Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 55
THE IMPACT OF FINANCIAL EDUCATION AND
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ON THE UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS' FINANCIAL LITERACY
Khusaini Khusaini
Universitas Islam Syekh-Yusuf, Indonesia
Email: khusaini@unis.ac.id (corresponding author)
Bambang Mardisentosa
Universitas Islam Syekh-Yusuf, Indonesia
Email: bmardi@unis.ac.id
Asep Ferry Bastian
Universitas Islam Syekh-Yusuf, Indonesia
Email: a.ferry.bastian@unis.ac.id
Ruhiyat Taufik
Universitas Islam Syekh-Yusuf, Indonesia
Email: rtaufik@unis.ac.id
Windi Widiawati
Universitas Islam Syekh-Yusuf, Indonesia
Email: widiawindiw@gmail.com
Received: August 2021; Accepted: November 2021; Available online: January 2022
Abstract
Financial literacy is a crucial variable for researchers and policymakers because financial
literacy's contribution encourages inhabitants to organize future financial planning and
decision improvement. The study aims to empirically investigate the determinants of financial
literacy such as financial education, parents' socioeconomic status, and gender. The authors
used a cross-sectional survey approach with N = 325 samples. The result of measuring
students' financial literacy showed a moderate condition (moderate level). The multiple linear
regression models showed that parents' socioeconomic status significantly improved students'
financial literacy. Meanwhile, financial education and gender did not prove significant in
influencing students' financial literacy. The empirical study generated that encouraging
parents is one of the essential policy elements in improving students' financial literacy. The
higher students' socioeconomic status tends to encourage better financial planning and
decision because they comprehend the literacy skills.
Keywords: financial education; financial literacy; gender; socioeconomic status.
Abstrak
Literasi keuangan menjadi salah satu variabel penting bagi peneliti dan pembuat kebijakan
karena kontribusi literasi keuangan mendorong penduduk untuk menyusun perencanaan
keuangan dan perbaikan keputusan di masa depan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui
secara empiris faktor-faktor penentu literasi keuangan seperti pendidikan keuangan, status
sosial ekonomi orang tua, dan jenis kelamin. Penulis menggunakan pendekatan survei cross
sectional dengan N = 325 sampel. Hasil pengukuran kemampuan literasi keuangan
mahasiswa menunjukkan kondisi cukup (medium). Model regresi linier berganda
menunjukkan bahwa status sosial ekonomi orang tua berkontribusi signifikan dalam
meningkatkan literasi keuangan mahasiswa. Sedangkan pendidikan keuangan dan gender
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
56 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
tidak terbukti signifikan mempengaruhi literasi keuangan mahasiswa. Hasil studi empiris
berkontribusi dalam menjadikan orang tua sebagai salah satu elemen penting kebijakan
peningkatan literasi keuangan mahasiswa. Mahasiswa dengan status sosial ekonomi yang
lebih tinggi cenderung mampu menyusun rencana dan keputusan keuangan lebih baik, karena
memiliki kemampuan literasinya.
Kata kunci: gender; literasi keuangan; pendidikan keuangan; status sosial ekonomi.
How to Cite: Khusaini, K., Mardisentosa, B., Bastian, A. F., Taufik, R., & Widiawati, W. (2022). The Impact of Financial
Education and Socioeconomic Status on the Undergraduate Students' Financial Literacy. Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen,
37(1), 55-76. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.24856/mem.v37i1.2385.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, financial literacy has been
the core attention of researchers and
policymakers in various countries,
including Indonesia. It is triggered by the
eagerness in every country to improve
society's welfare and encourage society to
have good foresight to manage the finance
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development, 2020). Financial literacy
is a life skill that contributes to individuals'
welfare, families, investment decision, and
the broader economy (Oseifuah et al.,
2018; Senda et al., 2020). With the ability
to understand financial concepts and skills,
humans can manage financial resources
and the important financial reform efforts
to reduce poverty (Askar et al., 2020) and
had financial resilience, so they could
survive the crisis (Setyorini et al., 2021).
Also, lack of financial literacy drives
people's inability to choose the best option
for them (Soseco et al., 2018).
The previous research on the
students’ financial literacy in high school
likes (Grohmann & Menkhoff, 2015;
Jayaraman & Jambunathan, 2018;
Khusaini et al., 2021) in higher education
(Ansong & Gyensare, 2012a; Chen &
Volpe, 2002; Hanson & Olson, 2018;
Kadoya & Khan, 2020; Melmusi, 2017;
Oseifuah et al., 2018; Radityas &
Pustikaningsih, 2019; Rafinda & Gal,
2020; Seotsanyana, 2019; Setiawan, 2020;
Silta & Miharti, 2020; Suherman et al.,
2020) as the object of the research.
According to these various studies,
authors’ most common investigation was
the students in higher education. However,
authors had differences in identifying the
determinants of student's financial literacy
in higher education. These differences
encourage the authors to examine the
variables of financial education,
socioeconomic status, gender, and control
variables simultaneously on financial
literacy, complement the existing
literature, and increase the consistency of
research results.
The various researcher investigated
to determine the level of financial literacy.
The result illustrated that generally, the
level of financial literacy is in a low
category. A higher level of national income
is insufficient for society to encourage
higher financial literacy (Lusardi, 2019).
Other studies in the various country
illustrated similar results, for instance, in
California, Kentucky, Ohio, Florida,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania (Chen &
Volpe, 2002), and Ghana (Sarpong-
Danquah et al., 2018).
Financial literacy was a low category
in Indonesia; therefore, the government
pays attention to financial literacy through
the state institution that regulates finances
and oversees financial service activities,
namely the Financial Services Authority
(OJK). In 2019, the OJK conducted
financial literacy surveys. The result
showed the financial literacy index in
Indonesian by 38.03% (Otoritas Jasa
Keuangan, 2019). It illustrated that there
had been an improvement in society's
knowledge and comprehension of financial
literacy by 9.37%. However, Indonesia's
development of financial literacy was still
left behind rather than in Southeast Asia
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 57
countries such as Malaysia, Singapore,
Thailand, and Vietnam.
Financial literacy is elaborated the
finance introduction and as a concept of
managing and controlling the finances in
income and expenses that must have a
balanced percentage so that financial
conditions continue to improve wisely.
(Chen & P. Volpe, 1998) found that
students with low-level knowledge
possibly make wrong decisions in their
finance. Students who have low ability in
financial literacy will make a mistake in
deciding their consumption. It is caused
students' consumption will not have the
ability to prioritize their needs.
This study was within the scope of
recent literature that focuses on assessing
the effectiveness of financial education
programs (Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014; Xu &
Zia, 2012). Financial education is the
process of providing information and
instruction to society, consumers, and
employees to improve their knowledge and
comprehension of financial concepts and
products (Mishra, 2019). Improving youth
financial literacy in developing countries is
through education such as the length of
education activity and the quality of
education (Özdemir, 2019). A similar
result found that education influenced
financial knowledge (Brugiavini et al.,
2020).
Moreover, if the students' can finish
their education, they will find self—
measured financial literacy and satisfaction
in managing their finance (Gerrans &
Heaney, 2019). Atkinson & Messy (2012)
found the low level of financial in school,
which is indicated by the incomplete
facilities in school and education process
outside of middle school activities implied
the higher financial literacy level. Wagner
& Walstad (2019) inferred that the current
education contributes to a more positive
and more robust effect on students' attitude
on long-term behavior. It is also supported
by (Cordero et al., 2019), which concluded
that the financial education program would
affect students if taught as part of other
subjects, such as through a cross-curricular
approach. However, (Becchetti et al.,
2013) did not significantly affect the
treatment of financial literacy but
contributed a positive impact on the
behavior hypothesis. Lührmann et al.
(2015) found the positive effect on short-
term training sessions in financial attitudes
such as the interest of financial matters and
saving reserves.
Cole et al. (2009) described a
positive correlation between cognitive and
financial literacy in India and Indonesia.
Some studies illustrated that there was a
significant relationship between financial
literacy and educational achievement.
