Received: 28 March 2017 | Revised: 23 September 2017 | Accepted: 23 October 2017

DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12408

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
bs_bs_banner

Financial literacy among university students: A study in eight

European countries

€n
Kutlu Ergu

Balikesir University Research Department of

International Relations, Balikesir, Turkey
Correspondence
Kutlu Erg€un, Balikesir University,
International Relations Research and
Applied Centre, 10145 Balikesir, Turkey.
Email: kutlu.ergun@balikesir.edu.tr
Abstract
This study analysed the level of financial literacy among university students in Estonia, Germany,
Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation and Turkey. The purpose of the study was
to determine the level of financial literacy among university students, and to find out the relation-
ship between financial knowledge and demographic characteristics of students. Online survey
instrument was used to collect data. 409 fully completed questionnaires were accepted for analy-
sis. Logistic regression was used to analyse of impact of the demographic characteristics on
financial literacy. Overall mean of correct answers for the survey was 72.2%. This result represents
a medium level of financial literacy about personal finance. Results indicate that male students,
business major students, PhD students, those who live in a rental house, those whose parents
have high level income, those who get advice on financial matters from their friends, those who
took financial course before, those who get financial information about financial issues from uni-
versity education, and students from Poland are more knowledgeable on personal finance. More
financial courses should be provided in university education programmes, which could help more
students handle their finances better and improve their financial wellbeing. It should be taken into
consideration that in recent years, environmental and technological influences on financial literacy
may be more important than parental influence.

KEYWORDS
consumer finance, financial education, financial knowledge, financial literacy, university students

1 | INTRODUCTION
Households have been exposed to financial risks over the last two dec-
ades as a result of liberalization of financial markets and political
reforms. These risks have become important for low income families
who have insufficient savings (Jappelli, 2010). Advancement of internet
and communication technologies have allowed people to reach prod-
ucts easily (Braunstein & Welch, 2002). Potential impact of shrinking
public and private welfare systems, shifting demographics and the
increased sophistication and expansion of financial services have
caused for concern in developed and developing countries about the
level of financial literacy of their citizens, particularly among young
people (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
[OECD1], 2015). Developments of financial system imposed on house-
holds a much greater responsibility to borrow, save, invest and decu-
mulate their assets sensibly by allowing tailored financial contracts and
more people to access credits easily (Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014).
The lack of financial literacy has an impact on the ability of indi-
viduals to fulfil long-term goals such as daily money management,
home purchase, tertiary education and pension financing. Inefficient
money management resulting from the lack of financial literacy can
lead to behavioural patterns that make consumers vulnerable to seri-
ous financial crises (Braunstein & Welch, 2002). Financial fallacies
also affect well-being of individuals as well as occurring negative
externalities that affect all economy (Huston, 2010). Family members
without financial literacy can make negative decisions that affect not
only themselves but their families and the society at all (Gale & Lev-
ine, 2010). Consumers have to have financial knowledge to make
informed choices regarding existing products, and to communicate
with today’s increasingly sophisticated financial services and products
(Bernanke, 2006). Financially literate people tend to lower costs of
borrowing for both mortgage loans and credit cards debts (Huston,
2012). Consumers with adequate financial knowledge tend to save
for future, retirement and unpredictable situations (Jappelli, 2010).

2 | V
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijcs Int J Consum Stud. 2018;42:2–15.
 €
ERGUN
People who have financial literacy at least at a basic level make better
savings (Lusardi & Mitchell, 2011).
On the other hand, the development of financial literacy in young
people has become one of the most fundamental issues for policy mak-
ers. The first reason is that the financial choices faced by young people
today are more different than in the past. Financial systems, services
and products are getting more sophisticated. The second reason is that
young people will face more risks in the future due to increased life
expectancy, reduced prosperity, employment problems and uncertain
economic outlook (Atkinson & Messy, 2012).
This study consists of six sections. After the introduction, the first
section is literature review. Second section is methodology which
describes data collection and research method. Third section describes
the results of logistic regression analysis. Discussion is the fourth sec-
tion that analyses the results and compares them to previous studies.
Conclusion is the fifth section which has some suggestions for improv-
ing financial literacy among university students. Limitations is the last
section which indicates the limitations of the study.
2 | LITERATURE REVIEW
There have been many studies to define financial literacy. Gale and
Levine (2010) define financial literacy as the ability to make informed
and effective decisions about using and managing wealth and money.
Atkinson and Messy (2012) define the financial literacy as a combina-
tion of awareness, knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours neces-
sary to make sound decisions to reach individual financial wealth.
According to Lusardi and Mitchell (2014), financial literacy is the ability
to make financial planning, build and maintain wealth, make informed
decisions on debt and retirement and use economic knowledge.
Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy (2015) defines
financial literacy as the ability to use knowledge and skills to manage
financial resources throughout the life for financial security.
Many studies have been conducted to determine financial literacy
level of people. Australian ANZ Bank showed that some consumers
were lacking in basic financial skills and understanding of specific finan-
cial products and services. This survey indicated that individuals
between 18- and 24-year old had the lowest financial literacy level
among the consumer groups (Australian Securities & Investments Com-
mission [ASIC], 2003). On the other hand, ANZ Bank (2015) conducted
another research on adult financial literacy, and found that 55% of the
participants did not use newspapers, books, finance sites or govern-
ment publications to reach financial information.
There are very rich empirical data gathered through numerous
studies that financial literacy level of male are higher than female (Chen
& Volpe, 1998; Beal & Delpachitra, 2003; Lusardi, Mıtchell and Curto,
2010; Lusardi & Mitchell, 2011; Klapper, Lusardi, & Panos, 2011;
Atkinson & Messy, 2012).
Lusardi and Mitchell (2011) conducted a study on 50-year old and
over 1,296 participants, and showed that half of Americans answered
correctly about compound interest and inflation questions. They con-
cluded that those with sufficient financial knowledge were willing to
bs_bs_banner
| 3
saving and investing. Beckmann (2013) found that people who have
high financial literacy level tend to use more saving instruments, and
invest more for retirement in Romania (Beckmann, 2013).
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/
International Network on Financial Education (OECD/INFE) conducted
a study across 14 countries on financial knowledge, and found that low
income level and low educational level were directly related to low
financial literacy (Atkinson & Messy, 2012). In another study conducted
in Hungary, it was found that 70% of the respondents did not know
the main financial concepts and meaning of inflation (EUC, 2007).
Lusardi, Mıtchell and Curto (2010) surveyed 7,138 young adults and
found that only 27% of participants were knowledgeable about infla-
tion, risk diversification and simple interest calculations.
Students’ understanding of financial concepts and their level of
financial literacy is an important factor in determining how they over-
come financial problems and manage money (Mandell, 2009). Chen and
Volpe (1998) surveyed 924 college students in 14 American univer-
sities and found that students in business and economics departments
had high level of financial literacy. Jump$tart Coalition showed that
financial literacy level of university students had increased over the
years. It was also found that students in the field of social sciences, sci-
ence, engineering, business and economics had high level of financial
literacy (Mandell, 2008). Xiao, Shim, Barber, and Lyons (2007) surveyed
781 students in the University of Arizona and found that students who
were in the field of nonbusiness studies, those who were living on cam-
pus dormitory, and those who received financial support had low level
of saving behaviours. A study conducted by Lyons (2007) showed that
students in financial risk situations were more likely to exceed the
credit card limit than others who were not in that kind of risk. The sur-
vey of 789 students in the University of Southern Queensland showed
that students who had working experiences, and those who had high
personal income had high level of financial literacy (Beal & Delpachitra,
2003). Jorgensen (2007) conducted a study on undergraduate and
graduate college students, and found that financial knowledge
increases gradually from first year freshmen to master’s students. He
also found that students who were financially affected by their parents
had higher scores on financial knowledge, attitude and behaviour.
Danes and Hira (1987) surveyed 323 college students from Iowa State
University, and indicated that college students who were in upper class
were more financially literate than those who were in lower class. A
survey of 2,382 students from Louisiana University and the University
of Georgia showed that families had the highest effect on students’
financial behaviour on money management (Cude et al., 2006). Clarke,
Heaton, Israelsen, and Eggett (2005) carried out a study to examine the
adult financial role to children and adolescents, and they concluded
that parental involvement was essential component to enhancing finan-
cial literacy. Mimura, Koonce, Plunkett, and Pleskus (2015) examined
the financial information sources, financial knowledge and financial
practices of young adults in Southern California, and they indicated
that personal financial information obtained from parents was posi-
tively associated with levels of financial knowledge and financial prac-
tices. They also found that information obtained from other family
members and college courses was positively associated with better

