Parenting Styles,Savings Attitudes,and Propensity to Save Among Children in Singapore

Abstract

This study investigates the association between parenting styles, savings attitudes, and the propensity to save among 62 children aged 10 to 15 years who had participated in a matched savings program in Singapore and 25 children who served as a comparison group. Results revealed that savings attitudes and parenting styles were positively associated with the propensity to save. Specifically, older age, perceiving saving as a good thing to do, reliance on parental guidance for saving, and authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles were significantly associated with a higher propensity to save. In contrast, perceiving saving as a struggle and permissive parenting was inversely associated with the propensity to save. Increased authoritative and authoritarian parenting scores predicted children’s propensity to save. Implications of involving children as active agents in saving and parental involvement in matched savings programs are discussed.

Keywords

children saving savings attitudes parenting styles Singapore

Introduction

In today’s knowledge-based economy and economic complexity, one’s income alone is often insufficient to generate wealth and provide for the well-being of individuals and families. It is equally essential for people to have and accumulate assets to improve their circumstances over the long term. Assets such as stable housing and savings are essential foundations for families (Sherraden, 2005), and the accumulation of assets can promote one’s sense of stability, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and feelings of social connectedness (Curley et al., 2016). Asset-building is a way to help families accumulate resources such as stable housing and savings for education to move toward financial well-being and promote socioeconomic mobility (Wang et al., 2021). As asset-building is a long-term process, starting early on can provide the potential for more significant asset accumulation over the long term (Loke & Sherraden, 2019). One method of asset-building support is setting up Child Development Accounts (CDAs) to foster savings and asset-building across the life course (Loke & Sherraden, 2019). CDAs are subsidized savings or investment accounts for children as early as or near birth (Sherraden et al., 2018). Although several countries have implemented CDAs, existing CDA programs differ in designs and features and by country. Since it is beyond the scope of the current study, interested readers may refer to Loke and Sherraden’s (2009) and Sherraden and colleagues’ (Sherraden et al., 2018) article for a more detailed discussion of CDAs in different countries.

Matched savings programs (MSPs) are designed to encourage savings and support asset-building (Sherraden et al., 2013). MSPs are often implemented by public or private entities and typically offer program participants financial education, incentives, and a predetermined monetary match for every deposit into their savings account, although the matched ratio may vary by program (Sherraden, 1991). The premise behind implementing MSPs is that asset-building promotes long-term financial security rather than short-term cash assistance from income-based social welfare programs (Scanlon & Adams, 2009; Wheeler-Brooks & Scanlon, 2009).

MSPs with components of financial literacy courses have been found to improve children’s attitudes toward savings (Sherraden et al., 2011; Supanantaroek et al., 2016). For instance, in the study among elementary school students who had participated in a school-based savings program, Sherraden and colleagues (2011) observed that participants who received financial education, access to savings accounts, and incentives reported higher financial knowledge than the comparison group. In another study among primary school students in Uganda, Supanantaroek and colleagues (2016) also observed that children in the treatment group who received social and financial education training reported increased awareness of money, money recording, and savings attitudes.

Previous studies among children and young people have observed that participation in MSPs was linked to various positive outcomes, including increase in future orientation, savings behavior (Brown & Taylor, 2016; Sherraden et al., 2013; Wheeler-Brooks & Scanlon, 2009), self-efficacy, and overall well-being (Karimli & Ssewamala, 2015; Manturuk et al., 2012; Sherraden et al., 2013). Findings from a randomized experiment in Uganda found that participation in an MSP improved children’s neurodevelopmental outcomes by reducing hopelessness, strengthening self-concept, and enhancing confidence in their future educational prospects (Karimli & Ssewamala, 2015). Studies have also shown a positive relationship between asset accumulation and children’s self-esteem, overall health, and educational performance (Han & Chia, 2012; Karimli & Ssewamala, 2015).

Literature Review

According to the socioeconomic developmental approach (Sonuga-Barke & Webley, 1993), children develop economic behavior within their social group and family. Children learn by observing and imitating the most relevant models in their lives (Bandura & Walters, 1963). From an early age, most children encounter money by observing their parents buy things (Lunt & Furnham, 1996). Developmental research has also shown that children around six can save money and interact with accounts (Friedline, 2015; Otto, 2013). The financial socialization perspective further suggests that family dynamics impact children’s savings behaviors (Friedline, 2014). The influence of parental financial socialization, such as modeling or guiding savings behaviors, has been shown to contribute to children’s financial behaviors and to better financial habits in young adulthood (Britt, 2016; Elliott & Sherraden, 2013; Friedline et al., 2013; McNeill & Turner, 2013; Owusu et al., 2020). For instance, children of parents who offer instruction for critical financial skills were shown to have lower credit card balances in young adulthood (Britt, 2016; McNeill & Turner, 2013). Studies have also observed that children who are encouraged by their parents to save and interact with savings accounts can save more effectively in adulthood (Jinhee et al., 2011; McNeill & Turner, 2013; Owusu et al., 2020).

