← All papers
The role of financial behaviour, financial literacy, and financial stress in explaining the financial well-being of B40 group in Malaysia Mahfuzur Rahman et al. · Future Business Journal 7:52 · 2021 · ≈230 cites
Open PDF ↗

The role of financial behaviour, financial literacy, and financial stress in explaining the financial well-being of B40 group in Malaysia

Rahman · Isa · Masud · Sarker · Chowdhury — Future Business Journal 7:52, 2021

Thesis

For lower-income households, what you do financially matters more than what you know. Financial behaviour is the strongest predictor of financial well-being, financial stress is a strong negative, and financial literacy — the usual policy favourite — is the weakest of the three. Stress also corrodes well-being indirectly by driving bad behaviour.

Method

  • Survey of 412 usable responses from Malaysia's B40 (bottom-40% income) group in Klang Valley (the Kuala Lumpur metro).
  • PLS-SEM structural equation modelling (SmartPLS 3.3.2) — builds a path model: financial literacy, behaviour, stress → financial well-being, with behaviour also tested as mediator.
  • Standard battery: reliability (Cronbach's α, CR), validity (AVE), collinearity (VIF 1.06–1.19), bootstrapped significance.

Key findings

  • Financial behaviour → well-being: β = 0.333 (p < 0.01) — the largest path in the model.
  • Financial stress → well-being: β = −0.256 (p < 0.01) — stress is the second-strongest force and it's negative.
  • Financial literacy → well-being: β = 0.165 (p < 0.001) — positive but roughly half the effect of behaviour.
  • Stress → behaviour: β = −0.353 (p < 0.01) — stressed people behave worse; behaviour mediates about a third of stress's total damage (indirect β = −0.118).
  • Literacy → behaviour: β = −0.027, not significant — knowing more did not translate into behaving better in this population.
  • Balanced budgets (income vs expenditure) and stress management, not knowledge, are the levers the model points to.

Limitations

  • One city (Klang Valley), one country, one income stratum — generalization beyond B40/developing-economy contexts is speculative.
  • Cross-sectional survey: causality direction (stress → behaviour vs behaviour → stress) can't be pinned down.
  • Self-reported scales, single-point-in-time; common-method bias is a standing risk in PLS-SEM survey designs.
  • Literacy measured by standard instruments that may not capture financial knowledge as it functions in informal/low-income economies.

So what for Nick

  • The ordering is the takeaway: behave > de-stress > know. Anyone building a financial-improvement plan (himself, family, community work) should weight habit automation and stress reduction above content consumption.
  • Concrete: automate savings/payments so good behaviour doesn't depend on willpower or knowledge; treat financial anxiety as a first-class problem to solve (it works through behaviour, per the mediation path).
  • Humility check for personal-finance content: the most-cited lever in policy talk (literacy) had the weakest direct effect here — and no effect at all on behaviour. Reading about money ≠ doing money.