Effects of Financial Literacy and Financial Behavior on Financial Well-Being: Meta-Analytical Review of Experimental Studies

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analytical review of experimental studies was to examine the effects of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being. This research was conducted by a master’s in library and information science (MLIS)-trained Information Specialist using the PICO framework. Of the 3089 publications identified, 415 studies were assessed for eligibility, and 9 articles met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analytical review of the selected studies was performed using a two-level model of the MAJOR module for JAMOVI 2020. The potential effect size of the intervention studies was 0.75, indicating the heterogeneity between groups in terms of financial literacy, which rejected the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. The theoretical and practical implications, strengths and limitations, and possibilities for future research were also addressed in this meta-analysis.

1. Introduction

As economies worldwide have dramatically slowed into recession, financial well-being has become a new focus of research attention (Ngamaba et al., 2020). There has also been an increasing amount of financial research on satisfaction, happiness, and cognitive well-being (Bashir & Qureshi, 2023; Shim et al., 2009). Financial well-being is widely recognized as a crucial factor driving financial security (Iannello et al., 2021), yet its definition varies among different disciplines. The scientific community usually defines financial well-being as a construct with an objective and a subjective side (Kaur & Singh, 2024; Vlaev & Elliott, 2014). According to Porter and Garman (1992), the objective side is the total amount of material resources, while the subjective side is self-reported evaluation.

Financial well-being is a comprehensive construct of financial literacy, which affects financial behavior (Dare et al., 2023). However, a clear and unequivocal measure continues to be missing from the literature, in which financial literacy is associated with financial behavior that aims to achieve financial well-being (Kumar et al., 2023; Postmus et al., 2015; Tahir et al., 2021). Financial well-being has been theorized as the difference between literacy and behavior, which is defined as a unified, trait-like construct (Ingale & Paluri, 2022; Rahman et al., 2021). We argue that even if these three constructs overlap, they do not coincide. This incongruency between studies can be measured using different financial literacy (García, 2021), financial behavioral changes (Bapat, 2020), and financial well-being analyses (Hwang & Park, 2023).

Many studies have been ongoing to investigate the impacts of financial literacy and behavior on financial well-being (Anglim et al., 2020; Bashir & Qureshi, 2023; Fu, 2020; Iannello et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2023; Sabri et al., 2024; Strömbäck et al., 2020). Several studies have been conducted to overcome measures, but some studies have been devoted to analyzing the effects of these interventions using systematic and scientific approaches. Instead, different components have been used to examine the effects of financial satisfaction (Pak et al., 2024; Sajid et al., 2024), subjective financial well-being (Tahir et al., 2021), and financial intention (Postmus et al., 2015) on financial well-being. To explore this significant gap, not only financial well-being and its specific characteristics but also financial literacy and behavior have to be identified and defined (Cwynar, 2020; Dare et al., 2023; Lone & Bhat, 2024; Mahendru et al., 2022; Rahman et al., 2021; Utkarsh et al., 2020).

While the conceptualizations of financial literacy and financial behavior, in contrast to financial well-being, are not yet standardized constructs (Callis et al., 2023; Carpena et al., 2019; Rahman et al., 2021; Santini et al., 2019; Tahir et al., 2021; Widyastuti & Hermanto, 2022), some studies (Pak et al., 2024; Postmus et al., 2015; Sabri et al., 2024) have adopted an integrated approach using both financial behavior and well-being measures. Lone and Bhat (2024) and Vörös et al. (2021) found that financial literacy has a positive effect on financial well-being. Similarly, García (2021), Hwang and Park (2023), and Mutlu and Özer (2022) illustrated that financial literacy positively affects financial behavior.

Dinesh et al. (2022), Brüggen et al. (2017), Glenn et al. (2021), and Miller et al. (2015) examined intervention studies on reducing financial constraints to promote financial well-being. After reviewing, the investigators found limited data regarding the effects of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being; this suggested that there is a continuing need to examine a range of interventions. A meta-analytical review of intervention studies conducted in financial settings criticized the prior research for lacking internal validity and therefore practical relevance to financial well-being (Hwang & Park, 2023; Kaur et al., 2021; Nanda & Banerjee, 2021; Sakuraya et al., 2020). Thus, we commenced this meta-analysis to review all published evidence systematically and to quantify the effects of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being.

Research Questions

This meta-analytical review of experimental studies attempts to fill the theoretical gaps regarding the effects of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being. To conduct this meta-analysis, we address the following three constructs: (i) financial literacy, (ii) financial behavior, and (iii) financial well-being. Two research questions are posed, which form the logical foundation of the meta-analysis under scrutiny:

Research question 1: What are the characteristics of financial literacy and financial behavior that affect financial well-being? What heterogeneity can be observed between groups?

Research question 2: Do financial literacy and financial behavior have different effects on financial well-being? What variables explain this heterogeneity in the fixed-effects model?