Higher education level implied high
financial literacy (Garcia & Tessada, 2013;
Lusardi, 2003), and lower education level
tends to affect a lack of comprehension
about financial literacy (Lusardi &
Mitchell, 2011b). Students comprehend the
mathematical and physical subject very
well; consequently, they have a higher
understanding of financial literacy (Herd et
al., 2012). Meanwhile, other studies
illustrated no relationship between
education and financial literacy (Chen &
Volpe, 2002; Jariwala, 2015).
Socioeconomic status in family net
income, types of jobs, educational
achievement, marital status, and the
number of family members was used by
(Gerardi et al., 2010; Van Campenhout,
2015) to predict financial literacy.
Socioeconomic influenced youth financial
literacy, and there was a correlation
between financial knowledge, attitudes,
and behavior (Garg & Singh, 2018). The
higher parents' income contributed to the
possibility of their children's financial
literacy than the lower level of parents'
income (Oseifuah et al., 2018; Thompson,
2014). Also, family background promoted
a positive correlation toward financial
knowledge (Mimura et al., 2015). In
contrast with some research findings,
students' socioeconomic condition
negatively influenced students' financial
literacy scores in the United States
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
58 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
(Bumcrot et al., 2013; Lusardi & Mitchell,
2013). Students in low-income family
conditions tend to have a higher level of
financial literacy.
Furthermore, gender is one of the
determinants variables of financial literacy.
Female students had a higher level of
financial literacy rather than male students
(Margaretha & Pambudhi, 2015; Wijayanti
et al., 2016). However, other findings
illustrated the contrast result. The result
showed that male students have a higher
level of financial literacy rather than
female' students (Almenberg & Säve-
Söderbergh, 2011; Lantara & Ni Ketut Rai
Kartini, 2015; Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014;
Mustapha. & Jeyaram, 2015). There were
some differences in financial literacy
among female and male students. Some
factors that caused the lower level of
financial literacy in female students are the
emotional control of female students. In
addition, commonly, male students have
logic and simple thinking. They also more
courageous and confident in making
decisions. Then, other studies illustrated
that gender variable did not influence
students' financial literacy (Egesta et al.,
2021; Irman, 2018; Rita & Pesudo, 2014;
Suherman et al., 2020).
Based on the brief description above,
previous researchers produced inconsistent
findings of the relationship between
financial education, parents'
socioeconomic status, and gender with
financial literacy. In addition, the
measurement of financial literacy is limited
to general knowledge of finance, savings
and loans, insurance, investment, and risk
management (Cole et al., 2009; Klaper et
al., 2015; Lusardi, 2003; Lusardi &
Mitchell, 2014). In this study, the
researchers re-examined the effect of
financial education variables,
socioeconomic status, gender and control
variables on financial literacy in order to
increase the consistency of research
results. The researcher also completes the
measurement of the previous financial
literacy variable by adding an indicator of
basic macroeconomic knowledge (Wagner
& Walstad, 2019). With the addition of
new indicators on financial literacy,
aspects of financial literacy become more
complete. These results are expected to
make a real contribution in expanding the
study of financial literacy by taking into
account the macroeconomic aspects.
Financial decisions are also not only based
on financial aspects, but also economic
aspects.
Second, this research is one of the
few studies that combine the financial
education role, socioeconomic status,
gender variable in making a financial
decision for students. Then, the third, this
research provided empirical evidence for
the relevance of various types of financial
literacy. We expected the current study to
produce the significant influence of
financial education, socioeconomic status,
gender, and control variables on students'
financial literacy.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Compen et al. (2019) stated that
financial literacy is a broad knowledge
about finance that covers the discussion
about attitude and behavior in managing
finances in the long term. According to
(Susanti & Hardini, 2018), financial
literacy was the knowledge, beliefs, and
skills to improve someone's sensitivity
toward financial products and services.
Furthermore, Sarpong-Danquah et al.
(2018) stated that financial literacy goals
were to measure to what extent the
individual can comprehend the financial
literacy problem and decide how to
manage their finances. Financial literacy is
the level of human capital associated with
the financial lives of consumers. Financial
literacy describes as the level of aggregate
from the three components such as
knowledge and comprehension, attitude
and self-confidence dimensions, and skills
and opportunities (Son & Park, 2019).
From the explanation above, we conclude
that financial literacy is knowledge to help
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 59
individuals understand managing finance
well to get a prosperous life in the future.
Chen & P. Volpe (1998) stated that
the dimensions of financial literacy were
personal finance, loans and savings,
insurance, and investment (such as mutual
fund investment). Meanwhile, Nababan &
Sadalia (2012) stated five comprehension
aspects in financial literacy: the basic
knowledge of finance, financial
management, credit management, savings,
investment, and risk management.
Every human has different abilities
and comprehension of finance. It is caused
by many factors that influence financial
literacy. Those determinant factors are age,
work experience, educational background,
and college majors (Ansong & Gyensare,
2012b). Based on Oseifuah et al. (2018),
financial literacy was examined by gender,
age, study program, study year, parents'
income, parents' education, and students'
financial status. Homan (2015) stated that
gender, residence, parents' education, and
the year of entrance influence financial
literacy. Furthermore, Shaari et al. (2013)
described that age, gender, spending habit,
and the length of study are the affected
factors of financial literacy. The
determinants factors of financial literacy
are individual characteristics such as age,
gender, repetition number, grade,
mathematical skill, reading skill,
population status, completed education,
and classroom learning (Salas-Velasco et
al., 2020).
Brugiavini et al. (2020) inferred that
the students' activities determine students'
financial literacy before and after
participating in online learning by using
the application. The financial- materials
taught by higher education institutions are
proven to improve students' financial
knowledge, build the main financial
literacy skills, and increase financial
activities better during and after education
(U.S. Financial Literacy and Education
Commission, 2019). Another empirical
study investigated by (Cordero et al., 2019)
proved that the availability of financial
education positively and significantly
related to students' financial literacy except
to the applied strategy for teaching the
financial concept. This study confirmed the
previous study (Cole et al., 2009; Garcia &
Tessada, 2013; Herd et al., 2012; Lusardi,
2003; Lusardi & Mitchell, 2011a; Salas-
Velasco et al., 2020). However, the
contrary studies stated that the unrelated
between the availability of financial
education and financial literacy. This study
concluded no correlation between financial
education and financial literacy (Chen &
Volpe, 2002; Jariwala, 2015).
Other studies found that gender,
department, parents' income, parents'
education, and year of entrance to predict
students' financial literacy (Silta & Miharti,
2020) students' achievement of the
economic and non-economic score
(Rafinda & Gal, 2020), income-generating
activities, formal education, political
protection, discrimination level, poverty
and migration, credit, the improvement of
marginal income, infrastructure,
unemployment, and ethnicity (Nanda &
Samanta, 2018).
Financial education can be a
compulsory or elective course introduced
in the school curriculum as a separate
subject (independent subject) or cross-
curricular (Organisation for Co-operation
and Development, 2013). The provision of
financial education in schools, colleges,
workplaces, and the larger community has
proven to be a solution to improve
financial literacy appropriately (Lusardi,
2019).
The school has to develop an
interest in financial education broadly.
Students in primary and secondary school
should have a good financial education to
make a financial decision based on the
daily information and encourage students
to make savings for their future (Salas-
Velasco et al., 2020). Financial education
is a process of providing information and
instruction to citizens, consumers, and
employees to improve their knowledge and
comprehension of financial concepts and
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
60 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
financial products (Mishra, 2019).
Financial education starts to become a
variable and tool of important policy in
improving the well-being of individual
finances. To improve the youth financial
literacy in developing countries through
education that is an appropriate way, such
as the length of the education process and
the quality of education (Özdemir, 2019).
Melmusi (2017) stated that effective and
efficient learning activities support
students in encouraging the ability to
comprehend, assess, and act for their
financial interests.
Similar findings are founded by
(Brugiavini et al., 2020; Carpena & Zia,
2020). Those findings inferred that
education influences financial knowledge.
