effects of an intervention could be influenced positively by a window of opportunity. However, no evidence of such nature was found in this research. The effects of the intervention were not moderated by the window of opportunity. This could be due to the fact that the intervention had almost no effect on the financial behavior of the students on itself. The window of opportunity also did not have a direct effect on the financial behavior of students. This comes as a surprise as the financial environment of the person in question is expected to change significantly.
Furthermore, stress was expected to be an important factor in changing the financial behavior of students. The analysis showed no significant effects of perceived stress on the effectiveness of the intervention, nor a direct effect on the financial behavior of students. This could be the result of different coping strategies applied by the students. According to this theory by Suls and Fletcher (1985), some students will actively search for a solution to cope with stress and they will try to change their behavior. Other students will take on an avoidant approach and pretend to not see the problems caused by their behavior. These opposite reactions to stress could negate the potential effects that are measured in the analysis.
Although the main goal of the considered financial education intervention was to influence the financial behavior of students, the discussed outcomes of this research indicates a lack of effect. According to this outcome, organizations like NIBUD and the GKB could be better off in trying a different approach in influencing the financial behavior of MBO students.
27
The report of Jungmann (2011) mentions critical success factors for educational programs. First, financial education should be differentiated for different groups. A program sorts the biggest effect if the needs of the target group are known, there is a specific lack of knowledge that can be targeted, and the opportunity is right. In this case, the financial education intervention was the same for all of the schools and the different study types. The education should be targeted at the specific needs of the students receiving it in order to be more effective. Second, success also depends on the tone that is set and the ‘framing’ of the message. Too much negative ‘framing’ could lead to students feeling unable to cope with to cope with the problem and perform passive or evasive behavior. Thirdly, the
educational programs should be structured. If new behavior is not reinforced again and again, people fall back into old behavior. Therefore, financial education could have a better effectiveness if it was a regular part of secondary school and higher education.
Limitations and further research.
The study was performed by using a survey that was issued in a class setting. This particular method causes a few disadvantages: first, the survey was quite extensive, consisting of 60 questions in total. For the participants it was challenging to stay patient and focused on the questionnaire. This could potentially have caused participants to answer questions hastily and less truthful. Second, students were sitting next to each other and were sometimes consulting on the answers which may have caused some influence on one another.
Furthermore, the sample population is reasonably small with a total number of 89 participants, which could have implications for the external validity of the study. Nevertheless, the results of the study match the existing literature. The survey was performed not long after the financial education intervention. The effects that are measured in the analysis could therefore be only short-term effects. To get a better understanding of the effects of financial education interventions, a more longitudinal research should be performed. This research only has an in-between-participants design to analyze the differences in financial behavior. A longitudinal research could also measure the effects in a within-participants design to get a better insight of the change in financial behavior of the within-participants of the financial education intervention.
To get a better understanding of the effects of stress on the effectiveness of the intervention, the different coping strategies of the participants could be investigated. These could be measured by using the Coping List of Utrecht for Adolescents (Bijstra et al. 1994), for example.
28
29
References:
Aarts, H. (2009), “Gewoontegedrag: de automatische piloot van mens en maatschappij,” In: W.L. Tiemeijer, C.A. Thomas, & H.M. Prast, De menselijke beslisser. Over de psychologie van keuze en gedrag, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 139-162.
Aarts, L., Douma, K., Friperson, R., Schrijvershof, C., & Schut, M. (2011), Kosten en baten van schuldhulpverlening, Den Haag: Aarts De Jong Wilms Goudriaan Public Economics BV.
Adèr, H.J., Mellenbergh, G.J., & Hand, D.J. (2008), Advising on research methods: A consultants’ companion, Huizen, The Netherlands: Johannes van Kessel Publishing.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, 179–211.
Bamberg, S. (2006), “Is a residential relocation a good opportunity to change people’s travel
behavior? Results from a theory-driven intervention study,” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 38, 820– 840.