To answer these questions, we conduct a meta-analytical review of experimental studies that examine the effects of moderators that may explain the variability in effect sizes for these variables. The fixed-effects model is calculated as a weighted average, where the weight assigned to each study is the inverse of that study’s variance. The results offer implications for research and provide insight into the relative effectiveness of the different interventions by focusing on their design characteristics in terms of content and application.

2. Theoretical Lens

2.1. Financial Literacy

The financial literacy concept, introduced by Noctor et al. (1992), is defined as incorporating potential financial knowledge, financial budgeting, financial investment, and financial decision-making. Originally, Hilgert et al. (2003) developed financial literacy by focusing on financial decision-making, financial skills, financial security, financial strategy, and financial planning. According to Huston (2010) and Lusardi and Mitchell (2011), financial literacy can be categorized as financial services, financial products, and financial choices. Previous studies of financial literacy have classified it as managing money, financial self-efficacy, financial numeracy, and financial needs (Remund, 2010). Furthermore, some scholars have conceptualized financial literacy as being associated with financial education, financial competency, financial preferences, financial abilities, and financial markets (Ouachani et al., 2021).

Recently, Goyal and Kumar (2021), Lusardi and Mitchell (2011), and Lyons and Kass-Hanna (2021) examined the effects of financial importance, financial capability, and financial outcomes on financial literacy. In addition, researchers have operationalized the positive effects of financial goals, expense management, debt management, risk management, communication skills, and financial resilience on financial literacy (García, 2021; Kaiser & Menkhoff, 2022; Lusardi & Streeter, 2023; Sharma et al., 2021). In the same vein, Anthony and Sabri (2019), Carpena et al. (2019), Peng et al. (2022), and Van Nguyen et al. (2022) hypothesized that financial numeracy, financial self-efficacy, financial understanding, and financial instrumental support directly affect financial literacy. Therefore, to answer the research questions, our meta-analytical review examines the effects of financial capability, financial numeracy, financial instrumental support, financial education, financial importance, communication skills, and financial planning on financial literacy.

2.2. Financial Behavior

The term “financial behavior” is defined in terms of cognitive psychology (i.e., how people think; in particular, they put too much weight on recent experience) (Statman, 2014). Some studies identified that financial behavior is associated with behavioral nudges, financial awareness, saving patterns, and financial habits (Carpena et al., 2019; Hwang & Park, 2023; Klontz et al., 2019; Rahman et al., 2021). Originally, Shefrin and Thaler (1988) developed the financial behavior of self-control, in relation to financial saving, financial spending, financial buying, and financial investing. Similarly, Hilgert et al. (2003) clarified that financial behavior is connected with logical thinking, rational behavior, organized behavior, and control behavior. We define financial behavior as individual self-control, problem-solving, and decisions on financial management.

The theoretical foundation of financial behavior (Hirshleifer, 2015) is conceptualized as the application of psychology to finance, including social interactions, financial outcomes, and self-acceptation. Previous studies on financial behavior have tended to focus on financial practice, behavioral lifestyle, and rational choices (Ahmad & Wu, 2022; De Almeida et al., 2021). Likewise, Aguirre and Aguirre (2024) and Lyons and Kass-Hanna (2021) constructed financial behavior as consisting of financial decision-making behavior, cognitive financial behavior, and risk diversification behavior. In our meta-analytical review, we examine the effects of financial practice, financial awareness, financial acceptance, financial readiness, problem-solving and decision-making, and personal financial management on financial behavior.

2.3. Financial Well-Being

Originally, the term “financial well-being” was defined as “how satisfied individuals feel with their finances” (Diener et al., 2003; Easterlin, 2001). According to Vlaev and Elliott (2014), financial well-being refers to when a person can fully meet ongoing financial obligations while feeling secure with the freedom of financial choice. The key concepts of financial well-being are categorized as both objective and subjective well-being in various studies (Chatterjee et al., 2019; Diener et al., 2003; Easterlin, 2004). The first construct is based on objective financial well-being, as aspects of individual needs (good health, materials, etc.). The second construct views subjective financial well-being as the preference satisfaction of individual wants (responses, thoughts, and feelings). Brüggen et al. (2017) reconceptualized financial well-being as a threefold concept: desired satisfaction with financial freedom, perceived satisfaction with financial freedom, and ability to achieve satisfaction with financial freedom.