In addition, if the students can finish their
education, they will assess their financial
literacy by themselves and satisfy to
manage their finances (Gerrans & Heaney,
2019). Also, education can affect the
individual financial literacy on to what
extent the individual is more educated in
accessing and processing the information
easily. (Atkinson & Messy, 2012) found
that the incomplete school' facilities
indicate the lower level of students'
financial literacy, and the education except
in middle school indicates the higher level
of students' financial literacy. In fact,
(Wagner & Walstad, 2019) inferred
financial education contributed a more
positive and more robust effect on the
long-term students' behavior.
It was also supported assertively by
research findings by Cordero et al. (2019)
inferred that financial education programs
could impact students if they learn as part
of other subjects, such as a cross-curricular
approach. Cole et al. (2009) found a
significant positive correlation between
cognitive and financial literacy in India
and Indonesia. Some previous research
illustrated a significant correlation between
financial literacy and education outcomes
(Garcia & Tessada, 2013; Lusardi, 2003).
Then, lower education tends to lack
comprehension of finance (Lusardi &
Mitchell, 2011b). Students with algebra,
trigonometry, and physics have a high
understanding of financial literacy and the
school's characteristics and asset values
(Herd et al., 2012).
Other research findings also
illustrated that the availability of financial
training contributes positively and
significantly to students' financial literacy
except for the applied strategy for teaching
the financial concept, even though the
effect occurs relatively small when
considering the potential presence of
significantly different between countries.
Another finding that students who get the
additional course that professionals teach
from private institutions and non-
governmental institutions obtained better
results than students who learned financial
education training from their teachers in
school (Cordero et al., 2019). Similar
research illustrated the positive correlation
between certain ways of providing
financial education and developing
students' financial skills (Salas-Velasco et
al., 2020).
A small number of previous research
stated that education did not correlate with
financial literacy. Those studies concluded
no correlation between education and
financial literacy (Son & Park, 2019).
Another research also obtained similar
results that there was no influence of
financial education on financial literacy
among high school students (Mandell,
2008). We stated the hypothesis:
H1: Financial Education Significantly
Affects Financial Literacy.
Socioeconomic status (SES)
describes someone, family, or society's
economic condition related to income,
education, wealth, jobs, and position
aspects. Every individual or family desires
a good socioeconomic status condition, but
most are still in the lower condition
(Indrawati et al., 2015). The
socioeconomic condition can be defined as
the condition that illustrates family
financial ability and the sufficient of their
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 61
finances (Basrowi & Siti, 2010).
Meanwhile, Zhao et al. (2012) implied that
the condition of students' individual is
constructed by the parents' level of
education, parents' occupations, and the
family resources or wealth. At a different
time, Liu et al. (2020) defined SES as the
parents' condition with the higher-level
education, the decent income and jobs, the
family resources, and the SES index.
A similar measurement of students'
family's economic status was employed by
(Yuxiao & Chao, 2017). Based on Yuxiao
& Chao (2017), there are four categories of
students' family's economic status: parents'
occupation, parents' income, parents'
education, and parental membership in
certain political organizations or parties.
Mishra (2019) employed parents' income
and asset ownership as the socioeconomic
aspect. However, some researchers
described parents' socioeconomic status
specifically by measuring family' income,
family education, assets ownership, and
occupations as separate variables
(Jayaraman & Jambunathan, 2018;
Radityas & Pustikaningsih, 2019; Riitsalu
et al., 2018; Silta & Miharti, 2020;
Suherman et al., 2020). According to those
opinions, the parents' socioeconomic status
(SES) indicators include parents' income,
family' assets or facilities, parents'
education, and parents' occupation.
Previous research has investigated
the factors of individual socioeconomic
factors that influence financial literacy and
its dimensions. Financial literacy levels
tend to increase with income improvement
(Lusardi et al., 2009). Jariwala (2015)
investigated the level of financial literacy
in the group of lower-income.
Socioeconomic status consists of the net of
family income, jobs types, education
achievement, marital status, and the
number of family members (Gerardi et al.,
2010; Van Campenhout, 2015). They
investigated that various socioeconomic
status influences youth financial literacy
and a correlation between financial
knowledge, financial attitude, and financial
behavior (Garg & Singh, 2018).
Regarding the influence of household
economic conditions, a strong negative
correlation between the average index
score of financial literacy in the state and
state poverty in the United States.
Countries with a higher level of financial
literacy tend to have a lower level of
poverty and vice versa (Bumcrot et al.,
2013; Lusardi & Mitchell, 2013). These
findings guided the policymakers and
practitioners who are interested in the
lower-level financial literacy areas.
Another study conducted in
Indonesia by (Silta & Miharti, 2020)
inferred that socioeconomic status
measured with parents' education and
income insignificantly influences financial
literacy. Meanwhile, a mother's education
level significantly affects financial literacy
and contrasts with the father's education
and income (Radityas & Pustikaningsih,
2019). However, findings concluded that a
father's education and income influence
financial literacy (Suherman et al., 2020).
The hypothesis was:
H2: The Parents' Socioeconomic Status
Significantly Affects Financial Literacy.
Munisah and Khusaini (2017)
defined gender as individual differences
based on biological factors brought from
birth. In general, man and woman acquire
specific conditions which are both
biologically and psychologically different.
Gender measurement was commonly
explored as the main research variable by
previous researchers. The finding that a
gap in financial literacy among citizens,
both male, and female (Blasch et al.,
2018). Studies showed that female students
in universities have a higher level of
financial literacy than male students
(Becchetti et al., 2013; Margaretha &
Pambudhi, 2015; Wijayanti et al., 2016).
However, other findings showed the
opposite, where male students have the
highest literacy levels (Almenberg & Säve-
Söderbergh, 2011; Lantara & Ni Ketut Rai
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
62 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
Kartini, 2015; Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014;
Mustapha. & Jeyaram, 2015). With a
correlational research approach, gender
was proven to significantly affect the
increase of financial literacy (Oseifuah et
al., 2018; Xue et al., 2019).
The difference in financial literacy
level where women tend to have lower
than men is because of several factors:
women's emotional state and less
capability on self-control. Meanwhile, the
man generally has logical and simple
thinking when deciding something and
more courageous and confident in making
decisions. However, other opinions, some
researches showed that gender did not
affect students' financial literacy (Blasch et
al., 2018; Egesta et al., 2021; Irman, 2018;
Irman & Fadrul, 2018; Rita & Pesudo,
2014; Salas-Velasco et al., 2020; Silta &
Miharti, 2020; Suherman et al., 2020). We
wrote a hypothesis:
H3: Gender Significantly Affects the
Financial Literacy
RESEARCH METHODS
The authors focused on the empirical
and objective analysis of the impact of
financial education and socioeconomic
status on the financial literacy of Syekh-
Yusuf Islamic University's students. This
research conducted a cross-sectional online
survey because the data was obtained by
implementing an online survey through a
Google Form. The population of this
research was registered and active
undergraduate students of the Syekh-Yusuf
Islamic University 2019/2020, as many as
4,346 students registered in the Indonesian
Directorate of Higher Education Database
(Forlap DIKTI). The sample was
determined using the (Blasch et al., 2018)
method with a sampling error of 5%.
Therefore, we obtained 325 samples. The
sampling technique used a simple random
sampling technique. We collected the data
via Google Form by using a questionnaire
and distributed it through WhatsApp
groups. We also tested the instrument with
the validity and reliability test.
Measurement mapped the
dominating aspect, which becomes another
aspect of the range based on the applicable
rules (Kothari, 2004). The financial
literacy variable (FL) was measured by
basic knowledge of macroeconomics,
knowledge of finance, insurance,
investment, savings, loans, and risk
management. The Likert scale used the
range 1 – 5 (Strongly Disagree – Strongly
Agree). The financial education variable
(FE) was measured by a dummy variable,
namely students who had attended
financial education = 1, others = 0.
Socioeconomic Status (SES) was measured
by father's income, mother's income,
father's education, mother's education,
father's type of work, mother's type of
work, and asset ownership. The Likert
scale used is 1 – 5 (Strongly Disagree –
Strongly Agree).