Becchetti, L., Caiazza, S. & Coviello, D. (2013), “Financial education and investment attitudes in high school: evidence from a randomized experiment,“ Applied Financial Economics, Vol. 23, 817–836. Bell, C., Gorin, D. & Hogarth, J.M. (2009), “Does financial education affect soldiers’ financial behavior?” Federal Reserve System Community Affairs Research Conference. (accessed on 6 march 2016), [available at:
http://www2.indstate.edu/business/NFI/leadership/papers/2009-WP-8_Bell_Gorin_Hogarth.pdf]
Bernheim, B.D. & Garrett, D.M. (1997), “The effects of financial education in the workplace: evidence from a survey of households,” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 87, 1487–1519. Boddington, L. & Kemp, S. (1999), “Student debt, attitudes towards debt, impulsive buying, and financial management,” New Zealand Journal of Psychology, Vol. 28, 89-93.
Bridges, S., Disney, R., (2010), “Debt and depression,” Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 29 (3), 388-403
Bijstra, J.O., Jackson, S. & Bosma, H.A. (1994) “De Utrechtse Coping Lijst voor Adolescenten”, Kind en Adolescent, Vol. 15 (2), 67-74
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983), “A global measure of perceived stress”, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 24, 386-396.
Cohen, S. & Williamson, G.M. (1988), “Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States,” In S. Spacapan & S. Oskam (Eds.), The social psychology of health. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Davies, E., Lea, S.E.G., (1995), “Student attitudes to student debt,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, 663 – 679
30
Dunn, L.F., Mirzaie, I.A. (2012), “Determinants of Consumer Debt Stress: Differences by Debt Type and Gender,” Working Paper, Ohio State University, (accessed on 6th
of march 2016) [available at: http://chrr.org/content/surveys/cfm/doc/DSI-Working-Paper-07-19-12.pdf
DUO (2016), Studiefinanciering aanvragen – Zo geregeld, (accessed on 19th of june 2016) [available at: https://duo.nl/particulier/mbo-er/studiefinanciering/studiefinanciering-aanvragen.jsp]
Dwyer, R.E., McCloud, L., Hodson, R., (2011), “Youth debt, mastery, and self-esteem: Class-stratified effects of indebtedness on self-concept,” Social Science Research, Vol. 40, 727–741
Fernandes, D., Lynch, J.G. & Netemeyer, R.G. (2014), “Financial literacy, financial education and downstream financial behaviors,” Management Science, Vol. 60, 861–1883.
Folkman, S. (1984), “Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46 (4), 839-852
- - -. & Lazarus R.S., (1980), “An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 21, (3), 219-239
Frenzel, M.P., McCaul, K.D. , Glasgow, R.E., and Schafer, L.C., (1988), The Relationship of Stress and Coping to Regimen Adherence and Glycemic Control of Diabetes, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 6, (1), 77-87
Garman, E.T., Leech, I.E., Grable, J.E., (1996), “The Negative Impact Of Employee Poor Personal Financial Behaviors On Employers,” Financial Counseling and Planning, Vol. 7, 157 - 168 Geuns, R. van, Jungmann, N., de Weerd, M., (2011), “Klantprofielen voor schuldhulpverlening,” Regioplan Amsterdam, Publicatienummer 2113
Glasgow, R.E., Klesges, R.C., Mizes, J.S., Pechacek, T.F., (1985), “Quitting Smoking: Strategies used and variables associated with success in a stop-smoking contest.”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 53, 905-912
Heijst, P. van, Verhagen, S., (2009), “Jongeren en Schulden. De leerlingen van ROC Midden Nederland in beeld.” Amsterdam: Uitgeverij SWP.
Hoff, S., Wildeboer Schut, J.M., (2016), “Een lang tekort,” Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, Publicatienummer 2016-6
Huston, S.J. (2010) “Measuring financial literacy,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 44, 296– 316.
Jacoby, M.B. (2002), “Does indebtness influence health? A Preliminary inquiry,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Vol. 30 (4), 560 – 571
Jungmann, N., Geuns, R. van, Kruis, G., Calkoen, P. & Anderson, M. (2011), “Schuldhulpverlening loont! Een onderzoek naar de kosten en baten van schuldhulpverlening,” Amsterdam: Regioplan. - - -, - - -, Klaver, J., Wesdorp, P., Wolk, J. van der, (2012), “Op weg naar effectieve schuldhulp. Preventie: Voorkomen is beter dan genezen,” Hogeschool Utrecht, Hogeschool van Amsterdam, Gemeenten en Schuldhulpverlening
31 Panteia.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984), “Stress, appraisal, and coping,” New York, NY: Springer.
