Understanding money-management behaviour and its potential determinants among undergraduate students: A scoping review

Theepa Cappelli; Adrian P. Banks; Benjamin Gardner

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307137

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 9, 2024
9 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Botond Géza Kálmán, Editor PONE-D-24-18530Understanding money-management behaviour and its potential determinants among undergraduate students: A scoping reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gardner, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 24 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Botond Géza Kálmán, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The article adequately reviews and contextualizes the examined problem. The adapted method and the interpretation of the results are appropriate. The content is concisely described and contextualized with previous and current theoretical background and empirical research on the topic. I propose a minor revision in the literature review. The authors did not refer to sources that were pioneers in the research of the topic, e.g. Bakken, M.R. (1966). Money Management Understanding of Tenth Grade Students. University of Alberta. https://archive.org/details/Bakken1966/page/n13/mode/2up Chen, H., & Volpe, R.P. (1998). An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students. Financial Services Review, 7(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1057-0810(99)80006-7 Chen, H., & Volpe, R.P. (2002). Gender differences in personal financial literacy among college students. Financial Services Review, 11(3), 289–308. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=10570810&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA149166047&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs Danes, S.M., & Hira, T.K. (1987). Money Management Knowledge of College Students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 17(1), 4–16. I also recommend a more detailed discussion of the problem that the parental model and the opinion of peers have a positive effect on the financial behavior of university students, because according to European research experience, the behavior and opinion of parents and peers have a negative effect on the appropriate financial behavior. This is confirmed by e.g. also lines 285-287. After these changes, I recommend the article for acceptance. Reviewer #2: The research deals with a relevant topic, its examination contributes significantly to the understanding of university students' money management behaviour and its possible determinants. The article adequately reviews and contextualizes the examined problem. The adapted method and the interpretation of the results are appropriate. The content is concisely described and contextualized with previous and current theoretical background and empirical research on the topic. I propose a minor revision in the literature review. The authors did not refer to sources that were pioneers in the research of the topic, e.g. Bakken, M.R. (1966). Money Management Understanding of Tenth Grade Students. University of Alberta. https://archive.org/details/Bakken1966/page/n13/mode/2up Chen, H., & Volpe, R.P. (1998). An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students. Financial Services Review, 7(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1057-0810(99)80006-7 Chen, H., & Volpe, R.P. (2002). Gender differences in personal financial literacy among college students. Financial Services Review, 11(3), 289–308. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do? p=AONE&sw=w&issn=10570810&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA149166047&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs Danes, S.M., & Hira, T.K. (1987). Money Management Knowledge of College Students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 17(1), 4–16. May I suggest a brief explanation of whether your research is relevant only in the UK, or whether it presents a similar problem in another country or continent? The focus of their research may thus change, since it is possible that behaviour related to money management is not only a problem related to higher education. I also recommend thinking about whether the revealed "problem" as financial pressure really existed from the 1980s to 2023, which is the time when the sampling studies were made. Based on their methodology, I would like to explain why only 12 of the 789 identified studies met the selection criteria. It is recommended to think about the possibility of conducting the research in other languages (not only English) and involving the appropriate studies in their research. The revealed correlates and categories can form the basis of empirical research in the future. I also recommend a more detailed discussion of the problem that the parental model and the opinion of peers have a positive effect on the financial behaviour of university students, because according to European research experience, the behaviour and opinion of parents and peers have a negative effect on the appropriate financial behaviour. This is confirmed by e.g. also lines 285-287. After these changes, I recommend the article for acceptance. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Botond Géza Kálmán Reviewer #2: Yes: Szilárd Malatyinszki ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review_24_18530.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307137.r001
Revision 1