The gender is measured by a dummy
variable, namely if female student = 1,
other = 0. Prior school (PS) is measured by
a dummy variable, namely senior high
school/equivalent = 1, others = 0. Faculty
(F) was measured by a dummy variable,
namely faculties with Economics
Education, Economics, Accounting, and
Administration Science study programs =
1, others = 0. The variable dummy
measured the marital status variable (MS),
if married = 1, other = 0. The work status
(WS) is also measured by a dummy
variable, namely students who work = 1,
others = 0. Age (A) was measured by the
age of students when the research takes
place. Students' birth serial numbers
measure the birth order number (BON).
The number of siblings (NS) was
measured by the number of siblings in a
family. The number of family members
(FM) was measured by the number of
family members who live in the house.
Involvement in student organizations (ISO)
was measured with a dummy variable:
actively involved = 1, others = 0. Ethnicity
(ET) was measured by a dummy variable
as well, if parents were Javanese = 1, other
= 0. Parents' demographic status (PDS)
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 63
was measured by a dummy variable,
namely immigrant family = 1, others = 0.
The area of students' live (R) is measured
by a dummy variable, urban = 1, rural = 0.
A dummy variable measures the distance
(D) between the house and campus:
distance < 5 km = 1, others = 0.
Before analyzing the data, the
requirement testings and classical
assumptions are carried out first. The tests
include normality test, multicollinearity
test, and heteroscedasticity test. The
normality test of the data was conducted by
applying the Chi-square test. The
multicollinearity test aimed to identify the
linear relationship between independent
variables in the regression model. If there
was a very strong or nearly perfect linear
relationship in the model, it was stated that
the regression model contained a
multicollinearity problem. The authors
used the Values of Tolerance and variance
inflation factor (VIF). The criteria set is if
the tolerance value > 0.1 and VIF < 10, it
was concluded that the model does not
contain multicollinearity problems
(Ghozali, 2016).
Meanwhile, a heteroscedasticity test
investigated whether there was an
inequality of variance from the residual of
one observation to another observation in
the regression model (Ghozali, 2016). A
good regression model is one with
homoscedasticity or no heteroscedasticity.
The test in this study uses a
correlation/relationship between
independent variables and Unstandardized
Residual. There was a heteroscedasticity
problem that the probability value is <
0.05. If the probability value is > 0.05, then
there is no heteroscedasticity problem. The
authors then used the t-test and the
simultaneous test with the F-test to test the
partial hypothesis. Testing the model with
the goodness of fit is used to test the
feasibility of the model, whether the model
is following the data used in the study
(Hair Jr et al., 2014).
The research model is an abstraction
of the facts or phenomena that exist and
being examined. In this study, we would
explore the determinants of undergraduate
students' financial literacy. The used
specification of the econometric model is a
multiple linear regression model. The
model can be specified as follows:
(1)
The Yi is the student-i financial
literacy; Xi is the main independent
variable consisting of financial education
(FE), socioeconomic status (SES), and
gender (G). The Zi consists of control
variables. They consist of prior school
(PS), faculty (F), work status (WS), marital
status (MS), age (A), birth order number
(BON), number of siblings (NS), number of
family members (FM), involvement in
student organizations (ISO), ethnicity (ET),
parents' demographic status (PDS), region
(R), and distance (D).
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The This section outlines the
characteristics of the sample based on
certain criteria. It was aimed that the
selected sample could be clearly described
based on the criteria of gender, age,
religion, the distance between students'
house and campus, and the faculty from
the sample of 325. Table 1 showed the
number of male samples by 28.83%, while
female students were 231 by 71.17%. In
other words, the research sample of the
female students was three times greater
than male students.
Table 1 also illustrated that the
youngest student was 17 years old, the
oldest was 48 years old, and the average
student's age was 21.20. The number of
older than the average respondents was
105 or 32.51%, while the younger than the
average was 220 or 67.49%. Furthermore,
most respondents were Muslim. It was
99.39% or 323 students, while the
respondents of Non-Islamic were 0.61% or
as many as 2 students. Meanwhile,
respondents who lived more than 8 km
reached 48.77% or as many as 158
students in terms of distance. The
respondents who lived closest to the
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
64 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
campus or less than 1.5 km were 12
students or 3.68%. Meanwhile, other
respondents whose distance of 1.5 - 7.99
km from the campus, represented by 154
students or 47.24% of all respondents.
This study generally lived in urban
areas 61.35% or as many as 200 students,
while respondents who lived in rural areas
were 38.65%. The Economics and
Business Faculty and the Teacher Training
and Education Faculty were the most of the
respondents. It was 32.21%, 28.53%,
respectively. In contrast, the least
respondents were the Faculty of
Engineering and the Faculty of Law. It was
4.2% and 9.20%, respectively.
The main variables described in this
study were financial literacy (FL) as the
dependent variable, while financial
education (FE), parents' socioeconomic
status (SES), and gender (G) were the
independent variables. The results of data
processing, as shown in Table 2 explained
the average value and standard deviation of
the financial literacy variable [M=177.04;
SD=17.46]. It interpreted that the average
of students' financial literacy score of the
Syekh-Yusuf Islamic University was
80.47% that considered a high category.
Thus, all of the sample students acquired
good financial literacy skills and
understanding.
Table 2 also explained the average
value and standard deviation of the
financial education variable was [M=0.557;
SD=0.497]. It meant that 55.7% of the total
samples had attended financial education
through non-formal or formal education.
Parents' socioeconomic status variable
acquired [M=75.38; SD=10.193] and the
gender [M=0.7138; SD=0.4526]. These
results showed the socioeconomic status of
the parents of the Syekh-Yusuf Islamic
University students was in the moderate
category, or it was 75.38%. Meanwhile,
the number of female students as a sample
was 71.38% of the total selected sample.
The first required analysis test was
the data normality test. The test on the
research variables employed Shapiro-Wilk
and Shapiro-Franca. In the Shapiro-Wilk
test criteria, if the probability value > 0.05,
then the data is declared as normally
distributed. While the criteria for the
Shapiro-Francia test claimed if the value
(Prob > z) > 0.05, then the data is
considered normally distributed. The
results of normality testing with the
Shapiro-Francia test, as shown in Table 2,
showed that the probability value > z for
each variable of financial literacy and
parents' socioeconomic status was 0.084 >
0.05 and 0.175 > 0.05. It concluded that
the data of two variables were normally
distribution
The result of the multicollinearity
test showed that the value of the variance
inflation factor (VIF) test was between
1.08 – 5.07 or the average of 1.93 < 10.
The VIF value was smaller than 10, so it
concluded that the regression model was
free from multicollinearity problems.
Meanwhile, the results of the
heteroscedasticity test showed that the
Breush-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test
obtained a value of Chi2 = 1.29 and (Prob >
Chi2) of 0.2566 > 0.05. It interpreted that
the linear regression model has been free
from the problem of heteroscedasticity.
Meanwhile, the goodness of fit
results illustrated the F-stat value,
significance, and R2 value. The test results
indicated the F-test value = 6.39, the p-
value = 0.000, and the Adjusted R2 value =
0.2103. The results that at least there was
an influence of socioeconomic status
variables, high school origin, birth serial
number, number of siblings, parents'
demographic status, and urban areas that
significantly increased students' financial
literacy. The value of Adjusted R2 meant
that 21.03% of financial literacy could be
explained by the used variables in the
model, while other variables outside the
model explained the remaining 78.97%.
In addition, we investigated the
effect of financial education,
socioeconomic status, gender, and control
variables on students' financial literacy.
Table 3 showed that the coefficient value
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 65
of financial education (FE) variable was
0.116 and the significance value of p-value
= 0.976 > 0.05. These results inferred that
financial education had no significant
effect on students' financial literacy (H1
was not proven). The coefficient value of
the parent's socioeconomic status variable
(SES) was 0.682 and the significance value
of p-value = 0.000 < 0.01. These results
indicated that the parent's socioeconomic
status significantly affected students'
financial literacy (H2 was proven). This
value suggested that for every 1 unit
increase in parents' socioeconomic status,
the financial literacy escalated by 0.682
units. It meant that the higher the parent's
socioeconomic status, the more financial
literacy would increase, assuming other
factors were static.