4 | bs_bs_banner
financial practices. On the other hand, they showed that the more
information received from friends related to inferior performance on
the financial knowledge measure.
Building financial education from early ages allows children to have
skills to develop responsible financial behaviour throughout each stage
of their education (OECD/INFE, 2012). In a study conducted in the
region of Madrid to assess intervention of financial education pro-
gramme using data on 22 schools, it was found that the program
increased treated students’ financial literacy performance between one
fourth and one third of a standard deviation (Hospido, Villanueva, &
Zamarro, 2015). Luhrmann, Serra-Garcia, and Winter (2014) examined
the impact of a financial education intervention on intertemporal choices
in adolescence and found that the financial education intervention led to
a significant increase in time consistency which could lead to better
management of financial plans, less under-saving and over-borrowing.
3 | DATA COLLECTION AND
METHODOLOGY
3.1 | Data collection
This study used an online survey design to obtain data from participant
students. The survey for this study is an unrestricted, self-selected sur-
vey that is open to the public for anyone to participate in. The key
characteristics of these types of survey are that there are no restric-
tions on who can participate, and it is up to the individual to choose to
participate. The sample for this kind of survey is certainly not generaliz-
able, but it also provides data that is unlikely to be collected in any
other way (Fricker, 2008).
Calculating desired sample size seems to be rather problematic for
online surveys because there has been almost no sufficient and specific
validated sample size for these kinds of studies. However, online ques-
tionnaire allows for greater potential reach responses, and it is totally
voluntary and takes more time to achieve a final sample compared to
face to face interview (Merolli, Sanchez, & Gray, 2014). For this study,
it was aimed to reach at least 400 participants. More than 450 students
participated in this survey, but only 409 fully completed questionnaires
were accepted for analysis. When countries were selected for this
study, it was aimed to be concluded countries from different regions of
Europe. Thus, the countries were selected from northern, southern,
eastern, western and central Europe. No sample size determination
was made for each country since it is not possible for this kind of
online survey. Appropriate responses were included in the analysis.
Less response was obtained from some countries than others. The
result obtained from the sample for this survey represent only students
from participant countries in this study, and certainly not generalizable
in all European countries, but it can provide useful data to carry out
researches on financial literacy in other European countries.
The online survey was designed using Google online survey tool,
and hosted on Google survey platform which is an open access survey
creation and hosting platform. Survey questions were built upon findings
from literature review, and modified to suit this research needs (Chen &
Volpe, 1998; Hogarth & Beverly, 2003; Cude et al., 2006; OECD, 2006;
€
ERGUN
Jump$tart Survey, 2008; Robb & Sharpe, 2009; Lusardi, 2010; Behrman,
Mitchell, Soo, & Bravo, 2010; OECD/INFE, 2012; Jappelli & Padula,
2013; Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014). A consent form was added to survey
before the first section. It was made explicitly clear that participation
was voluntary, the survey was filled out anonymously, and no one out-
side of researcher of this study would be aware of the answers. The
online survey targeted online networks related students group on social
media, and the link of the Google online survey tool was shared. The
survey instrument is divided into two sections. In the first section, the
survey participants were asked to answer 8 items of some demographic
data, characteristics such as ‘gender’, ‘cycle of study’, ‘field of study’,
‘parental monthly income’, ‘type of residence’, ‘source of financial infor-
mation’, ‘following advice on financial matters’, ‘finance course’ and
‘nationality’. The second section consisted 20 multiple-choice basic ques-
tions, obtaining the knowledge of personal finance on ‘value of individual
skill development’, ‘basic interest calculation’, ‘relationship between
interest rate and inflation’, ‘calculating exchange rate’, ‘basic rate calcula-
tion’, ‘saving effect on purchasing power’, ‘benefit analysis’, ‘value added
tax’, ‘risk return’, ‘insurance’, ‘definition of inflation’, ‘effect of inflation on
saving’, ‘investment risk’, ‘risk diversification’, ‘meaning of credit rating’,
‘effect of price increasing on purchasing power’, ‘effect of interest on
future value of saving and investing’, ‘knowledge of unemployment and
inflation rates in participant countries’ and ‘knowledge on necessity of
retirement plan’ (see Table 4).
3.2 | Methodology
It was used Chen and Volpe’s technique by calculating the mean and
median percentage of correct scores for each question. Mean percent-
age of correct scores was classified into three categories: The group of
‘below 60%’ represented low level of financial knowledge; the group of
‘60% to 79%’ represented medium level of financial knowledge; and
the group of ‘more than 80%’ represented high level of financial knowl-
edge. These classifications are consistent with previous researches
(Volpe, Chen, & Pavlicko, 1996; Chen & Volpe, 1998; Volpe, Kotel, &
Chen, 2002; Beal & Delpachitra, 2003; Suwanaphan, 2013).
For the predictive analysis, logistic regression model which is an
econometric model constructed by an iterative maximum likelihood
procedure was used to analyse data. Logistic regression generates the
coefficients of a formula to predict a logit transformation of the proba-
bility of presence of the characteristic of interest, and uses the follow-
ing equation to generate coefficients with standard errors and
significance levels to predict a logit transformation of the probability of
occurrence:
 
p
Logit ðpÞ 5 log 5 b0 1 b1 X1 1 b1 X1 1 b1 X1 . . . 1bk Xk (1)
12p
where: p is probability of an event to occur. The logit transformation is
defined as the logged odds:
 
p
odds 5 (2)
12p
p 5 probability of an event to occur (scoring higher than the median
score)
 €
ERGUN
bs_bs_banner
| 5

1 – p 5 probability of an event not to occur (scoring equal or lower
than the median score)
and
 
p
logit ðpÞ5 lnðOddsÞ5ln
12p
After determining the median score (75%) of correct answers of
the entire survey, participant students were classified into two sub-
groups for the logistic regression analysis. Those who had scores
higher than the sample median was classified as more financial
knowledgeable students. Those who were equal to or below the
sample median were classified as less financial knowledgeable
students.
Table 1 shows the independent variables and definitions. The
independent variables as response variables in the model were
‘gender’, ‘cycle of study’, ‘field of study’, ‘type of residence’, ‘paren-
tal monthly income’, ‘following advice on financial matters’, ‘source
of financial information about financial issues’, ‘finance course’ and
‘nationality’. Dependent variable as a predictor variable in the
model was financial literacy. In a logistic regression, coefficients
such as b1, b2 . . . bk associate with the reference group, and mea-
sure each independent variable’s partial contribution to variations
in the dependent variable. X1, X2, X3 . . . Xk are explanatory varia-
bles. The coefficients of the selected independent variables repre-
sent the effect of each category compared with reference category.
was male student. If the logistic coefficient of variable is negative,
the female students are associated with decreased log odds ratio of
being more financial knowledgeable compared with the male stu-
dents. The odds ratio is a type of effect size measure.
(3) In logistic regression model, p is the predicted probability of a
respondent being more financially literate. In this study, it was
coded with 1 (scoring higher than the median score of 75.00%).
1 – p is the predicted probability of the respondent being less
financially literate. It was coded with 0 (scoring equal or lower than
the median score of 75.0%). Econometric model takes on the
following form:
 
p
Log 5 b0 1 b1 ðGenderÞ 1 b2 ðCycle1Þ 1 b3 ðCycle2Þ
12p
1b4 ðStudyField1Þ 1 b5 ðStudyField2Þ 1 b6 ðStudyField3Þ
1 b7 ðStudyField4Þ 1 b8 ðStudyField5Þ 1 b9 ðStudyField6Þ
1 b10 ðResidenceType1Þ 1 b11 ðResidenceType2Þ
1 b12 ðFollowAdvice1Þ 1 b13 ðFollowAdvice2Þ
1 b14 ðFollowAdvice3Þ 1 b15 ðParentIncome1Þ
1 b16 ðParentIncome2Þ 1 b17 ðParentIncome3Þ
1 b18 ðParentIncome4Þ 1 b19 ðInfoSource1Þ
1 b20 ðInfoSource2Þ 1 b21 ðInfoSource3Þ
1 b22 ðFinanceCourseÞ 1 b23 ðNationality1Þ
1 b24 ðNationality2Þ 1 b25 ðNationality3Þ
1 b26 ðNationality4Þ 1 b27 ðNationality5Þ
1 b28 ðNationality6Þ 1 b29 ðNationality7Þ

