4.1.1 Future Directions: Theory
Around half of the studies included in this review assessed financial well-being as a sub-dimension of other constructs (e.g., daily stress, gambling behavior), demonstrating a lack of theoretical reflection on daily financial well-being itself. We suggest future researchers seek to clarify (1) daily financial well-being’s definition and theory of change; (2) the relationship between components of daily financial well-being constructs; and (3) the relationship between daily financial well-being and other constructs.
Although numerous studies (Brüggen et al.,
2017; Joo,
2008; Sorgente & Lanz,
2017; Wilmarth,
2020) have provided a clear definition of financial well-being as a positive financial condition that has an objective (possessed material resources) and a subjective side (perception of one’s present and future financial condition), none of the included studies referred to those definitions to develop an adaptation of such definition at the daily level. We argue that, at daily level too, financial well-being should be investigated taking into account both its objective (daily earnings or expenses) and subjective sides (daily perception of one’s financial condition). Instead, none of the included studies recognized the multidimensionality of the construct, investigating only one side of financial well-being. We believe that a more comprehensive view of daily financial well-being could be born from the joint work of economists and psychologists and could produce a widely recognized definition of daily financial well-being.
A reflection on daily financial well-being’s definition can be helpful to also develop a theory of change for this construct. “For example, if researchers (1) theorize that a given physiological variable fluctuates every hour, (2) data must be collected at least on an hourly basis” (Windt et al.,
2018, p. 2). Consequently, it is important to have a clear definition of the construct of interest before performing an IL research design in order to decide the correct time interval between measurements. None of the included papers explicitly stated how often they expect that financial well-being changes, but we found that most of the studies collected the financial well-being variable once per day. This suggests that most of the researchers have the theoretical assumption that financial well-being is a construct that changes daily, but we also found studies (e.g., Goldstein et al.,
2014,
2016) that expected to find variations of this construct within the same day (three measurements per day). We presume these assumptions are implicitly related to which side (objective or subjective) of the construct authors were interested in. It seems that when their focus was on the cognitive evaluation of the financial condition (e.g., financial satisfaction), researchers expected that financial well-being does not change within the same day and only measured it once per day (e.g., Totenhagen et al.,
2018), whereas when researchers focused on the objective side of the construct (e.g., money spent gambling), they expected to find differences across the day and collected multiple assessments per day (e.g., Goldstein et al.,
2016). Yet, these assumptions were not explicitly stated nor clearly connected to theory. It is important to stress that these studies expecting more changes in the same day tended to focus on potentially problematic uses of money (e.g., gambling). It may be that, outside of this addictive behavior framework, it is sufficient to use once-daily intervals to sample financial well-being change both for the subjective and objective side, but future work should continue to clearly state and/or develop theoretical assumptions about timelines for changes.
Another relevant theoretical improvement that future research should realize is the study of the relationships that the different components of daily financial well-being (e.g., objective and subjective, present and future) have with each other. Classic cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have demonstrated that objective financial well-being tends to predict the subjective side (e.g., Shim et al.,
2009) and that there is a positive relationship between the perception of the present and future financial conditions (e.g., Iannello et al.,
2020), yet it is unclear if these same patterns hold with respect to their daily associations. Empirical investigations of these links using IL methods (e.g., daily diaries) would help to support and/or refine theoretical frameworks that have been built and tested using more classic designs. Furthermore, this evidence could help financial policy makers to redesign their financial interventions and policy. In particular, financial policy makers tend to focus on objective assessments of financial well-being/stress (e.g., income, debt service to income ratios), giving much less attention to the subjective side of the construct (Brzozowski & Visano,
2020). IL methods could help in providing evidence of whether a within-person change in subjective financial well-being/stress can promote financial behaviors that will, in turn, modify the individual’s objective financial condition.
Finally, despite not all the scientific community agreeing about financial stress as a component of financial well-being, we argue that future IL studies should measure both financial aspects (well-being and stress) to investigate the daily relationship occurring between them. Using IL methods would help to disentangle if these two concepts are two sides of the same construct or rather related but distinct constructs by permitting investigation of how each construct fluctuates or changes, and whether and how those changes in stress and well-being occur together or whether a change in one precipitates a change in the other. These investigations will help to clarify and refine theory on how financial stress and well-being are intertwined. In particular, examining within-person consistency across various operationalizations of financial well-being and financial stress will help to (1) elucidate which are the sub-dimensions of each of the two concepts; (2) clarify if these two concepts are just two sides of the same construct; and, consequently, (3) formulate a more precise definition of financial well-being/stress.
The last theoretical aspect important for the future research agenda is the study of the relationship that financial well-being has with other constructs. Classic cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (e.g., Iannello et al.,
2020; Shim et al.,
2009,
2010) have outlined a nomological network of financial well-being. In particular, it is widely recognized that both the objective and subjective (both present and future perception) sides of financial well-being are predicted by both individual (e.g., financial behavior, financial capabilities, etc.) and contextual factors (e.g., economic growth rate, consumer protection, etc.) and that, in turn, financial well-being affects general well-being (psychological well-being, mental health, quality of life). This knowledge has been developed performing between-subject comparisons. Using IL data, future studies could verify if this nomological network holds at within-level too. In fact, the same variables can have different relationships at between- and within-level (Lischetzke,
2014). For example, we can imagine that in the day in which one performs a healthy financial behavior (e.g., save money instead of buy new shoes), one’s subjective financial well-being perception will decrease (“I do not have enough money to buy what I desire”), so in a within-subject evaluation financial behavior and well-being could be
negatively related. Alternatively, asking one to evaluate in general how often he/she performs healthy financial behaviors and his/her overall financial well-being on just one occasion may yield different results. We may find a
positive relationship between the two constructs as one who often behaves well (e.g., regularly saves money) may perceive his/her financial well-being to be high (e.g., has a lot of money in the bank and perceives high financial satisfaction). In sum, by empirically testing theoretical assumptions built from classic research designs using IL methods, these theoretical assumptions can be more rigorously tested and theoretical frameworks can be refined to be more accurate and nuanced.