Lea, S.E.G., P. Webley and R.M. Levine, (1993), “The economic psychology of consumer debt,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 14, 85-119.
- - -, - - -, and Walker, C.M., (1995), “Psychological factors in consumer debt: Money
management, economic socialization, and credit use,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, 681-701
LePine, J.A., LePine, M.A. and Jackson, C.L., (2004), “Challenge and Hindrance Stress: Relationships With Exhaustion, Motivation to Learn, and Learning Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 (5), 883–891
Livingstone, S. and P.K. Lunt, (1992), “Predicting personal debt and debt repayment: psychological, social and economic determinants,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 13, 111 - 134.
Lunt, P.K., Livingstone, S., (1991), “Everyday explanations for personal debt: a network approach,” British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30, 309-323
Lusardi, A. (2003), “The impact of financial education on savings and asset allocation,” University of Michigan Retirement Research Centre Working Paper WP 2003-061. (accessed on 6 march 2016) [available at: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/50558/wp061.pdf?sequence=1]
Lyons, A.C. (2007), “Credit practices and financial education needs of Midwest college students,” Networks Financial Institute Working Paper WP 2007-23. (accessed on 6 march 2016) [available at: http://www.cefe.illinois.edu/research/reports/Credit%20Practices%20and%20Fin%20Educ%20Needs %20of%20Midwest%20College%20Students_122003.pdf]
Lynch, J.G. Jr, Wood, W. (2006), “Special issue editors’ statement: Helping consumers help themselves,” J. Public Policy Marketing. Vol. 25 (1), 1–7.
Lynch, J.G., Jr, Zauberman, G. (2006), “When do you want it? Time, decisions, and public policy,” J. Public Policy Marketing, Vol. 25 (1) 67–78.
Madern, T., (2014), “Overkoepelende blik op de omvang en preventie van schulden in Nederland”, Nibud
- - -., Schors, A. van der, (2012), “Kans op financiële problemen”, Nibud
Møller, B. & J. Thøgersen (2008), “Breaking car-use habits: The effectiveness of a free month travel card,” Transportation, Vol. 35, 329–345.
Møller, B. & J. Thøgersen (2008), “Car-use habits: An obstacle to the use of public transportation?” In: C. Jensen-Butler, B. Madsen, O. A. Nielsen & B. Sloth (eds.) Road pricing, the
economy, and the environment. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Nibud. (2008), “Geld en gedrag. Begeleiding voor de beroepspraktijk,” Utrecht: Nibud.
- - - (2012), “Financiële problemen op de werkvloer,” Utrecht: Nibud
32
Norvilitis, J.M., Merwin, M.M., Osberg, T.M., Roehling, P.V., Young, P. and Kamas, M.M., (2006), “Personality Factors, Money Attitudes, Financial Knowledge, and Credit-Card Debt in College Students,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 36 (6), 1395 – 1413
NVVK (2013) “Jaarverslag 2013 – Meer met minder,” NVVK Utrecht
NVVK (2014) “Gedragscode Schuldhulpverlening,” NVVK Utrecht
Ommeren C.M. van, Ruig, L.S. de & Vroonhof, P. (2009), “Huishoudens in de rode cijfers,” Panteia: Zoetermeer.
Prochaska, J.O. and DiClemente, C.C., “Toward a comprehensive model of change - Treating addictive behaviors”, 1986 - Springer
Rawson, R. (2005), “Student Debt and Graduate Decision Making,” Thesis (Masters), University of Canterbury
Sam, Y., Geetha, C. & Mohidin, R., (2012), “What were the factors that influence financial
management behavior of undergraduates?,” International Journal of Business Trends and Technology, Vol. 2, 1–10.