In the logistic model for this study, for example, ‘gender’ was coded (4)

as 1 if a student was female, 0 otherwise. The reference category where,

TA BL E 1 Independent variables and definitions

p 5 The probability of a participant student who is more knowledgeable about personal finance

Gender 5 1 if a student is female, 0 otherwise

Male 5 Reference group

Cycle1 5 1 If a student is in bachelor’s degree, 0 otherwise

Cycle2 5 1 if a student is in master’s degree, 0 otherwise

Doctorate 5 Reference group

StudyField1 5 1 if a student studies an arts and humanities,0 otherwise

StudyField2 5 1 if a student studies social sciences,0 otherwise

StudyField3 5 1 if a student studies an engineering and construction,0 otherwise

StudyField4 5 1 if a student studies a natural sciences,0 otherwise

StudyField5 5 1 if a student studies a ICTs, 0 otherwise

StudyField6 5 1 if a student studies a health and welfare, 0 otherwise

Business 5 Reference group

ResidenceType1 5 1 if a student lives in a dormitory, 0 otherwise

ResidenceType2 5 1 if a student lives with family, 0 otherwise

Rental house 5 Reference variable

FollowAdvice1 5 1 if a student does not follow any advice on financial matters, 0 otherwise

FollowAdvice2 5 1 if a student follows his/her father’s advice the most on financial matters, 0 otherwise

FollowAdvice3 5 1 if a student follows his/her mother’s advice the most on financial matters, 0 otherwise
(Continues)
 €
6 | bs_bs_banner
ERGUN

T AB LE 1 (Continued)

Friend(s) 5 Reference group

ParentIncome1 5 1 if a student’s parental monthly income is lower than < e1000, 0 otherwise

ParentIncome2 5 1 if a student’s parental monthly income is between e1001 and e2000, 0 otherwise

ParentIncome3 5 1 if a student’s parental monthly income is between e2001 and e3000, 0 otherwise

ParentIncome4 5 1 if a student’s parental monthly income is between e3001 and e4000, 0 otherwise

> e4001 5 Reference group

InfoSource1 5 1 if a student mostly gets financial information from TVs, 0 otherwise

InfoSource2 5 1 if a student mostly gets financial information from newspapers, 0 otherwise

InfoSource3 5 1 if a student mostly gets financial information from social media, 0 otherwise

University 5 Reference group

FinanceCrs(no) 5 1 if a student has not taken a financial course previously, 0 otherwise

FinanceCrs(yes) 5 Reference group

Nationality1 5 1 if a student is from Estonia, 0 otherwise

Nationality2 5 1 if a student is from Germany, 0 otherwise

Nationality3 5 1 if a student is from Italy, 0 otherwise

Nationality4 5 1 if a student is from Netherlands, 0 otherwise

Nationality5 5 1 if a student is from Russian Federation, 0 otherwise

Nationality6 5 1 if a student is from Romania, 0 otherwise

Nationality7 5 1 if a student is from Turkey, 0 otherwise

Poland 5 Reference group

4 | RESULTS degree students, 74.9%. Students whose field of study is business

The sample characteristics are the following (Table 2). Male participants
represented 47.4% of the sample; 52.6%, female. 59.9% of the partici-
pants were bachelor’s degree students; 32.0%, masters’; and 8.1%,
PhD students. 18.6% of students’ field of study was engineering and
construction; 16.9%, social science; 15.90%, business; 15.6%, arts and
humanities; 11.5%, health and welfare; 11.0%, information and commu-
nication technologies (ICTs); and 10.5%, natural sciences. 53.3% of stu-
dents live in rental house; 23.7%, with parents; and 23.0%, in campus
dormitory. 33.3% of the students stated that they do not follow any
advice on financial matters; 22.5%, father’s advice, 31.3%, mother’s
advice; and 13.0%, friend’s advice. 35.0% of the students’ parental
monthly income was higher than e4,001; 21.3%, e1,001–e2,000;
21.3%, e2,001–e3,000; and 13.0%, e3,001–e4,000. 35.7% of the par-
ticipants stated that they mostly got financial information about finan-
cial issues from social media; 30.8%, newspapers; 25.2%, TVs; and
8.8%, university. 62.3% of participant students stated that they had
taken a finance course previously; 37.7% did not take any finance
course before. 12.5% of students were from Estonia, 15.2%, Germany;
14.2%, Italy; 8.6%, Netherlands; 14.4%, Poland; 11.5%, Romania;
10.8%, Russian Federation; and 13.0%, Turkey.
Male students answered 76.2% of the survey questions correctly;
female students, 68.5%. PhD students answered 79.5% of the survey
questions correctly; bachelor’s degree students, 69.7%; and master’s
answered 79.3% of the survey questions correctly; department of arts
and humanities, 65.3%; social sciences, 72.8%; engineering and con-
struction, 73.1%; natural sciences, 72.2%; ICTs, 73.6%; and health and
welfare, 67.6%. The student who live in a rental house answered
75.2% of the survey questions correctly; campus dormitory, 69.2%;
and living with parents, 68.19%. The participants who mostly follow
their friend’s advice on financial matters answered 78.0% of the survey
questions correctly; those who do not follow any advice on financial
matters, 74.3%; father’s advice, 69.9%; and mother’s advice, 68.2%.
The students whose parental monthly income is higher than e4,000
answered 77.3% of the survey questions correctly; < e1,000, 74.1%;
e1,001–e2,000, 65.6%, e2,001–e3,000, 74.5%; e3,001–e4,000, 63.9%.
Students who mostly get financial information about financial issues
from university education answered 79.4% of the survey questions
correctly; newspapers, 77.3; TVs, 69.0%; and social media, 68.2%. Stu-
dents who took finance course previously answered 76.7% of survey
questions correctly. Students who did not attended any finance course
before answered 69.47% of survey questions correctly.
The average score across all participating countries was 14.4 out of
a possible 20 (mean percentage of correct responses: 72.2%). This result
represents a medium level of financial literacy. The researcher took the
total amount of answers for all participant countries and divided it by 20
to get a percentage of the total answers. Thus, a percentage of correct
responses were determined for all countries. The same method was
 €
ERGUN
bs_bs_banner
| 7

TA BL E 2 The Sample characteristics

Characteristics Number of participants Percentage of participants (%) Mean percentage of correct responses (%)

Gender
Female 215 52.6 68.5
Male 194 47.4 76.2

Financial course
No 255 62.3 69.4
Yes 154 37.7 76.7

Cycle of study
Bachelor’s degree 245 59.9 69.7
Master’s degree 131 32.0 74.9
PhD 33 8.1 79.5

Field of study
Arts and humanities 64 15.6 65.3
Social sciences 69 16.9 72.8
Engineering and construction 76 18.6 73.1
Natural sciences 43 10.5 72.2
ICTs 45 11.0 73.6
Health and welfare 47 11.5 67.6
Business 65 15.9 79.3

Type of residence
Campus dormitory 94 23.0 69.2
Living with parents 97 23.7 68.1
Rental house 218 53.3 75.2

Following advice on financial matters

I do not follow any advice 136 33.3 74.3
My father 92 22.5 69.9
My mother 128 31.3 69.1
My friend(s) 53 13.0 78.0

Parental monthly income

< e1000 39 9.5 74.1
e1001–e2000 87 21.3 65.6
e2001–e3000 87 21.3 74.5
e3001–e4000 53 13.0 63.9
> e4001 143 35.0 77.3

Getting financial information about financial issues

TVs 103 25.2 69.0
Newspapers 126 30.8 77.3
Social media 146 35.7 68.2
University 34 8.3 79.4

Nationality
Estonia 51 12.5 71.1
Germany 62 15.2 73.7
Italy 58 14.2 73.7
Netherlands 35 8.6 75.0
Poland 59 14.4 77.3
Romania 47 11.5 65.7
Russian Federation 44 10.8 75.1
Turkey 53 13.0 65.3

used to get percentage of correct responses for each country, and the
sample characteristics. The median percentage of correct score was
determined as 75.00%. Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.727. Thus, the data seem
to be reliable. Students from Poland had the highest score, and
answered 77.3% (15.4 out of 20) of the survey questions correctly; stu-
dents from Turkey had the lowest score, and answered 65.3% (13.0 out
of 20) of the survey questions correctly; German students, 73.7% (14.7
out of 20); Italian students, 73.7% (14.7 out of 20); students from
Netherlands, 75.0% (15.0 out of 20); student from Estonia, 71.1% (14.2
out of 20); Romanian students, 65.7 (13.1 out of 20), and students from
Russian Federation, 75.1% (15.1 out of 20). Table 3 shows Countries’
Mean Percentage of Correct Responses to the Sample.
Table 4 shows the correct responses to questions on financial
knowledge. Questionnaire of the second section included 20 questions
to test the financial knowledge of participant students. An average
score across all participating countries was 14.4 out of a possible 20

