What is the psychology of money, and why does it matter more than financial knowledge?

The psychology of money explains why financial decisions are driven by emotions, habits, and self-regulation, not only by math. People can know what is “right” and still struggle to do it consistently.

Who is the “Ostrich” in financial behavior?

The Ostrich represents avoidance, not looking at accounts, debt, or spending to reduce stress in the short term. It feels calming now, but it usually leads to weaker control and bigger surprises later.

Who is the “Owl” in financial behavior?

The Owl represents clarity and proactive control, regularly checking the numbers without drama and turning them into small, concrete actions. The goal is progress and consistency, not perfection.

Why do people avoid checking their bank account, debt, or investments?

Because negative financial information can trigger anxiety, guilt, or shame, and the brain learns to avoid that discomfort. Avoidance provides immediate relief, but it often reinforces fear and reduces long-term control.

How does Time Perspective affect financial decisions?

A present-focused mindset makes immediate rewards feel more valuable, which can increase impulse spending and delay saving. A future-focused mindset makes it easier to delay gratification and build long-term stability.

What is Locus of Control, and how does it shape money behavior?

Locus of Control describes whether you feel outcomes depend on your actions (internal) or mostly on external forces (external). A more internal locus tends to support planning and action, while a more external locus can increase passivity and avoidance.

What is mental accounting, and how can it lead to irrational spending?

Mental accounting is the habit of placing money into separate “mental buckets” and treating each bucket differently. It can make small indulgences feel acceptable while other expenses feel unfair, even if the total cost is similar.

How do you move from an “Ostrich” pattern to an “Owl” pattern without burning out?

Start with small, consistent exposure to the numbers, for example a short weekly check-in, and replace self-judgment with a neutral review. The key is to translate insights into one clear next step, not more dashboards.

Why do many budgeting apps fail to change behavior?

Many tools show data but lack context, comparison, and action guidance tailored to the person. Without understanding what is normal, what is unusual, and what to do next, users disengage or avoid the information altogether.

Between the Ostrich and the Owl:An Integrative Psychological Model for Bridging the Gap Between Financial Knowledge and Behavior

Amit Smaja
Dec 25, 2025
54 min read

Amit Smaja

December 2025

Abstract

The persistent gap between rising levels of financial literacy and the actual quality of household financial decision-making challenges the validity of traditional models that assume knowledge necessarily leads to rational action. This article proposes an integrative theoretical framework for mapping financial behavior, bridging insights from behavioral economics, personality psychology, and self-regulation theories. The model is built on the intersection of two psychological dimensions - Time Perspective and Locus of Control - which together generate a typology of four distinct archetypes: the Owl (Future-Active), the Turtle (Future-Avoidant), the Cheetah (Present-Active), and the Ostrich (Present-Avoidant). Introducing the concept of "Self-Adaptive Rationality," the article analyzes the structural failure of generic financial interventions and demonstrates how they overlook the emotional and regulatory mechanisms that drive the majority of the population. The discussion outlines a necessary shift from uniform, didactic approaches to a paradigm of "Precision Finance," presenting practical implications for designing adaptive fintech products and formulating differentiated public policy. By aligning interventions with the unique psychological barriers of each archetype, the model aims to enhance financial well-being at both individual and societal levels.

Keywords: Financial Psychology, Behavioral Economics, Time Perspective, Locus of Control, Fintech, Financial Well-being.

1. Introduction

Over the last decade, the global and local financial landscape has undergone an unprecedented technological transformation. The research literature describes how the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in financial markets (Milana and Ashta, 2021), alongside the penetration of roboadvisors into the personal investment sphere (Hohenberger et al., 2019), has created a new reality. In this reality, technical barriers that existed in the past have been removed, and the ability to manage funds, execute advanced digital payments, and invest in the capital market has become available in the palm of anyone owning a smartphone (OECD, 2025). In Israel specifically, the Open Banking revolution and discussions surrounding the implementation of the Digital Shekel (Plato-Shinar et al., 2025) mark an era where financial information is more accessible, transparent, and immediate than ever before.

Ostensibly, this technological availability should have led to a leap in household financial conduct, increased savings, and debt reduction. However, empirical reality paints a complex, and sometimes inverse, picture often referred to as the "Paradox of Plenty." Bank of Israel reports from recent years (Bank of Israel, 2024a, 2025) indicate that despite advanced tools, the level of financial literacy in Israel remains limited. Furthermore, international skills surveys such as PIAAC point to significant gaps in foundational skills and comprehension among the Israeli population compared to the OECD average (Bank of Israel, 2024c). These data align with global findings showing that financial education alone is no guarantee of behavioral change (Kaiser and Menkhoff, 2017), and that information availability can sometimes create cognitive load, leading to impaired decision-making.