The Gender variable (G) obtained a
coefficient value of 1.288 and a
significance value of p-value = 0.532 >
0.05. These results showed that gender has
no significant effect on student's financial
literacy (H3 was not proven). The control
variables that significantly affected the
increase of student's financial literacy were
marital status variable (MS), birth order
number (BON), number of siblings (NS),
parents' demographic status (PDS), and
region (R). Control variables that
insignificantly affect students' financial
literacy were prior school (PS), faculty (F),
learning time (LT), ethnicity (ET),
involvement in student organizations
(ISO), and the distance between the house
and campus (D).
Testing the first hypothesis (H1)
indicated that financial education was not
significantly improving students' financial
literacy. It meant that students' experience
in attending financial education through
formal education, short courses, seminars,
workshops, etc., were not considered
essential factors in improving students'
financial literacy. The results of the study
illustrated that there were 55.69% of the
entire students of Syekh-Yusuf Islamic
University had attended financial
education. The knowledge, understanding,
and ability about financial literacy could be
obtained through daily life experiences in
the work office, the community, the
family, or independently read in various
works of literature.
Even though effective and efficient
education would change students in terms
of their ability to understand better, assess,
and take actions related to finances
(Melmusi (2017). In fact, for countries
with generally low incomes or less
educated people, there had been many
changes to the curriculum by including
financial content in education, especially
for (Kozup & Hogarth, 2008). A more
notorious research finding was conducted
by (Frisancho, 2020) that claimed
compulsory financial education for
students has a more significant effect on
financial literacy than elective after school
programs of financial education.
Higher education, an educational
service institution for citizens aged over 18
years, participates in improving the
students' financial literacy. In line with
U.S. Financial Literacy and Education
Commission (2019), higher education
prepared its students to make financial
choices throughout their lives that enable
the students to participate effectively in
economic activities, improve wealth, and
achieve their goals. Important decisions
that were made by students and their
families before, during, and after
completing undergraduate studies affected
their future finances.
The results of this study were not
suitable with other research that concluded
the financial education was positively and
significantly related to the student's
achievement of financial literacy
(Brugiavini et al., 2020; Cordero et al.,
2019; Özdemir, 2019). At the same time,
the implementation of good financial
education has a positive effect and shaping
student's behavior in the long term
(Wagner & Walstad, 2019). In other
words, students' good knowledge and
understanding change the behavior in
current and future life in making financial
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
66 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
decisions because students have good
financial literacy. Therefore, financial
education included in various subjects with
a cross-curricular approach was very
important to improve students' financial
literacy (Cordero et al., 2019).
Socioeconomic status represented the
community's recognition and financial
ability to have adequate resources in the
family to meet their needs. There also
found convincing results about the
influence of socioeconomic factors on
financial literacy. The results of hypothesis
testing indicated that the parent's
socioeconomic status had a significant
effect on students' financial literacy (H2
was accepted). It implied the higher of
parents' socioeconomic status, the better
the student acquires their financial literacy.
Also, the high socioeconomic status of
parents ultimately influences students to
take economic actions and be careful in
managing finances because they have been
trained since childhood (Qomariyah et al.,
2019).
The results of this study were in line
with research conducted by (Garg & Singh,
2018) which found that socioeconomic
status contributed significantly to financial
knowledge, financial attitudes, and
financial behavior. Likewise, previous
research by (Oseifuah et al., 2018) found
that the higher parents' income, the greater
the probability of the students' financial
literacy improvement. Another previous
study found that family background as
measured by father's income and education
was a significant correlation with financial
literacy; on the other hand, mother's
education was not (Mimura et al., 2015;
Suherman et al., 2020).
However, this research findings were
inconsistent with research conducted by
(Bumcrot et al., 2013) which found that
family economic conditions negatively
correlated with financial literacy.
Meanwhile, children from low-income
families tend to have higher financial
literacy (positive and significant
correlation). Furthermore, another result
found that parents' income did not
significantly correlate with students'
financial literacy (Khusaini et al., 2021).
Students with high socioeconomic status
parents tend to behave extravagantly and
are less skilled in determining their
consumption priorities. Students easily
found finances' access from their parents.
Thus, good financial planning was
considered unnecessary.
The test results showed that gender
had no significant effect on students'
financial literacy (H3 was rejected). It
illustrated that students' gender was not a
determinant for changing financial literacy.
In other words, female and male students
had a similar level of financial literacy.
Students' aspects of knowledge, behavior,
and attitudes in terms of finances did not
depend on gender but are more influenced
by the economic conditions of their
families. Therefore, this finding was
inconsistent with (Margaretha &
Pambudhi, 2015; Wijayanti et al., 2016)
found that a female determined financial
literacy. A contradictory result was found
by (Oseifuah et al., 2018; Xue et al., 2019)
that gender significantly affected financial
literacy.
On the other hand, the results of this
study confirmed the previous findings that
gender did not affect students' financial
literacy (Blasch et al., 2018; Egesta et al.,
2021; Irman, 2018; Irman & Fadrul, 2018;
Salas-Velasco et al., 2020; Silta & Miharti,
2020; Suherman et al., 2020). The current
research was with previous findings
because of the gender measurement, which
merely employed a dummy variable for the
female gender. This measurement did not
reflect the nature and behavior of
individuals. In addition, researchers could
not explore female students who tend to be
more emotional and unable to train self-
control. On the contrary, the man generally
has logical and simple thinking in deciding
something and more courageous and
confident.
The current study has several
limitations during the research process.
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 67
Research limitations can arise from the
preparation, implementation, methods, data
analysis, and conclusions. The limitation of
this research is only one university as the
research population, so that the authors
difficult to generalize. Respondents'
perceptions expressed through
questionnaires did not necessarily reflect
the overall students' condition in the
Tangerang Municipality regarding the
level of financial literacy. For this reason,
future research requires a broader target
population, such as students of the
Tangerang municipality or the Banten
province. Another limitation is the
measurement of financial literacy using a
Likert scale, and it was least to reflect the
ability, knowledge, and understanding of
students' financial literacy. Therefore, in
future research, it is necessary to measure
student financial literacy in the form of
multiple-choice questions to determine the
actual literacy knowledge of the students.
Table 1. Profile Respondents
Aspect
Criteria
Numbers
Percentage
Gender
Male
94
28.62
Female
231
71.38
Age
Highest
48
Lowest
17
Average
21.20
≥ Average
105
32.51
< Average
220
67.49
Religion
Islamic
323
99.39
Non-Islamic
2
0.61
Distance
< 1.5 km
12
3.68
1.5 km - 3.49 km
45
13.80
3.5 km - 4.99 km
45
13.50
5 km - 6.49
29
8.90
6.5 km - 7.99 km
36
11.04
≥ 8 km
158
48.77
Urban-Rural
Urban
200
61.35
Rural
125
38.65
Faculty
Teacher and Training Faculty
93
28.53
Technique Faculty
14
4.29
Social and Political Science Faculty
43
13.19
Law Faculty
29
9.01
Economic and Business Faculty
105
32.19
Islamic Religion Faculty
41
12.58
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
68 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
Table 2. Statistical Description
Variables
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
Min
Max
FL
325
177.0369
17.45979
118
220
FE
325
0.556923
0.497515
0
1
SES
325
75.37846
10.19357
41
100
G
325
0.713846
0.452659
0
1
PS
325
0.627692
0.484165
0
1
F
325
0.495385
0.50075
0
1
WS
325
0.655385
0.475976
0
1
MS
325
0.947692
0.22299
0
1
A
325
21.20308
3.10545
17
48
BON
325
1.993846
1.337941
1
10
NS
325
2.224615
1.370549
0
9
FM
325
4.723077
1.417567
1
15
ISO
325
0.418462
0.494067
0
1
ET
325
0.341539
0.474957
0
1
PDS
325
0.504615
0.50075
0
1
R
325
0.615385
0.487255
0
1
D
325
0.510769
0.500655
0
1
Table 3. The Regression Results
Variables
Coefficient
S.E
Sig
FE
0.116
3.851
0.976
SES
0.682
0.088
0.000
G
1.288
2.061
0.532
PS
-0.562
1.861
0.763
F
2.405
3.876
0.535
WS
2.086
2.066
0.313
MS
-11.177
4.574
0.015
A
-0.258
0.368
0.484
BON
1.836
0.900
0.042
NS
-2.255
1.063
0.035
FM
0.013
0.853
0.988
ISO
3.736
2.012
0.064
ET
-2.544
2.070
0.220
PDS
1.223
1.875
0.515
R
4.873
1.956
0.013
D
0.593
1.869
0.751
Constanta
134.992
13.215
0.000
Obs
325
R-squared
0.2493
Adj. R-squared
0.2103
F(16, 308)
6.39
Prob > F
0.000
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 69
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEN-
DATION
The After discussing the results, the
authors conclude that student financial
literacy is in the moderate category. The
relationship between variables found that
the parents' socioeconomic status is a
significant determinant in increasing
student financial literacy, while financial
education and gender are not. It means that
the higher of family socioeconomic
conditions, the stronger the student's
financial literacy will increase. In other
words, students who come from wealthy
families tend to have better levels of
financial literacy skills because students
gain experience in making financial
decisions in their daily family life.