Researchers usually theorize financial well-being as comprising quality of life, wealth accumulation, subjective happiness, and life satisfaction (Mahendru, 2021; Lusardi & Streeter, 2023; She et al., 2022). Some studies have constructed financial well-being in terms of mental well-being (Barrafrem et al., 2020), cognitive well-being (Thomas & Gupta, 2021), psychological well-being (Iannello et al., 2021), financial satisfaction (Ngamaba et al., 2020), and subjective happiness (D’Ambrosio et al., 2020). Research has shown that financial resilience, emotional well-being, and subjective well-being have positive effects on financial well-being (Lusardi & Streeter, 2023; Hwang & Park, 2023; Sabri et al., 2024; Vörös et al., 2021). In our meta-analytical review, we examine the effects of mental financial well-being, coping financial well-being, psychological well-being, emotional financial well-being, financial satisfaction, cognitive financial well-being, subjective happiness, and subjective financial well-being on financial well-being.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Design

This design utilizes a meta-analytical review that integrates the results of intervention studies (Stanley, 2001). The design provides insights into quasi-experimental studies with intervention outcomes, using the fixed-effects model. It begins by identifying the effect size, which shows a significant heterogeneity in the common metric. We chose to conduct a meta-analytical review of intervention designs as this can address the within-group effect size, the degree of heterogeneity, and observable heterogeneity. Stanley and Doucouliagos (2015) suggested that a review of intervention studies should focus directly on the outcomes and standardization, using a scale-free statistical effect size model to analyze studies with a fixed-effects model.

This meta-analytical review of intervention studies was conducted using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) framework (Frandsen et al., 2020) to develop our research/practice question: “What interventions can financial researchers use to examine the effects of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being?”. This question’s purpose was to reveal what the meta-analytical review found in general, related to the effects of financial well-being using an intervention approach. In the meta-analysis process, we systematically coded each intervention study, including the mean effect size, the variance in the effect sizes, operationalization of the dependent variables, type of sample, treatment variant, and other measures (Salditt et al., 2024).

3.2. Search Strategy

A Master’s in Library and Information Science (MLIS)-trained Information Specialist helped to develop the search terms and conducted the academic literature searches, through a search of the Web of Knowledge, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SAGE Journals, Emerald Insight, Wiley Online Library, Taylor & Francis Online, and Oxford databases, from December 2014 to December 2024. Two filters in this search for intervention studies were used, involving combinations of search strategies. In the first filter, the search terms “experiment”, “controlled”, “manipulated”, “evaluation”, and “intervention” were used; the second filter employed “financial literacy”, “financial behavior”, and “financial well-being”.

There were three inclusion criteria for the meta-analytical review of intervention studies. First, the included studies were experimental research with a treatment group versus a control group. Second, the intervention studies had significantly different results for variables between groups. Third, the included studies measured the observable variables of financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being. Figure 1 depicts the search strategy for this meta-analytical review (Page et al., 2021).

3.3. Classification and Selection

This paper’s three authors contributed to all steps of classification, selection, and coding. In the first round of selection, we initially identified the titles and abstracts of all publications; these were screened to exclude all publications that did not meet the inclusion criteria (see

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis.

Inclusion criteria:

Publication date: December 2014 to December 2024.

Comparison between groups in terms of financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being.

Either randomized or convenience samples.

Descriptive studies using a baseline and post-study score(s).

Exclusion criteria:

Publication date: prior to December 2014.

Procedural methods citations (methods papers, non-intervention studies).

Provider-focused studies, no client participation.

Non-intervention treatment between groups.

). In order to be included in this meta-analysis, studies had to employ an intervention to reduce financial well-being for a non-clinical population. Of the 3089 studies screened, 415 eligible primary articles remained. In the second round, the full-text articles from the initial review were read. We retained only publications that included financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being measures before and after the intervention, as well as those reporting means, standard deviations, and sample sizes. In the third round, 15 studies were selected to be included in the meta-analysis, containing nine effect sizes pertaining to an experimental or quasi-experimental design in the treatment and control groups (see Figure 1). Information on follow-up effects was also gathered, in order to establish whether effects remained stable after the study. The studies included 12 with post-test follow-up effect sizes, of which 9 contained a comparison with a control group.

3.4. Construct Variable Coding

In the following stage, variables were coded for each study: independent variables, dependent variables, sample sizes, and statistical tests. A total of nine effect sizes and significance levels were included in the meta-analytical review of intervention studies. Three types of variables were selected: financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being (see the second table in Section 4.1). All variables were measured under the category of effects: study level, effect size, and variance. The treatment group (sample size, mean, and standard deviation), control group (sample size, mean, and standard deviation), and variance in the studies were assessed. Intercoder reliability was 10%, indicating a reasonable average (k = 0.82 across all variables).

3.5. Outcome Measures

The meta-analytical review of intervention studies examined financial literacy (Miller et al., 2015), financial behavior (Kaiser & Menkhoff, 2020), and financial well-being (Dinesh et al., 2022). Therefore, all included studies evaluated interventions by assessing different populations, demographics, and sample sizes. Additionally, and especially if several components of financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being are trained, it is interesting to see how people improve in applying the treated strategies. Most of the selected studies did not only report results on financial literacy but also on the effects of financial well-being. Thus, three outcome categories were operationally defined for this meta-analytical review: (i) financial literacy, (ii) financial behavior, and (i) financial well-being. Based on the meta-analysis of Lipsey and Wilson (2001), we grouped outcome measures into these three categories that were again sub-divided into several sub-categories, as can be seen in the second and third tables in Section 4.1.