8 | bs_bs_banner
TA BL E 3 Countries’ mean percentage of correct responses to the sample
Participant’s country Number of participants
Estonia 51
Germany 62
Italy 58
Netherlands 35
Poland 59
Romania 47
Russian Federation 44
Turkey 53
The Sample 409
(72.2%). This score indicates that level of financial literacy is medium
for all students from participating countries. All students had at least
medium level of financial knowledge on the questions about ‘value of
individual skill development’ (Q1), ‘basic interest calculation’ (Q2), ‘cal-
culating exchange rate’ (Q4), ‘basic rate calculation’ (Q5), ‘benefit analy-
sis’ (Q7), ‘value added tax’ (Q8), ‘risk return’ (Q9), ‘insurance’ (Q10),
‘definition of inflation’ (Q11), ‘effect of inflation on saving’ (Q12), ‘effect
of price increasing on purchasing power’ (Q16) and ‘effect of interest
on future value of saving and investing’ (Q17). However, all students
from participating countries had lower level of financial knowledge
score on the question of ‘knowledge on necessity of retirement plan’
(Q20). Most students believe that retirement is too far for them. Stu-
dents from Russian Federation and Turkey had medium level of finan-
cial knowledge score on the question of ‘knowledge of inflation rate in
participant country’ (Q19). These countries have rather higher annual
inflation rates than other countries in this study. Students from Turkey
and Russian federation are aware of high inflation rates in their coun-
tries. Students from other countries had lower level score on this ques-
tion. Students from Italy and Turkey had higher financial knowledge
level on the questions of ‘knowledge of inflation rate in participant
country’ (Q18). These countries have rather higher annual unemploy-
ment rates than other countries in this study. It seems that students
from Italy and Turkey are aware of high unemployment rates in their
countries. Consistent with this result, these students have high level of
financial knowledge on the question about ‘effect of price increasing
on purchasing power’ (Q16). The situation on the issue of unemploy-
ment seems to have increased the students’ price sensitivity on the
purchasing power. On the other hand, students from Estonia and Ger-
many had medium, and the other countries had low level of financial
knowledge score on this question. Students from Estonia had the only
participants who had higher score (80.4%) on the question about
‘investment risk’ (Q13). Students from Romania and Turkey had the
lowest scores on this question. Students from Russian Federation,
€
ERGUN
Level of Financial Knowledge
Low Medium High
60%–79%
Scores and percentages
(out of 20)
Below 60% Total % Over 80%
14.2 71.1
14.7 73.7
14.7 73.7
15.0 75.0
15.4 77.3
13.1 65.7
15.0 75.1
13.0 65.3
14.4 72.2
Romania and Turkey had lower level of financial knowledge than stu-
dents from other countries on the question about ‘risk diversification’
(Q14). Students from Romania had the lowest score compared to the
students from other countries on the question about ‘meaning of credit
rating’ (Q15). Students from Netherlands were the only participants
who had medium level of financial knowledge (65.7%) on the question
about ‘saving effect on purchasing power’ (Q6). Students from Turkey
and Romania had lower level of financial knowledge on this question.
This is an expected result because Turkey and Romania have lower
level of saving rates compared to other countries in this study (OECD1,
2015; EUC, 2015). Most of the students do not know that if a person
saves some money, he/she can more purchasing power and buy more
goods and services. They think that people buy everything they desire
or they will have no problem for them in the following years of their
life. Students from Russian Federation had higher level of financial
knowledge score compared to the students from other participant
countries on the question about ‘value of saving and investing’ (Q17).
This is can be an expected result because Russian Federation has good
level of saving rate compared to other countries in this study (OECD1,
2015; EUC, 2015). Financial knowledge on the questions about ‘saving
effect on purchasing power’ (Q6), ‘knowledge of inflation rate in partici-
pant country’ (Q19) and ‘knowledge on necessity of retirement plan’
(Q20) was lower level than other questions for all countries in terms of
country’s average. Most students from all participant countries are not
interested in their retirement plan. Students are more interested in
unemployment rates than inflation rate in their countries. The fact that
inflation is not a major problem compared to unemployment for most
European countries may have led to such a result.
Result from the logistic regression analysis is reported in Table 5.
Output indicates the coefficients and the odds ratios predicted by the
model. It also indicates relatively high chi-square of 149.467 on 29
degrees of freedom, and significant beyond 0.01 level of significance.
The model has explanatory power, and fits well for developing
 €
ERGUN
bs_bs_banner
| 9

TA BL E 4 Percentages of correct responses to survey questions

%
Russian Country
No Subject of questions Estonia Germany Italy Netherlands Poland Romania Federation Turkey Average

Q1 Value of individual skill development 72.5 77.4 79.3 74.3 88.1 72.3 86.4 73.6 78.2

Q2 Basic interest calculation 80.4 93.5 84.5 91.4 88.1 83.0 93.2 75.5 86.1

Q3 Relationship between Interest rate 82.4 75.8 72.4 82.9 86.4 59.6 88.6 45.3 73.8
and inflation

Q4 Calculating exchange rate 90.2 95.2 93.1 100 96.6 76.6 90.9 75.5 89.7

Q5 Basic rate calculation 86.3 75.8 81.0 94.3 88.1 70.2 81.8 69.8 80.4

Q6 Saving effect on purchasing power 49.0 48.4 53.4 65.7 55.9 42.6 52.3 34.0 49.6

Q7 Benefit analysis 66.7 75.8 67.2 74.3 78.0 70.2 65.9 67.9 70.9

Q8 Value added tax 74.5 75.8 72.4 80.0 91.5 74.5 75.0 77.4 77.8

Q9 Risk return 78.4 87.1 75.9 94.3 84.7 78.7 79.5 84.9 82.6

Q10 Insurance 90.2 90.3 87.9 91.4 89.8 87.2 86.4 88.7 89.0

Q11 Definition of inflation 78.4 87.1 79.3 91.4 86.4 70.2 86.4 66.0 80.4

Q12 Effect of Inflation on saving 92.2 87.1 84.5 77.1 94.9 80.9 93.2 60.4 84.1

Q13 Investment risk 80.4 62.9 60.3 68.6 72.9 59.6 65.9 50.9 65.0

Q14 Risk diversification 60.8 64.5 74.1 71.4 66.1 51.1 54.5 41.5 60.6

Q15 Meaning of credit rating 70.6 75.8 69.0 85.7 74.6 53.2 61.4 69.8 69.9

Q16 Effect of price increasing on 70.6 75.8 82.8 74.3 71.2 74.5 72.7 84.9 76.0
purchasing power

Q17 Effect of interest on future value of 74.5 71.1 86.2 71.4 76.3 78.7 93.2 71.1 77.8
saving and investing

Q18 Knowledge of Unemployment rate in 52.9 66.1 81.0 45.7 67.8 59.6 54.5 84.9 65.5
participant country

Q19 Knowledge of inflation rate in 33.3 46.8 56.9 31.4 47.5 44.7 70.5 69.8 50.6
participant country

Q20 Knowledge on necessity of 39.2 41.9 34.5 34.3 42.4 27.7 50.0 15.1 35.7
retirement plan

relationship between independent and dependent variables defined in
the model. The overall fit of the model given by 22 Likelihood statistics
of 410.108 is not highly significant. On the other hand, after applying
of Hosmer-Lemeshov to detect any problem of multicollinearity, it was
indicated that the chi-square statistic has a nonsignificant value of
5.802 at a 0.669 significance level. It indicates that the data fit the
model well. Nagelkerke R Square is 0.411, and it gives us an evidence
of explaining level of knowledge by selected independent variables.
Entire sample overall correctly classifies 75.10% of respondents.
Coefficient of ‘female’ (b 5 21.079) was negative and statistically
significant at 0.01 level of significance. Odds ratio [Exp(b)] is 5 0.340.
Thus, the odds that female likely to be financially literate was 0.340
times lower than male students. Male students were more knowledge-
able than female students about personal financial literacy. ‘Bachelor’s
degree’ had a negative coefficient and statistically significant at the
0.10 level. Odds ratio was 5 0.378. Although the coefficient of master’s
degree had a negative sign, it was not statistically significant. The odds
that students in bachelor’s degree likely to be financially literate were
0.378 times lower than the doctorate degree students. Bachelor’s
degree students were more likely to be less knowledgeable than PhD
students. All coefficients of ‘Study Field’ had negative signs. The differ-
ence was statistically significant between department of business and
arts and humanities at the 0.01 level. Health and welfare, social scien-
ces, natural sciences and ICTs were statistically significant at the 0.05
level. The odds that students who are in the fields of arts and human-
ities, health and welfare, social sciences, natural sciences and ICTs likely
to be financially literate was 0.209, 0.185, 0.383, 0.271 and 0.273
times lower, respectively, than the students who were in the field of
business. Business departments students were more knowledgeable
than nonbusiness department students. Both coefficients for ‘Type of
residence’ were negative. The difference for ‘living with parents’ was
statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Campus dormitory was statisti-
cally insignificant. The odds [Exp(b) 5 0.464] that students who live
with their parents likely to be financially literate was 0.464 times lower
than the students who live in a rental house. Student who lived in a
rental house knew more about personal finance than the students who
 €
10 | bs_bs_banner
ERGUN

TA BL E 5 Result of logistic regression analysis

95% C.I. for Exp(B)

Independent variables B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper

Gender
Female 21.079*** 0.2753 15.406 1 0.000 0.340 0.1980 0.583
Male (Reference)

Cycle of study
Bachelor 20.974* 0.519 3.521 1 0.061 0.378 0.136 1.044
Master 20.604 0.538 1.263 1 0.261 0.547 0.191 1.567
PhD (Reference)

Study field
Arts and humanities 21.565*** 0.474 10.874 1 0.001 0.209 0.083 0.530
Social sciences 20.961** 0.424 5.133 1 0.023 0.383 0.167 0.878
Engineering/Construction 20.445 0.454 0.960 1 0.327 0.641 0.263 1.560
Natural sciences 21.307** 0.506 6.662 1 0.010 0.271 0.100 0.730
ICTs 21.299** 0.501 6.717 1 0.010 0.273 0.102 0.729
Health and welfare 21.689** 0.554 9.305 1 0.002 0.185 0.062 0.547
Business (Reference)

Type of residence
Campus dormitory 20.133 0.334 0.158 1 0.691 0.876 0.455 1.686
Living with parents 20.768** 0.349 4.839 1 0.028 0.464 0.234 0.920
Rental house (Reference)

Following advice
I do not follow any advice 20.467 0.417 1.256 1 0.262 0.627 0.277 1.419
My father 21.316** 0.454 8.390 1 0.004 0.268 0.110 0.653
My mother 21.014** 0.440 5.299 1 0.021 0.363 0.153 0.860
My friend(s) (Reference)

Parental monthly income

< e1000 20.045 0.524 0.007 1 0.932 0.956 0.342 2.671
e1001–e2000 20.817** 0.404 4.078 1 0.043 0.442 0.200 0.976
e2001–e3000 0.261 0.364 0.515 1 0.473 1.299 0.636 2.652
e3001–e4000 22.103*** 0.494 18.137 1 0.000 0.122 0.046 0.321
> e4001 (Reference)

Financial information
TVs 20.702 0.536 1.715 1 0.190 0.496 0.173 1.417
Newspapers 20.771 0.516 2.234 1 0.135 0.462 0.168 1.271
Social media 20.924* 0.519 3.169 1 0.075 0.397 0.143 1.098
University (Reference)

Finance Course
Finance course (no) 20.743** 0.291 6.532 1 0.011 0.476 0.269 0.841
Finance course (yes) (Reference)

Nationality
Estonia 21.272** 0.507 6.308 1 0.012 0.280 0.104 0.756
Germany 20.399 0.468 0.727 1 0.394 0.671 0.268 1.678
Italy 20.241 0.473 0.259 1 0.611 0.786 0.311 1.986
Netherlands 20.479 0.578 0.687 1 0.407 0.620 0.200 1.923
Romania 20.054 0.514 0.011 1 0.916 0.947 0.346 2.593
Russian Federation 20.471 0.503 0.875 1 0.350 0.625 0.233 1.674
Turkey 21.548** 0.544 8.085 1 0.004 0.213 0.073 0.618
Poland (Reference)
Constant 4.999*** 0.906 30.467 1 0.000 148.308
–2 log Likelihood 410.108
Chi-square 149.467*** 29 0.000
Nagelkerke R Square 0.411
Hosmer-Lemeshow 5.802 8 0.669
Correct Classification 75.10%
Chance Classification 56.70%

* p < .10, ** p < .05, ***p < .01

 €
ERGUN
lived with their parents. The coefficients of the ‘income level’ of
e1,001–e2,000 and e3,001–e4,000 were negative and statistically sig-
nificant at the 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively. The odds that students
whose parental income were between e1,001 and e2,000, and
between e3,001 and e4,000 likely to be financially literate was 0.442
and 0.637 times lower, respectively, than the students whose parental
income were higher than –e4,001. Students whose parental income
was higher than e4,001 were more knowledgeable than those who had
parental monthly income lower than e4,001. All coefficients for ‘finan-
cial information’ source were negative. Differences between social
media and university education were statistically significant at the 0.10
level. The odds that students who mostly got financial information
about financial issues from social media likely to be financially literate
was 0.397 [Exp(b)] times lower than the students who mostly got
financial information from university education. Students who mostly
got financial information about financial issues from university educa-
tion were more knowledgeable than those who mostly got the informa-
tion about financial issues from social media. All coefficients for
‘financial advice’ were negative. Differences were statistically signifi-
cant for fathers’ and mothers’ advice at the 0.05 level. The odds that
students who mostly followed their fathers’ and mothers’ advice likely
to be financially literate was 0.268 [Exp(b)] and 363 [Exp(b)] times
lower than students who mostly followed their friends’ advice. Stu-
dents who followed advice on financial matters from their friends were
more knowledgeable than those who followed advice from their
fathers or mothers. Coefficient of ‘finance course’ had a negative sign,
and statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The odds that students
who did not take any finance course previously likely to be financially
literate were 0.476 times lower than students who took finance course
before. Students who took finance course before were more knowl-
edgeable than those who did not took any finance course previously.
Although all coefficients of ‘nationality’ were negative, differences
were statistically significant for only students from Estonia and Turkey
at the 0.05 level. Poland was the reference category, and the odds that
students from Estonia and Turkey likely to be financially literate was
0.280 and 0.213 times lower, respectively, than students from Poland.
Students from Poland were more knowledgeable about personal
finance than students from Estonia and Turkey.
5 | DISCUSSIONS
The result of regression analysis indicated that female students were
more likely to be less knowledgeable than male students about perso-
nal financial literacy. This finding is supported by rich empirical data
gathered through numerous studies (Chen & Volpe, 1998; Volpe et al.,
2002; Beal & Delpachitra, 2003; Mandell, 2008; Clercq & Venter,
2009; Cole, Sampson, & Zia, 2009; Fonseca, Mullen, Zamarro, & Zissi-
mopoulos, 2010; Lusardi, Mitchell, & Curto, 2010; Lusardi & Mitchell,
2011; Beckmann, 2013; Atkinson & Messy, 2012; Falahati & Paim,
2011; Bhushan & Medury, 2013; Rasoaisi & Kalebe, 2015). Agnew and
Cameron-Agnew (2015) suggested that financial socialization in the
home may be subject to a gender bias. This situation in progress of
bs_bs_banner
| 11
time makes the level of financial literacy different between the
genders.
Bachelor degree students were more likely to be less knowledgea-
ble than PhD students. The finding is consistent with the existing litera-
ture. Chen and Volpe (1998) surveyed undergraduate and graduate
students, and they found that lower class ranked students demon-
strated lower levels of financial knowledge. Jorgensen (2007) found
significant linear effect between class ranks. Master’s students demon-
strated highest levels of financial knowledge as a result of performing
regression analysis. Copur, Gutter, Eisen, and Way (2008) examined
the relationship between financial behaviours and financial wellbeing of
college students, and found significant difference on the financial well-
being level by school rank. Oanea and Dornean (2012) surveyed 200
students at several faculties in Romania and they found that the less
financially knowledgeable students were to be from lower classes.
Students from nonbusiness departments were more likely to be
less knowledgeable about personal finance than students from business
department. The result suggests that students’ courses related to
finance are significant impact on financial literacy in university educa-
tion. This finding is supported by Chen and Volpe (1998), Beal and Del-
pachitra (2003), Xiao et al. (2007), Mandell (2008), McKenzie (2009),
Hanna, Hill, and Perdue (2010), Fatoki (2014), and Rasoaisi and Kalebe
(2015).
The study found that the students who live with their parents
were more likely to be less knowledgeable about personal finance than
students who live in a rental home. These finding is supported by a
study conducted by Danes and Hira (1987). They showed that the stu-
dents who live out of campus had a high level of knowledge about
credit card and personal loans. In another study, Sabri, MacDonals,
Hira, and Masud (2010) found that students who live on campus were
more likely to have a low level of financial literacy.
Considering the negative coefficients of parental income variable,
students whose parental monthly income were lower than e4,001 were
more likely to be less knowledgeable about personal finance than those
have parental income higher than e4,001. Kharchenko (2011) investi-
gated determinants and implications for saving behaviour in Ukraine, and
she suggested that if the level of welfare increase, financial literacy will
increase. Finding of this study is also consistent with other existing litera-
ture (Lusardi, Mitchell, & Curto, 2010; Beal & Delpachitra, 2003; Roy
Morgan Research, 2003; Clercq & Venter, 2009; Nidar & Bestari, 2012;
McKenzie, 2009). An interesting result in this study was that students
whose parents’ monthly income are lower than e1,000 reported higher
scores compared to students whose parents’ monthly income are
between e1,001 and e2,000 or between e3,001 and e4,000. Low paren-
tal income level may have an effect on improving the sense of responsi-
bility of students on their financial behaviours. Xiao et al. (2007)
examined the financial behaviour of students in the University of Ari-
zona, and they found that students those who receive financial support
had low level of saving behaviours.
This study found that students who got financial information from
social media were more likely to be less knowledgeable than those
who got financial information from university education. This result is
consistent with the literature. Tennyson and Nguyen (2001) analysed