Parenting is a critical environmental factor for children’s social and cognitive development. Children’s savings behaviors are developed in a family context, influenced by parental encouragement, developmental maturation, and the savings behaviors of parents themselves (Brown & Taylor, 2016; Jinhee et al., 2011; Otto, 2013; Owusu et al., 2020). Studies have also observed that savings behaviors and financial interventions during childhood predict savings patterns in young adulthood, which implies that financial education during childhood may have a lasting impact on savings and financial decision-making during adulthood (Brown & Taylor, 2016; Owusu et al., 2020).

Parenting includes various practices, which refer to observable behavior parents use to socialize their children. One essential element in parenting research that has been widely studied is parenting styles (Kuppens & Ceulemans, 2019). Baumrind’s (1967) seminal work on parenting styles initially focused on three parenting styles describing differences in parenting behaviors: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting style. Authoritative parents display high levels of emotional warmth and involvement while also placing high demands for maturity and self-control on their children. High demands for self-control and discipline characterize authoritarian parents, but they are less sensitive to their children’s developmental needs. Permissive parents show warmth and sensitivity to their children’s needs but place low expectations for self-control and discipline (Baumrind, 1967).

Parenting has also been found to be significantly associated with children’s economic orientation. Based on their review of studies on the association between parenting styles and consumer socialization, Carlson and colleagues (Carlson et al., 2011) observed that authoritative parents were more likely to actively participate in their child’s consumer socialization (e.g., watching TV together). Nyhus and Webley (2013) also observed that children and adolescents with authoritative parents had the highest scores on the ability to delay gratification and self-control on spending and tended to save rather than spend. Studies have also observed the associations between parenting styles and savings behavior in children. For instance, parental warmth, often associated with authoritative parenting styles, was associated with better financial habits in young adults (e.g., Britt, 2016; Owusu et al., 2020). The influence of parental financial socialization, such as modeling or guiding savings behaviors, has been shown to contribute to better financial habits in young adulthood, especially when combined with parental warmth. Children of parents who offer instruction for critical financial skills have been shown to have lower credit card balances in young adulthood (Britt, 2016; McNeill & Turner, 2013) and were also found to save more effectively in adulthood (Bucciol & Veronesi, 2014; Jinhee et al., 2011; Owusu et al., 2020).

Culture shapes how parents care for their offspring. Accordingly, there are also cultural variations in parenting practices (Bornstein, 2012). Most notably, Western and Asian parenting practices have frequently been compared, with Asian parenting practices more commonly found to be associated with the authoritarian style (Mousavi & Juhari, 2019). A review of the literature revealed that while there are studies that have looked at parenting styles in the context of Singapore (e.g., Cheung & Lim, 2022; Shan & Hawkins, 2014), there is a lack of studies that focus specifically on the association between parenting styles and savings behaviors among children. Studies on parenting practices in Asian families have observed filial piety is a firmly held value in many Asian families, and parental control and strictness, which resemble elements of authoritarian parenting styles, are often seen as a positive sign of parental concern (Shan & Hawkins, 2014). Although previous studies in other countries have highlighted the association between parenting styles and savings behavior, we do not know if the same is true among children in Singapore, and much less is known about the link between parenting styles, savings attitudes, and savings behavior among children in Singapore.

Singapore is one of the few countries that has implemented various types of asset-building accounts that are explicitly geared toward children, such as the Baby Bonus and Child Development Account (for children below 6 years), the Edusave scheme (for children and youth aged 7–16), the Post-Secondary Education Account (for children and youth aged 7–20), and the Medisave for Newborns, which are categorized as integrated CDAs (Loke & Sherraden, 2019). Although each of these policies has different objectives, the overall aim of the integrated CDAs is to invest in children, to help individuals and families accumulate assets across the life course, and to help them achieve important social goals (for a detailed discussion of the four policies, refer to Loke & Sherraden, 2019). Studies on the impact of MSPs in Singapore have primarily been conducted among youth and older adults (e.g., Chan & Koh, 2018; Koh & Fraser, 2014), which have shed some light on the effectiveness of MSPs in enhancing savings behavior among adolescents and adults. For instance, in a study among secondary school students, Koh and Fraser (2014) observed that participants who attended a financial literacy program and were aware of the CDA were more likely to have a positive attitude toward savings and tended to save more in their CDA account. In another study, Chan and Koh (2018) examined the efficacy of an 18-month MSP and its impact on savings behavior among low-income older women in Singapore. The researchers observed that 71% of attendees continued to save in their retirement account throughout the 18-month program duration, indicating that the MSP was effective.