3.6. Interventions

In the included studies, researchers investigated the effects of variables on individuals’ financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being, as can be seen in the second table in Section 4.1. Interventions involved the experimenter manipulating the financial program through role playing, scripts, assessments, and other methods. The targets for intervention included participants’ sex, education, financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being (Anthony & Sabri, 2019; Holman & Axtell, 2016; Huang et al., 2022; Sayinzoga et al., 2016; Zaniyani et al., 2022). There was some variability in the length of interventions in the treatment and control groups across the included studies, which were conducted on a weekly basis and/or lasted half an hour.

3.7. Validity Assessment

The three authors evaluated each selected study’s quality independently. The inter-rater agreement rate was 90% in three rounds: identification, screening, and included studies. The eligibility criteria used for quality assessment were based on the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) score (Slim et al., 2003). Each study was scored from 0 (“poor” quality) to 2 (“good” quality) according to the following criteria: (0) “Was the study described as double blind?”, (1) “Was the method of randomization described in the paper and appropriate?”, and (2) “Was the method of blinding described and appropriate?”. The answer “yes” was given one point, and zero points were given for “no”. The studies scored a maximum of two points if all questions were answered “yes”, as can be seen in the table in Section 4.4.

3.8. Statistical Analyses

The meta-analytical review of intervention studies was performed using the MAJOR module for JAMOVI 2020 (Hamilton, 2018). The JAMOVI program is the Graphical User Interface (GUI) version of R and MAJOR, a commonly used package for metafor (Viechtbauer, 2010). All data analyses were performed using the Q-test and $I^2$ statistic, where a value of >50% was considered to represent substantial statistical heterogeneity (Carter et al., 2019). The first step of the intervention effect involved obtaining the variation between the treatment and control groups across studies. The mean SR and SD were estimated based on the provided median and IOR; a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant, and their 95% confidence intervals were obtained.

The second step involved computing the effect size and sample size values of the included variables. All sample sizes were categorized as the number of continuous values per variable, the number of dominants, and the number of subordinates. The heterogeneity of variables was evaluated using the Z, p-value, 95% CI, and tau-square. In the study analyses, mean, SE, SD, and $I^2$ values of 0%, 25%, and 50% indicated no, low, and high heterogeneity (Higgins et al., 2003). In the final step, we hypothesized the effects that the variables might have on the heterogeneity/inconsistency of the null and alternative hypotheses.

4. Results

4.1. Summary Effects

The summary effects of the Downs and Black criteria for modifying the score of 27 items of the nine included studies are presented in

Table 2. Quality assessment criteria of included studies.

Author(s)	Reporting (%)	EV (%)	IR (%)	CB (%)	Overall (%)
Anthony and Sabri (2019)	86.849	64.590	80.000	20.367	65.609
Carpena et al. (2019)	89.147	58.870	70.000	30.000	50.128
Falconier et al. (2023)	90.130	60.469	80.000	10.000	64.503
Holman and Axtell (2016)	94.256	61.267	80.000	70.000	66.156
Huang et al. (2022)	85.294	57.259	90.000	40.000	73.031
Klontz et al. (2019)	77.104	60.269	60.000	20.000	50.046
Sayinzoga et al. (2016)	92.395	64.562	80.000	30.000	61.045
Sharma et al. (2021)	75.391	59.835	50.000	40.000	50.859
Zaniyani et al. (2022)	72.360	56.408	80.000	50.00	60.481

. The Downs and Black score ranges in the reported studies were given the following quality levels for the meta-analytical review of the experimental studies (Hooper et al., 2008): excellent (26–28), good (20–25), fair (15–19), and poor (≤14) (González-Castro & Tovilla-Zárate, 2014). The overall included studies showed an uncorrected effect size of 0.65 and corrected effect size of 0.75, with an SD of 0.83 and a 95% CI of [0.89, 2.34].

Table 3. Characteristics of intervention studies.

Author(s)	Design	Intervention	Sample	T_Mean	T_SD	C_Mean	C_SD	Key Results
Anthony and Sabri (2019)	INT	T/C	100	72.98	5.49	52.54	8.227	Financial capability programs impact financial well-being.
Carpena et al. (2019)	INT	T/C	1235	1.61	0.62	0.712	0.024	Financial education associated with financial knowledge affects behavior change.
Falconier et al. (2023)	INT	T/C	292	37.955	10.53	39.925	10.795	Financial stress, shared financial responsibilities, and dyadic coping responses have a positive effect on well-being.
Holman and Axtell (2016)	QUE	T/C	120	3.15	0.67	3.42	0.65	Psychological well-being positively affects financial well-being.
Huang et al. (2022)	INT	T/C	825	1.15	0.85	1.01	0.79	Financial knowledge and access positively affect financial management.
Klontz et al. (2019)	RAE	T/C	102	6.68	8.94	6.76	11.234	Personal savings have a positive effect on financial well-being.
Sayinzoga et al. (2016)	EXD	T/C	360	2.875	0.090	2.727	0.09	Knowledge, perceptions, and practices positively affect financial literacy.
Sharma et al. (2021)	QUE	T/C	171	16.2	3.3	9.9	4.2	Financial literacy training is positively associated with financial knowledge and behavior.
Zaniyani et al. (2022)	QUE	T/C	40	30.39	34.4	55.27	88.5	Personal financial management and financial literacy positively affect mental financial well-being.