12 | bs_bs_banner
the data of 1,997 Jumpstart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy
within the framework of education requirements for personal finance
education. They concluded that mandating personal finance education
course may be effective in increasing student knowledge but only if the
mandate requires significant exposure to personal finance concepts.
Albeerdy and Gharleghi (2015) found that there was a strong and posi-
tive relationship between university education and financial literacy. This
result indicates that although majority of the students gets financial
information from social media, newspapers and TVs, the most effective
way to improve students’ financial literacy is university education.
This study indicated that students who mostly followed their
mothers’ and fathers’ advice on financial matters were less knowledge-
able than those who mostly followed their friends’ advice. This finding
is supported by the literature (Falahati & Paim, 2011) which indicated
that male students’ peers and colleagues had more effect on evaluation
of their financial satisfaction and well-being than their actual behaviour
and the level of financial stressors. Jamal, Ramlan, Karim, Mohidin, and
Osman (2015) showed that influence from peers played an important
role in shaping the student’s saving behaviour in addition to influence
from family and financial literacy. Frączek and Klimontowicz (2015) had
a study on choosing particular financial products. In that study
respondent pointed that safety, friends and family’s opinion, service
quality and complexity and friendly procedure was the most important
financial decision factors.
The finding showed that students who did not take any finance
course before were less knowledgeable than those who took a finance
course previously. This finding is supported by a study conducted by
Gutter, Copur and Garrison (2010) in the University of Florida. They
found that students from 7 states where a financial education course
was compulsory had the highest financial knowledge. A survey applied
to 1,200 high school seniors in United States showed that students
who took personal finance course were more likely to engage in finan-
cially responsible behaviours such as saving, budgeting and investing
(Discover, 2013). In other study conducted in United States, it was sur-
veyed 42,000 college students from across the country, and found that
participants who attended a high school course on personal finance
management were 10% more likely to report being prepared to manage
money (EverFi & Higher One, 2015).
Using the Poland as the reference country in logistic regression,
the negative signs and values of coefficients for the other countries’
variables suggest the influence of country of origin was weaker among
the students from Estonia and Turkey, but not the students from Ger-
many, Italy, Netherlands, Russian Federation and Romania. Therefore,
the study found that students from Estonia and Turkey were less
knowledgeable on personal finance than students from Poland. Some
European countries such as Germany and Netherlands provide high
quality education. Bulgaria, Latvia, Luxemburg, Slovenia, Slovakia and
Romania are active countries only in the areas related to the European
Union multinational programs. But Poland is the most active EU mem-
ber state in Eastern Europe in terms of financial education activities
(Pruzinsky & Mihalčova, 2014). This kind of educational activities may
have improved the financial literacy among university students in
Poland. Titko, Lace, and Polajeva (2015) found that there was a
€
ERGUN
significant difference in the perception of financial questions between
Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian students and Estonian students dem-
onstrated the lower perceived complexity of the questions. The first
OECD/INFE (2016) international study of financial literacy showed
that Estonia performed a good level in the category of financial knowl-
edge among 32 participant countries and economies. This study found
Estonian students’ level of financial literacy as a medium, their level of
financial literacy was lower than Poland students. Euro Survey showed
that financial literacy level in Romania was lower than Central, Eastern
and South-eastern Europe (Beckmann, 2013). Romania has large rural
areas, and many people are far away from any provider of financial
services, and a small part of the population participates in the financial
system (Stanculescu, 2010). Students from Romania had low percent-
age of correct response in this study. Turkey was another low score on
personal finance in this study. OECD/INFE (2016) international survey
showed that Turkey had lower financial literacy score than Estonia and
Netherlands. Turkey Financial Literacy and Accession Survey (2014)
showed that unemployed, housewives and students had the lowest
level of financial literacy. The survey also found that this group had the
lowest level of financial access. Financial literacy performance of the
Russian Federation was above the average of the 10 OECD countries
and economies in the assessment of financial literacy. But students
who attend schools in cities performed better in financial literacy
(OECD2, 2015). On the other hand, according to Global Banking and
Finance Review (2010), the World Bank has signed a $25 million loan
agreement with Russia for financial education and financial literacy
projects (Global Banking Finance Review, 2010). Students from Russian
Federation achieved second best result after Poland among countries
in this study. In Germany, schools have had financial themes and teach-
ing materials on financial literacy for many years, and all these materials
are of high quality. Additionally, various organizations, institutes and
business enterprises offer teaching models and training materials on
economic and financial subjects for teachers, students as well as for
adult education on web pages. Each federal state is aware of the
importance of enhancing financial literacy among German people (Mav-
lutova, Sarnovics, & Armbruster, 2015). The Standard & Poor’s (2015)
showed that on average, 52 percent of adults are financially literate
across the European Union. Ability to understand of financial concepts
is the highest level in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Swe-
den. In these countries, at least 65% of adults are financially literate. In
southern Europe, for example, financial literacy rates in Greece and
Spain are 45% and 49%, respectively. In southern Europe, Italy and
Portugal have some of the lowest literacy rates. Romania has the low-
est financial literacy rate with 22% in the European Union. Economic
and educational differences, different level of accessing the financial
services and perception of financial literacy in European countries have
different results on financial literacy.
6 | CONCLUSIONS
This study intended to contribute to the existent research, providing
additional evidence on levels of financial literacy of university students.
 €
ERGUN
Results from the study provide some information for financial educa-
tors and policy makers seeking to enhance university students’ financial
literacy and wellbeing. This study can provide useful data to carry out
researches on financial literacy in other European countries, and also
can be used to convince more university authorities to provide more
financial courses in their university education programs. This study con-
cluded that independent living support and improves personal financial
literacy because students who did not live with their parents had high
level of financial knowledge score. Following father’s and mother’s
advice on financial matters seems to be not effective to have a high
level of financial literacy. Environmental and technological influences
and accessing to accurate information directly in terms of having finan-
cial competence may be more important than parental influence. This
study also concluded that getting financial information from university
education is the most effective way to improve students’ financial liter-
acy. Increasing financial courses in university education will produce
positive results for students’ awareness on financial matters and sus-
tainable development for general economy. Social media is not effec-
tive to have good skills on personal finance as compared to university
education. Most students from all participant countries are not inter-
ested in their retirement plan. They believe that retirement is too far
away to think about right now, and it is required for only older people.
This is the case to be considered as an important data for policy mak-
ers. On the other hand, students are more interested in unemployment
rates than inflation rate in their countries. This can be an expected
result because inflation is not a major problem compared to unemploy-
ment for most of European countries.
7 | LIMITATIONS
Similar to other research conducted before, the present study had
some limitations including small sample size, type of the questionnaire
and limited countries coverage. Having acknowledged the limitation of
data processing I can confirm that there are some limitations of this
study. I should stress that the main limitation of this study concerns
that the survey was administered to a small number of students. The
sample for the present study comprised of 409 students from eight
European countries. This sample is only a very small proportion of the
entire population of students in these countries. Therefore, research
studies with much larger sample size would be required to ensure
appropriate generalization of the findings of the study. Thus, the result
is certainly not generalisable in all European countries because statisti-
cal results of small sample sizes are less widely generalisable to stu-
dents from other countries. Readers should therefore approach the
current findings and conclusions with caution. Researchers can enlarge
the size of sample in order to reduce the potential bias and increase
the accuracy of study in possible future research. Although online
questionnaire allows for greater potential reach responses, it is volun-
tary and takes more time to get desired response compared to face to
face interview. Calculating desired sample of this study for all and each
country was not possible for this kind of online survey. Therefore,
there was no definite size of the sample. Unfortunately, the nature of
bs_bs_banner
| 13
the online survey did not allow me to determine the definite sample
size. All student participation was voluntary, and self-selected.
Although there are participations from different field of studies, only
those interested in financial literacy may have participated in the sur-
vey. This situation may have significantly altered findings of the study.
The homogeneity of the countries used in the study was limiting
although this study was conducted with a sample from eight European
countries. The respondents were disproportionately in terms of some
countries due to online self-selected survey. Close-ended questions
were used in this study. However, this type of questions may have
restricted the respondents to reveal their opinions and perceptions.
Future studies should consider adding open-ended questions to these
kinds of surveys. It was not used a scale because there were participant
students from different countries. The questionnaire only assessed the
knowledge and behaviour aspect of definition of financial literacy and
did not allow for the evaluation of the participants’ attitudes associated
with financial decision making and reflecting the participants’ financial
practices and habits. This also limits generalizability of the results.
There is almost no such online questionnaire used in previous studies.
Therefore, it was not possible to compare this study with similar web-
based studies. Although there were some limitations encountered in
the process of completing the study, it does not decrease the signifi-
cance of the findings as it provides data for researchers for possible
and further research.
ACK NOWLE DGE ME NTS
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all my colleagues
working at the universities in European countries for assistance with
sharing my survey in student groups. This study would not have
been possible without the support of them.
ORC ID
€n
Kutlu Ergu http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6360-0095
R EFE R ENC E S
Australian Securities & Investments Commission [ASIC)]. (2003). Financial
literacy in schools. Consultataion paper: 45, 7.
Agnew, S., & Cameron-Agnew, T. (2015). The influence of consumer
socialisation in the home on gender differences in financial literacy.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(6), 630–638.
Albeerdy, M. I., & Gharleghi, B. (2015). Determinants of financial literacy
among college students in Malaysia. International Journal of Business
Administration, 6(3), 15–24.
ANZ Bank. (2015). ANZ survey of adult financial literacy in Australia. Summary
of findings. The Social Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.anz.
com/resources/5/4/54720a2d-a540-49f0-b0a7-62f1ffb922e6/adult-
financial-literacy-survey-summary.pdf?MOD5AJPERES
Atkinson, A., & Messy, F. A. (2012). Measuring financial Literacy: Results
of the OECD/International Network on Financial Education [INFE]
Pilot Study. OECD Working Papers on Insurance and Private Pen-
sions, No:15, p. 9.
Beal, D. J., Delpachitra, S. B. (2003). Financial literacy among Australian
universıty students. Economic Papers, 22(1), 65–78.