28 Jun 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewer #1: COMMENT 1. I propose a minor revision in the literature review. The authors did not refer to sources that were pioneers in the research of the topic, e.g. Bakken, M.R. (1966). Money Management Understanding of Tenth Grade Students. University of Alberta. https://archive.org/details/Bakken1966/page/n13/mode/2up Chen, H., & Volpe, R.P. (1998). An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students. Financial Services Review, 7(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1057-0810(99)80006-7 Chen, H., & Volpe, R.P. (2002). Gender differences in personal financial literacy among college students. Financial Services Review, 11(3), 289–308. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=10570810&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA149166047&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs Danes, S.M., & Hira, T.K. (1987). Money Management Knowledge of College Students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 17(1), 4–16. Response to Comment 1: We were a little unsure whether the reviewer was referring to the scoping review itself (i.e., the Results section) or the Introduction here. With regards to the scoping review itself, we focused our review on university students’ money management behaviours. Thus, Bakken’s (1966) study of tenth grade students was not included in our review. The studies by Chen & Volpe (1998), Chen & Volpe (2002) and Danes & Hirs (1987) did not meet our criteria for inclusion either, as they focus on financial knowledge but do not provide any measures of money management behaviours. We recognise that the latter three are important studies of university students however. and now cite them in the Introduction (refs 24-26). See p5: “much of the evidence regarding students’ money-management has focused on financial knowledge or literacy as outcomes of interest, rather than on specific financial behaviours (24,25,26).” COMMENT 2: I also recommend a more detailed discussion of the problem that the parental model and the opinion of peers have a positive effect on the financial behavior of university students, because according to European research experience, the behavior and opinion of parents and peers have a negative effect on the appropriate financial behavior. This is confirmed by e.g. also lines 285-287. After these changes, I recommend the article for acceptance. Response to Comment 2: We have expanded coverage of social influences in the Discussion section (p29). We highlight inconsistencies between findings from quantitative and qualitative studies regarding whether parents and peers play positive or negative roles in shaping money management behaviour, and call for further research to examine what shapes the direction of such relationships: “Syntheses of quantitative data showed that variables relating to financial beliefs and knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and control, and parental and peer social influence were predominantly related with ‘healthier’ money management practices, so should be harnessed as mechanisms for interventions to support students to better manage their money. Relationships between these variables and money-management practices appeared inconsistent, however. This may in part be because quantitative methodologies can oversimplify potentially complex phenomena. For example, parental norms and communication with parents and peers were each found to be positively associated with ‘better’ money management among students in quantitative studies, yet qualitative studies provided examples of students deliberately adopting positive money-management practices in response to their perceptions that their parents had managed their money badly (43). Similarly, peer influence can have an adverse influence on money management when students engage in spending behaviours aimed at matching their peers, to maintain social standing (39). The discrepancy in findings across studies underscores the complexity of social influences on money management behaviour (39, 54), and suggests that further research is needed to explore what determines whether others will have a positive or negative impact on money management.” Reviewer #2: COMMENT 1. I propose a minor revision in the literature review. The authors did not refer to sources that were pioneers in the research of the topic, e.g. Bakken, M.R. (1966). Money Management Understanding of Tenth Grade Students. University of Alberta. https://archive.org/details/Bakken1966/page/n13/mode/2up Chen, H., & Volpe, R.P. (1998). An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy Among College Students. Financial Services Review, 7(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1057-0810(99)80006-7 Chen, H., & Volpe, R.P. (2002). Gender differences in personal financial literacy among college students. Financial Services Review, 11(3), 289–308. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do? p=AONE&sw=w&issn=10570810&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA149166047&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs Danes, S.M., & Hira, T.K. (1987). Money Management Knowledge of College Students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 17(1), 4–16. Response to Comment 1: See our response to Reviewer 1 Comment 1. COMMENT 2. May I suggest a brief explanation of whether your research is relevant only in the UK, or whether it presents a similar problem in another country or continent? The focus of their research may thus change, since it is possible that behaviour related to money management is not only a problem related to higher education. Response to Comment 2: We acknowledge that University students worldwide are facing financial pressure. In our original submission, we referred only to the UK and US. We now acknowledge this more explicitly by referring to research from Australia and