INT = intervention; QUE = quasi-experiment; RAE = randomized experiment; CRE = cluster-randomized experiment; EXD = experimental design; T/C = treatment and control groups.

and

Table 4. Descriptive statistics at the estimate level.

Variables	T_Effect	C_Mean	C_SD	T_Mean	T_SD	L_95%CI	U_95%CU	p-Value
Financial literacy
Financial capability		52.54	8.22	72.98	5.49			0.01
Financial numeracy		0.031	0.05	−0.02	0.03			0.01
Financial instrumental support	0.23	2.04	1.84	2.54	1.87	0.18
Financial skills	1.05	4.13	1.53	4.18	1.46			0.10
Financial education	1.1	10.49	0.31	9.16	0.29			0.01
Financial importance	5.68	9.29	0.97	9.45	0.9			0.05
Communication skills	0.72	11.5	2.1	6.2	2	−1.07	−0.20	0.80
Financial planning	0.07	3.41	2.05	4.42	1.68	0.13	0.47	0.05
Financial behavior
Financial practice		63.16	9.07	80.60	8			0.01
Financial awareness		0.05	0.02	0.10	0.02			0.01
Financial acceptance		2.78	1.86	3.74	1.66			0.01
Financial readiness	6.24	1.87	0.38	1.64	0.69			0.01
Problem-solving and decision-making	0.85	8	9		3	−0.55	0.31	0.20
Personal financial management	0.01	85.11	63.2	55.11	83.1			0.05
Financial well-being
Mental financial well-being	0.05	0.02	0.03	0.10	0.02			0.01
Coping financial well-being	0.3	3.4	1.95	4.11	1.74			0.05
Psychological well-being	0.24	2.83	0.67	2.71	0.69			0.01
Emotional financial well-being	18.47	5.02	0.94	5.15	1.01			0.01
Financial satisfaction	7.62	5.39	2.28	5.11	2.43			0.07
Cognitive financial well-being	0.11	0.04	0.02	0.05	0.04			0.75
Subjective happiness	0.01	−0.29	0.18	−0.19	0.16			0.46
Subjective financial well-being	0.41	0.38	0.2	−0.35	0.17			0.06

present the included studies’ characteristics and three sets of variables.

4.2. Intervention Effects

Prior to reporting on each of the intervention studies, the results showed the positive effects of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being. We estimated the mean of the distribution of effects of financial literacy (d = 0.553, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.485, 0.622]) and financial behavior (d = −0.615, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.706, −0.525]) on financial well-being (d = −0.103, p < 0.002). To analyze the robustness results, we investigated the treatment and control groups, which showed a positive effect of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being (d = −0.055, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.058, −0.052]).

Table 5. Intervention effect studies.

Author(s)	Treatment			Control			d	95% CI
	M	S.D.	N	M2	s2	N2		Lower	Upper
Anthony and Sabri (2019)	72.980	5.490	50	52.54	8.227	50	−2.900	−3.46	−2.338
Carpena et al. (2019)	1.61	0.620	972	0.712	0.024	263	−0.89	−0.937	−0.858
Falconier et al. (2023)	37.955	10.530	145	39.92	10.795	147	0.184	−0.045	0.414
Holman and Axtell (2016)	3.150	0.670	96	3.42	0.650	62	0.405	0.083	0.728
Huang et al. (2022)	1.150	0.850	410	1.01	0.790	415	−0.170	−0.307	−0.033
Klontz et al. (2019)	6.680	8.940	57	6.7	11.234	45	0.007	−0.382	0.398
Sharma et al. (2021)	16.200	3.300	86	9.90	4.200	85	−1.661	−2.009	−1.314
Sayinzoga et al. (2016)	2.875	0.090	174	2.73	0.090	167	−1.636	−1.881	−1.390
Zaniyani et al. (2022)	30.390	34.400	20	55.27	88.500	20	0.363	−0.261	0.988

and

Table 6. Interventional effect variables.