14 | bs_bs_banner
Beckmann, E. (2013). Financial literacy and household savings in Roma-
nia. Numeracy, 6(2), 9.
Behrman, J. R., Mitchell, O. S., Soo, C., Bravo, D. (2010). Financial liter-
acy, schooling, and wealth accumulation. University of Pennsylvania
Population Aging Research Center (PARC) Working Paper Series,
WPS 10-06.
Bernanke, B. S. (2006). Financial literacy. Before the Committee on Bank-
ing, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the United States Senate. Retrieved
from http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernan-
ke20060523a.htm
Bhushan, P., & Medury, Y. (2013). Financial literacy and its determinants.
International Journal of Engineering, Business and Enterprise Applications
(IJEBEA), 4(2), 155–160.
Braunstein, S., & Welch, C. (2002). Financial literacy: An overview of prac-
tice, research, and policy. Federal Reserve Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2002/02bulletin.htm
Chen, H., Volpe, R. P. (1998). An analysis of personal financial literacy
among college students. Financial Services Review, 7(2), 107–128.
Clarke, M. C., Heaton, M. B., Israelsen, C. L., & Eggett, D. L. (2005). The
Acquisition of Family Financial Roles and Responsibilities. Family &
Consumer Sciences, 33(4), 321–340.
Clercq, B., & Venter, J. M. P. (2009). Factors influencing a prospective
chartered accountant’s level of financial literacy: An exploratory
study. Meditari Accountancy Research, 17(2), 47–60.
Cole, S., Sampson, T., & Zia, B. (2009). Financial literacy, financial decisions,
and the demand for financial services: Evidence from India and Indonesia.
Harvard Business School, Working paper, 09-117. Retrieved from
http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/poverty/ie/dime_papers/1107.pdf
Copur, Z., Gutter, M., Eisen, J., & Way, W. (2008). Exploring the relation-
ship between financial behaviors and financial distress/Financial well-
being of college students. Consumer Interests Annual, Vol. 4. Retrieved
from http://www.consumerinterests.org/assets/docs/CIA/CIA2008/
63.copurguttereisenway.pdf
Cude, B. J., Lawrence, B. J. C., Lyons, A. C., Metzger, K., LeJeune, E.,
Marks, L., Machtmes, K. (2006). College students and financial liter-
acy: What they know and what we need to Learn. Eastern Family
Economics and Resource Management Association 2006 Conference,
Newyork, USA.
Danes, S. M., & Hira, T. K. (1987). Money management knowledge of
college students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 17(1), 4–16.
Discover. (2013). High School seniors’ financial knowledge and outlook: A
discover pathway to financial success survey. Retrieved from http://
www.pathwaytofinancialsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/
Pathway-Financial-Knowledge-and-Outlook-Survey-Key-Findings.pdf
EUC. (2007). Financial education 808 final. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri5CELEX:52007DC0808
EUC. (2015). Household saving rates in the EU: Why do they differ so
much? Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/economy-
finance/household-saving-rates-eu-why-do-they-differ-so-much_en
EverFi and Higher One. (2015). Money Matters on Campus: How Col-
lege Students Behave Financially and Plan for the Future. Retrieved
from http://moneymattersoncampus.org
Falahati, L., & Paim, L. (2011). Gender differences in financial well-being
among college students. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Scien-
ces, 5(9), 1765–1776.
Fatoki, O. (2014). The Financial literacy of non-business university stu-
dents in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Science,
7(2), 261–267.
Fonseca, R., Mullen, K. J., Zamarro, G., & Zissimopoulos, J. (2010).
What explains the gender gap in financial literacy: The role of
€
ERGUN
household decision-making. Rand Labor and Population, Working
Paper-WR-762.
Frączek, B., & Klimontowicz, M. (2015). Financial literacy and its influ-
ence on young customers’ decision factors. Journal of Innovation Man-
agement, 3(1), 62–84.
Fricker, R. D. Jr. (2008). Sampling methods for web and e-mail surveys.
The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 195–216).
London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Gale, W. G., & Levine, R. (2010). Financial literacy: What works? How could it
be more effective? Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://pdfs.seman-
ticscholar.org/ad9a/8410e77309708106a1cb4b7616138dc00916.pdf
Global Banking Finance Review. (2010). The World Bank supports
Russia’s government efforts to improve financial literacy, education,
and consumer protection of citizens. Retrieved from http://www.
globalbankingandfinance.com/the-world-bank-supports-russia-govern-
ment-efforts-to-improve-financial-literacy-education-and-consumer-
protection-of-citizens
Gutter, M. S., Copur, Z., & Garrison, S. (2010). M.S. Financial capabilities
of college students from states with varying financial education poli-
cies. Denver, CO: National Endowment for Financial Education.
Retrieved from http://www.nefe.org/Portals/0/WhatWeProvide/
PrimaryResearch/PDF/
Hanna, M. E., Hill, R. R., & Perdue, G. (2010). School of study and financial lit-
eracy. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 11(3), 29–38.
Hogarth, J. H., Beverly, S. G., Hilgert, M. (2003). Patterns of financial
behaviors: Implications for community educators and policy makers.
2003 Federal Reserve System Community Affairs Research
Hospido, L., Villanueva, E., & Zamarro, G. (2015). Finance for all: The
impact of financial literacy training in compulsory secondary educa-
tion in Spain. Banco de Espana. Documentos de Trabajo N.8 1502.
Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f393/345ed297828c
34b9e283e28319514dac43d1.pdf
Huston, S. J. (2010). Measuring financial literacy. Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 44(2), 296–316.
Huston, S. J. (2012). Financial literacy and the cost of borrowing. Interna-
tional Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(5), 566–572.
Jamal, A. A. A., Ramlan, W. K., Karim, M. A., Mohidin, R., & Osman, Z.
(2015). The effects of social influence and financial literacy on sav-
ings behavior: A study on students of higher learning institutions in
Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. International Journal of Business and Social Sci-
ence, 6–11(1), 110–119.
Jappelli, T. (2010). Economic literacy: An international comparison. The
Economic Journal, 120(548), 429–451.
Jappelli, T, Padula, M. (2013). Investment in financial literacy and saving
decisions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(8), 2779–2792
Jorgensen, B. L. (2007). Financial literacy of college students: Parental and peer
influences (Master of Science). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.
edu/bitstream/handle/10919/35407/Thesis_BJ2.pdf?sequence51
Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy. (2008). Jump$tart
Coalition Survey of Personal Financial Literacy among students. 2008
College Survey, with responses. Retrieved from http://www.jump-
start.org/survey.html
Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy. (2015). National
standards in K-12 personal finance education (4th ed.). Washington,
DC. Retrieved from http://www.jumpstart.org/assets/files/2015_
NationalStandardsBook.pdf
Klapper, L. F., Lusardi, A., & Panos, G. A. (2011). Financial literacy and