The test results showed that financial
education has no significant effect on
financial literacy. This result implied that
financial education is required, neither
formal nor non-formal education.
Individual financial decisions are gained
more from life experiences. Students can
make their financial plans, spend money on
consumption, and evaluate their decisions.
Early in the life cycle, the provided
financial education may benefit from debt
or long-term savings and may even extend
beyond the financial domain. Thus,
financial education enhances the
understanding of financial affairs but
appears to have broader implications on
welfare, similar to other forms of education
(Kaiser & Menkhoff, 2020).
The socioeconomic status is
illustrated to significantly increase
students' financial literacy, implying that
the more prosperous parents can provide
financial management experience to their
sons and daughters. The interaction
between parents and good communication
created in the family has a positive effect
on the attitudes and behavior of their
children. Every time parents make a
financial decision in the family. The
children recognize it to learn financial
literacy better. Therefore, the role of
parents is very important as a policy
instrument to increase student financial
literacy.
The testing results of the gender
variable found that gender did not
significantly increase students' financial
literacy. This result implies that gender is
not an important variable in determining
policies in improving financial literacy
and, more broadly, improving welfare in
the future. For universities, building
communication with parents is very
important. Given that parents have an
important role in determining the welfare
of their children. In addition, the form of
communication can be through seminars,
annual awards for the parents whose
children excel and involving parent
representatives in formulating university
programs directly.
Meanwhile, students should
continuously improve their abilities,
understanding, and skills directly related to
financial literacy. By having the ability,
understanding, and financial literacy skills,
students will prepare for a better future.
Students can manage money according to
their needs. Likewise, parents should
always be the model for their children in
terms of financial management. Parents
need to continue in providing direction and
guidance regarding financial decision-
making.
For further research, we suggested
employing a broader research population
such as the district or city level. It is
intended to facilitate the determination of
the generalization area. In addition, future
researchers should innovate in measuring
students' financial literacy so that it reflects
actual literacy, for example, by using a
questionnaire about financial literacy with
more indicators than the current research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express
their gratitude to the Institute of Research
and Community Service (LPPM), which
provides the research grant. The
appreciation is also to co-authors for their
assistance in investigating this research and
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
70 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
writing this work. There is no conflict of
interest in this paper publication. The
authors also express their gratitude to
anonymous reviewers of this article.
REFERENCES
Almenberg, J., & Säve-Söderbergh, J.
(2011). Financial Literacy and
Retirement Planning in Sweden.
Journal of Pension Economics and
Finance, 10(04), 585–598.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1809736
Ansong, A., & Gyensare, M. A. (2012a).
Determinants of University Working-
Students’ Financial Literacy at the
University of Cape Coast, Ghana.
International Journal of Business and
Management, 7(9), 126–133.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n9p12
6
Ansong, A., & Gyensare, M. A. (2012b).
Determinants of University Working-
Students’ Financial Literacy at the
University of Cape Coast, Ghana.
International Journal of Business and
Management, 7(9).
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n9p12
6
Askar, M. W., Quattara, B., & Zhang, Y.-
F. (2020). Financial Literacy and
Poverty Reduction: the Case of
Indonesia (No. 1097; ADBI Working
Paper Series).
https://www.adb.org/publications/fina
ncial-literacy-poverty-reduction-case-
indonesia
Atkinson, A., & Messy, F.-A. (2012).
Measuring Financial Literacy: Results
of the OECD/ International Network
on Financial Education (INFE) Pilot
Study. Oecd, 15, 1–73.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/
bb2cd70c-en
Basrowi, & Siti, J. (2010). Analisis kondisi
sosial ekonomi dan tingkat
pendidikan masyarakat Desa
Srigading, Kecamatan Labuhan
Maringgai, Kabupaten Lampung
Timur. Jurnal Ekonomi &
Pendidikan, 7(1), 58–81.
Becchetti, L., Caiazza, S., & Coviello, D.
(2013). Financial education and
investment attitudes in high schools:
Evidence from a randomized
experiment. Applied Financial
Economics, 23(10), 817–836.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09603107.201
3.767977
Blasch, J., Boogen, N., Daminato, C., &
Filippini, M. (2018). Empower the
Consumer ! Energy-related Financial
Literacy and its Socioeconomic
Determinants (18/289; Economics
Working Paper Series).
https://cer.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/s
pecial-interest/mtec/cer-eth/cer-eth-
dam/documents/working-papers/WP-
18-289.pdf
Brugiavini, A., Cavapozzi, D., Padula, M.,
& Pettinicchi, Y. (2020). On the effect
of financial education on financial
literacy: Evidence from a sample of
college students. Journal of Pension
Economics and Finance, 19(3), 344–
352.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747218
000276
Bumcrot, C., Lin, J., & Lusardi, A. (2013).
The Geography of Financial
Misconduct. Numeracy, 6(2), 1–16.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.50
38/1936-4660.6.2.2 Authors
Carpena, F., & Zia, B. (2020). The causal
mechanism of financial education:
Evidence from mediation analysis.
Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, 177, 143–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.05
.001
Chen, H. &, & P. Volpe, R. (1998). An
Analysis of Personal Financial
Literacy Among College Students.
Financial Services Review, 7(2), 107–
128. https://doi.org/1057-0810
Chen, H., & Volpe, R. (2002). Gender
Differences in Personal Financial
Literacy Among College Students. In
Financial Services Review (Vol. 11,
Issue 3, p. 289).
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 71
Cole, S., Sampson, T., & Zia, B. (2009).
Financial Literacy, Financial
Decisions, and the Demand for
Financial Services: Evidence from
India and Indonesia.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicat
ion/228420285_Financial_Literacy_F
inancial_Decisions_and_the_Demand
_for_Financial_Services_Evidence_fr
om_India_and_Indonesia
Compen, B., De Witte, K., & Schelfhout,
W. (2019). The role of teacher
professional development in financial
literacy education: A systematic
literature review. Educational
Research Review, 26, 16–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.
12.001
Cordero, J. M., Gil-Izquierdo, M., &
Pedraja-Chaparro, F. (2019).
Financial education and student
financial literacy: A cross-country
analysis using PISA 2012 data. Social
Science Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.0
7.011
Egesta, E., Rahayu, C. W. E., &
Rahmawati, C. H. T. (2021). Factors
Affecting Student’s Financial Literacy
(A Study on the Students of the
Faculty of Economics and The
Faculty of Science and Technology of
Sanata Dharma University
Yogyakarta). Media Ekonomi Dan
Manajemen, 36(1), 27–38.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.24
856/mem.v36i1.1577
Frisancho, V. (2020). The impact of
financial education for youth.
Economics of Education Review,
78(October 2018), 101918.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2
019.101918
Garcia, R., & Tessada, J. (2013). The
Effect of Education on Financial
Market Participation: Evidence from
Chile (Working Paper Series Finance
UC).
