Preeti Sunderaraman1,2,3, Sarah Ho1, Silvia Chapman1,2, Jillian L Joyce1,2, Leigh Colvin1, Shalom Omollo1, Maria Pleshkevich1,2, Stephanie Cosentino1,2,3. 1. Cognitive Neuroscience Division, Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. G.H. Sergievsky Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Internet use and mobile devices permeate every aspect of our lives and are changing our financial habits. Assessment of financial decision-making (FDM) has not yet caught up to apparent changes in financial behavior. To modernize assessment methods and create current and comprehensive FDM frameworks, we first need to establish the most commonly used and most preferred methods of performing specific financial activities. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey data were collected using an online platform and offline approaches (in person and by mail) (N = 234). The frequency of using technological (e.g., laptop) and non-technological (e.g., in-person banking) means of completing seven financial activities was assessed first, including Depositing checks, Reviewing bank statements, Keeping track of money spent, Transferring funds, Withdrawing cash, Paying bills, and Purchasing products online. Second, preference for technological versus non-technological methods was assessed. Finally, linear regression models examined associations between demographics and preference for technological methods for each financial activity. RESULTS: The majority of respondents (77% online, 74% offline) used technology to perform various financial activities and preferred technological to non-technological methods for completing five out of the six financial activities. Increased preference for technological methods was associated with younger age for all the financial activities, and higher education was associated with reviewing bank statement and transferring funds. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey findings provide empirical evidence for the changing nature of our financial habits. We discuss the implications of this change for researchers, clinicians, and the individuals themselves and emphasize the importance of modernizing FDM tools.
OBJECTIVE: Internet use and mobile devices permeate every aspect of our lives and are changing our financial habits. Assessment of financial decision-making (FDM) has not yet caught up to apparent changes in financial behavior. To modernize assessment methods and create current and comprehensive FDM frameworks, we first need to establish the most commonly used and most preferred methods of performing specific financial activities. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey data were collected using an online platform and offline approaches (in person and by mail) (N = 234). The frequency of using technological (e.g., laptop) and non-technological (e.g., in-person banking) means of completing seven financial activities was assessed first, including Depositing checks, Reviewing bank statements, Keeping track of money spent, Transferring funds, Withdrawing cash, Paying bills, and Purchasing products online. Second, preference for technological versus non-technological methods was assessed. Finally, linear regression models examined associations between demographics and preference for technological methods for each financial activity. RESULTS: The majority of respondents (77% online, 74% offline) used technology to perform various financial activities and preferred technological to non-technological methods for completing five out of the six financial activities. Increased preference for technological methods was associated with younger age for all the financial activities, and higher education was associated with reviewing bank statement and transferring funds. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey findings provide empirical evidence for the changing nature of our financial habits. We discuss the implications of this change for researchers, clinicians, and the individuals themselves and emphasize the importance of modernizing FDM tools.
Authors: Peter A Lichtenberg; Jonathan Stoltman; Lisa J Ficker; Madelyn Iris; Benjamin Mast Journal: Clin Gerontol Date: 2015-01-01 Impact factor: 2.619
Authors: Roy C Martin; Kristen Triebel; Laura E Dreer; Thomas A Novack; Crystal Turner; Daniel C Marson Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: Amanda Kenepp; Ellen Johnson; Grace J Lee; Preeti Sunderaraman; Natalie L Denburg; Christopher M Nguyen Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-12-23