[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]個(gè)人理財(cái)外文翻譯--理財(cái)知識(shí)和家庭溝通模式（英文）

1、Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 19 (2018) 64–71Contents lists available at ScienceDirectJournal of Behavioral and Experimental Financejournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbefFull length articleFinanc

2、ial literacy and family communication patternsThomas A. Hanson a,*, Peter M. Olson ba Lacy School of Business, Butler University, 4600 Sunset Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46208, USA b Paseka School of Business, Minnesota Sta

3、te University Moorhead, 1107 7th Avenue S, Moorhead, MN 56563, USAa r t i c l e i n f oArticle history: Received 18 December 2017 Received in revised form 9 May 2018 Accepted 29 May 2018 Available online 5 June 2018JEL c

4、lassification: G410Keywords: Financial literacy Financial education Family communication patternsa b s t r a c tFinancial literacy has been shown to affect a wide range of financial behavior; therefore, understanding met

5、hods to improve financial literacy is vital for improving financial outcomes in personal finance. However, efforts to increase financial literacy through education have exhibited mixed results, which suggests that additi

6、onal factors merit exploration for their impact on financial literacy. This study hypothesizes that family communication patterns will be related to financial knowledge, specifically that college students from a conversa

7、tion-oriented family will perform better on a quiz of financial knowledge than those from a conformity-oriented family. This cross-disciplinary work emphasizes the relationship between financial literacy and communicatio

8、n studies. The research is conducted through an online survey administered to a volunteer sample of college students. Results suggest that conversations within the family regarding financial matters provide important kno

9、wledge regarding financial matters and may be a factor to consider in designing any financial literacy program. © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.1. IntroductionBroader participation in financial markets, inn

10、ovation in thefinancial sector, and changes in the funding of retirement spend- ing (i.e., the switch from defined benefit to defined contribution plans) have led to ever-greater personal responsibility for financial dec

11、isions since the 1940s (Ryan et al., 2011). Similarly, in their call for consumer financial protection measures, Campbell et al. (2011) draw attention to the do-it-yourself nature of much of modern finance and specifical

12、ly examine several case studies involving payday lending, choosing a mortgage, and financing retirement as situations in which financial literacy is often inadequate for satisfactory decision-making. Consequently, the va

13、lue of personal financial literacy has perhaps never been greater than today.The benefits of financial literacy have been empirically demon-strated for a variety of financial decisions and behaviors. Improved financial l

14、iteracy has been shown to have a positive effect on retirement planning (Clark et al., 2012), stock market participa- tion (van Rooij et al., 2011), personal savings (Jappelli and Padula, 2013), appropriate use of debt (

15、Stango and Zinman, 2009), mort- gage terms (Duca and Kumar, 2014), and credit card behavior (Xiao et al., 2012; Norvilitis et al., 2006). Previous work has also shown a correlation between financial knowledge and wealth

16、(van Rooij et al., 2012), and financial knowledge can explain between 30 and 40%* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: thomas.hanson@mnstate.edu, tahanson@butler.edu(T.A. Hanson), olsonpet@mnstate.edu (P.M. Olson).of r

17、etirement wealth differences (Lusardi et al., 2017). Therefore, individuals can reap substantial gains in both the short- and long- term by improving their personal financial knowledge.Meanwhile, low financial literacy h

18、as been linked to subop-timal financial decisions (Hilgert et al., 2003; Choi et al., 2011). Individuals lacking in financial literacy accrue numerous specific detriments, including excessive borrowing costs and fees (Lu

19、sardi and Tufano, 2015; Hastings et al., 2011) and a lack of appropri- ate long-term investments (van Rooij et al., 2011; Yoong, 2011). Furthermore, households that possess low financial literacy and shun outside advice

20、can lose 50 basis points of portfolio return, on average (von Gaudecker, 2015).Despite the substantial and ever-growing value of financialliteracy, measured levels of financial knowledge have continued to slip since at l

21、east the mid-1990s (Lusardi, 2015). The gener- ally low level of financial knowledge among college and high school students is well-established by previous research (Chen and Volpe, 1998; Lusardi et al., 2010; Mandell, 2

22、008b), and cer- tain demographic groups consistently underperform the already low averages. For instance, analysis of the 2009 National Finan- cial Capability Study with a sample of 4,500 adults between the ages of 25 an

23、d 34 showed especially low levels of financial lit- eracy among women, minorities, and low-income demograph- ics (de Bassa Scheresberg, 2013). Furthermore, lower levels of financial literacy were associated with a greate

24、r likelihood of high- cost borrowing and a lower probability of planning for retirement and saving for emergencies.College students are particularly at risk for poor financial deci-sions in several areas, including debt

25、loads from credit cards andhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.05.001 2214-6350/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.66 T.A. Hanson, P.M. Olson / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 19 (2018) 64–71Pre

26、vious work on financial literacy has acknowledged the con-tention that financial knowledge may be transmitted across gen- erations. For example, Lusardi et al. (2010) included variables related to parental education leve

27、l, financial sophistication, and family wealth in their examination of financial literacy among American adolescents. Chatterjee et al. (2010) report that heads of households who report regularly eating meals together wi

28、th their families show greater wealth accumulation over time, and the authors argue that self-regulation, positive socialization, com- munication, and information sharing are among the benefits of the time together. Simi

29、larly, Jorgensen and Salva (2010) reported survey results that found explicit conversations about financial matters by parents influence the financial attitudes and behaviors of college students.Parental financial experi