Sandler, M.E., (2000), “Career decision-making self-efficacy, perceived stress, and an integrated model of student persistence: A structural model of finances, attitudes, behavior and career development.”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 41, 537-580
Schäfer, M., & Bamberg, S., (2008), “Breaking habits: Linking sustainable consumption campaigns to sensitive life events,” Proceedings: Sustainable Consumption and Production: Framework for Action, Presented at the 2008 Conference of the Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE!) Network, supported by the EU’s 6th Framework Programme, Halles des Tanneurs, Brussels, Belgium (10–11 March)
- - -, Herde, A., & Kropp, C., (2010), “Life events as turning points for sustainable nutrition,” In System innovation for sustainability: case studies in sustainable consumption and production - food and agriculture, Tischner, U., Kjærnes, U., Stø, E. & Tukker, A., Vol. 3, 210–226
Schors, A., Werf, van der, M., Schonewille, G., (2015), “MBO’ers in geldzaken 2015,” Nibud, Utrecht.
Suls, J., Fletcher, B. (1985), “The relative efficacy of avoidant and nonavoidant coping strategies: A meta-analysis,” Health Psychology, Vol. 4 (3), 249-288
Tang, T. (2004), “Attitudes Towards Student Debt: Are Asians really different?”, Thesis (Masters), University of Canterbury.
33
Thøgersen, J. (2012), “The importance of timing for breaking commuters' car driving habits,” In The habits of consumption, Warde, A. & Southerton, D., 130 – 140, Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies.
Tiemeijer, W.L., (2011), “Hoe mensen keuzes maken. De psychologie van het beslissen” (1st ed.), Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Tiemeijer, W.L., Thomas, C.A., & Prast, H.M., (2009), “De menselijke beslisser. Over de psychologie van keuze en gedrag”, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Verplanken, B., Wood, W., (2006), “Interventions to break and create consumer Habits,” American Marketing Association, Vol. 25 (1), 90-103
Verplanken, B., Roy, D., (2016), “Empowering interventions to promote sustainable lifestyles: Testing the habit discontinuity hypothesis in a field experiment,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 45, 127 – 134
Westhof, F. & Ruig, L.S. de., (2015), “Huishoudens in de rode cijfers 2015, Over schulden van Nederlandse Huishoudens en preventiemogelijkheden,” Zoetermeer: Panteia
NOS, (2016) “Wie eenmaal arm is blijft vaak arm,” (accessed on 19 june 2016) [available at: http://nos.nl/artikel/2089910-wie-eenmaal-arm-is-blijft-vaak-arm.html]
34
Appendix A: The Questionnaire
Student en Geld
Fijn dat je deze vragenlijsten van de Gemeente Groningen en de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen wilt invullen!
De twee vragenlijsten gaan over geld en de manier waarop je met geld omgaat. Je antwoorden worden alleen door de onderzoekers bekeken, niet door andere mensen. Je hoeft je naam nergens op te schrijven.
Dit boekje bestaat uit drie onderdelen. Lees bij ieder onderdeel de vragen rustig door voordat je je antwoord geeft. In totaal kost het invullen van a lle vragen 10 tot 15 minuten.
Hartelijk bedankt voor je deelname!
Martijn Keizer (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)
35
Algemene vragen
1. Wat is je leeftijd? ……… Jaar oud 2. Wat is je geslacht?o
Mano
Vrouw3. Welke opleiding volg je?
……… 4. Op welk niveau volg je deze opleiding?
o
Niveau 1o
Niveau 2o
Niveau 3o
Niveau 45. In welk jaar van deze opleiding zit je?
o
Jaar 1o
Jaar 2o
Jaar 336
Onderdeel 1. Hoe denk jij over geld?
Hieronder volgen 11 stellingen over geld en de manier waarop je met geld omgaat. Geef voor iedere stelling aan of je het met deze stelling eens bent door een getal tussen
1 (helemaal niet mee eens) en 7 (helemaal mee eens) te omcirkelen.