These disparities are not uniform and reveal deep social fractures. The literature points to a tight link between demographic characteristics and the accessibility and usage of financial tools. Studies show that minority groups and disadvantaged populations tend to be less exposed to digital financial literacy (Mesch and Talmud, 2011), and are differentially affected by behavioral "nudges" designed to improve their situation (Rosen and Sade, 2022). In Israel, this picture is reflected in gaps between the center and the periphery, and between different sectors, where household debt levels continue to be a source of concern for economic and social stability (Bank of Israel, 2024b; Richardson et al., 2013).

To explain the gap between expected economic rationality and actual behavior, many researchers have turned to behavioral economics. Foundational theories such as Prospect Theory by Kahneman and Tversky (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) and Mental Accounting (Thaler, 1985) provided explanations for universal biases such as loss aversion and present bias. Specific phenomena like the "Ostrich Effect"-the tendency to avoid negative financial information-have been documented extensively in both global contexts (Karlsson et al., 2009) and the Israeli market (Galai and Sade, 2006). Similarly, it has been found that investors tend to avoid realizing losses (Odean, 1998) and that their behavior is influenced by irrational sentiments (Barberis et al., 1998). However, while these studies effectively explain why humans generally do not act rationally to maximize utility, they struggle to explain interpersonal variance: why, under the same objective conditions and cognitive biases, does one individual choose to save diligently while another sinks into debt?

This is where personality psychology enters the picture. The widely accepted "Big Five" model has been found in numerous studies to be a significant predictor of financial behavior. Traits such as Conscientiousness and Neuroticism have been directly linked to asset accumulation capabilities, impulsive behavior, and debt management (Ahmed et al., 2023; Brown and Taylor, 2014; McCrae and John, 1992; Whiteside and Lynam, 2001). Concurrently, literature dealing with "Money Scripts" indicates that unconscious core beliefs about money shape adult behavior (Britt and Mentzer, 2011; Klontz and Britt, 2012; CIMA, 2018). Despite this research richness, there is a difficulty in translating abstract personality traits or past scripts into a practical, "here and now" action model that can assist professionals and individuals in diagnosing and improving their conduct in real-time.

The search for an integrative framework leads to two dominant psychological axes, the combination of which may provide the key to understanding financial patterns: the Locus of Control axis and the Time Perspective axis. The first axis, Locus of Control, distinguishes between individuals who attribute life outcomes to their own actions (internal locus) and those who attribute them to external forces or luck (Rotter, 1966). Studies have consistently proven that an internal locus of control is positively correlated with savings and responsible financial behavior (Cobb-Clark et al., 2016; Foltice and Ilcin, 2019), while a sense of lack of control may lead to avoidance and procrastination. In this context, models of stress coping and action vs. state orientation explain how people react to failure or uncertainty: do they act to rectify the situation, or do they sink into rumination and inaction (Beckmann, 1994; Kuhl, 1994; Stanisławski, 2019; Van Putten et al., 2010).

The second axis, Time Perspective, refers to the individual’s cognitive tendency to focus on the past, present, or future when making decisions. The ability to delay gratification and perform "future discounting" is a critical predictor of financial health and wealth accumulation (Adamus and Grežo, 2021; DeHart and Odum, 2015; Shaffer, 2020). Conversely, a focus on the present is closely linked to impulsive behavior, increased risk-taking, and impulsive purchasing, as shown in recent studies (Choy and Cheung, 2018; Qureshi et al., 2025; Sekscinska et al., 2018). The combination of time perception and self-regulation capacity largely dictates financial well-being (Baumeister and Heatherton, 1996; Strömbäck et al., 2017; Van Raaij et al., 2023).

This review highlights a distinct need for a new framework. Existing literature offers an abundance of isolated variables-literacy, biases, personality traits, and time perceptions-but lacks a typological model that unifies them into a clear and applicable language. Questions such as: "Why does one investor check their portfolio obsessively (Sias et al., 2020) while another ignores it completely?" or "What distinguishes procrastination stemming from fear versus impulsivity stemming from sensation seeking?" remain insufficiently answered at the micro level.