the financial crisis: Evidence from Russia. Retrieved from http://virgo.
unive.it/seminari_economia/Lusardi.pdf
 €
ERGUN
Luhrmann, M., Serra-Garcia, M., & Winter, J. (2014). The Impact of
Financial Education on Adolescents’ Intertemporal Choices. CESifo
Working Paper Series No. 4925.
Lusardi, A. (2010). Financial capability in the United States: Consumer
decision-making and the role of social security. SSRN Electronic Jour-
nal. 10.2139/ssrn.1707529.
Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The Economic importance of finan-
cial literacy: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Economic Literature,
American Economic Association, 52(1), 5–44.
Lusardi, A., Mıtchell, O. S., & Curto, V. (2010). Financial literacy among
the young. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(2), 358–380.
Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2011). Financial literacy around the world: An
overview. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 10(4), 497–508.
Lyons, A. C. (2007). Credit Practices and financial education needs of Mid-
west college students. Networks Financial Institute Working Paper No.
2007-WP-23. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id51060801
Mandell, L. (2008). The Financial literacy of young American adults, results
of the 2008 national jump$tart coalition survey of high school seniors
and college students. Retrieved from http://www.jumpstart.org/
assets/files/2008SurveyBook.pdf
Mandell, L. (2009). The impact of financial education in high school and
college on financial literacy and subsequent financial decision making.
Presented at the American Economic Association Meetings, 2009,
San Francisco, USA.
Mavlutova, I., Sarnovics, A., & Armbruster, C. (2015). Financial literacy of
young generation in changing european environment: Evidence from Ger-
many and Latvia. Bari, Italy: Joint International Conference. Retrieved
from http://www.toknowpress.net/ISBN/978-961-6914-13-0/papers/
ML15-027.pdf
McKenzie, V. M. (2009). Financial literacy of university students: A compar-
ison of graduating seniors’ financial literacy and debt level. Doctor of
Education. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
Merolli, M., Sanchez, F. J. M., & Gray, K. (2014). Social media and online
survey: Tools for knowledge management in health research. Health
Informatics and Knowledge Management, 13, 21–29.
Mimura, Y., Koonce, J., Plunkett, S. W., & Pleskus, L. (2015). Financial
information source, knowledge, and practices of college students
from diverse backgrounds. Journal of Financial Counseling and Plan-
ning, 26(1), 63–78.
Nidar, S. R., & Bestari, S. (2012). Personal financial literacy among univer-
sity students: Case study at Padjadjaran university students, Ban-
dung. World Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4), 162–171.
Oanea, D. C., & Dornean, A. (2012). Defining and measuring financial lit-
eracy. New evidence from Romanian’ students of the master in
finance. Scientific Annals of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi
Economic Sciences, 59(2), 113–129.
OECD. (2006). The importance of financial education. Policy Brief. Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/finance/financial-education/37087833.pdf
OECD. (2012) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
results from PISA 2012 Financial literacy. Retrieved from http://
www.oecd.org/unitedstates/PISA-2012-results-finlit-usa.pdf
OECD/INFE. (2012). Financial education in schools. Retrieved from https://
www.oecd.org/finance/financial-education/FinEdSchool_web.pdf
OECD/INFE. (2016). OECD/INFE International Survey of Adult Financial
Literacy Competencies. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/
financial-education/OECD-INFE-International-Survey-of-Adult-FInancial-
Literacy-Competencies.pdf
OECD1. (2015). Result from PISA 2015. Retrieved from https://www.
oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2105-Financial-Literacy-Russian-Federation.pdf
bs_bs_banner
| 15
OECD2. (2015). Saving rate. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/natin-
come/saving-rate.htm
Pruzinsky, M., & Mihalčova, B. (2014). Financial literacy of Slovak univer-
sities’ students. Business Systems Review, 3(1), 48–61.
Rasoaisi, L., & Kalebe, M. K. (2015). Determinants of financial literacy
among the National University of Lesotho students. Asian Economic
and Financial Review, 5(9), 1050–1060.
Robb, C. A., Sharpe, D. L. (2009). Association for financial counseling and
planning education, Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 20(1),
25–43.
Roy Morgan Research. (2003). Anz Survey of Adult Financial Literacy in
Australia. Final Report, 14.
Sabri, F. M., MacDonald, M., Hira, T. K., & Masud, J. (2010). Childhood con-
sumer experience and financial literacy of college students in Malaysia.
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 38(4), 455–468.
Stanculescu, M. S. (2010). Analysis of the Financial Literacy Survey in
Romania and Recommendations. Consumer Protection and Financial
Literacy Program Europe and Central Asia Region, Comprehensive
Report Prepared for The World Bank. Retrieved from http://sitere-
sources.worldbank.org/INTECAREGTOPPRVSECDEV/Resources/Romania_
Financial_Literacy_June_2010.pdf
Suwanaphan, S. (2013). Personal financial literacy of academic support-
employee in Chiang Mai University. In Proceedings from Management-
Knowledge and Learning, International Conference (pp. 1061–1065).
Zadar, Croatia: ToKnow Press.
Tennyson, S., & Nguyen, C. (2001). State curriculum mandates and stu-
dent knowledge of personal finance. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35
(2), 241–262.
The Standard & Poor’s (2015). Financial literacy around the world: Insights
from the Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services Global Financial Literacy
Survey. Retrieved from https://media.mhfi.com/documents/2015-Fin-
lit_paper_17_F3_SINGLES.pdf
Titko, J., Lace, N., & Polajeva, T. (2015). Financial Issues Perceived by
Youth: Preliminary Survey for Financial Literacy Evaluation in the Bal-
tics. OeconomiA Copernicana, 6(1), 76–98.
Turkey Financial Literacy and Accesion Survey. (2014). Financial Access
and Financial Literacy in Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.teb.
com.tr/upload/PDF/aile%20akademisi%20erisim%
20endeksi%20raporu/foe_endeks_rapor_2014.pdf
Volpe, R. P., Chen, H., Pavlicko, J. J. (1996). Personal investment literacy
among college students: A Survey. Financial Practice and Education,
6(2), 86–94.
Volpe, R. P., Kotel, J. E., & Chen, H. (2002). A Survey of investment liter-
acy among online investors. Westerville, OH: Association for Financial
Counselling and Planning Education. Retrieved from http://search.
proquest.com/docview/1355867040/fulltextPDF/F2CD15ABA39
F4C55PQ/1?accountid515410
Xiao, J. J., Shim, S., Barber, B., & Lyons, A. (2007). Academic success and
well-being of college students: financial behaviours matter. Tucson, AZ:
Take Charge American Institute for Consumer Financial Education
and Research. Retrieved from http://www.cefe.illinois.edu/research/
reports/Academic%20Success%20and%20Well-Being%20of%20College%
20Students_112007.pdf
€n K. Financial literacy among uni-
How to cite this article: Ergu
versity students: A study in eight European countries. Int J Con-
sum Stud. 2018;42:2–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12408