To fill the gap in the literature on the influence of parenting in savings behavior among children in the context of Singapore and to extend knowledge in this area, the current study aims to examine the association between savings attitudes and parenting styles with the propensity to save among children in Singapore. In this study, savings attitudes refer to one’s views, attitudes, or beliefs toward savings, whereas propensity to save refers to one’s behavior or ability to save rather than spend one’s savings. The main research questions are as follows:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What are the savings attitudes and propensity to save among children participating in an MSP?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): Do parenting styles and children’s savings attitudes influence the propensity to save?

Method

Procedure and Sample

The current study is part of a larger quasi-experimental study investigating the effectiveness of a community-level MSP. The findings from the larger study on the efficacy and impact of the MSP on savings behaviors and attitudes, with detailed information about the MSP procedures, have been published in an earlier paper (Tonsing & Ghoh, 2019). The MSP was implemented by Care Corner Family Service Centres (CC-FSCs) in Singapore in partnership with the Post Office Savings Bank (POSB) Singapore and the North West Community Development Council Singapore from 2015 to 2017. The inclusion criteria were children aged 8 to 14 years from families with a per capita monthly income of $S550 or less (about US$400) and at least one parent gainfully employed at the time of registration in the MSP. In addition, each participating child in the MSP was required to open a savings bank account with POSB. Children in the MSP were provided with financial education (see Table 1), a savings account, a $S10 start-up deposit, and a dollar-to-dollar match for all deposits into their savings account up to a maximum of $S600 per child.

Table 1.

Financial Education Programs for MSP.

Titles of training program	Topics covered/objectives
Financial literacy workshops (total 6)	• Experiential learning activities about money, savings, and decision-making
Financial literacy workshops (total 6)	• Localized Monopoly-like board game - to teach the importance of savings - to guide children in setting a specific savings goal - to enable them to learn decision-making skills regarding savings

Families with children living in the Northwest district of Singapore who met the inclusion criteria were invited to join the MSP, and a total of 108 children were enrolled in the MSP. Invitations to participate in the current study were sent to all 108 children who enrolled in the MSP (hereafter referred to as the treatment group or TG) and their parents. In addition, data were also collected from a community sample of children who met the inclusion criteria and were not participating in the MSP. The staff of the CC-FSCs assisted in identifying and recruiting potential participants for the comparison group (hereafter referred to as comparison group or CG). Parents and children were informed about the purpose and voluntary nature of participation in this study. Parents and children were also informed that there would be no negative consequences should their child decide not to participate in this study, nor would they be denied the benefits of the MSP or the services they received from CC-FSCs. All the parents voluntarily gave their written consent for their child to participate in this study, and verbal assent was also sought from each participating child before data collection through a self-administered paper survey. Data were collected twice, once at the baseline and 1 month after completing the 18-month MSP. Before data collection, this study received ethical approval from the University Institutional Review Board.

At baseline, 92 TG and 41 CG children completed the survey. At the follow-up survey, only 62 TG and 25 CG children completed the survey (see Figure 1 for a flow plan of recruitment and attrition of study participants). As the current study aims to investigate the association between parenting styles, savings attitudes, and propensity to save, this study used only the post-test data from 62 children who had completed the MSP and a comparison group of 25 children from the community who did not participate in the MSP.

Measures

The survey questionnaire included the following measures.

Children’s attitude toward saving was assessed with a 10-item Saving Attitude Scale (Otto, 2009), which comprised three subscales: (a) saving is good (saving is perceived as a good thing to do)—sample items include: “I think one should not spend money unnecessarily but save it”; (b) parental guidance (reliance on parents to assist them with their saving)—sample items include: “I think parents should control how their children use their pocket money”; and (c) saving is a struggle (saving is perceived as difficult)—a sample item is, “I don’t save because I think it is too hard.” Items are scored on a 5-point rating ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A total score is obtained by summing the items in each subscale, such that higher scores indicate a higher perception of each savings attitude. The Cronbach’s alphas are: .63 for saving is good, .92 for parental guidance, and .79 for saving is a struggle subscale.

Parenting style was assessed with nine items from the Global Parenting Practices Questionnaire (Robinson et al., 1995). This questionnaire assessed three typologies of parenting styles from the children’s perspective: authoritative parenting style (e.g., my mother/father gives reasons why rules should be followed), authoritarian parenting style (e.g., my mother/father uses physical punishment as a way of disciplining me), and permissive parenting style (e.g., my mother/father finds it difficult to discipline me). Scale items are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). A total score for each subscale is obtained by summing the scores of items such that a higher score indicates that behavior is more frequently used. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .95, .90, and .89 for the authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles.

The propensity to save was assessed with a three 5-point Likert-type question statement that asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree on their tendency to save rather than spend: “I give in to temptation,” “I like spending,” and “I am good at saving.” The second and third items were reversed, and a summated variable with the three items was created so that higher scores indicated a higher propensity to save.

Respondents provided information on their age, sex, education level, and ethnicity. In addition, we also collected information from the TG sample on the total amount saved in their savings account and whether children made withdrawals from their accounts with a yes or no response option.

