The relation between basic human values and monetary attitudes of children and their parents

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru//

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru//

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL

INSTITUTION OF TERTIARY EDUCATION

«NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS»

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

MASTER'S PROGRAM «APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY»

The relation between basic human values and monetary attitudes of children and their parents

Tatiana Lapshova

Scientific supervisor

Doctor of Sciences, associate professor

Tatarko A.N.

Moscow, 2017



Abstract

Person's values considered as the criteria for the process of evaluation of different people, actions, and events. Very often people associate the level of success with the amount of money they have (Tang, 1992). In the process of economic socialization money serves a crucial factor of person's development.

The goal of our study was to find out the relation between basic human values and monetary attitudes of parents and their children. Results indicated that children basic human values play the most influential role in monetary attitudes of children in comparison with parental basic human values and parental monetary attitudes. For measuring parents and children' basic human values we used Portrait Values Questionnaire (Schwartz, 2012) and a modified version of Klontz Money Script Inventory (Klontz et al., 2011) for measuring monetary attitudes.

The obtained results could be applied in economics, political science, and economic psychology for better understanding the link between monetary attitudes of parents and their children.

Keywords: monetary attitudes, basic human values, financial socialization, parents and their children.



Introduction

Person's values not only tightly connected to human emotions but also considered as the criteria for the process of evaluation of different people, actions, and events. They are correlated with goals which everybody wants to achieve. If a person understands basic human values, it helps him/her to make difficult decisions in his/her life as well as get appropriate direction to his/her life. As human values often used to characterize individuals, societies, and cultural groups, the researchers apply them in order to predict human differences in attitudes and behavior in various areas of life (Schubot et al. 1995; Sagiv 2002; Gardikiotis and Baltzis 2012; Pepper et al. 2009, etc).

Moreover, to become a functioning member of society a person needs to get specific knowledge, skills, values, as well as understand social norms. This is a continuing process which starts since childhood called socialization. The process of socialization is a complex process which contains different specific subcategories. Financial socialization is one of them. It is closely related to someone's perception and knowledge of money.

Very often people associate the level of success with the amount of money they have (Tang, 1992). Hanley & Wilhelm (1992) found out that money can increase person's way of thinking and consumer culture. Thus, money plays a crucial part in person's life.

Every single day a person meets different situations where he should use his finance knowledge. As a result financial decisions become more complex day by day. There is a variety of choices for borrowing, spending, saving, and investing money. Thus, the significance and importance of studying money and monetary attitudes is also growing up.

According to Kowalczyk and Chudzian (2015) monetary attitude is a complex of stable tendencies to evaluate money, as well as emotionally reply to them. As Jorgensen and Savla (2010) found out that the majority of young people have partial financial knowledge and monetary attitudes, we decided to focus not only on adults but on parents and their children. As the development of monetary attitude of a person starts since childhood, it is very important to know how a child enters into the economic world as well as how he/she acquires monetary attitudes.

Monetary attitudes may be passed from generation to generation. There are a lot of scientific researches about the relations between parents and their children (Bengtson, 1975, Jennings & Niemi, 1968; Jennings, Stoker & Bowers, 2009; Knafo & Schwartz, 2008; Rohan & Zanna, 1996).

Thus, the goal of our study is to find out the relation between basic human values of parents and their monetary attitudes as well as the relation between basic human values of children and their monetary attitudes.

Moreover, we want to know how three factors such as monetary attitudes of parents, parent's values, and children's values are linked to monetary attitudes of children. The question is which of these three factors play the most influential role in the process of acquiring monetary attitudes. And this is the problem of our study.

The obtained results of this study could be applied in economics, political science, and economic psychology for better understanding the link between monetary attitudes of parents and their children. Therapists could get a better understanding between clients' basic human values and their attitude towards money. Moreover, they could pay attention to clients' childhood experience.

Finally, our findings will be useful for different people such as parents, educators, and government for building financial competence since childhood. All of these could help to avoid financial problems in the future as well as create an atmosphere for person's financial responsibility.



CHAPTER I. Theoretical Background

1.1 Basic Individual Values

If we ask a person to think about his own values, he will think about things which are important to him. It could be love, success, independence, pleasure, wisdom, etc. Each person has different values as well as different degrees of their importance. One value can be extremely important to one person, but absolutely unimportant to another. Thus, we can conclude that values have hierarchical structure and moreover they are different from norms and attitudes.

The process of conceptualization of basic human values has been begun steadily since the 1950's. Different researchers have been used values to understand and evaluate human differences in attitudes and their behavior in various aspects of human life. For instance, in the medical field it was Schubot (Schubot et al. 1995), in creativity Dollinger (Dollinger et al. 2007), in sports Lee (Lee et al. 2008). Moreover, Gardikiotis and Baltzis made their researches concerning basic human values and people behavior in music (Gardikiotis and Baltzis 2012), Saroglou (Saroglou et al. 2004) in religiosity, Daigle (Daigle et al. 2002) in the field of hunting, Pepper (Pepper et al. 2009) in the field of consumer choice and even in vocational interests (Sagiv 2002).

However, there are a lot of multiple and conflicting theories concerning basic human values in the psychology. For instance, Maslow (1943) wanted to figure out what motivates people. He claimed that if a person wants to achieve a specific need, he becomes motivated. If one need is fulfilled a person seeks ways to fulfill the next need, and so on. Maslow's ideas are organized into the theory of hierarchy of needs (A. Maslow's 1943, 1954). This theory consists of five motivational needs which contain two main level - basic needs (such as physiological, safety, love, and esteem) and growth needs (self-actualization).

After Maslow another researcher analyzed the nature of human values. It was Milton Rokeach. He defined only two types of values. The first one is instrumental values and the second one is terminal values. Moreover, he designed the questionnaire RVS (the Rokeach Value Survey) to operationalize the value concept. Rokeach's questionnaire has been used by several researchers as an instrument to measure social and personal values. For instance, Braithwaite and Law (1985) tested questionnaire RVS and offered an alternative instrument. Crosby, Bitner, and Gill (1990) also used questionnaire RVS and tried to overcome weaknesses in the factor structure of the RVS.

The next researcher who studied the relations between values and behavior was Gerard H. Hofstede (1980). He created the theory of cultural dimensions. In his theory there were five fundamental dimensions of national cultures: Individualism vs. Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Long-term vs. Short-term Orientation.

Four years later Frank W. Wicker et al. (1984) studied “a type of hierarchical interdependency among motives which complement interdependencies implied by motivation theories” (see Wicker et al., 1984). Frank W. Wicker suggested an alternative to fixed number of "basic" motives.

In the decade after Wicker's research Shalom H. Schwartz paid particular attention to working with values. He claimed the researcher has to understand how “relate individual differences in value priorities to differences in attitudes, behavior, and background variables” (see Schwartz, 1996). Nevertheless, a lot of researchers before Schwartz pay attention only to one of two approaches. They set relations with separate values. Such approach was unsatisfying due to the fact that “a piecemeal accumulation of bits of information about values that cannot help to the construction of coherent theories” (see Schwartz, 1996).

Moreover, mentioned above approaches have disadvantages. First of all, the accuracy of each value is quite low. Secondly, there is no full and wide theory to make an exact selection of all main values. Finally, such approach ignore the assumption that attitudes and behavior are settled by a balance among all values which always compete to each other (Schwartz, 1996).

To overcome mentioned above disadvantages Schwartz had created a complex set of diverse motivational types of values. Moreover, all of values were recognized across different cultures. Schwartz creates the set of value types in an integrated system afterwards.

His theory (Schwartz, 1992) depicts ten broad values: Self-Direction, Benevolence, Security, Stimulation, Achievement, Power, Conformity, Hedonism, Tradition, and Universalism (theoretical model is represented in Figure 1 in Appendix 1). All ten values are universal because they meet all requirements of human existence. The first requirement is biological needs (which are helpful for social interaction and integration), the second is survival, and the last one is needs of welfare of different groups.

According to Schwartz theory there are ten motivationally separated values which grouped into four dimensions: 'conservation', 'openness to change', `self-transcendence', and `self-enhancement' values. Moreover, Schwartz organized all ten values into the circle to make a motivational continuum.

If values are close to each other, motivations which underlay values are very similar. If values are distant from each other, motivations which underlay values are different. All values are put into two bipolar dimensions for better understanding the oppositions between values which compete with each other.

However, after twenty years Schwartz et al. (2011) has revised the theory. He added nine more distinct basic values to the circle (see Figure 2 in Appendix 1). Overall the revised theory contains 19 distinct basic values.

Thus, 19 more narrowly defined values express motivations that can be linked conceptually in a more precise manner to the motivations that presumably underlie behaviors. There is evidence that each of these newly distinguished values improves people's understanding of the value bases of attitudes (Schwartz et al., 2012). In our research the revised theory of basic individual values helps to provide more powerful prediction and explanation of behavior than the original theory of ten basic values.

The revised theory distinguishes among three types of Universalism values (concern, nature, tolerance), two types of Benevolence values (care, dependability), two of Self-direction (thought, action), two of Conformity (rules, interpersonal), two of Power (dominance, resources), and two of Security (personal, societal). In addition, it introduces two new basic values, Humility and Face. In all, twelve values in the revised theory differ from those in the original theory.

Make a summary of the above information we can conclude that there are a lot of different researches about person's values, beginning from Maslow who created five motivational needs and M. Rokeach who suggested two sets of values and created the RVS questionnaire for measuring personal and social values. Later in 1980s Hofstede studied cultural dimensions and as a result created cultural dimensions' theory which based on the relations between values and behavior. Following Hofstede Wicker (1984) studied "basic" motives.

However, because of the fact that most of approaches (such as Rokeach, 1973; Alwin, 1984; Mayton & Furnliam, 1994) were unsatisfying as they focus on relations with single values, we have chosen the Schwartz theory of Basic Values for our own research.

Moreover, Schwartz's theory of basic human values is a coherent system which determines individual decision making, attitudes, and behavior and what is more can help to explain them (Schwartz, 2012).

Socialization

To become a functioning member of society a person needs to get specific knowledge, skills, values, as well as understand social norms. This is a continuing process which starts since childhood called socialization.

Socialization is very important for the child because it helps to acquire psychological autonomy and regulate his behavior in the society. Moreover, contacts with significant others help make the process of development more successful. As most of the children spend their time in family, as well as have their key relationships there, the process of children development is connected to family environment. This statement proved by the research held by Barber et al. (1997).

Apart from family children have different relations with contemporaries at school, sports groups, etc. who are definitely agents of children socialization. For example, Barber et al. (1997) study is about four different agents of socialization such as school, neighbors, peers, and family. According to the results the most powerful agents of socialization for children are peers and family. And as for school and neighbors - they are less powerful and not influential agents of socialization.

Similar results were obtained by other researchers. For instance, Brown & Larson (2009) found out that there are additional socializing agents. These are peers and close friends which are very important for children when they enter adolescence. Children values, beliefs, and behaviors are influenced by their friends and peers as children spent a lot time with them during adolescence.

Other researchers confirmed these results. However, they noticed that peers and close friends can influence children in two different ways. Thus, the result of socialization could be ranged from positive (e.g., Ryan, 2001) to negative outcomes (e.g., Brown, Bakken, Ameringer, & Mahon, 2008).

Moreover, not only people can influence the process of socialization. For instance, a person's past experience or socio-economic conditions can also have an influence on socialization (Moschis, 1987). According to Tsyvin et al. (2015) social and political crisis can be the reason of contradictory socialization of children. There could be negative social and political orientations, deviant behaviors, and even negative impact on formation of children attitudes.

For instance, parents met one of the most severe market crises in 1997-2001 when there was a shortage of all consumer goods and decline of production (see Pinto and Ulatov, 2010). Contrary to their parents children were growing up in better economic conditions. In the period from 1998 to 2005 there was an economic growth in Russia when stability and social order were returned and the level of unemployment was reduced. Moreover, real disposable income and consumer spending increased and a lot amount of people were taken away from poverty (see Barannik, 2010). The next period from 2006 to 2008 was characterized as continuing strong economic growth (see Slay, 2009). According to Barannik (2010) Russia was among the world`s rapid growing economies in the period from 1999 to 2008. Even the global financial crisis for people in 2008 was not as terrible as crisis in 1990s. In comparison with 1990s, people feel secure and safe and they live better in the period of presidency of Vladimir Putin according to different specific indicators (see Barannik, 2010).

The process of socialization is a complex process which contains different specific subcategories. Financial socialization is one of them. In accordance with the definition of financial socialization this is “the process by which young people have acquired the norms, standards, skills, knowledge, values, and attitudes needed to become functioning consumers in the marketplace” (Kim and Chatterjee, 2013).

Financial socialization is close related to someone's perception and knowledge of money. According to different researchers money could play a crucial part in person's life. For example, very often people associate the level of success with the amount of money they have (Tang, 1992). Hanley & Wilhelm (1992) found out that money can increase person's way of thinking and consumer culture.

What is more, every single day a person meets different situations where he should use his finance knowledge. Moreover, financial decisions are becoming more complex day by day. For instance, when someone buys expensive things such as a house or a car, or try to provide an income at times of bad economic conditions or after retirement, or to ensure education to their children. Nowadays there is a variety of choices for borrowing, spending, saving, and investing money. Thus, the significance and importance of studying money is also growing up.

According to Kowalczyk and Chudzian (2015) the meaning of money for a person consists of two different aspects: psychological and economic. Economic behavior, in turn, is provided by internal factors of an individual as well as economic and financial socialization.

It is worth noting that financial socialization focuses not only on development in financial knowledge, but also on the process by which values and attitudes are formed (Grohmann et al., 2015).

We will give the definition to understand what monetary attitude is. According to Kowalczyk and Chudzian (2015) monetary attitude is a complex of stable tendencies to evaluate money, as well as emotionally reply to them. It is similar to someone's perception of money. Monetary attitude is someone's attitude which defines behavior on a matter of money.

Jorgensen and Savla (2010) found out that the majority of young people have partial not only financial knowledge but also monetary attitudes. As the development of monetary attitude of a person starts since childhood, it is very important to understand how a child enters into the economic world as well as how he acquires an understanding of money.

According to Taneja (2012) children start to perceive attitudes by looking after their parents, friends, peers, and after that they make acquaintances with economic, political, and social environment. Antonia Grohmann et al. (2015) studied relationship between childhood characteristics and financial literacy. Among three socialization agents such as family, school, and practice at work the researchers wanted to know which positive affect the financial skills of children. They found out that family and school positively affects children's financial skills.

The similar results were received by Shim et al. (2010) who studied how family, school and work are linked with monetary attitudes, financial learning and behavior. They found out that all three factors such as parents' behavior, financial education and work experience during youth can help children to form monetary attitudes, financial knowledge and behavior. Kim and Chatterjee (2013) came to the conclusions that parents are the most meaningful agents of children's financial socialization. However, if parents or guardians have an inactive relation with money, monetary skills and monetary attitudes will not be helpful for a person in the period of adulthood.

Monetary attitudes may be passed from generation to generation. There are a lot of scientific researches about the relations between parents and their children. Moreover, many theories (Bengtson, 1975, Jennings & Niemi, 1968; Jennings, Stoker & Bowers, 2009; Knafo & Schwartz, 2008; Rohan & Zanna, 1996) confirm that parents' values influence children's values. What is more the correspondence between parents' and children's values increases with age (Rohan & Zanna, 1996).

A mutual process in which children and parents inherit capacities for beginning action, as well as abilities to make choices and have interactions with each other is called transmission (Kuczynski & Navara, 2006; Roest et al., 2010).

Transmission consists of two steps. The first one is when children get the values from their parents (either accurately or inaccurately). And the second one is the process when children reject or accept the specific values (e.g., Knafo & Schwartz, 2009).

What is more, transmission can cause intergenerational either change or similarity. An absolute transmission of values between generations is not desirable, because new generations need to adapt to new living conditions. Some researcher (Boehnke, 2001; Pinquart & Silbereisen, 2004; Knafo & Schwartz, 2003; Schönpflug, 2001) have found that several value orientations were transmitted from parents to their children. According to Schönpflug (2001) and Trommsdorff (2009) a complete transmission without any changes as well as a complete lack of transmission is very bad for the person.

In our own research we did not focus on transmission because this is beyond of the scope of our study. We focused on the strength of the relations between parents' and children's values.

Come to the conclusion, we could say that personal values, finance education at school and home play a huge role in the process of finance socialization which focuses not only on development in financial knowledge but also on the process by which values and attitudes are formed. As children start to perceive attitudes by looking after their parents, friends, peers, and by making acquaintances with economic, political, and social environment, it is very important to understand which factor plays the most influential role in the process of acquiring of monetary attitudes.

In our own research we focused on basic human values of children, basic human values of their parents, and monetary attitudes of parents. We would not take into account economic, political, and social environment because in our work we wanted to focus on internal factors such as basic human values and monetary attitudes nor external. However, we need to take into consideration that parents and their children grow up in different socio-economic conditions that could be the reason of different monetary attitudes between two generations.

Monetary Attitudes

Monetary attitudes are unconscious and may be passed from generation to generation. There are a lot of spheres where monetary attitudes or money have been studied. For instance, Bailey and Lown (1993) studied monetary attitudes in the context of person's age; Graham et al. (2002) in the context of gender; Bailey & Gustafson (1991) in the context of financial counseling. Tang (1992) studied money in such domain as income and Furnham (1984) in the domain of education.

According to Wernimont and Fitzpatrick (1972) different people perceive money differently. They took several groups of people such as secretaries, engineers, nursing sisters, and technical supervisors and evaluated what meaning they give to money. They found out that those who were employed view money as something positive, useful, and important, whereas those who were unemployed view money as something negative, worrisome, and unhappy. Thus, the researchers came to the conclusions that such factors as gender, socio-economic level, and work experiences had the influence on the perceptions of money.

Moreover, there is correlation between personality and money. For example, if a person refers to anxious type, it is more probability that he will be future and security oriented person. Those who refer to obsessional type are interested in holding money and those who refer to Machiavellian in personality type are value money for the prestige and power (Yamauchi & Templer, 1982). Baker & Hagedorn (2008) found out that income negatively correlates with anxiety and frugality and positively with forward planning and saving.

According to Furnham (1984) "work ethic" people (in accordance with this principle hard work is intrinsically virtuous or worthy of reward) think more often in comparison with ordinary people that people receive money by effort. Moreover, "work ethic" people have higher probability to be obsessed with money.

Thus, it is very crucial to study monetary scripts of people because it can help predict different deviant behavior, such as compulsive buying, pathological gambling, etc. Nowadays researchers have a lot of tools for measuring monetary attitudes as well as money behavior.

In 1987 Forman specified five monetary personalities such as bargain, gambler, spendthrift, hunter, tycoon, and miser. In 2002 Tatzel singled out four different types of behavior in the process dealing with money: value-seeker, experiencer, non-spender, and big spender. The first empirically validated scale MAS (Money Attitude Scale) was made by Yamauchi and Templer in 1982. The scale consisted of five factors: retention time, power-prestige, quality, distrust, and anxiety.

After 1982 a lot of researchers have constructed other scales. For instance, MBBS (Furnham's the money belief and behavior scale, 1984), MES (Tang's Money Ethical Scale, 1992), and MIS (Money Importance Scale by Mitchell et. al, 1998).

The MES has six factors: budget, achievement, freedom, evil, good, and respect. MBBS has also six factors such as power, obsession, inadequacy, security, retention, and effort/ability, which are different from MES. MIS consists of seven subscales such as value importance of money, time spent thinking about financial affairs, skills in handling money, knowledge of financial affairs, personal involvement with money, money as a source of power and status, and comfort in taking financial risks.

After the period of 1984 a lot of researches about monetary attitudes were conducted following Yamauchi & Templer (1982) and Furnham (1984). In 1989 Gresham and Fontenot conducted the differences between male and female using the MAS. They found a little bit different factors which called Retention-Time, Power-Prestige, Distrust-Anxiety, and Quality. Moreover, they found clear gender differences concerning Power-Prestige, Distrust-Anxiety, and Quality factors. However, they haven't found statistically significance differences between genders on “retention-time” factor. Apart from that, women more than men use money as a tool in power fight.

Despite the fact that thirty years have passed since 1984, MBBS created by Furnham's and MAS created by Yamauchi & Templer (1982) are still one of the most popular instruments for measuring monetary attitudes.

In 2005 Burgess has studied the link between values and monetary attitudes. He used the five-factor MAS structure proposed by Yamauchi and Templer (1982) for measuring monetary attitudes and 29-item PVQ (Schwartz, Lehmann and Roccas, 1999) on a six-point scale for measuring basic human values. The six-point scale consists of `not at all like me', `not like me', `a little like me', `somewhat like me', `like me', `very much like me' items.

First of all, he studied the factorial structure of monetary attitudes. The received results were the same as Yamauchi and Templer' results. The five-factor of MAS, such as “Anxiety”, “Distrust”, “Power/Prestige”, “Quality”, “Retention/Time” was supported. The second and the last step in Burgess's study was a regression analysis of monetary attitudes and basic human values.

In 2011 Klontz et al. developed a new instrument for measuring monetary attitudes. As this instrument is more modern than MBBS or MAS, we use it in our own research. The new instrument was named Klontz-Money Script Inventory or Klontz MSI.

The first version of this questionnaire consisted of eight hypothesized money factors: money is bad, money mistrust/openness, money worship, anti-rich, money anxiety, frugality/fiscal responsibility, money is unimportant. However, after factor analysis Klontz et al. have left only four: money avoidance, money worship, money status, and money vigilance. The explanation of all of these four factors we give below.

People who have money avoidance attitude consider money as something bad; they perceive rich people as greedy people and they think they do not deserve money.

People who have money worship attitude believe that money brings power as well as happiness and love; they think that money can help to solve all their problems. However, there will never be enough money for such people.

People who have money status attitude convince that self-worth is the same as net worth. Moreover, they try to buy only new and the best things.

Money avoidance, money worship, and money status are associated with poorer financial health and lower income. However, in contrast, the last one monetary attitude is money vigilance attitude contains frugality on the part of people, the importance of saving money, restraint about how much money a person should have or make.

It's worth noting that Burgess (2005) has explored the relationship between human basic values and monetary attitudes, so we will consider his study as the foundation for our research because we will also explore the relationship between human basic values and monetary attitudes. The difference between measurements in monetary attitudes is the only problem. To overcome this problem we find the similarity between different factors of two monetary questionnaires.

“money avoidance” is similar to “MAS-anxiety”

According to Burgess (2005) money can be the source of anxiety when someone feels disempowered or when anxiety leads to insufficient evaluations by others. Thus, if a person has MAS-anxiety attitude, he views money as a source of anxiety and tries to defense from it.

According to Klontz (2011) if a person has “money avoidance” attitude, he thinks that he does not deserve money because money is bad. For him money activates fear, anxiety, and disgust. He can unintentionally spend all money he has, so he tries to avoid spending money.

This description of “money avoidance” attitude is similar to MAS-anxiety when a person feels a shortage of competence for dealing with money (Burgess, 2005).

“money worship” is similar to “MAS-power/prestige”

People who have “money worship” attitude believe that more money could make things better. For example, he considers that unexpected financial fortune can solve all his problems. MAS-power/prestige attitude has described a situation where a person cans dominate over other people as well as where he attains achievement, external recognition, personal control, and social status (Burgess, 2005).

“money status” is also similar to “MAS-power/prestige”

If a person has “MAS-power/prestige” attitude, he uses money to impress other people as well as influence them. For such person money is a symbol of success (Burgess, 2005). This conception of “MAS-power/prestige” attitude is similar to “Money status” attitude which related to the mutual conception of net-worth and self-worth. If a person has “Money status” attitude, he can see a clear differences between socio-economic classes.

“money vigilance” is similar to “MAS-distrust” & “MAS-retention/time” in an extreme form.

“Money vigilance” attitude is linked to watchfulness and concern about money. A person who has such monetary attitude would be attentive to trouble. Moreover, such person can stick to frugality and saving as well as avoid the gains and sense of security which money can provide (see Klontz, 2011).

MAS-distrust attitude is linked to doubt, mistrust, and lack of confidence in financial situations and situations concerning money. A person who has MAS-distrust attitude has rooted disbelief of others. He can have a suspicion in human's ability to prevail in exchange relations.

“MAS-retention/time” attitude has influence on the preservation of money through budgeting, self-control, the delay of gratification, the pursuit of parsimony and utilitarian consumption (see Burgess, 2005).