Garg, N., & Singh, S. (2018). Financial
literacy among youth. International
Journal of Social Economics, 45(1),
173–186.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-11-2016-
0303
Gerardi, K., Götte, L., Meier, S., Goette,
L., & Meier, S. (2010). Evidence from
a Survey Matched to Administrative
Data (No. 10; Working Paper Series).
http://www.frbatlanta.org/pubs/wp/wo
rking_paper_2010-10.cfm
Gerrans, P., & Heaney, R. (2019). The
impact of undergraduate personal
finance education on individual
financial literacy, attitudes, and
intentions. Accounting and Finance,
59(1), 177–217.
https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12247
Ghozali, I. (2016). Aplikasi Analisis
Multivariat dengan Prgram IBM
SPSS 23 (P. P. Harto (ed.); Ketujuh).
Universitas Diponegoro.
Grohmann, A., & Menkhoff, L. A. (2015).
School, parents, and financial literacy
shape future financial behavior. DIW
Economic Bulletin, 5(30/31), 407–
412.
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/113233%
0A
Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., &
Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate
Data Analysis (Seventh). Pearson
Education Ltd.
Hanson, T. A., & Olson, P. M. (2018).
Financial literacy and family
communication patterns. Journal of
Behavioral and Experimental
Finance, 19, 64–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.05.
001
Herd, P., Holden, K., & Su, Y. T. (2012).
The Links between Early-Life
Cognition and Schooling and Late-
Life Financial Knowledge. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 46(3), 411–435.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1745-6606.2012.01235.x
Homan, H. S. (2015). Comparative Study
of Students Financial Literacy And Its
Demographic Factors. First
International Conference on
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
72 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
Economics and Banking, 106–111.
https://doi.org/10.2991/iceb-
15.2015.16
Indrawati, E. S., Soedharto, J., &
Semarang, S. T. (2015). Status Sosial
Ekonomi Dan Intensitas Komunikasi
Keluarga Pada Ibu Rumah Tangga Di
Panggung Kidul Semarang Utara.
Jurnal Psikologi Undip, 14(1), 52–57.
Irman, M. (2018). Analisis Faktor-Faktor
Yang Mempengaruhi Financial
Literacy di Kalangan Mahasiswa
Universitas Muhammadiyah Riau
(UMRI) Pekan Baru. Journal of
Economic, Business and Accounting
(COSTING), 1(2), 180–197.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3153
9/costing.v1i2.205
Irman, M., & Fadrul. (2018). Analisis
Pengaruh Jenis Kelamin, IPK, dan
Pengalaman Kerja terhadap Financial
Literacy. Journal of Economic,
Business and Accounting (COSTING),
2(1), 41–56.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3153
9/costing.v2i1.345
Jariwala, H. V. (2015). Analysis of
Financial Literacy Level of Retail
Individual Investors of Gujarat State
and Its Effect on Investment Decision.
Journal of Business and Finance
Librarianship, 20(September 2014),
133–158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.201
5.977727
Jayaraman, J. D., & Jambunathan, S.
(2018). Financial literacy among high
school students: Evidence from India.
Citizenship, Social and Economics
Education, 17(3), 168–187.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20471734188
09712
Kadoya, Y., & Khan, M. S. R. (2020).
What determines financial literacy in
Japan. Journal of Pension Economics
and Finance, 19(3), 353–371.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747218
000379
Kaiser, T., & Menkhoff, L. (2020).
Financial education in schools: A
meta-analysis of experimental studies.
Economics of Education Review,
78(September), 101930.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2
019.101930
Khusaini, Mutiah, & Ramdani, C. R.
(2021). Vocational and senior high
school differences in financial
literacy. 3rd International Conference
on Environmental Geography and
Geography Education, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/747/1/012018
Klaper, L., Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S.
(2015). Financial Literacy Around the
World: Insight From the S&P Global
Finlit Survey (Vol. 10, Issue 4).
https://gflec.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/Finlit_paper
_16_F2_singles.pdf
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research
Methodology: Methods and
Techniques (Second). New Age
International (P) Ltd.
www.newagepublishers.com
Kozup, J., & Hogarth, J. M. (2008).
Financial Literacy, Public Policy, and
Consumers’ Self-Protection—More
Questions, Fewer Answers. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 42(2), 127–136.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1745-6606.2008.00101.x
Lantara, I. W. N., & Ni Ketut Rai Kartini.
(2015). Financial Literacy Among
University Students : Empirical
Evidence From Indonesia. Journal of
Indonesian Economy and Business,
30(3), 247–256.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2214
6/jieb.10314
Liu, J., Peng, P., & Luo, L. (2020). The
Relation Between Family
Socioeconomic Status and Academic
Achievement in China: A Meta-
analysis. Educational Psychology
Review, 32, 49–76.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10648-019-09494-0
Lührmann, M., Serra-Garcia, M., &
Winter, J. (2015). Teaching teenagers
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 73
in finance: Does it work? Journal of
Banking and Finance, 54(November),
160–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.201
4.11.009
Lusardi, A. (2003). Saving and the
Effectiveness of Financial Education.
In O. S. Mitchell & S. P. Utkus
(Eds.), Pension Design and Structure:
New Lessons from Behavioral
Finance (Eds, pp. 157–184). Oxford
University Press.
https://repository.upenn.edu/prc_pape
rs/430
Lusardi, A. (2019). Financial literacy and
the need for financial education:
evidence and implications. Swiss
Journal of Economics and Statistics,
155(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41937-019-
0027-5
Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2011a).
Financial Literacy And Retirement
Planning In The United States. In
National Bureau Of Economic
Research (No. 17108; NBER
Working Paper).
https://www.nber.org/papers/w17108
Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2011b).
Financial Literacy Around the World:
An Overview. Journal of Pension
Economics and Finance, 10(4), 497–
508.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747211
000448
Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2013). The
Economic Importance of Financial
Literacy: Theory and Evidence. In
NBER Working Paper Series (No.
18952; Working Paper).
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18952
Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The
Economic Importance of Financial
Literacy: Theory and Evidence.
Journal of Economic Literature,
52(1), 5–44.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.52.1.5
Lusardi, A., Mitchell, O. S., & Curto, V.
(2009). Financial Literacy Among the
Young: Evidence and Implications for
Consumer Policy. In PRC Working
Paper (No. 2009–09; PRC WP).
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1459141
Mandell, L. (2008). Financial Literacy of
High School Students. In J. J. Xiao
(Ed.), Handbook of Consumer
Finance Research (Eds, pp. 163–183).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
0-387-75734-6_10
Margaretha, F., & Pambudhi, R. A. (2015).
Tingkat Literasi Keuangan Pada
Mahasiswa S-1. Jurnal Manajemen
Dan Kewirausahaan, 17(1), 76–85.
https://doi.org/10.9744/jmk.17.1.76
Melmusi, Z. (2017). Faktor Faktor Yang
Mempengaruhi Literasi Finansial
Mahasiswa Fakultas Ekonomi (Studi
Kasus di Universitas Putra Indonesia
―YPTK‖ Padang). Majalah Ilmiah,
24(2), 221–229.
Mimura, Y., Koonce, J., Plunkett, S. W., &
Pleskus, L. V. O.-26. (2015).
Financial Information Source,
Knowledge, and Practices of College
Students from Diverse Backgrounds.
Journal of Financial Counseling and
Planning, 26(1), 63–78.
https://doi.org/10.1891/1052-
3073.26.1.63
Mishra, M. K. (2019). Financial Literacy
and Education for Improving
Financial Skills. SSRN Electronic
Journal, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3488670
Munisah, & Khusaini. (2017). Pengaruh
Gender, Status Bekerja, dan Status
Perkawinan terhadap Prestasi
Akademik. Jurnal Ilmiah KREATIF,
5(1), 76–98.
Mustapha., M., & Jeyaram, S. (2015).
Financial literacy and demographic
factors. In Journal of Technology
Management and Business (Vol. 2,
Issue 1).
Nababan, D., & Sadalia, I. (2012). Analisis
personal financial liteacy dan
financial behavior mahasiswa strata I
fakultas ekonomi Universitas
Sumatera Utara. Media Informasi
Manajemen, 1, 1–16.
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
74 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
Nanda, A. K., & Samanta, S. (2018).