Variable	Treatment			Control			d	95% CI
	M	S.D.	N	M2	s2	N2		Lower	Upper
Financial literacy
Financial capability	72.980	5.490	50	52.540	8.220	50	−2.901	−3.463	−2.340
Financial numeracy	−0.021	0.028	972	0.031	0.050	263	1.533	1.384	1.682
Financial instrumental support	2.540	1.870	145	2.040	1.840	147	−0.268	−0.499	−0.038
Financial skills	4.180	1.460	410	4.130	1.530	415	−0.033	−0.169	0.103
Financial education	9.160	0.290	410	10.490	0.310	415	4.425	4.172	4.679
Financial importance	9.450	0.900	410	9.290	0.970	415	−0.170	−0.307	−0.034
Communication skills	6.200	2.000	86	11.500	2.100	85	2.573	2.168	2.978
Financial planning	4.420	1.680	145	3.410	2.050	147	−0.537	−0.770	−0.303
Financial behavior
Financial practice	80.600	8.000	50	63.160	9.070	50	−2.023	−2.505	−1.541
Financial awareness	0.104	0.020	972	0.051	0.020	263	−2.648	−2.820	−2.476
Financial acceptance	3.740	1.660	145	2.780	1.860	147	−0.543	−0.776	−0.309
Financial readiness	1.640	0.690	410	1.870	0.380	415	0.413	0.275	0.551
Problem-solving and decision-making	0.000	3.000	86	8.000	9.000	85	1.190	0.864	1.515
Personal financial management	55.110	83.100	20	85.110	63.200	20	0.398	−0.227	1.024
Financial well-being
Mental financial well-being	0.095	0.024	972	0.024	0.028	263	−0.071	−0.074	−0.67
Coping financial well-being	4.110	1.740	145	3.400	1.950	147	−0.710	−1.133	−0.286
Psychological well-being	2.710	0.690	96	2.830	0.670	62	0.120	−0.096	0.336
Emotional financial well-being	5.150	1.010	410	5.020	0.940	415	−0.133	−0.263	0.003
Financial satisfaction	5.110	2.430	410	5.390	2.280	415	0.280	−0.041	0.601
Cognitive financial well-being	0.050	0.040	174	0.040	0.020	167	−0.010	−0.016	−0.003
Subjective happiness	−0.19	0.160	174	−0.290	0.180	167	−0.100	−0.136	−0.063
Subjective financial well-being	−0.35	0.170	140	0.380	0.200	33	0.730	0.656	0.803

present the meta-analytical review of the experimental studies across the nine articles and 22 studied variables.

4.3. Fixed-Effects Model

In the first step, this meta-analytical review was performed using the fixed-effects model of the single-variable studies included, as can be seen in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4. The tests demonstrated that heterogeneity in the estimates of financial literacy was present (k = 8, Tau = 0.002, Q = 6.711, $I^2$ = 60.29%, $H^2$ = 1.000, df = 7.000, p < 0.095, 95% CI [−0.166, 2.066]). The model showed the heterogeneity of financial behavior (k = 6, Tau = 1.076, Q = 8.279, $I^2$ = 70.68%, $H^2$ = 1.443, df = 5.000, p < 0.218, 95% CI [−0.579, 2.541]). The meta-analytical review of elevated financial well-being allowed us to obtain the heterogeneity (k = 8, Tau = 0.000, Q = 86.978, $I^2$ = 91.95%, $H^2$ = 12.425, df = 7.000, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.820, 2.760]). Figure 2 presents forest plots and funnel plots for each variable of the included studies.

In the second step, the fixed-effects model illustrated the overall positive effects of financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being. The results showed an intervention within groups ranging from −0.405 to 2.900, which estimates positive effects (56%). The estimated standardized mean difference of the fixed-effects model (θ = 0.752, 95% CI [0.674, 0.830]) on the model outcomes (Z = 3.90, p < 0.001) was identified. According to the Q-test, the effect outcomes of heterogeneity (Q = 104.50, $I^2$ = 79.91%, p < 0.001) had values larger than ±2.7729, with the funnel plot showing that p < 0.001 and a ranking correlation test result of p = 0.410.

In the third step, the fixed-effects model was used to assess the three included study variables (k = 22, SE = 0.316, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.699, 2.006]), as can be seen in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The heterogeneity of the within-group intervention ($I^2$ = 80.06%, $H^2$ = 5.157, df = 20.000, Q = 103.147, p < 0.001) in the pooled-effect model displayed fit statistics of maximum-likelihood (log = −82.434, d = 104.504, AIC = 166.868, BIC = 167.959) and restricted maximum-likelihood (log = −81.121, d = 162.242, AIC = 164.242, BIC = 165.287). The two enabled the one-sided testing equivalence of financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being (Z = 5.476, p < 0.001, CI [0.990, 2.314]). The mean effect is about 1.36 (k = 22) = 4.485, p < 0.001; from the results, we reject the null hypothesis but cannot accept the alternative hypothesis.