Analytic Procedure

Descriptive statistics were employed to examine the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants. Bivariate comparison tests (independent sample t-tests, chi-square tests, or the analysis of variance [ANOVA]) were used to detect variations in the propensity to save, savings attitudes, and parenting styles by demographic characteristics between and within groups. For comparison analysis, age was recoded into two groups (younger children ≤12 years and older children ≥13 years). Multiple linear regression was conducted to examine the main effects of sociodemographic factors, savings attitudes scores, and parenting styles scores for their association with the propensity to save. Before conducting the multivariate regressions, all data were cleared for multicollinearity. All analyses were performed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 29).

Results

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of respondents for the TG (n = 62) and the CG (n = 25) groups. Data revealed that TG and CG respondents differ in age, t(85) = 2.13, p <.05, and education level, t(85) = 1.87, p < .05. TG respondents were significantly younger, and the majority were in primary levels of education. One plausible reason for the age- and education-based differences between the TG and CG groups might be that TG children who completed the MSP were younger than those who dropped out or did not return the follow-up survey. At baseline, TG and CG children were comparable in age and education level (results not shown). When we analyzed the data further, although not statistically significant, we observed that compared to those who continued in the MSP program, TG children who did not complete the survey or dropped out of the program were older (results not shown), which might have accounted for the age- and education-based differences between the TG and CG groups (age also corresponds to education level, with older children at a higher education level). There were no other statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding sex or ethnicity.

Table 2.

Participants Characteristics.

	Full (N = 87)	TG (n = 62)	CG (n = 25)	t-test	χ²
Characteristics	N (%) or mean (SD)	N (%) or mean (SD)	N (%) or mean (SD)	t-test	χ²
Age (years)	12.62 (1.55)	12.40 (1.40)	13.16 (1.65)	2.13*
Sex (%)					0.33
Girls	41 (47.1)	28 (45.2)	13 (52.0)
Boys	46 (52.9)	34 (54.8)	12 (48.0)
Education (in years)	6.48 (1.66)	6.27 (1.67)	7.01 (1.55)	1.87*
Level of education (%)
Primary 4	13 (14.9)	12 (19.4)	1 (4.0)
Primary 5	13 (14.9)	8 (12.9)	5 (20.0)
Primary 6	20 (23.0)	18 (29.0)	2 (8.0)
Secondary 1	17 (19.5)	9 (14.5)	8 (32.0)
Secondary 2	8 (9.2)	5 (8.1)	3 (12.0)
Secondary 3	16 (18.4)	10 (16.1)	6 (24.0)
Ethnicity (%)					1.21
Malay	55 (63.2)	40 (64.5)	15 (60.0)
Chinese	17 (19.5)	13 (21.0)	4 (16.0)
Indian	15 (17.2)	9 (14.5)	6 (24.0)

Note. Primary 4 to 6 is equivalent to American 4th to 6th Grade; Secondary 1 to 3 is equivalent to American 7th to 9th Grade.

p < .05.

Children’s Savings Attitudes, Parenting Styles, and the Propensity to Save

The mean and standard deviations of the savings attitudes, parenting styles, and the propensity to save are presented in Table 3. TG children reported significantly higher mean scores on the savings attitudes subscales of saving is good and parental guidance, as well as the propensity to save. There was a statistically significant mean difference in the savings attitudes subscales of saving is good, F(1, 85) = 5.87, p < .05, and parental guidance, F(1, 85) = 6.10, p < .05, and the propensity to save scores, t(85) = 1.93, p < .05. TG children were more likely to perceive saving as a good thing to do, were more likely to depend on their parents to guide them in their saving, and more likely to save than CG children. There was no statistically significant difference in the parenting style scores between the TG and CG children.

Table 3.

Mean (SD) and Results of t-test/ANOVA of Savings Attitudes, Parenting Styles, and the Propensity to Save for TG and CG Children.

Variables	TG (n = 62)	CG (n = 25)	t-test	F
Variables	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	t-test	F
Savings attitudes
Saving is good	8.80 (1.69)	7.84 (1.60)		5.87*
Parental guidance	8.43 (2.01)	7.32 (1.60)		6.10*
Saving is a struggle	11.08 (1.73)	10.92 (1.60)		0.16
Parenting styles
Authoritative	17.22 (4.04)	15.80 (4.27)		2.15
Authoritarian	6.32 (1.12)	5.92 (1.22)		2.16
Permissive	5.98 (1.46)	6.00 (1.73)		0.02
Propensity to save	10.03 (1.76)	9.24 (1.64)	1.93*

p < .05.

Within-Group Analysis

To further examine what factors might be related to children’s savings attitudes, parenting styles, and propensity to save, we closely examined the TG children.