Mainstreaming tribals through
financial literacy – a review of
literature. International Journal of
Social Economics, 45(2), 437–444.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-12-2016-
0371
Organisation for Co-operation and
Development. (2013). PISA 2012:
Financial Literacy Framework.
http://www.oecd.org/finance/financial
-
education/PISA2012FrameworkLitera
cy.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development. (2020). PISA 2018
Results (Volume IV): Are Students
Smart About Money? Vol. IV (M.
Achiron (ed.)). OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/48ebd1ba-en
Oseifuah, E., Gyekye, A., & Formadi, P.
(2018). Financial literacy among
undergraduate students: Empirical
evidence from Ghana. Academy of
Accounting and Financial Studies
Journal, 22(6), 1–17.
Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. (2019). Siaran
Pers Survei OJK 2019: Indeks
Literasi Dan Inklusi Keuangan
Meningkat (p. 1). Otoritas Jasa
Keuangan.
https://www.ojk.go.id/id/berita-dan-
kegiatan/siaran-pers/Pages/Siaran-
Pers-Survei-OJK-2019-Indeks-
Literasi-Dan-Inklusi-Keuangan-
Meningkat.aspx
Özdemir, O. (2019). Rethinking the
financial Kuznets curve in the
framework of income inequality:
Empirical evidence on advanced and
developing economies. Economics
and Business Letters, 8(4), 176–190.
https://doi.org/10.17811/ebl.8.4.2019.
176-190
Qomariyah, S. N., Harti, & Hariyati.
(2019). Social Interaction, Socio-
Economic Status, and Basic
Economic Knowledge of Students’
Economic Behavior. Jurnal
Pendidikan Ekonomi Dan Bisnis
(JPEB), 7(2), 101–111.
https://doi.org/10.21009/jpeb.007.2.1
Radityas, M. D., & Pustikaningsih, A.
(2019). Analysis of the Factors That
Influence Students’ Level of Financial
Literacy. Jurnal Pendidikan
Akuntansi Indonesia, 17(1), 42–56.
https://doi.org/10.21831/jpai.v17i1.26
336
Rafinda, A., & Gal, T. (2020). Financial
Literacy of Economics and Non-
Economics Students. International
Review of Management and
Marketing, 10(3), 35–38.
https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.8974
Riitsalu, L., Murakas, R., & Veeret, D.
(2018). Disentangling financial
literacy: Threedimensional approach
to analysing management of personal
finances in Estonia. Journal of Social
Research and Policy, 9(1), 29–40.
Rita, M. R., & Pesudo, B. C. A. (2014).
Apakah Mahasiswa Sudah Melek
Keuangan? Dinamika Akuntansi,
Keuangan Dan Perbankan, 3(1), 58–
65.
Salas-Velasco, M., Moreno-Herrero, D., &
Sánchez-Campillo, J. (2020).
Teaching financial education in
schools and students’ financial
literacy: A cross-country analysis
with PISA data. International Journal
of Finance and Economics, June
2018.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2005
Sarpong-Danquah, B., Gyimah, P., Poku,
K., & Osei-Poku, B. (2018). Financial
Literacy Assessment on Tertiary
Students in Sub-Saharan Africa: A
Ghanaian Perspective. International
Journal of Accounting and Financial
Reporting, 8(2), 76.
https://doi.org/10.5296/ijafr.v8i2.1292
8
Senda, D. A., Rahayu, C. W. E., & Tri
Rahmawati, C. H. (2020). The Effect
of Financial Literacy Level and
Demographic Factors on Investment
Decision. Media Ekonomi Dan
Manajemen, 35(1), 100.
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online) 75
https://doi.org/10.24856/mem.v35i1.1
246
Seotsanyana, M. E. (2019). Assessment of
university students’ level of financial
literacy: the voices of the National
University of Development Studies
education students. Africa Review,
11(1), 63–76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09744053.201
8.1538680
Setiawan, B. (2020). Descriptive Analysis
of Financial Literacy: Evidence from
Public and Private University
Students in Indonesia. Sriwijaya
International Journal of Dynamic
Economics and Business, 4(1), 73.
https://doi.org/10.29259/sijdeb.v4i1.7
3-86
Setyorini, N., Indiworo, R. H. E., &
Sutrisno. (2021). The Role Financial
Literacy and Financial Planning to
Increase Financial Resilience:
Household Behaviour as Mediating
Variable. Media Ekonomi Dan
Manajemen, 36(2), 243–255.
https://doi.org/10.24856/mem.v36i2.2
179
Shaari, N. A., Hasan, N. A., Mohamed, R.
K. M. H., & Sabri, M. A. J. M.
(2013). Financial Literacy: A Study
Among The University Students.
Interdisciplinary Journal Of
Contemporary Research in Business,
5(2), 279–299.
Silta, H. P., & Miharti, I. (2020). Factors
Affecting The Level Of Financial
Literation In College Student.
Jambura Science of Management,
2(1), 15–23.
https://doi.org/10.37479/jsm.v2i1.443
5
Son, J., & Park, J. (2019). Effects of
financial education on sound personal
finance in Korea: Conceptualization
of mediation effects of financial
literacy across income classes.
International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 43(1), 77–86.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12486
Soseco, T., Wulandari, D., Hadi Utomo, S.,
& Narmaditya, B. S. (2018). House
Ownership Circumstances in Rural
Area: Evidence from Indonesia.
Jurnal Pendidikan Ekonomi Dan
Bisnis (JPEB), 6(2), 93–102.
https://doi.org/10.21009/jpeb.006.2.2
Suherman, A., Wardani, Kartika Puspa, E.,
& Khusaini. (2020). Analisis Literasi
Keuangan Mahasiswa di FKIP UNIS
Tangerang. Jurnal Pendidikan
Ekonomi, 13(1), 18–29.
https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.17
977/UM014v13i12020p018
Susanti, & Hardini, H. T. (2018). Gender,
academic achievement, and
ownership of ATM as predictors of
accounting students’ financial
literacy. IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering
PAPER, 296, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-
899X/296/1/012031
Thompson, S. (2014). Financing the
future: Australian students’ results in
the PISA 2012 Financial Literacy
assessment. Australian Council for
Educational Research.
https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewc
ontent.cgi?article=1016&context=ozp
isa
U.S. Financial Literacy and Education
Commission. (2019). Best practices
for financial literacy and education at
institutions of higher education:
https://arc.accesslex.org/fe-
delivery/18/
Van Campenhout, G. (2015). Revaluing
the Role of Parents as Financial
Socialization Agents in Youth
Financial Literacy Programs. Journal
of Consumer Affairs, 49(1), 186–222.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/
joca.12064
Wagner, J., & Walstad, W. B. (2019). The
Effects of Financial Education on
Short-Term and Long-Term Financial
Behaviors. Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 53(1), 234–259.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12210
Wijayanti, Agustin, G., & Rahmawati, F.
Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Volume 37 Issue 1, January 2022, 55-76
76 p-ISSN: 0854-1442 (Print) e-ISSN: 2503-4464 (Online)
(2016). Pengaruh jenis kelamin, IPK,
dan semester terhadap literasi
keuangan mahasiswa prodi S1
Ekonomi Pembangunan Universitas
Negeri Malang. Jurnal Pendidikan
Ekonomi, 09(1), 87–96.
https://doi.org/:
https://dx.doi.org/10.17977/UM014v0
9i12016p088
Xu, L., & Zia, B. (2012). Financial
Literacy around the World: An
Overview of the Evidence with
Practical Suggestions for the Way
Forward (No. 6107; Policy Research
Working Paper).
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/9322
Xue, R., Gepp, A., O’Neill, T. J., Stern, S.,
& Vanstone, B. J. (2019). Financial
literacy amongst elderly Australians.
Accounting and Finance, 59(S1),
887–918.
https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12362
Yuxiao, W., & Chao, H. (2017). School
Socioeconomic Segregation and
Educational Expectations of Students
in China’s Junior High Schools.
Social Sciences in China, 38(3), 112–
126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.201
7.1339449
Zhao, N., Valcke, M., Desoete, A., &
Verhaeghe, J. P. (2012). The
quadratic relationship between
socioeconomic status and learning
performance in China by multilevel
analysis: Implications for policies to
foster education equity. International
Journal of Educational Development,
32(3), 412–422.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.201
1.08.004