Asia (Bangladesh) in our introduction (p4): “University students worldwide are facing increasing financial pressure. In the UK, higher education has become substantially more expensive in recent decades, with students leaving university with significantly higher debt than at the turn of the century (1,2,3). Notable changes over this period have included increasing tuition fees for UK students (4,5), higher inflation and increased cost of living (6,7). Growing concerns around student living costs, tuition fees and loan burdens have also been documented in Australia and Asia (8,9). In the US, it has been argued that rising debt levels among graduates, who typically take student loans, may both discourage potential applicants and motivate graduates to seek career paths based on speedier debt repayment (10).” Regarding a potential change of focus of our research, we recognise that money management is important in contexts other than higher education, and that the problems associated with money management among students in higher education may be symptomatic of broader factors. However, these issues are outside of the scope of this review, which is designed to focus solely on psychological factors surrounding money management in university students. COMMENT 3. I also recommend thinking about whether the revealed "problem" as financial pressure really existed from the 1980s to 2023, which is the time when the sampling studies were made. Response to Comment 3: Financial pressure among students has always been a problem. However, there have been many significant changes in the last few decades to tuition fees, student loan structures, grants, financial tools, the rise of living costs, and so on, which all may have had a significant impact on how students manage their money and the financial stress they face. Given these changes have occurred gradually over time, it is not easy to identify a specific cutoff date to reflect these changes. However, for our review findings to be relevant to the present day, date limits had to be set. We selected 2000 as the earliest publication date because, prior to 2000, in the UK at least students were entitled to grants, whereas from 2000 onwards, university students had to self-fund or take student loans. Such changes likely significantly impacted how students manage their finances, making earlier studies less reflective of the current realities and challenges faced by today's university students. COMMENT 4. Based on their methodology, I would like to explain why only 12 of the 789 identified studies met the selection criteria. Response to Comment 4. We have updated the PRISMA chart (Figure 1) to include explanations why the 789 studies identified by our search were reduced to 12. COMMENT 5. It is recommended to think about the possibility of conducting the research in other languages (not only English) and involving the appropriate studies in their research. The revealed correlates and categories can form the basis of empirical research in the future. Response to Comment 5. We conducted the review in English and German because these are the only languages spoken among the review team. This is in keeping with Cochrane Handbook (Higgins et al., 2023), which, while acknowledging the benefits of include studies irrespective of language, recognises that the review process must be pragmatic and will be limited by the linguistic expertise within the research team. We note that other scoping reviews published by PLoS ONE have been based on searches conducted only in languages spoken by the research team. For example, Ayala et al’s (2021) review of peer- and community-led responses to HIV was based on a search of English-only papers ‘due to resource limitations’ (; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260555). Similarly, Weber’s (2024) scoping review of measures of trust in physicians was based on an English-only search (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303840). COMMENT 6. I also recommend a more detailed discussion of the problem that the parental model and the opinion of peers have a positive effect on the financial behaviour of university students because, according to European research experience, the behaviour and opinion of parents and peers have a negative effect on the appropriate financial behaviour. This is confirmed by e.g. also lines 285-287. After these changes, I recommend the article for acceptance. Response to Comment 6: See our Response to Reviewer 1 Comment 2. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE - response to reviewers 27.06.2024 FINAL.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307137.r002
2 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Botond Géza Kálmán, Editor Understanding money-management behaviour and its potential determinants among undergraduate students: A scoping review PONE-D-24-18530R1 Dear Dr. Gardner, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Botond Géza Kálmán, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for the detailed answers to the questions in the comments and for the scientific revision of the article. Taking into account the changes and responses, I recommend the publication of the article. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Botond Géza KÁLMÁN Reviewer #2: Yes: Szilárd Malatyinszki ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307137.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Botond Géza Kálmán, Editor PONE-D-24-18530R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gardner, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Botond Géza Kálmán Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307137.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .