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

What is more, we used the Variance Inflation Factor in all regression models to measure multicollinearity. We found out that a VIF was low than 5 in all eight models. Consequently, there was no evidence of multicollinearity in our research.

3.1.1 The link between parent's basic human values and their monetary attitudes

The stepwise multiple linear regression was carried out to ascertain the extent to which Benevolence-Care, Hedonism can predict money avoidance of parents. The regression model (Money_Avoidance_p = 5.21 - 0.39*BEC - 0.18*HE) predicted 17.4% of the variance. The model was suitable for predicting the outcome (F = 11.3, df = 109, p < 0.001). The coefficients for the explanatory variables are represented in Table 2.



Table 2 Money_Avoidance - Parents
	B	SE	t	Sig.	VIF
Constant	5.21	.597	8.73	.000
Benevolence-Care	-.391	.103	-3.82	.000	1
Hedonism	-.18	.061	-2.96	.004	1
Note. B = Beta (Unstandardized Coefficients ), SE = Standard Error VIF = Variance inflation factors

The stepwise multiple linear regression was carried out to ascertain the extent to which Power Resources, Stimulation can predict Money Worship of parents. The regression model (Money_Worship_p = 3.54 + 0.281* POR - 0.269* ST) predicted 14.9% of the variance. The model was suitable for predicting the outcome (F = 10.57, df = 109, p < 0.001). The coefficients for the explanatory variables are represented in Table 3.

Table 3 Money_Worship - Parents
	B	SE	t	Sig.	VIF
Constant	3.54	.296	12.0	.000
Power Resources	.281	.067	4.18	.000	1.15
Stimulation	-.269	.082	-3.29	.001	1.15
Note. B = Beta (Unstandardized Coefficients ), SE = Standard Error VIF = Variance inflation factors

The stepwise multiple linear regression was carried out to ascertain the extent to which Achievement, Universalism-Nature, Benevolence-Care can predict Money Status of parents. The regression model (Money_Status_p = 2.86 + 0.23*AC - 0.124*UNN - 0.179*BEC) predicted 18.6% of the variance. The model was suitable for predicting the outcome (F = 8.07, df = 109, p < 0.001). The coefficients for the explanatory variables are represented in Table 4.



Table 4 Money_Status - Parents
	B	SE	t	Sig.	VIF
Constant	2.86	.463	6.17	.000
Achievement	.231	.051	4.55	.000	1.12
Universalism-Nature	-.124	.055	-2.26	.026	1.07
Benevolence-Care	-.179	.084	-2.13	.035	1.07
Note. B = Beta (Unstandardized Coefficients ), SE = Standard Error VIF = Variance inflation factors

The stepwise multiple linear regression was carried out to ascertain the extent to which Stimulation, Face can predict Money Vigilance of parents. The regression model (Money_Vigilance_p = 4.26 - 0.203*ST + 0.217*FAC) predicted 13% of the variance. The model was suitable for predicting the outcome (F = 7.98, df = 109, p < 0.001). The coefficients for the explanatory variables are represented in Table 5.

Table 5 Money_Vigilance - Parents
	B	SE	t	Sig.	VIF
Constant	4.26	.428	9.95	.000
Stimulation	-.203	.071	-2.87	.005	1
Face	.217	.076	2.87	.005	1
Note. B = Beta (Unstandardized Coefficients ), SE = Standard Error VIF = Variance inflation factors

3.1.2 The link between children basic human values and their monetary attitudes

The stepwise multiple linear regression was carried out to ascertain the extent to which Power Resources, Tradition can predict Money Avoidance of children. The regression model (Money_Avoidance_ch= 2.73 - 0.188*POR + 0.15*TR) predicted 12.6% of the variance. The model was suitable for predicting the outcome (F = 7.68, df = 109, p < 0.001). The coefficients for the explanatory variables are represented in Table 6.

Table 6 Money_ Avoidance - Children
	B	SE	t	Sig.	VIF
Constant	2.73	.335	8.14	.000
Power Resources	-.188	.066	-2.86	.005	1
Tradition	.150	.061	2.45	.016	1
Note. B = Beta (Unstandardized Coefficients ), SE = Standard Error VIF = Variance inflation factors

The stepwise multiple linear regression was carried out to ascertain the extent to which Power Resources, Tradition can predict Money Worship of children. The regression model (Money_Worship_ch= 2.19 + 0.52*POR - 0.135*TR) predicted 46.4% of the variance. The model was suitable for predicting the outcome (F = 46.4, df = 109, p < 0.001). The coefficients for the explanatory variables are represented in Table 7.

Table 7 Money_Worship - Children
	B	SE	t	Sig.	VIF
Constant	2.19	.293	7.46	.000
Power Resources	.520	.057	9.07	.000	1
Tradition	-.135	.053	-2.52	.013	1
Note. B = Beta (Unstandardized Coefficients ), SE = Standard Error VIF = Variance inflation factors

The stepwise multiple linear regression was carried out to ascertain the extent to which Power Dominance, Power Resources, Humility can predict Money Status of children. The regression model (Money_Status_ch = 0.362 + 0.232*POD + 0.188*POR + 0.192*HU) predicted 34.3% of the variance. The model was suitable for predicting the outcome (F = 18.5, df = 109, p < 0.001).

The coefficients for the explanatory variables are represented in Table 8.



Table 8 Money_Status - Children
	B	SE	t	Sig.	VIF
Constant	.362	.368	.98	.327
Power Dominance	.232	.065	3.55	.001	1.83
Power Resources	.188	.065	2.87	.005	1.73
Humility	.192	.074	2.60	.011	1.11
Note. B = Beta (Unstandardized Coefficients ), SE = Standard Error VIF = Variance inflation factors

The stepwise multiple linear regression was carried out to ascertain the extent to which Face, Benevolence-Dependability, Humility, Universalism-Tolerance can predict Money Vigilance of children. The regression model (Money_Vigilance_ch = 1.73 + 0.226*FAC + 0.332*BED + 0.246*HU - 0.181*UNT) predicted 25.2% of the variance. The model was suitable for predicting the outcome (F = 8.86, df = 109, p < 0.001). The coefficients for the explanatory variables are represented in Table 9.

Table 9 Money_Vigilance - Children
	B	SE	t	Sig.	VIF
Constant	1.73	.647	2.68	.009
Face	.226	.095	2.38	.019	1.34
Benevolence-Dependability	.332	.107	3.10	.002	1.46
Humility	.246	.096	2.55	.012	1.08
Universalism-Tolerance	-.181	.087	-2.09	.039	1.27
Note. B = Beta (Unstandardized Coefficients ), SE = Standard Error, VIF = Variance inflation factors

To summarize the relations between basic human values of participants and their monetary attitudes we can conclude that “money avoidance” of parents negatively linked to Benevolence-Care and Hedonism. “Money avoidance” of children negatively linked to Power Resources and positively to Tradition.

For both parents and their children “money worship” positively linked to Power Resource. Moreover, “money worship” of parents negatively linked to Tradition and “money worship” of children negatively linked to Stimulation.

“Money status” of children positively linked to Power Dominance, Humility, and Power Resources. “Money status” of parents positively linked to Achievement and negatively to Universalism-Nature and Benevolence-Care.

For both parents and their children “Money vigilance” positively linked to Face. “Money vigilance” of parents negatively linked to Stimulation. “Money vigilance” of children positively linked to Benevolence-Dependability and Humility and negatively to Universalism-Tolerance.

3.2 Testing the assumptions of the study (Intraclass Correlation and SEM)

We have checked our assumption about the link between children monetary attitudes and monetary attitudes of parents as well as parents' basic human values.

3.2.1 The link between monetary attitudes of parents and their children

To define the degree to which parents and their children resemble each other in terms of monetary attitudes we have made two steps. First of all, we conduct intraclass correlation for four monetary attitudes of parents and their children. Secondly, we have used structural equation modeling (SEM).

Intraclass Correlation value parent's monetary

We found out that two out of four monetary attitudes have high degrees of reliability. There were money avoidance and money status. The results for other two monetary attitudes (money worship and money vigilance) were insignificant.

A high degree of reliability was found between money avoidance of parents and money avoidance of children. The average measure ICC was .342 with a 95% confidence interval from .041 to .549, F (109,109) = 1.521, p =.015.

The reliability between money worship of parents and money worship of children wasn't found, p=.059. A high degree of reliability was found between money status of parents and money status of children. The average measure ICC was .275 with a 95% confidence interval from -.057 to .503, F (109,109) = 1.38, p =.047.

The reliability between money vigilance of parents and money vigilance of children wasn't found, p =.742.

Structural Equation Modeling

After interclass correlation to model the relationships between values and monetary attitudes we have used path analysis, which is one of the types of structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM was conducted in IBM SPSS AMOS 20.

Fig. 1. Standardized coefficients for model depicting the relations between monetary attitudes of parents and their children (*p < .05. **p < .01).

The results of the path analysis with the standardized regression coefficients for all monetary attitudes of children are presented in Figure 3. The model had a good fit with a chi-square = 5.27 (df = 12, p = .95), CMIN/DF = .44, RMSEA = 0.000 (PCLOSE = .983), NFI = 0.96, and a CFI = 1.

Figure 1 indicates that only two out of four monetary attitudes of parents (Money Avoidance and Money Status) have a significant direct effect on monetary attitudes of their children. There was a significant positive relation between Money Avoidance of parents and Money Avoidance of children (â = .21, p = .019) as well as a significant positive relation between Money Status of parents and Money Status of children (â = .16, p = .027).

By contrast, the relation between Money Worship of parents and Money Worship of children is not significant (â = .08, p =.29) as well as the relation between Money Vigilance of parents and Money Vigilance of children (â = -.06, p =.54).

Moreover, R-square indicates that only 4% of the variance in Money Avoidance of Children and 2% of the variance in Money Status of Children can be explained by this model.

3.2.2 The link between parents' basic human values and monetary attitudes of their children

Structural Equation Modeling

Fig. 2. Standardized coefficients for model depicting the relations between human basic values of parents and money avoidance of their children through money avoidance of parents (*p < .05. **p < .01).

The results of the path analysis with the standardized regression coefficients for money avoidance (children) are presented in Figure 2 and Table 10. This model had a good fit with a chi-square = 3.30 (df = 5, p = .653), CMIN/DF = .66, RMSEA = 0.000, (PCLOSE = .769), NFI = .95, and a CFI = 1. The model indicates that Hedonism (parents) has a significant negative indirect effect on Money Avoidance of children (â = -.04, p =.047), CI [-.120, -.001].

As for Money Avoidance of parents, the direct effect of Money Avoidance of parents and Self-direction thoughts (parents) is not significant (â = -.15, p =.138). As well as the direct effect of Money Avoidance of parents and Power-Resources (parents) is not significant (â = -.15, p =.149). The direct effect of Money Avoidance of parents and Hedonism (parents) is significant (â = -.20, p =.094).

The direct effect of Money Avoidance of parents and Benevolence-Care (parents) is significant (â = -.26, p =.053). The direct effect of Money Avoidance of parents and Money Avoidance (children) is significant (â = .21, p =.015).

However, R-square indicates that only 4% of the variance in Money Avoidance of Children can be explained by this model.

Table 10. Standardized direct and indirect effects for Money Avoidance.
Outcome predictor	Money avoidance (parents)	Money avoidance (children)
		Direct	Indirect	Total
Self-direction thoughts (parents)	-.15	-	-.032	-.032
Hedonism (parents)	-.20*	-	-.041*	-.041*
Benevolence-Care (parents)	-.26*	-	-.055	-.055
Power-Resources (parents)	-.15	-	-0.32	-0.32
Money avoidance (parents)	-	.21*	-	.21*
R2	.21	.04

The results of the path analysis with the standardized regression coefficients for money status (children) are presented in Figure 3 and Table 11. This model had a good fit with a chi-square = 1.76 (df = 2, p = .42), CMIN/DF = .88, RMSEA = 0.000, (PCLOSE = .507), NFI = 0.98, and a CFI = 1.

The model indicates that achievement (parents) has an indirect effect on Money Status (children) on the level of tendency (â = .04, p =.08), CI [.003, .129].

The direct effect of Power Dominance of parents and Money Status of parents is not significant (â = .15, p =.21). As well as the direct effect of Achievement (parents) and Money Status of parents is not significant (â = .22, p =.12). Moreover, the direct effect of Money Status of parents and Money Status (children) is not significant (â = .16, p =.11).

However, R-square indicates that only 3% of the variance in Money Status of Children can be explained by this model.

Fig. 2. Standardized coefficients for model depicting the relations between human basic values of parents and money status of their children through money status of parents (*p < .05. **p < .01).

Table 11. Standardized direct and indirect effects for Money Status.
Outcome predictor	Money status (parents)	Money status (children)
		Direct	Indirect	Total
Power-Dominance (parents)	.15	-	.024	.024
Achievement (parents)	.22	-	.037	.037
Money status (parents)	-	.16	-	.16
R2	.12	.03



CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION

In the present study we examined (a) the relation between basic human values of parents and their monetary attitudes, (b) the relation between basic human values of children and their monetary attitudes, (c) how three factors such as monetary attitudes of parents, parent's values, or children's values are linked to monetary attitudes of children, and (d) which factor play the most influential role.

General overview

First, to find out which factor most influence monetary attitudes of the children we have used different techniques such as intraclass correlation, SEM, and stepwise multiple linear regression. We have checked three assumptions: monetary attitudes of parents, basic human values of parents, and basic human values of children. We found out that human basic values of children play the most influential role in monetary attitudes of children. To prove this statement we have made three steps.

The link between monetary attitudes of parents and their children

Firstly, according to intraclass correlation only money avoidance and money status have high degrees of reliability (p =.015 and p =.047 accordingly). However, the intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was poor, less than .40 in both cases (.342 and .275 accordingly).

Secondly, according to the results of structural equation modeling money avoidance and money status have a significant direct effect on monetary attitudes of their children. However, only 4% of the variance in Money Avoidance of Children and 2% of the variance in Money Status of Children can be explained by the model.

Thirdly, according to Cohen's d the effect size has a medium effect (d=.31) only for money avoidance. The effect size of other monetary attitudes (money worship, money status and money vigilance) has small effect (d = 0.012, 0.18 and 0.079 accordingly). That means that there is no statistically significant difference between monetary attitudes of parents and their children.

Thus, according to the three steps mentioned above we can conclude that there are only two (money avoidance and money status) out of four parents' monetary attitudes which link to monetary attitudes of children. However, the relationships between two monetary attitudes, such as money avoidance and money status of children and their parents are weak. These findings are corresponded with Webley & Nyhus (2006) who found out that parental behavior have a weak but clear impact on children's economic behavior. Moreover, in 1960 Marshall and Magruder found out that there is no evidence that children share the monetary attitudes of their parents.

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

According to the path analysis there is a relationship between parents' values and monetary attitudes of their children. However, only two basic human values of parents have relation with children monetary attitudes. There is hedonism and achievement. These two basic human values of parents have indirect effect on children's Money Avoidance and Money Status accordingly.

The digital age, the accessibility of information via the Internet, social networks affect children more than the parental upbringing. However, such values as hedonism and achievement embody the desire of children for things that can be bought for the money of parents. And as a result they accept several values.

The negative relation between parents' hedonism and children “money avoidance” is explainable as if a person likes pleasure and he considers it the highest good in his life, he will need a lot of money for that. Consequently, he will not avoid money. 

The second link is the positive relation between parents' achievement and children's “money status”. If a person has the value of achievement he will have a desire to reach his goals and be successful according to Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997). Furthermore, a person would express his achievement through attributes of power. If a person has high money status, he will identify hinself with more successful social group (Social Identity Theory, Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Nevertheless, the results of the path analysis indicate that only 4% of the variance in Money Avoidance of Children can be explained by the model (which includes parent's human basic values, such as Self-direction Though, Hedonism, Benevolence-Care, Power Resources and Money Avoidance of parents). And 3% of the variance in Money Status of Children can be explained by the model (which includes parent's human basic values, such as Power Dominance, Achievement and money Status of parents).

The link between children basic human values and their monetary attitudes

To evaluate the strength of the relations between children basic human values and their monetary attitudes we conduct the stepwise multiple linear regression. The results of the regression models for four monetary attitudes were as follows:

The regression model for Money_Avoidance of children predicted 12.6% of the variance, for Money_Worship of children predicted 46.4% of the variance, for Money_Status of children predicted 34.3% of the variance, for Money_Vigilance of children predicted 25.2% of the variance.

Thus, we can conclude 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.

However, the effect of social influences could not be ignored. Social attitudes of children are determined by the social environment of peers, friends with whom they communicate most of their time. It means that the values of the social group, the importance of social identity and the importance of taking into the desired group determine the attitudes of children more than the parental influence.

However, the most desired things for children related to money, such as travelling, buying new electronic devices, fashion clothes or getting pocket money from parents. Consequently, the desire to get such things makes children accept parental monetary attitudes as well as parental values (according to our results hedonism and achievement). Subconsciously children accept parental values and their manner of handling with money in order to build personal strategies how to communicate and influence parents.

The link between monetary attitudes of parents and their children

The next step was to find out which values linked to monetary attitudes for both parents and children, so we compared our four assumptions with our results.

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

Our own results were a little bit different. We couldn't find statistically significant results between “money avoidance” and achievement, “money avoidance” and universalism.

However, following Burgess' (2005) results we found that “money avoidance” of parents negatively linked to Benevolence-Care. So it seems logical if a person cares about the welfare of his/her group, he/she will need more money to satisfy personal and group's needs.

Moreover, we found statistically significant results between “money avoidance” of children and Power Resources but this relationship was negative contrary to Burgess' (2005) suggestions who has found out that MAS-anxiety is positively linked to power. We could explain our findings according to the definition of money. The main attributes of money are power and resources. So, if a person likes money and wants to have them more, he/she will not avoid power and resources. Moreover, as money avoiders believe that there is virtue in living with less money (see to Klontz et al., 2011), the negative link between money avoidance of children and Power Recourses is explainable. Children whose money avoidance is high perceive recourses as something bad and they try to keep distance from rich things and abundance of goods. They do not want to control any material and social resources. Wealth and high income are not very important for them. This is because they are children and they have no problems with their health and job contrary to their parents who have not significant link between money avoidance and Power Recourses.

Other statistically significant relations have been found between “money avoidance” of parents and Hedonism. This link was negative. This is expected results because if a person likes pleasure and he/she considers it as the highest value in his/her life, he/she would need a lot of possibilities to satisfy this need and money is one of the essential social provider for availability of that. Consequently, he will not avoid money. 

And we have found the last link between “money avoidance” of children and Tradition. This link was positive. This is also can be called as expected results. Russian culture comes from the Orthodox religious tradition. In Orthodox religion, despite the Soviet period of Russian history, money and richness are not associated with “love of God”. Asceticism and humility are positive values in Russian religion but not eagerness for money. That's why the more people follow family or religious traditions - the more likely they will avoid money.

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

We have found statistically significant results only between “money worship” and Power Resource for both parents and their children. The relationship between them was positive as well as Burgess' (2005) results. If people possess resources, high income and wealth are very important for them because money is one of the keys to resources. Consequently, people will worship money and will try to get more money to possess more resources in order to belong to dominant group which can give more freedom of action according to Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The relationship between other values such as achievement, benevolence, universalism, security and self-direction and “Money worship” were not statistically significant in our study.

Moreover, we have found other statistically significant relations. First of all, “money worship” of parents negatively linked to Tradition. In Russia for those who have tradition value money is not important. For a long time in Russia money was not perceived as a value on the ideology level. It was in the Orthodox religion and it was the same during the Soviet period with universal equalization of needs and resources. Thus, for many generations the following of family or religious traditions appears at the less worship of money.

Secondly, “money worship” of children negatively linked to Stimulation. Stimulation as a part of openness to change is contrast to risk-aversion behavior (Prospect Theory, Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). If a person does not like novelty, excitement, challenge and change, he/she will have no strong motivation for action. Such person has difficulties for getting “out of the box” and risk-seeking behavior. Consequently, money getting looks less achievable for the person and he/she treats them as an unapproachable and desirable good. Less attainable recourse causes more desire to possess.

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

According to Burgess' (2005) results we could find statistically significant results between “money status” of children and Power Dominance, Power Resources. These relationships were positive. If power-resources and power-dominance are important for children, they will not only control material and social resources, but also perceive themselves as members of dominant groups who play powerful roles and who have good housing, health according to Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

Also we found out that “money status” of parents positively linked to Achievement. If parents have the value of achievement they will think about themselves better, they will have a desire to reach their goals and be successful according to Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997). Furthermore, parents can express their achievement through attributes of power. Moreover, according to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) due to high money status parents will identify themselves with more successful social group.

Besides, “money status” of parents was negatively linked to Universalism-Nature and Benevolence-Care. If parents belong to subordinate not dominant groups, they will care about the members of their group and share recourses with others. Money for such people is not very important (Social dominance theory, Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Moreover, according to Sidanius and Pratto people who active at striving for personal power, who want to control everything and not to be under someone's control, share their resources less with others. They would care about their own recourses and try to increase them and only after that they would think about other people (Van Dijke and Poppe (2006); Van Kleef, De Dreu, Pietroni, and Manstead, 2006). Additionally in the future research, it would be interesting to control social value orientation of participants and check how it influences their values' choice.

We couldn't find the relationship between security, self-direction values and “Money status” in our study. However, we have found statistically significant relation between “money status” of children and Humility. The link between them was positive It could be explained by findings of Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson and their Approach/Inhibition Theory of Power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson, 2003). The theory evaluates the behavior of powerful people as approach -related and the behavior of powerless as an inhibition-related. Children have lack of social power which leads to inhibited behavior - one of the types of reactions within the environment. Thus, children feel more threat, pay particularly attention to the attitudes and behaviors of other people. And as a result, they want to give an impression that they are financially successful. That is why money for them is a symbol of status. As humility is a part of inhibited behavior, the positive link between “money status” of children and Humility is explainable. Moreover, if children perceive themselves as people with low socioeconomic status, they will have money status scripts according to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987).

Consequently, we have found more positive links between “money status” and values for children than for parents. And this finding has explanation. According to Klontz et al. (2011), people who are young, non-married, have low levels of education more likely will identify themselves with the money status. As children are more suited to this description, we can say that our findings correspond to Klontz' (2011).

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

According to Burgess' (2005) results we could find statistically significant results between “money vigilance” of parents and Stimulation. The link between them was negative. We couldn't find the relationship between conformity, tradition, achievement, power, hedonism, security, self-direction values and “Money vigilance” in our study. However, we have found statistically significant relations between “money vigilance” of children and Benevolence-Dependability and Humility. These links were positive.

If a person has a humility value, he/she will act accordingly to this value. It means he/she will give low priority to power, thus he/she will not pursue money for spending, and he/she will frugally save them and will not enjoy the benefits of money. Money perceives as a safety for humble people. And humility is linked to risk-aversion behavior and conservatism. As a result, we have the positive link between humility and money vigilance.

Also, we have found the positive relation between “money vigilance” and Face for both parents and their children. Money vigilance beliefs are associated with risk-aversion behavior (Prospect Theory, Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) which is linked to the intention to save someone's “face” and avoid losses. Moreover, “face" is linked to avoidance of humiliation. If a person has “a face” value, he/she will not demonstrate destructive financial behavior, he/she will encourage saving and safety for public status. Especially in the period of financial instability people will vigilantly perceive money because they do not want to lose their “face”. Fear of loss can become dominating.

If Benevolence-Care is important for a person, he/she will act as a reliable person for his/her social group, the group which he/she identifies his/herself with. This conformal behavior of individuals was revealed by Asch's experiments (conformity, Asch, 1951). Also findings of previous research explain the need to belong as a human basic need (Baumeister et al., 1995) as well as belongings to our social group (Social Identity Theory, Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Thus, in our findings individual will avoid destructive financial behavior if he/she has money vigilance beliefs and his/her social group wellbeing is important for him/her.

If a person has a stimulation value, he/she will seek novelty, change, and excitement. Thus, his/her behavior will be close to risk-seeking (Prospect Theory, Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) and he/she can feel low anxiety about money itself. Money for such person is only one of the ways to reach goals but not the main value.

Finally, there was a negative relationship between “money vigilance” of children and Universalism-Tolerance in our research. If a person has a universalism-tolerance value, it means that it is very important for him/her to understand people with different points of view.

Moreover, if a person travels a lot, he/she contacts with different people, he/she is open to new things and new experience. Consequently, he/she enjoys the benefits that money can provide and he/she has less fear of losses. Also universalism-tolerance value is negatively connected with money vigilance of children. This is an expected link because children are curious by themselves, they want to know more about the world, and as a result they have less anxiety about money and more about the environment.



CONCLUSION

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between basic human values and monetary attitudes of children and their parents, as well as find out which factor most influence monetary attitudes of children.

First of all, we examined the link between parent's basic human values and their monetary attitudes. We found out that Benevolence-Care, Hedonism can predict money avoidance of parents (17.4%). Power Resources, Stimulation can predict Money Worship of parents (14.9%). Achievement, Universalism-Nature, Benevolence-Care can predict Money Status of parents (18.6%). And Stimulation, Face can predict Money Vigilance of parents (13%).

Additionally, we found out the link between children basic human values and their monetary attitudes. Power Resources, Tradition can predict Money Avoidance of children (12.6%). Power Resources, Tradition can predict Money Worship of children (46.4%). Power Dominance, Power Resources, Humility can predict Money Status of children (34.3%). Finally, Face, Benevolence-Dependability, Humility, Universalism-Tolerance can predict Money Vigilance of children (25.2%).

The next 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. There are only money avoidance and money status which link to monetary attitudes of children. However, these relationships were weak. These findings are consistent with Webley & Nyhus (2006) who found out that behavior has a weak but clear impact on children's economic behavior.

The next findings were about human basic values of parents which have the indirect effect on children's Money Avoidance and Money Status. There were only Hedonism and Achievement accordingly.

Finally, we found out which values linked to monetary attitudes for both parents and children and compared results with Burgess (2005).

We couldn't find statistically significant results between “money avoidance” and achievement, “money avoidance” and universalism. However, following Burgess' (2005) results we found that “money avoidance” of parents negatively linked to Benevolence-Care. Moreover, we found statistically significant results between “money avoidance” of children and Power Resources but this relationship was negative contrary to Burgess' (2005). The negative relations have been found between “money avoidance” of parents and Hedonism, as well as the positive relations between “money avoidance” of children and Tradition.

Moreover, following Burgess' (2005) results we have found the positive relations between “money worship” and Power Resource for both parents and their children. The relationship between achievement, benevolence, universalism, security and self-direction and “Money worship” were not statistically significant in our study. However, we found out the negative link between “money worship” of parents and Tradition and “money worship” of children and Stimulation.

Further to Burgess' (2005) results we could find positive relations between “money status” of children and Power Dominance, Power Resources. Moreover, “money status” of parents positively linked to Achievement and “money status” of parents was negatively linked to Universalism-Nature and Benevolence-Care. However, we couldn't find the link between security, self-direction values and “Money status” in our study. We only have found positive relations between “money status” of children and Humility. Consequently, we have found more positive links between “money status” and values for children than for parents.

Finally, according to Burgess' (2005) results we found out the negative link between “money vigilance” of parents and Stimulation. However, we couldn't find the relationship between conformity, tradition, achievement, power, hedonism, security, self-direction values and “Money vigilance” in our study. But we have found the positive relations between “money vigilance” of children and Benevolence-Dependability and Humility. Also, we have found the positive relation between “money vigilance” and Face for both parents and their children. Finally, there was a negative link between “money vigilance” of children and Universalism-Tolerance in our research.

Implications

The obtained results of this study could be applied in various areas, such as economics, political science, and economic psychology for better understanding the link between monetary attitudes of parents and their children. Moreover, they could establish the relationship between three factors such as monetary attitudes of parents, parents' basic human values, children' basic human values and monetary attitudes of children.

Additionally, this study has implications for a financial therapy setting. A lot of people are not rational about money; they make their decisions based on the emotional associations of money which often established in early childhood. Consequently, it is important for therapists to investigate with clients their monetary attitudes. 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. Therefore, monetary attitudes can help to predict a lot of disordered money behaviors, such as compulsive buying, financial infidelity, pathological gambling, financial dependence, etc. (Klontz & Britt, 2012).

As for the children, our findings can help parents and school psychologists more deeply understand the factors which have relations with monetary attitudes. Therefore, children as well as their parents could realize the importance of money at an early age. Consequently, they would pay attention to the process of controlling money, saving and spending money, as well as make distinction between their needs and wants.

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.

Limitations

This study had limitations. First of all, the sample size of 220 participants may be considered small. Thus, in the future research a larger sample size of Russian population would be desirable because it can give more precise results. Secondly, this study was conducted in Russia, so it is possible that national cultural norms could influence the results. In that case the cross-cultural replications will be useful. Moreover, in future research it may be worth investigating whether demographic variables such as income of the family, occupation of parents, social class, parental education influence monetary attitudes. As well as the influence of financial planning can also be studied.

Additionally, in our study we did not pay attention between mothers and fathers. We asked pupils gave a parental questionnaire either to mother or father without any strict request. However, in future studies it will be interesting to make distinguish between mothers and fathers and look at the results. Maybe mothers can send different messages than fathers for their children.

In future research it will be useful to take into account that teenagers' view toward money could be influenced by the social and economic environment (Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups, 2009). Thus, how social and economic environment can influence monetary attitudes is a question for future study. Finally, personal psychology also has influence on monetary attitudes and values. However, we explain our results according to phenomenon of social psychology. So, in future research we suggest pay attention to personal psychology and try to explain the findings according to this field of psychology. 

REFERENCES

Alhabeeb, M.J. (2001). On the economic socialization of youth, Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Studies, Volume 6, Number 1.

Armstrong, P. I., Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2011). Vocational interests: The road less traveled. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & Furnham, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences (pp. 608-631). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

Bailey, W., & Gustafson, W. (1991). An examination of the relationship between personality factors and attitudes toward money. In Kaish, Stanley & Benjamin Gilad (Eds). Handbook of Behavioral Economics. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

Bailey, W.C., & Lown, J.M. (1993) A cross-cultural examination of the aetiology of attitudes towards money. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 17, 391-402.

Baker, P.M., & Hagedorn, R.B. (2008). Attitudes to money in a random sample of adults: Factor analysis of the MAS and MBBS scales and correlations with demographic variables. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 1803-1814.

Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J.A. (1997). Brigham Young University. Socialization in Context: Connection, Regulation, and Autonomy in the Family, School, and Neighborhood, and With Peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 12 No.2, 287-315.

Barni, D., Ranieri, S., Scabini, E., & Rosnati, R. (2011). Value transmission in the family: do adolescents accept the values their parents want to transmit? Journal of Moral Education Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2011, pp. 105-121.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.

Boehnke, K., Schwartz, S. H., Stromberg, C. and Sagiv, L. (1998). The structure and dynamics of worry: Theory, measurement, and cross-national replications. Journal of Personality, 66(5).

Braithwaite, V. A., & Law, H. G. (1985). Structure of Human Values: Testing the Adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49.

Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Vol. 2. Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 74 -103). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Brown, B. B., Bakken, J. P., Ameringer, S. W., & Mahon, S. D. (2008). A comprehensive conceptualization of the peer influence process in adolescence. In M. J. Prinstein, & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 17-44). New York: Guilford Press.

Bailey, W.C. & Lown, J.M. (1993). A cross-cultural examination of the aetiology of attitudes towards money. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 17, 391-402.

Burgess, S.M. (2005). The importance and motivational content of money attitudes: South Africans with living standards similar to those in industrialised Western countries. South African Journal of Psychology, 35(1), pp. 106-126.

Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., Sandewall, O., & Wallace, B. (2010), Genetic Variation in Financial Decision-Making, Journal of Finance, 65, 1725- 1754.

Crosby, L. A., Bitner, M. J. & Gill, J. D. (1990). Organizational Structure of Values. Journal of Business Research, 20: 123-134.

Daigle, J., Hrubes, D., & Ajzen, I. (2002). A comparative study of beliefs, attitudes, and values among hunters, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor recreationists. Human Dimension of Wildlife: An International Journal, 7, 1--19.

Dijke, M.H. and Poppe, M., 2006. Striving for personal power as a basis for social power dynamics., European Journal of Social Psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (4), pp. 537-556. ISSN 1099-0992

Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2012). The Intergenerational Transmission of Risk and Trust Attitudes, Review of Economic Studies, 79, 645-677.

Dollinger, S. J., Burke, P., & Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 91-103.

Furnham, A. & Argyle, M. (1998). The Psychology of Money, Routledge, London.

Forman, N. (1987). Mind over money. Toronto: Doubleday.

Furnham, A. (1984). Many sides of the coin: the psychology of money usage. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 501-509.

Gardikiotis, A., & Baltzis, A. (2012). 'Rock music for myself and justice to the world!': Musical identity, values, and music preferences. Psychology of Music, 40, 143-163.

Gresham, A., & Fontenot, G. (1989). The Differing Attitudes of the Sexes toward Money: An Application of the Money Attitude Scale. Advances in Marketing, 8, 380-384.

Grohmann, A., Kouwenberg, R., & Menkhoff, L. (2015). Childhood roots of financial literacy, Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pp. 114-133.

Goldberg, H. & Lewis, R.T. (1978). Money Madness: The Psychology of Saving, Spending, Loving, and Hating Money. London: Springwood Books.

Gudmunson, Clinton, & Danes, S.M. (2011). Family Financial Socialization: Theory and Critial Review, Journal of Family Economic Issues, 32, 644-667

Hanley, A., & Wilhelm, M.S. (1992). Compulsive buying: An exploration into self-esteem and money attitudes, Journal of Economic Psychology 13, 5-18.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International differences in work related values. Sage Publications, London and Beverly Hills.

Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups (2009). The effects of the financial tsunami on young people's views towards money and career.

Jorgensen, B. L., & Savla, J. (2010). Financial literacy of young adults: The importance of parental socialization. Family Relations, 59(4). 465-478.

Juneman, Meinarno, E. A., & Rahardjo W. (2012). Symbolic Meaning of Money, Self-esteem, and Identification with Pancasila Values. Social and Behavioral Sciences, ¹ 65, 106-115.

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2, 263-292.

Kasser, T., & Ahuvia, A. (2002). Materialistic values and well-being in business students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 137-146.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.

Kim, J., & Chatterjee, S. (2013). Childhood Financial Socialization and Young Adults' Financial Management. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning Volume 24, Issue 1.

Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Pietroni, D., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Power and emotion in negotiation: Power moderates the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness on concession making. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 557-581.

Klontz, B., & Klontz, T. (2009). Mind over money: Overcoming the money disorders that

threaten our financial health. New York: Broadway Business.

Knato, A. and Schwartz, S.H. (2008). Accounting for parent-child value congruence: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. In: U. Schonpflug (ed.), Perspectives on Cultural Transmission (pp. 240-268). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kowalczyk, A., Chudzian, J. (2015). Money attitudes vs. economic socialization in Poland. RAAE (Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics), ¹ 1.

Lee, M., Whitehead, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Hatzigeorgiadis, A. (2008). Relationships among values, achievement orientations and attitudes in youth sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30,588-610.

Lim, V., & Teo, T. (1997). Sex, money and financial hardship: An empirical study of attitudes towards money among undergraduates in Singapore. Journal of Economic Psychology. 18. 369-386.

Lindgren, H.C. (1991). The psychology of money. Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida.

Lown, J. M., & Cook, J. (1990). Attitudes toward seeking financial counseling: Instrument development. Financial Counseling and Planning, 1, 93-112.

Lueg, J. E., Ponder, N. Beatty, S. E., & Capella, M. L. (2006). Teenagers' use of alternative shopping channels: A consumer socialization perspective. Journal of Retailing, 82 (June), 137-153.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4).

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Mitchell, T.R., Darkin S, Mickel, A., & Gray, S. (1998). The Measurement of Money Importance. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego.

Moschis, G. P. (1987). Consumer Socialisation. A life-cycle perspective. Lexington, MA.: Lexington.

Moschis, G. P. (1985). The Role of Family Communication in Consumer Socialization of Children and Adolescents, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 893-913.

Pepper, M., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2009). An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviors. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 126-136.

Prince, M. (1991). Gender and money attitudes of young adults. Gender and consumer behavior. Conference Proceedings. (Ed. by J.A. Costa), pp. 284-291. Association for Consumer Research, Valdosta, GA.

Rettig, K. D., & Mortenson, M. (1986). Household production of financial management competencies. In R. Deacon & W. Huffman (Eds.), Human Resources Research 1887-1987 (pp. 137-145). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Richins, M.L., & Rudmin, F.W. (1994). Materialism and Economic Psychology. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15, 217-231.

Roberts, J.A. & Sepulveda, C.L. (1999). Demographics and money attitudes: A test of the Yamauchi and Templer's, (1982) money attitude scale in Mexico. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 19-35.

Rim, Y. (1982). Personality and attitudes connected with money. Paper given at Economic Psychology Conference. Edinburgh.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press

Roland-Levy, Ch. (1999). Economic socialization. In: The Elgar Companion to Consumer Research and Economic Psychology. Ed.: P.E. Earl & S. Kemp. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Rubinstein, C. R. (19...