In the fourth step, a funnel plot was used to represent the positive effect of the included studies and variables, which fell symmetrically into a funnel shape, as can be seen in Figure 7 and Figure 8. The model results revealed the standardized mean difference (N = 311.000, v = 0.256, r = 5.139, p < 0.001). The model estimated the power of excess significance (θ = 0.366, min = 0.717, $Q^2$ = 0.704, m = 0.942, p = 0.972). The observed p-curve test was performed on the p-uniform (t-test = −1.736, p-value = 0.959) of the fixed-effects model (p-uniform = 1.650, Z = −2.862, p-value = 0.000, 95% CI [0.229, 2.481]). The equivalence test result was significant (Z = −3.080, $a$ = 0.05, p = 0.001); this rejects the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis.

4.4. Risk of Bias Within Studies

This meta-analytical review assessed the risk of bias in the included studies regarding financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being. The single arm included studies (k = 9) that were assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) score (Slim et al., 2003). Each included criterion’s MINORS score ranged from 0 to 2, with a higher score showing a lower risk of bias, as can be seen in

Table 7. Quality assessment of included studies.

Author(s)	i	ii	ii	iv	v	vi	vii	viii	ix	Total
Anthony and Sabri (2019)	2	2	2	2	1	1	0	2	0	14
Carpena et al. (2019)	2	2	2	0	1	2	2	2	1	14
Falconier et al. (2023)	2	1	2	0	1	2	1	2	2	13
Holman and Axtell (2016)	1	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	16
Huang et al. (2022)	2	2	0	2	1	1	2	0	1	10
Klontz et al. (2019)	2	2	2	2	1	1	0	2	0	12
Sharma et al. (2021)	2	2	2	2	0	0	2	2	2	14
Sayinzoga et al. (2016)	2	1	2	2	1	2	2	2	0	14
Zaniyani et al. (2022)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	18

. The included non-comparative studies had a maximum score of 16, while the included comparative studies had a maximum score of 18. Studies with a MINORS score ranging from 10 to 18 points were considered acceptable for this meta-analysis. Table 6 depicts a quality assessment of the nine included studies. Figure 9 presents a risk-of-bias assessment of the included trials.

5. Discussion

5.1. Discussion of Results

The purpose of this meta-analytic review of experimental studies was to estimate the effects of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being. Of these studies, nine studies and 22 variables were examined using a meta-analytic two-level model of the intervention effect and a fixed-effects model. From the intervention effect, we determined the mean of the model distribution (Q = 104.50, $I^2$ = 79.91%, p < 0.001), which demonstrates a positive significant difference within the group. The heterogeneity of the fixed-effects model shows positive significance (k = 22, SE = 0.316, $I^2$ = 80.06%, $H^2$ = 5.157, df = 20.000, Q = 103.1471, p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.990, 2.314]), thus rejecting the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. This result corroborates the effects of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being that were found in previous studies (Fu, 2020; Mahendru et al., 2022; Thomas & Gupta, 2021; Vörös et al., 2021).

The results of the fixed-effects model showed a positive effect of financial literacy (financial capability, financial numeracy, financial instrumental support, financial skills, financial education, financial importance, communication skills, and financial planning). Closely linked to this meta-analytical review is the type of positive effect, indicating that financial literacy is associated with financial knowledge, numeracy, capability, and skills (Callis et al., 2023; Daovisan & Chamaratana, 2020; Hwang & Park, 2023; Miller et al., 2015). Recent results regarding financial literacy (Ahmad & Shah, 2020; García, 2021; Mutlu & Özer, 2022) showed positive effects on financial planning, performance, and human capital. This result is unique in identifying financial literacy’s effects on financial technology, inclusion, and instrumental support (Lontchi et al., 2023; Pangestu & Karnadi, 2020; Widyastuti & Hermanto, 2022).

The results of the fixed-effects model illustrated the positive effects of financial behavior (financial practice, financial awareness, financial acceptance, financial readiness, problem-solving and decision-making, and personal financial management). Previous studies on financial behavior (Ahamed et al., 2023; Mutlu & Özer, 2022) have indicated positive effects on the locus of control, financial constraints, and financial risk. These results are consistent with those of four previous meta-analyses (Carpena et al., 2019; Ingale & Paluri, 2022; McGuire et al., 2022; Sánchez et al., 2022), which found positive effects of financial behavior on financial readiness, awareness, practice, and self-efficacy. According to previous meta-analyses, financial behavior has a positive effect on financial acceptance, self-management, and self-control (Bapat, 2020; Kaiser & Menkhoff, 2020; Strömbäck et al., 2020).