Savings Attitudes, Parenting Styles, and the Propensity to Save by Demographic Factors for TG Children

To examine if there were significant differences in children’s savings attitudes, parenting styles, and the propensity to save by demographic characteristics, t-tests or ANOVAs were conducted for TG children. Results revealed a statistically significant age difference in the mean scores on the propensity to save, t(60) = 2.99, p < .01, and the savings attitude subscales of parental guidance, F(1, 60) = 22.42, p < .001, and saving is a struggle, F(1, 60) = 3.44, p < .05. Older children reported a higher mean score on the propensity to save (≥13 years_{Mean = 10.70, SD = 1.98} vs. ≤12 years_{Mean = 9.65, SD = 1.52}), and the savings attitude subscale of saving is a struggle (≥13 years_{Mean = 11.58, SD = 1.79} vs. ≤12 years_{Mean = 10.76, SD = 1.63}). In contrast, younger children reported a higher mean score on the savings attitude of parental guidance (≤12 years_{Mean = 9.26, SD = 1.58} vs. ≥13 years_{Mean = 7.12, SD = 1.94}). There were no other statistically significant differences in parenting styles by demographic factors nor in the propensity to save or the savings attitude subscales by gender or ethnicity.

Total Amount Saved During the MSP

After completing the MSP, the total saved amount ranged from $S40 to $S2,641, with a median of $S1,050. Most TG children (85.5%) reported not withdrawing from their savings account during the 18-month MSP program. Although results of cross-tabulation did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the total amount saved by age group, data revealed that more than half of older children aged 13 or older (58.3%) reported savings at or above the median amount than younger children aged 12 or younger (44.7%). Results of the independent sample t-test revealed a modest but statistically significant difference in the mean total amount saved by program attendance, t(1, 60) = 1.08, p < .05. Those who reported attending all six classes of financial literacy programs reported higher mean total amount saved (M = 1153.12) compared to children who did not attend all of the classes (M = 904.62).

Results of Regression Analyses

To examine the predictive factors of propensity to save, we conducted a linear regression analysis on the whole sample (Table 4) with the propensity to save as the dependent variable and treatment status, age, gender, ethnicity, scores of the three savings attitude subscales, and the three parenting styles as the predictor variables. The model explained 44.1% of the variance in propensity to save, F(11, 75) = 5.37, p < .001. Significant predictors of children’s propensity to save included age (β = 0.28, p < .01); the savings attitudes of saving is good (β = 0.35, p < .05), parental guidance (β = 0.23, p < .05), and saving is a struggle (β = −0.31, p < .01); and the authoritative (β = 0.23, p < .05), authoritarian (β = 0.28, p < .01), and permissive parenting (β = 0.23, p < .05) styles.

Table 4.

Linear Regression for Propensity to Save (N = 87).

Variables	SE	β	t
Treatment status (TG = 1)	0.38	0.20	1.98
Age (in years)	0.11	0.28**	2.81
Sex (boys = 1)	0.33	−0.13	−1.43
Ethnicity
Malay (ref)	1.000
Chinese	0.51	−0.06	−0.53
Indian	0.40	−0.19	−1.72
Savings attitudes subscale scores
Saving is good	0.13	0.35*	2.63
Parental guidance	0.10	0.23*	2.30
Saving is a struggle	0.10	−0.31**	−3.20
Parenting styles scores
Authoritative	0.04	0.23*	2.24
Authoritarian	0.15	0.28**	2.75
Permissive	0.12	−0.23*	2.17
R ²	0.441
Adjusted R²	0.359

p < .05; **p < .01.

Discussion

This study examined propensity to save, savings attitudes, and parenting styles using data from children who had participated in an MSP (TG) and a comparison sample of children (CG) who did not participate in the MSP. The findings of this study demonstrated that TG children who had participated in the MSP program recorded significantly higher mean scores on the propensity to save and the savings attitude subscales of saving is good and parental guidance compared to CG children. Further data analysis (not shown) also revealed that children who attended all six financial literacy classes provided during the MSP program reported higher mean total amount saved at the conclusion of the MSP compared to children who did not attend the classes. These findings suggest that the MSP program, which provided opportunities for financial education about savings, may have helped enhance children’s savings attitudes. The current findings that participating in an MSP can enhance positive attitudes toward savings are also congruent with those of previous studies (e.g., Chan & Koh, 2018; Sherraden et al., 2011).

In the current study, age, savings attitudes, and parenting styles emerged as significant predictors of children’s propensity for saving. Younger children (≤12 years) reported significantly higher mean scores on the savings attitude subscale of parental guidance. In contrast, older children (≥13 years) reported higher mean scores on the savings attitude subscale of saving is a struggle. From a psychosocial developmental perspective (Erikson, 1963), children in middle childhood (≤12 years) are still young and may not yet have a financially based understanding of savings (Otto et al., 2006) and thus may rely more on their parents to support them in their savings behavior. On the contrary, older children (≥13 years) are entering the adolescent stage, which is characterized by striving toward gaining more independence (Erikson, 1963). Thus, it is also likely that older children in the current study who are also going through this stage might be striving toward becoming more independent and thus have a higher propensity to see increased independence or for their perceived need for leisure activity to engage in with friends without asking their parents whenever they want to buy something or need money when going out with their peers.