4.1.2 Future Directions: Context
The current review showed that half of the records were published in journals specialized on addictive behavior. This means that daily financial well-being has thus far been mainly investigated with respect to populations characterized by behavioral (e.g., gambling or betting) disorders, offering limited knowledge about the general population. Future studies should examine more generalizable samples as we can expect that individuals not affected by addictive disorders can also have financial behaviors and perceptions that change daily (e.g., Sturgeon et al.,
2014; Totenhagen et al.,
2018). Future studies should also consider gender and the age of their sample. Regarding gender, previous studies (Totenhagen et al.,
2018) have verified that daily financial well-being can present different levels of variability between women and men, suggesting that causes of this variation may be different across genders. Future studies should collect data from both men and women and results obtained should be compared across these two groups. Regarding age, we suggest examining a population that is homogeneous for the stage of life that participants are living. As suggested by Salignac et al. (
2019) “financial well-being must be understood within a life-course framework—this includes the stage people are at in the life-course (early childhood, childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, adulthood, older adulthood) and major events that have an expected or unexpected financial shock (e.g. birth of a child, death of a loved one, relationship breakdown, need to move homes, unemployment etc.)” (p. 6).
Finally, future IL studies should examine populations in contexts other than the US, Canada and Australia. This review verified that daily financial well-being has been investigated using IL methods only in these three countries, all of which are in the top 15 richest countries in the world (The World Bank,
2018). The experience of daily financial well-being in the richest countries likely does not represent well what is going on in the rest of the world, as it has been demonstrated that both objective and subjective financial well-being are affected by the contexts in which individuals live (e.g., Sunal et al.,
2013). Future studies should try to collect data also in less advantaged countries. Ideal would be the realization of cross-cultural studies that could verify the impact that the country has on the experience of financial well-being.
4.1.3 Future Direction: Methodology
In this section we highlight three important methodological considerations for future research: (1) data collection, (2) measurement of variables, and (3) data analysis. Iida et al. (
2012) indicated that in IL studies the data collection can happen through three different formats: paper-and-pencil format, brief telephone interview, and electronic response format. Our review found only one study (the oldest one; Stephens,
2003) using the paper-and-pencil format, whereas all the others collected data in electronic format. Furthermore, within studies using the electronic format, we found some differentiations: while the oldest studies provided participants the device to use to fill in the survey (e.g., Palm Pilots), the most recent studies did not. Instead, these studies tended to send an online link that participants could use from any own device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, computer). Although it is now quite common for people to have access to electronic devices, it is by no means ubiquitous. For example, according to the Federal Communications Commission, about 6% of the US population lacks access to reliable internet, and this rate can approach 25% in rural areas. Therefore, it is critical for researchers to consider the methodology being used in light of generalizability of the people able (or willing) to complete the research using that methodology. Further, researchers may need to consider participant reward structures that incentivize completion of these intensive, repeated surveys. Compared to traditional studies, IL studies can be much more time-consuming for participants, so researchers might consider rewards that are proportional to the number of repeated measures in which the participant took part (e.g., compensation per survey completed, bonuses for meeting thresholds, etc.).
Another methodological aspect that requires researchers’ attention is the measurement of daily financial well-being. As reported in Table
3, reviewed studies adopted items that were developed ad hoc or adapted from scales that are usually used for non-IL studies, generating measures that do not have evidence of validity and that do not allow cross-study comparisons. Future studies should work to design and test instruments that comprehensively measure the different components of daily financial well-being. The psychometrics of such instruments could be tested following the suggestions proposed by Bolger and Laurenceau (
2013) that indicated statistical techniques (such as the Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis) useful to collect validity evidence for new instruments developed within an IL framework.
Finally, we suggest researchers carefully consider data analysis in future studies to capture all the variability present in this type of data. Procedures to adopt a descriptive approach to data have been proposed (Greenier et al.,
1999; Wright & Zimmermann,
2019), but when researchers are interested in the relationships between variables, the descriptive approach is not sufficient. Although multilevel analysis is a well-recognized solution, we also suggest researchers explore opportunities offered by newly implemented models to study dynamic change (for an overview, see Asparouhov & Muthén,
2020). Finally, we suggest researchers perform power analysis to inform the sample size and number of observations needed for their study. None of the studies included in the current review reported power analysis information, yet there are specialized publications (e.g., Bolger & Laurenceau,
2013; Bolger et al.,
2012) that report how to execute it in the IL framework and determine the number of subjects and time points needed to adequately test hypotheses.
All the studies presented in the current review refer to quantitative IL data, and indeed it is rare to find examples of studies using qualitative methods along with IL methods. Still, it is possible to use IL methods to collect qualitative data and doing so may provide more nuance in people’s lived experiences than quantitative methods can access. For example, Vleioras et al. (
2008) asked participants daily to report their experiences and emotions by writing on diary sheets for a period of five months in order to study how adolescents develop a mature view of themselves. Although this example is not specific to financial well-being, it demonstrates the implementation of IL methods to collect qualitative data that may provide more insight into participants’ thoughts, feelings, and reflections, which may be helpful for understanding participants’ daily emotions surrounding their financial well-being.