Based on the fixed-effects model, the results showed positive effects of financial well-being (mental financial well-being, coping financial well-being, psychological well-being, emotional financial well-being, financial satisfaction, cognitive financial well-being, subjective happiness, and subjective financial well-being). Furthermore, both Ngamaba et al. (2020) and this meta-analytical review demonstrate that financial well-being affects psychological well-being, subjective financial well-being, and financial satisfaction. Various studies, though with a larger scope (Dittmar et al., 2014; Hwang & Park, 2023; Ngamaba et al., 2020; Santini et al., 2019), found that financial well-being has a positive effect on cognitive financial well-being and coping financial well-being. Similarly, Anglim et al. (2020), Iannello et al. (2021), and McGuire et al. (2022) found positive effects of financial well-being on psychological well-being, emotional financial well-being, and social well-being. Similarly, Hwang and Park (2023) and Despard (2023) found that financial well-being has a positive effect on financial satisfaction, financial counseling, and financial happiness.

5.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications

This meta-analytical review of experimental studies has both theoretical and practical implications. The results provide theoretical support to current studies (Hwang & Park, 2023; Lone & Bhat, 2024; Rahman et al., 2021; Sajid et al., 2024) on the effects of financial literacy (Kumar et al., 2023) and financial behavior (Bapat, 2020) on financial well-being (Vörös et al., 2021). Previous scholars have theoretically studied these effects using a large-scale sample (Cwynar, 2020; Utkarsh et al., 2020), quantitative design (Sabri et al., 2024), qualitative methods (Mahendru et al., 2022), a mixed-methods approach (Fu, 2020), and systematic review (Thomas & Gupta, 2021). Our meta-analyses fill the theoretical gaps regarding the effects of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being by providing valid results obtained using a meta-analytical review of intervention studies.

Through practical research, this meta-analytical review confirms that heterogeneity undermines the significance of the overall results of intervention studies. The fixed-effects model showed the positive effects of the included studies; thus, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected in favor of the alternative. Building on the work of Hwang and Park (2023), Rahman et al. (2021), and Lone and Bhat (2024), we extended the practical implications regarding the effects of financial literacy (including aspects such as financial capability, financial numeracy, financial instrumental support, financial skills, financial education, financial importance, communication skills, and financial planning) and financial behavior (financial practice, financial awareness, financial acceptance, financial readiness, problem-solving and decision-making, and personal financial management) on financial well-being (mental financial well-being, coping financial well-being, psychological well-being, emotional financial well-being, financial satisfaction, cognitive financial well-being, subjective happiness, and subjective financial well-being).

5.3. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

This meta-analytical review presented a rigorous test of the effects of financial literacy and financial behavior on financial well-being (k = 22, $I^2$ = 80.06%, $H^2$ = 5.157, df = 20.000, Q = 103.147, p < 0.001), and the results reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Although we discussed some of the advantages of meta-analysis, the selected studies, small sample size, and heterogeneity of the methods resulted in reasonable consistency across the included studies. The results of the meta-analyses can provide valuable insights, as they strengthened evidence-based practice regarding common treatment effects across all the included studies.

However, this meta-analytical review has some limitations. First, only nine studies were included for within-group comparison, resulting in a small intervention sample. The second limitation is that it measured only 22 variables, which may not be the traditional manner for testing convergent validity. The third limitation is that, as it analyzed only studies with treatment and control groups, there is still some leeway for subjectivity in the classification. The fourth limitation is that the interpretation of the results should be treated with caution as meta-analyses of experimental studies are known to exhibit biased, statistically significant results that reject the null hypothesis (Flather et al., 1997). The final limitation is that, due to the exclusion of non-experimental research across different populations, the analysis might have overlooked valuable insights from qualitative studies; this potentially limits the comprehensiveness of the meta-analytical findings.

Future research could utilize a mixed-methods matrix (a qualitative study integrating the findings of a quantitative design) to ensure that the findings can be used as existing empirical evidence. Further, due to the instruments used to measure the variables of financial literacy, financial behavior, and financial well-being, other researchers should conduct grounded theory integrated with quasi-experimental research across cultures in order to make accurate assessments. Accordingly, the validity of financial literacy research, and thus the knowledge of the factors that affect financial well-being, can be improved.

6. Concluding Remarks

Based on this meta-analytical review of intervention studies, we can conclude that financial literacy and financial behavior have a positive effect on financial well-being. In answering Research Question 1, we found a positive effect size of 0.75 for the studies, regarding homogeneity between groups (d = −0.055, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.058, −0.052]). For Research Question 2, the fixed-effects model showed a positive effect on within-group intervention (k = 22, Z = 5.476, $I^2$ = 80.06%, $H^2$ = 5.157, $a$ = 0.05, df = 20.000, Q = 103.147, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.990, 2.314]), which rejected the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. The estimated model illustrated the positive effect of excess significance (N = 311.000, v = 0.256, r = 5.139, θ = 0.366, min = 0.717, $Q^2$ = 0.704, m = 0.942, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.229, 2.481]). Based on examining the studies’ quality, intervention type, fixed-effects model, and funnel plot, high-quality studies were assessed for the risk of bias within groups. The analyzed intervention studies focused on financial literacy, especially financial behavior; hence, this analysis brings together the highest-quality financial well-being evidence to ensure the replicability of the findings.