The current study also found that authoritative and authoritarian parenting is significantly associated with a higher propensity to save scores. Previous studies have also observed that parenting influences children’s future-oriented cognitions, such as delay of gratification (Bindman et al., 2015). Propensity to save, which refers to children’s ability to save rather than spend their savings, may reflect children’s ability to delay gratification. The current study findings that authoritative parenting is significantly associated with positive savings behavior are also congruent with previous studies’ findings (e.g., Ashby et al., 2011; Otto, 2009; Webley & Nyhus, 2006). For instance, in a study among British children, Otto (2009) found that children with authoritative parenting experienced fewer difficulties with saving than children who perceived their parents as authoritarian. Ashby and colleagues (Ashby et al., 2011) also observed that parental warmth was significantly associated with young people’s future expectations and saving behaviors. Likewise, Webley and Nyhus’s (2006) study among Dutch children observed a significant association between parental influence and children’s economic behavior.

The current study’s findings that authoritarian parenting is associated with children’s propensity to save contradict the findings reported in previous studies (e.g., Otto, 2009; Reitman & Gross, 1997). For example, the study by Reitman and Gross (1997) observed that children could delay gratification with authoritative parenting more than with authoritarian parenting, and Otto (2009) also observed that children who perceived their parents as warmth and supportive (that correspond with authoritative parenting) experienced fewer difficulties compared to children who perceived their parents as authoritarian. One potential explanation for this inconsistency between the present study’s findings and previous studies may be cultural differences in parenting. Although the literature on parenting styles has noted that authoritative parenting (warmth and strictness) is most often associated with positive effects on child adjustment, parenting is also heavily driven by culture (Bornstein, 2012). Existing studies on parenting styles suggest that most parents in Asian families generally demand high obedience from their children (Dwairy & Achoui, 2010) and exert control over their children (Chao, 1994), which resemble elements of authoritarian parenting styles. The underlying meaning of “control” in the Asian context of parenting is protecting their children from harm and helping them succeed (Chao, 1994; Mousavi & Juhari, 2019). Therefore, “control” may be viewed as an act of parental love, care, and concern for their children (Ang & Goh, 2006; Chao, 1994; Shan & Hawkins, 2014). In the current study, children may have also view their parenting strictness and control as a show of parental love, care, and involvement in their savings behavior.

We also found an inverse association between permissive parenting scores and the propensity to save scores. The finding of our study that children with permissive parenting were inversely associated with a propensity to save is also congruent with those reported in a previous study (Nyhus & Webley, 2013), which also observed that children with permissive parenting reported the lowest scores on the ability to control spending. Children of permissive parents were also found to have less ability to delay gratification (Nyhus & Webley, 2013). Generally, while showing warmth and nurturing, permissive parents tend to be less strict and place low demands and control on their children (Baumrind, 1967), allowing them to regulate their activities with less exercise of control and power. However, this finding should be interpreted cautiously and not descend into a simple equation (permissive parenting = poor socialization) as it is also possible that children’s behavior also shapes parental behavior.

Limitations

This study has certain limitations. Our study findings are based on data from a small sample of children who participated in an MSP program and are not representative of children aged 10 to 15 in Singapore. Second, although the regression model was significant, the variance explained by savings attitudes and parenting styles was modest, indicating that other factors are likely also at play. The current study also did not collect data on parental characteristics of the participants. Future studies can explore factors such as the social context of the family, parental encouragement to save, and parental financial socialization and their influence on children’s propensity to save. Third, as children’s behavior and attitudes can also be influenced by parental behavior (or vice versa), future studies can explore this bidirectional relationship, including other functional measurements, to build upon our study’s initial findings with larger, representative samples.

Conclusions and Implications for Practice

Despite the limitations mentioned above, a strength of this study was that we measured parenting styles from the children’s perspective. Although there are weak relations among our study variables, our findings observed that parenting styles and savings attitudes are associated with children’s propensity to save. Furthermore, the findings of our study also increase our understanding of the role of parenting in children’s savings behavior. Parents are often their children’s primary economic socialization agents (Tang, 2016; Webley & Nyhus, 2006). Because young children depend on their primary caregivers, often their parents, parents can play an essential role in teaching positive savings attitudes and savings behavior to children. As children often learn by observing, parents can exert influence on their children’s financial habits and behaviors by setting examples and preparing them to become financially competent, as a lack of financial competence is found to be associated with various personal, familial, and social problems such as debt, financial crisis, and mental health issues in later life (LeBaron et al., 2017; Serido et al., 2010; Thorson & Kranstuber Hortsman, 2014). Although Singapore has integrated assets-based policies targeted at children, such as CDAs, many parents are unaware of such CDAs (Han & Chia, 2012). Social workers and service providers can play a vital role in providing parents with information about savings programs such as CDAs and financial education so they, in turn, can guide their children in their savings endeavors and help them build assets. Parents can also increase children’s active participation by involving them in directly managing their savings and helping them monitor their savings.