1. Geld lenen is goed, omdat je daardoor meer van het leven kunt genieten.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
2. Grotere aankopen plan ik vooruit.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
3. Het is nooit goed om een schuld te hebben.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
4. Zelfs bij een laag inkomen zou je regelmatig een beetje moeten sparen.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
5. Als je geld geleend hebt, betaal je dit zo snel mogelijk terug.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
6. Ik kom vaak in de verleiding om dingen te kopen.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
7. Ik houd er niet van om geld te lenen.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
8. Het is belangrijk om te leven van datgene wat je hebt.
37 9. Soms is het goed om geld te lenen.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
10. Ik koop vaak dingen spontaan.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
Financiële problemen
De volgende stellingen gaan over hulp bij financiële problemen. Met financiële
problemen bedoelen we schulden die je niet zonder hulp van anderen kunt oplossen. Geef voor iedere stelling aan of je het met deze stelling eens bent door een getal tussen
1 (helemaal niet mee eens) en 7 (helemaal mee eens) te omcirkelen.
1. Als ik financiële problemen krijg weet ik waar ik hulp kan zoeken .
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
2. Als ik financiële problemen zou krijgen zou ik dat vertellen aan mijn directe sociale omgeving (ouders, broers/zussen en/of goede vrienden).
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
3. Als ik financiële problemen zou krijgen zou ik hulp zoeken bij een officiële instantie (bijvoorbeeld de gemeente).
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
4. Ik denk dat er mensen zijn die mij kunnen helpen als ik financiële problemen krijg.
38
Je eigen financiële situatie
De stellingen hieronder gaan over je eigen financiële situatie. Geef voor iedere stelling aan of je het met deze stelling eens bent door een getal tussen 1 (helemaal niet mee
eens) en 7 (helemaal mee eens) te omcirkelen.
1. Ik weet ongeveer hoeveel geld er op dit moment op mijn bankrekening staat.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
2. Ik weet hoeveel inkomsten ik maandelijks heb.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
3. Ik probeer geld te sparen voor de toekomst.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
4. Als ik geld heb, geef ik het direct uit.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
5. Ik heb geregeld geen geld op mijn bankrekening.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
6. Ik controleer eerst hoeveel geld ik heb voordat ik een aankoop doe.
Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens
7. Ik maak me vaak zorgen om mijn eigen financiële situatie.
39
Wat is je maandelijks inkomen ongeveer? Kleur het bolletje dat bij jouw situatie past.
o
Minder dan 100 euro per maando
Tussen de 100 en 200 euro per maando
Tussen de 200 en 300 euro per maando
Tussen de 300 en 400 euro per maando
Tussen de 400 en 500 euro per maando
Tussen de 500 en 600 euro per maando
Tussen de 600 en 700 euro per maando
Meer dan 700 euro per maando
Zeg ik liever nietIn hoeverre kun je maandelijks rond komen? Kleur het bolletje dat bij jouw situatie past.
o
Het lukt me makkelijk iedere maand rond te komen, zonder geld te lenen (van ouders/vrienden/bank)o
Het lukt me meestal iedere maand rond te komen, zonder geld te lenen (van ouders/vrienden/bank)o
Ik moet wel eens geld lenen (van ouders/vrienden/bank) om maandelijks rond te komeno
Ik moet vaak geld lenen (van ouders/vrienden/bank) om maandelijks rond te komeno
Ik moet altijd geld lenen (van ouders/vrienden/bank) om maandelijks rond te komen Heb je op dit moment schulden? Kleur het bolletje dat bij jouw situatie past.o
Jao
NeeGeld verdelen
Stel je voor dat je een maandelijks inkomen hebt van €200. Hoe zou je dit geld uitgeven? Kleur de bolletjes voor de mogelijke uitgaven die jij zou doen.
o
Zorgverzekering €90,-o
Uitgaan €30,-o
Uitgaan €60,-o
Telefoonabonnement €30,-o
Nieuwe schoenen €80,-o
Kleding €50,-o
Uitje met vrienden €40,-Zou je in deze situatie geld proberen te lenen zodat je extra uitgaven kan doen?
40
Hoe belangrijk zijn de volgende uitgaven voor je? De belangrijkste uitgaven zijn de uitgaven die je zeker zou willen doen; de minst belangrijke uitgaven zijn minder belangrijk voor je. Zet een 1 voor de belangrijkste uitgave, een 2 voor de één na
belangrijkste, enzovoort.
…. Zorgverzekering
…. Kleding
…. Telefoonabonnement
…. Dagje weg met vrienden
…. Uitgaan
…. Sportlidmaatschap
…. Nieuwe schoenen
41