30、ence has been shown to correlate withincreased financial knowledge and responsible behavior among young adults (Tang and Peter, 2015; Tang et al., 2015), and parental behavior, including explicit financial discussions wi

31、th children, has a direct impact on future financial behavior (Webley and Nyhus, 2006). In further support of the value of such discussions, parental socialization and family communication have also been shown to influen

32、ce attitudes toward risk and trust (Dohmen et al., 2012), in- vestment behavior (Hira et al., 2013), savings (Webley and Nyhus, 2013; Bucciol and Veronesi, 2014), spending habits (Pinto et al., 2005), and credit card beh

33、avior and credit score (Gutter and Garri- son, 2008; Grinstein-Weiss et al., 2011). While all of these studies imply the importance of financial conversations within a family, none of them include specific measures of fa

34、mily communication style.Thus, the literature that investigates the influence of the fam-ily on financial literacy is nearly unanimous. Shim et al. (2009) summarize the prevailing sentiment that parents should discuss mo

35、ney management and demonstrate sound financial practices for their children. Unfortunately, topic avoidance is prevalent when it comes to discussions of finances among family members (Tra- chtman, 1999; Romo and Vangelis

36、ti, 2014), and the lack of com- munication can have negative impacts on financial literacy and behavior. In a survey of parents and students who participated in a joint workshop of finance, Lyons et al. (2006) found that

37、 families with limited communication saw fewer benefits from the educa- tional effort. That is to say, conversations about finance appear to be more effective when they occur in an environment of open communication.Some

38、previous work has considered the influence of the fam-ily environment by utilizing Baumrind’s (1971, 1989) parenting styles measure, which defines four parenting types: authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and negle

39、ctful. Parenting style has been shown to affect such finance-related traits as future orientation and time preference for consumption (Nyhus and Webley, 2013; Yang et al., 2014). While parenting style might affect behavi

40、or modeling and feedback, information transmission is a commu- nicative behavior that might be more fully understood by explicit measures of family communication patterns.2.2. Family communication patternsResearch into f

41、amily communication patterns originated withMcLeod and Chaffee (1972, 1973) and subsequently revised into a two-dimensional instrument of conversation and conformity orientations (Ritchie and Fitzpatrick, 1990; Fitzpatri

42、ck and Ritchie, 1994). As the terms imply, a family that scores high on conversa- tion orientation exhibits a greater degree of discussion on a variety of topics, including financial matters. Meanwhile, a higher score on

43、 the conformity scale is associated with a concern for homogeneity and an emphasis on conventional values and beliefs. The present study employs the revised family communication pattern (RFCP)instrument (Ritchie, 1990),

44、and the two dimensions of conver- sation and conformity orientation are used to define four family types. First, families that score high on both dimensions are labeled consensual; families in this category face a tensio

45、n between a desire for consensus and maintaining open dialogue. Parents are inter- ested in hearing their children’s ideas but prefer their own views to be dominant. Families that are low in conformity but high in conver

46、sation orientation are called pluralistic, a type characterized by open dialogue among family members and sharing of ideas. The parents feel less need to exercise control, and input from family members is sought in decis

47、ion-making. Low conversation and high conformity characterize a protective family, in which obedience and acceptance of hierarchy are primary. Less value is placed on communicating about reasons, norms, or motives in dec

48、isions. Finally, families scoring low on both dimensions are labeled lais- sez faire; family interaction is often limited with less emotional connection among the members and a focus on independence (Fitzpatrick and Ritc

49、hie, 1994; Koerner and Fitzpatrick, 2002).Several studies have considered the relationship between fam-ily communication patterns and financial socialization. In partic- ular, families with a pluralistic orientation are

50、the most likely to discuss financial issues in a way that influences the financial behaviors of young adults (Moschis et al., 1986; Carlson et al., 1990). Furthermore, young adults whose families have a stronger conversa

51、tions orientation have been shown to be more open to dis- cussing financial matters, while a conformity orientation is detri- mental to such conversations (Thorson and Kranstuber Horstman, 2014). To the authors’ knowledg

52、e, the present study is the first to examine the relationship between family communication patterns and measures of financial literacy.2.3. HypothesesPrevious research has established through consumer social-ization theo

53、ry that families can exert a strong influence on the financial literacy and behaviors of young adults (Shim et al., 2009, 2010), and communication within the family plays a key role in the transmission of financial knowl

54、edge (Thorson and Kranstu- ber Horstman, 2014). Therefore, the communication environment, as defined here by family communication pattern theory, is antici- pated to have an effect on the measured financial literacy of c

55、ollege students. The two formal hypotheses of the study are as follows:H1: Participants who report a family background with a strong conversation orientation will possess greater financial literacy.H2: Participants who r

56、eport a family background with a strong con- formity orientation will possess lower levels of financial literacy.To restate these hypotheses in terms of family types, studentsfrom pluralistic families (high conversation

57、and low conformity) are expected to outscore protective families (low conversation and high conformity) on a financial literacy quiz. The effect of the remaining two types (consensual and laissez-faire) are unknown a pri

58、ori, since they involve either high or low scores on both dimensions simultaneously.Because participants were offered the option of selecting ‘‘donot know’’ (DNK) to any question, we also investigate the relation- ship b

59、etween this choice and family communication patterns as an alternative measure of financial literacy:RQ: What is the relationship between family communicationpatterns and participants selecting DNK in response to financi

60、al literacy questions?In addition, we anticipate the direction of several control vari-ables that have been shown to account for some portion of the vari- ation in financial literacy (Stolper and Walter, 2017). First, pe