Footnotes

Disposition editor: Cristina Mogro-Wilson

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported with funding from North West Community Development Council Singapore and Post Office Savings Bank (POSB) Singapore. These funding sources had no invovlement in the research nor in the preparation of this article.

ORCID iD

Kareen N. Tonsing

References

Ang

R. P.

Goh

D. H.

(2006). Authoritarian parenting styles in Asian societies: A cluster analytic investigation. Contemporary Family Therapy, 28, 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-006-9699-y

Ashby

J. S.

Schoon

Webley

(2011). Save now, save later? Linkages between saving behavior in adolescence and adulthood. European Psychologist, 16(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000067

Bandura

Walters

R. H.

(1963). Social learning and personality development. Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.

Baumrind

(1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43–88.

Bindman

S. W.

Pomerantz

E. M.

Roisman

G. I.

(2015). Do children’s executive functions account for associations between early autonomy-supportive parenting and achievement through high school? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 756–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000017

Bornstein

M. H.

(2012). Cultural approaches to parenting. Parenting, Science and Practice, 12(2–3), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.683359

Britt

S. L.

(2016). The intergenerational transference of money attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(3), 539–556. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44154755

Brown

Taylor

(2016). Early influences on saving behavior: Analysis of British panel data. Journal of Banking & Finance, 62, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.09.011

Bucciol

Veronesi

(2014). Teaching children to save: What is the best strategy for lifetime savings? Journal of Economic Psychology, 45, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.07.003

10.

Carlson

Laczniak

R. N.

Wertley

(2011). Parental style: The implications of what we know (and think we know). Journal of Advertising Research, 51(2), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-51-2-427-435

11.

Chan

Koh

B. S. K.

(2018). Build your own nest: Singapore’s first study on matched savings schemes for lower income, older women. Research Collection, School of Social Sciences (Paper 3258). https://ink.library,smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3258

12.

Chao

R. K.

(1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65(4), 1111–1119. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131308

13.

Cheung

H. S.

Lim

(2022). A scoping review of Singapore parenting: Culture-general and culture-specific functions of parenting styles and practices. Infant and Child Development, 31(4), e2312. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2312

14.

Curley

Ssewamala

F. M.

Nabunya

Ilic

Han

K. C.

(2016). Child development accounts (CDAs): An asset-building strategy to empower girls in Uganda. International Social Work, 59(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872872813508569

15.

Dwairy

Achoui

(2010). Parental control: A second cross-cultural research on parenting and psychological adjustment of children. Journal of Child and Family Study, 19(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9334-2

16.

Elliott

Sherraden

(2013). Assets and educational achievement: Theory and evidence. Economics of Education Review, 33, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.01.004

17.

Erikson

E. H.

(1963). Childhood and society. W.W. Norton & Co.

18.

Friedline

T. L.

(2014). The independent effects of savings accounts in children’s names on their savings outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 25(1), 69–89. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2466561

19.

Friedline

T. L.

(2015). A developmental perspective on children’s economic agency. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 49(1), 39–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12062

20.

Friedline

T. L.

Elliott

Chowa

(2013). Testing an asset-building approach for young people: Early access to savings predicts later savings. Economics of Education Review, 33(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.10.004

21.

Han

C. K.

Chia

(2012). A preliminary study on parents saving in the Child Development Account in Singapore. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1583–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.04.011

22.

Jinhee

LaTaillade

Kim

(2011). Family processes and adolescents’ financial behaviors. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32, 668–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-011-9270-3

23.

Karimli

Ssewamala

F. M.

(2015). Do savings mediate changes in adolescents’ future orientation and health-related outcomes? Findings from a randomized experiment in Uganda. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(4), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.06.011

24.

Koh

Fraser

B. J.

(2014). Determinants of financial attitudes among secondary school students in Singapore. World Studies in Education, 15(2), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.7459/wse/15.2.03

25.

Kuppens

Ceulemans

(2019). Parenting styles: A closer look at a well-known concept. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(1), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-124-x

26.

LeBaron

A. B.

Hill

E. J.

Rosa

C. M.

Spencer

T. J.

Marks

L. D.

Powell

J. T.

(2017). I wish: Multigenerational regrets and reflections on teaching children about money. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 39, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-017-9556-1

27.

Loke

Sherraden

(2009). Building assets from birth: A global comparison of child development account policies. International Journal of Social Welfare, 18(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00605

28.