To sum up the information about monetary attitudes we can conclude that people demonstrate multiple forms of dealing with money. Different factors such as age, wealth, the level of education, childhood experiences, financial and social status, political beliefs, etc. can influence monetary attitudes. A lot of studies confirm that monetary attitudes vary from person to person. Despite the popularity of MBBS and MAS scales among researchers, we choose a modified version of Klontz Money Script Inventory (Klontz et al., 2011) as the most modern and clear questionnaire.

Current Study

Basic human values are underlies individual decision making, attitudes, and behavior and help to explain them. Thus, individual values, socialization, and monetary attitudes are linked to each other. Moreover, we assume Burgess's study (2005) as a foundation for our exploratory research.

Burgess (2005) used a shortened values scale, the 29-item PVQ (Schwartz, Lehmann & Roccas, 1999) on a 6-point scale (not at all like me, not like me, a little like me, somewhat like me, like me, very much like me) which define ten basic human values. We also use Schwartz's the Portrait Values Questionnaire (2011) but a new version of a values scale which consists of 57 items and identifies 19 basic human values.

Moreover, we assume Burgess's study (2005) as a foundation for our exploratory research. However, Burgess (2005) and we use different monetary questionnaires. So, to make some suggestions about the links between human basic values and monetary attitudes in our own research, we have compared different factors between Money Attitude Scale (MAS) and a modified version of Klontz Money Script Inventory (Klontz et al., 2011).

After the comparison we come to the conclusion that “money avoidance” is similar to “MAS-anxiety”, “money worship” is similar to “MAS-power/prestige”, “money status” is similar to “MAS-power/prestige”, “money vigilance” is similar to “MAS-distrust” & “MAS-retention/time” in an extreme form.

Moreover, Schwartz et al., (2000) as well as Boehnke et al., (1998) found out that anxiety is related positively to achievement, hedonism, and power and negatively to benevolence and universalism. What is more, Burgess (2005) received that MAS-anxiety is negatively related to benevolence and positively to power. Mentioned above researchers have had suggestion about the positive link between achievement, hedonism and “money avoidance” as well as the negative link between universalism and “money avoidance”.

MAS-power/prestige was related negatively to benevolence, security, self-direction, universalism, and positively to achievement and power (Burgess, 2005).

According to Tatzel (2002) materialists, people who passionate about success in finance sphere have low level of well-being. Kasser & Ahuvia (2002) revealed that such people also have low levels of happiness, vitality, self-actualization, and high levels of anxiety, unhappiness, and physical symptoms.

According to Burgess (2005) MAS-distrust is linked negatively to security and self-direction and positively to achievement and power. The link between MAS-retention/time and self-direction, hedonism was negative and between MAS-retention/time and tradition was positive. The link between conformity and stimulation were not statistically significant. So, we would like to check it in our own study.

Our assumptions:

1: “money avoidance” will be positively linked to power and achievement. It will be negatively linked to benevolence and universalism.

2: “Money worship” will be positively linked to power and achievement, and negatively to benevolence, universalism, security and self-direction.

3: “Money status” will be positively linked to power and achievement, and negatively to benevolence, universalism, security and self-direction.

4: “money vigilance” will be positively linked to conformity, tradition, achievement and power values and negatively to stimulation, hedonism, security and self-direction. Research question

Which factor plays the most influential role in monetary attitudes of children?

Monetary attitudes of parents

Parents' values

Children's values.



CHAPTER II. Methods and Design of the Study

2.1 Methods

The main research method was a survey. In our study we used the following variables: basic human values and monetary attitudes. “Human values - desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance that serves as guiding principles in people's lives” (Schwartz, 1992). Monetary attitude is a complex of stable tendencies to evaluate money, as well as emotionally reply to them (Kowalczyk & Chudzian, 2015).

Basic human values were measured by the scale called PVQ (Portrait Values Questionnaire). The scale consists of short verbal portraits of different people, describing the importance of different values to them (each portrait depicts aspirations, goals, or wishes of a person that show implicitly to the importance of a certain value). For each item participants judge how similar the person described in the item is to themselves. For instance: “Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. He likes to do things in his own original way” portrays a person for whom self-direction values are vital. “It is important to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money and expensive things” portrays a person who cultivates power values. The scales were formed from 57 questions rated with a 6-point Likert scale with the following categories: 1 = “Very much like me”, 2 = “Like me”, 3 = “Somewhat like me”, 4 = “A little like me”, 5 = “Not like me”, 6 = “Not like me at all”.

For measuring monetary attitudes we used the modified version of Klontz Money Script Inventory. For each item, respondents marked how much they agree or disagree with the statements. For example: “I do not deserve a lot of money when others have less than me”, “You can never have enough money”, “If something is not considered the "best," it is not worth buying”, “You should not tell others how much money you have or make”. All items were rated with a 6-point Likert scale with the following categories: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree a little, 4 = agree a little, 5 = agree, and 6 = strongly agree. Monetary attitudes were measured on four hypothesized factors: (a) money avoidance, (b) money worship, (c) money status, and (d) money vigilance.

As Klontz Money Script Inventory has never been translated into Russian we have made an adaptation for this inventory.

Adaptation Procedure

We translated a modified version of Klontz Money Script Inventory from English into Russian. We used translation-back-translation method to do that. After that we tested validity of Klontz Money Script Inventory.

1. Test adaptation

First of all, we conducted the adaptation of Klontz Money Script Inventory. For that purpose Diana Bayasitova and I made two different translations from English into Russian. Secondly, we compared two translations and made corrections to the translation. Thirdly, to identify and resolve the inadequate expressions/concepts of the translation, we asked a bilingual (in English and Russian languages) expert Ruth took part in the process of adaptation. The expert made back translation from Russian into English (see Appendix 8).

Finally, we conducted cognitive interviews with 8 persons: 4 children (17-year-old girl, 15-year-old boy, 16-year-old boy, 16-year-old girl) and 4 adults (23-year-old female, 25-year-old male, 45-year-old male, 31-year-old female) and made some corrections to the items. The result of this process was produced a complete translated version of the questionnaire.

2. Testing the validity of the Russian version of the questionnaire.

To test reliability of Klontz Money Script Inventory we combined two questionnaires: Klontz' and Furnham's and sent the link to the survey to participants. Overall the questionnaire consisted from 130 questions. The whole survey was used for the sample of 200 adults in summer-autumn 2016.

After that to see whether the structure of the inventory was replicated after the process of adaptation, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses using IBM SPSS AMOS 20 (to assess the reliability of the four-factor scale and prove internal validity). The structure of the inventory was replicated following the Klontz's study after the confirmatory factor analyses (see Appendix 7). The Russian version of questionnaire also consists of four hypothesized factors: (a) money avoidance, (b) money worship, (c) money status, and (d) money vigilance. However, the amount of questions in each factor was decreased (30 questions in total instead of 48).

After the confirmatory factor analyses we calculated Cronbach's alpha for four obtained factors of Klontz Money Script Inventory and Cronbach's alpha for Furnham's factors. We used the following Furnham's factors in Russian language: retention, power/spending, security/conservative, and obsession according to the research which was conducted by Tatarko (2012).

All the scales were checked for reliability using Cronbach's alpha in SPSS and met the requirements. The results were as following: for Klontz Money Script Inventory Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient (á) of the first factor with nine items “MoneyAvoidance” was found to be .80, reliability (á) of the second factor with eight items “MoneyWorship” was found to be .88, reliability (á) of the third factor with eight items “MoneyStatus” was found to be .91, and reliability (á) of the fourth factor with five items “MoneyVigilance” was found to be .98.

For Furnham Inventory Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient (á) of the first factor with four items “Retention” was found to be .64, reliability (á) of the second factor with four items “Power/spending” was found to be .61, reliability (á) of the third factor with four items “Security/conservative” was found to be .65, and reliability (á) of the fourth factor with three items “Obsession” was found to be .49.

After that we calculate the mean of each factors obtained from Klontz Money Script Inventory and Furnham's Questionnaire and construct a correlation-matrix between newly obtained factors of Klontz Money Script Inventory and Furnham's factors. The results obtained from a correlation-matrix proved the concurrent validity.

As a result of the adaptation process we have got a valid Russian version of an instrument for measurement monetary attitudes. The modified version of Klontz Money Script Inventory (developed by B. Klontz, S. Britt, J. Mentzer, T. Klontz in 2011) would be used for measuring monetary attitudes of children and their parents.

Procedures

The main research method was a survey which was conducted 25-27 of October 2016 in Moscow region in the town of Sergiev Posad. In general, the procedure included the following steps. One hundred and fifty pupils and one hundred and fifty parents got a questionnaire. The survey consisted of 4 pages containing 93 questions and taken approximately 20 minutes to complete. Due to the sensitive nature of the information, surveys were anonymous. A total of 300 surveys were handed out. Respondents were asked to answer the two questionnaires: Schwartz's the Portrait Values Questionnaire (Schwartz, et al., 2012) and a modified version of Klontz Money Script Inventory (developed by B. Klontz, S. Britt, J. Mentzer, T. Klontz in 2011). It was non-probability sampling, purposive sampling (total population sampling).

Firstly, we asked pupils at 8-10th forms at school to answer the two questionnaires. Prior to the start of the procedure pupils had an opportunity to ask questions if they had any misunderstanding. After the questions we ask pupils fulfilled a questionnaire and gave one more questionnaire (parental questionnaire) either to mother or father without any strict request. In that case we expected that children and chosen parent would have more similarity between values and monetary attitudes. As according to Barni et al. (2011) the quality of the child-parent relation can be a powerful predictor of children acceptance parents' values. The more children realize themselves as being close to parents, the more values they can accept. After the parents fulfilled the questionnaire at home, they gave questionnaires to their children who brought them back to school.

After the data collection total number of participants was 246. First, the responses were checked for belonging to Russian nationality. Those who were not Russians were excluded from the data to make the data more homogeneous (10 participants). Also those who did not fill all questions from the questionnaire (16 participants) were also excluded from the data. Final respondents count was 220.

Sample description

The participants of the study were gymnasium pupils and their parents. In our research we defined participants into two groups: (1) children and (2) their parents. Participants were 110 families (adolescent child and father or mother - the child's choice) from Moscow region. In total, the sample consisted of 220 subjects.

The age of parents ranged from 31 to 55 years (M = 42.3, SD = 4.93). Age was non-normally distributed, with skewness of 0.12 (SE = 0.23) and kurtosis of 0.48 (SE = 0.46). The majority of parents 80 participants (65.6%) were female. And 30 parents (24.6%) were male.

Concerning the analysis 88 parents (72.1%) are married, 10 parents (8.2%) are single, 7 parents (5.7%) are divorced, 4 parents (3.3%) are widowed, and 1 parent (.8%) is separated.

The major part of parents (50 participants, 41%) has 2 children. Then 39 parents (32%) have 1 child, 12 parents (9.8%) have 3 children, 7 parents (5.7%) have 4 children, and finally 2 parents (1.6%) have 5 children in a family.

Moreover, the majority of parents (86 participants or 70.5%) have higher education, 12 parents (9.8 %) have specialized secondary education, 6 participants (4.9%) have incomplete higher education, and 6 participants (4.9%) have an academic degree.

With regard to the employment status the majority of parents (95 participants or 77.9%) has full-time work, 6 parents unemployed and 9 parents (7.4%) have omitted this point.

The age of children ranged from 13 to 16 years (M = 14.87, SD = .94). Age was non-normally distributed, with skewness of -0.35 (SE = 0.23) and kurtosis of -0.84 (SE = 0.46). The majority of children 74 participants (60.7%) were also female. And 36 children (29.5%) were male. Pupils were high-school students at 8-10th forms (see Table 1 in Appendix 6).

The levels of religiosity of the participants see in Table 2 in Appendix 4.



CHAPTER III. RESULTS

Results of our study are presented in this chapter. In the table ¹ 1 descriptive statistics of the variables which include means, standard deviation, significance, and effect size of measurement are introduced. In the first section we have checked our assumptions about the link between basic human values of participants and their monetary attitudes.

In the second section results of the links between children monetary attitudes and two factors such as monetary attitudes of parents, parents' basic human values are presented.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics

	Parents	Children
	M	SD	M	SD	T	Sig.	d
MA (Money Avoidance)	2.48	.70	2.71	.78	-2.62	.01	0.31
MW (Money Worship)	3.34	.74	3.33	.87	.11	.91	0.012
MS (Money status)	2.27	.55	2.38	.68	-1.48	.14	0.18
MV (Money vigilance)	4.52	.67	4.58	.84	-.57	.57	0.079
SDT (Self-direction Thought)	5.03	.57	5.09	.54	-.81	.42	0.11
SDA (Self-direction Action)	5.01	.67	4.98	.74	.33	.74	0.043
BED (Benevolence-Dependability)	5.10	.59	5.09	.80	.13	.90	0.014
BEC (Benevolence-Care)	5.27	.60	5.13	.75	1.57	.12	0.21
COR (Conformity-Rules)	4.00	.92	3.81	1.12	1.59	.12	0.19
COI (Conformity-Interpersonal)	4.15	.87	4.03	1.04	.97	.33	0.13
UNN (Universalism-Nature)	4.26	.92	3.98	.99	2.16	.03	0.29
UNT (Universalism-Tolerance)	4.32	.78	4.48	.92	-1.40	.16	0.19
UNC (Universalism-Concern)	4.47	.75	4.57	.89	-.91	.37	0.12
POD (Power Dominance)	3.00	1.11	3.08	1.11	-.62	.53	0.072
POR (Power Resources)	2.78	1.04	3.20	1.08	-2.89	.005	0.4
SES (Security Societal)	5.15	.67	4.63	.97	5.04	.000	0.62
SEP (Security Personal)	4.65	.76	4.35	.81	2.84	.005	0.38
ST (Stimulation)	3.64	.85	4.20	.84	-4.76	.000	0.66
HE (Hedonism)	3.74	1.01	4.78	.77	-9.23	.000	1.16
HU (Humility)	4.10	.75	3.67	.77	4.14	.000	0.57
FAC (Face)	4.58	.80	4.69	.87	-1.05	.3	0.13
AC (Achievement)	3.80	1.01	4.66	.74	-7.39	.000	0.97
TR (Tradition)	4.67	.81	3.85	1.15	6.99	.000	0.82
Note. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, d = Cohen's d. Religiosity ranged from 1 (non-religious) to 5 (very religious). Monetary variables ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) and basic human values ranged from 1 (very much like me) to 6 (not like me at all).

3.1 Testing the assumptions of the study (Regression analysis)

First of all, we have checked our assumption about the link between basic human values of participants and their monetary attitudes. For that purpose we have made regression analysis in SPSS. We have built eight models. Four models to understand the relation between basic human values of parents and their monetary attitudes. And four models to understand the relation between basic human values of children and their monetary attitudes.

...