Loke

Sherraden

(2019). Building assets from birth: Singapore’s policies. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 29(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/021185385.2019.1571940

29.

Lunt

Furnham

(1996). Economic socialization: The economic beliefs and behaviors of young people. Edward Elgar.

30.

Manturuk

Dorrance

Riley

(2012). Factors affecting completion of a matched savings program: Impacts of time preference, discount rate and financial hardship. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 41(6), 836–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2012.08.006

31.

McNeill

L. S.

Turner

(2013). Parental financial role modelling and fiscal behavior of young home leavers. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 14, 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/17473611311325537

32.

Mousavi

Juhari

(2019). Systematic review of parenting styles and children’s emotional intelligence: Recent updates on Western and Non-Western families. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 15, 147–152.

33.

Nyhus

E. K.

Webley

(2013). The relationship between parenting and the economic orientation and behavior of Norwegian adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 174(5-6), 620–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2012.754398

34.

Otto

(2009). The economic psychology of adolescent saving [Unpublished thesis]. University of Exeter.

35.

Otto

(2013). Saving in childhood and adolescence: Insights from developmental psychology. Economics of Education Review, 33, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.09.005

36.

Otto

Schots

P. A. M.

Westerman

J. A. J.

Webley

(2006). Children’s use of saving strategies: An experimental approach. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.06.013

37.

Owusu

G. M. Y.

Ansong

Koomson

T. A. A.

Addo-Yobo

A. A.

(2020). Savings and investment behaviour of young adults: The role of financial literacy and parental financial behaviour. African Journal of Management Research, 27(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajmr.v27i1.5

38.

Reitman

Gross

A. M.

(1997). The relation of maternal child-rearing attitudes to delay of gratification among boys. Child Study Journal, 27(4), 279–300.

39.

Robinson

C. C.

Mandleco

Olsen

S. F.

Hart

C. H.

(1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 819–830. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819

40.

Scanlon

Adams

(2009). Do assets affect well-being? Perceptions of youth in a matched savings program. Journal of Social Service Research, 35(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488370802477048

41.

Serido

Shim

Mishra

Tang

(2010). Financial parenting, financial coping behaviors, and well-being of emerging adults. Family Relations, 59(4), 453–464. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40864564

42.

Shan

C. H.

Hawkins

(2014). Childcare and parenting practices in Singapore: A comparison of father’s and mother’s involvement. Journal of Tropical Psychology, 4, Article e10. https://doi.org/10.1017/jtp.2014.10

43.

Sherraden

(1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. M. E. Sharpe.

44.

Sherraden

(2005). Inclusion in the American dream: Assets, poverty, and public policy. Oxford University Press.

45.

Sherraden

Cheng

L. C.

Ssewamala

F. M.

Kim

Y. K.

Loke

Zou

Chowa

Ansong

Johnson

Lee

Y. T.

Grinstein-Weiss

Clancy

M. M.

Huang

Beverly

S. G.

Nam

Han

C. K.

(2018). International child development accounts. Encyclopedia of Social Work: National Association of Social Workers Press and Oxford University Press.

46.

Sherraden

Johnson

Guo

Elliott

(2011). Financial capability in children: Effects of participation in a school-based financial education and savings program. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32, 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9220-5

47.

Sherraden

Peters

Wagner

Guo

Clancy

(2013). Contributions of qualitative research to understand savings for children and youth. Economics of Education Review, 32, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.09.006

48.

Sonuga-Barke

E. J. S.

Webley

(1993). Children’s savings: A study in the development of economic behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum.

49.

Supanantaroek

Lensink

Hansen

(2016). The impact of social and financial education on savings attitudes and behavior among primary school children in Uganda. Evaluation Review, 41(6), 511–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841x16665719

50.

Tang

(2016). Like father like son: How does parents’ financial behavior affect their children’s financial behavior? The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 51(2), 284–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12122

51.

Thorson

A. R.

Kranstuber Hortsman

H. A.

(2014). Buy now, pay later: Family communication patterns theory, parental financial support, and emerging adults’ openness about credit card behaviors. Journal of Family Communication, 14(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.857324

52.

Tonsing

K. N.

Ghoh

(2019). Savings attitude and behavior in children participating in a matched savings program in Singapore. Children and Youth Services Review, 98, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.12.015

53.

Wang

J. S.-H.

Maleeb

Ssewamala

F. M.

Neilands

T. B.

Brooks-Gunn

(2021). A multifaceted intervention with savings incentives to reduce multigenerational child poverty: Evidence from the Bridges study (2012-2018) in rural Uganda. Social Indicators Research, 158, 947–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02712-9

54.

Webley

Nyhus

E. K.

(2006). Parents’ influence on children’s future orientation and saving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(1), 140–164. https://doi.org/j.joep.2005.06.016

55.

Wheeler-Brooks

Scanlon

(2009). Perceived facilitators and barriers to saving among low-income youth. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(5), 757–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.015