This article seeks to bridge the gap and propose a model of "Four Financial Personas," based on the interaction between the time axis and the control/coping axis. The model does not suffice with describing static traits but maps the dynamics of decision-making. It aims to provide a deep explanation for the mechanisms driving extreme behaviors-from excessive caution to unbridled risk (Dreber et al., 2009; Masters, 1989). Beyond the theoretical contribution, the model has extensive practical implications: from designing personalized User Interfaces (UI) in financial applications, through building more effective education programs, to formulating public policy that acknowledges human diversity (Netemeyer et al., 2018).

Consequently, the guiding research question of this work is: How does the interaction between an individual’s time orientation and their locus of control and coping style explain financial behavior patterns, and what is the theoretical framework that allows for the mapping of these patterns for the purpose of constructing practical and personalized interventions?

2. Literature review

This chapter presents a comprehensive, chronological, and critical mapping of the research literature dealing with financial decision-making. The review aims not only to describe the existing body of knowledge but to expose the theoretical gaps that led to the necessity of the current model.

The review proceeds along a thematic-developmental axis: it begins with the paradigm crisis of classical economics and the rise of behavioral economics, continues with an analysis of the cognitive and emotional mechanisms of self-regulation (the "knowledge-behavior gap"), delves into the personality and biological layers explaining interpersonal variance, and concludes with an integrative synthesis leading to the definition of the dual-axis model (time and control) as the required diagnostic tool.

2.1 The Rationality Crisis: Utility Maximization vs. Psychological Reality

For most of the 20th century, accepted economic theory relied on the foundational axiom of Homo Economicus. This model, based on Expected Utility Theory, assumed that the individual is a rational agent operating in an environment of certainty or calculated risk. The assumption was that humans possess unlimited information processing capabilities and consistent preferences, and that their overarching goal is the maximization of personal utility (Kahneman and Egan, 2011). This perception dictated public policy and financial education programs for decades, under the premise that providing the public with information and mathematical tools would inevitably lead to optimal action (Kaiser and Menkhoff, 2017).

However, from the 1970s onwards, an empirical body of knowledge began to accumulate, challenging this assumption. In their work summarizing decades of research, Kahneman and Egan (2011) presented the dual structure of human cognition:

System 1: Intuitive, fast, associative, and emotional.
System 2: Logical, slow, calculated, and requiring significant mental effort.

Research has shown that financial decisions, often made under time pressure, uncertainty, and high emotional involvement, cause the individual to rely on "System 1." The result is the use of heuristics (rules of thumb) leading to systematic cognitive biases.

2.1.1 The Architecture of Bias: Prospect Theory and Loss Aversion

The historical turning point occurred with the publication of "Prospect Theory" by Kahneman and Tversky (1979). In their seminal study, the researchers presented subjects with a series of choice problems involving gambles with varying probabilities of gains and losses. The findings refuted Expected Utility Theory. The researchers found that people do not evaluate wealth in absolute terms ("total assets"), but rather as changes-gains or losses-relative to a subjective reference point (usually the status quo).

The most dramatic finding was the phenomenon of "Loss Aversion." Experiments showed that the value function is significantly steeper in the domain of losses than in the domain of gains. Empirically, the psychological pain of losing a sum of money (e.g., $100) was found to be approximately 2.25 to 2.5 times more intense than the pleasure of gaining the same amount. This asymmetry has critical implications for investor behavior, as reflected in the tendency for "risk reversal": in the domain of gains, people prefer certainty (risk-averse), but when facing losses, they are willing to gamble at high risk just to avoid realizing the loss ("breaking even").

2.1.2 Capital Market Anomalies: The Disposition Effect

While early studies were conducted under laboratory conditions, later researchers sought to examine whether these biases exist in the real capital market. Odean (1998) conducted a comprehensive analysis of trading data from 10,000 private investor accounts at a large US brokerage. He examined whether investors tend to sell winning stocks or losing stocks. The findings were unequivocal and confirmed the existence of the "Disposition Effect": investors tended to sell winning stocks too quickly to feel a sense of pride and realize profit, yet tended to hold onto losing stocks for too long, out of an irrational hope that they would bounce back and an aversion to admitting the loss. Odean proved that this behavior is suboptimal, as the sold stocks generally continued to yield excess returns over the losing stocks kept in the portfolio.

In a broader context, Barberis et al. (1998) showed in their model how this psychology affects asset prices in the market. They found that investors suffer from the "Law of Small Numbers"- drawing sweeping conclusions based on a short sequence of data (extrapolation). Thus, financial bubbles and crashes are formed, driven not by pure economic data but by investor sentiment.

2.1.3 Mental Accounting: The Fungibility Principle

Thaler expanded the scope with the theory of "Mental Accounting" (Thaler, 1985). Classical economics assumes that money is a fungible resource; that is, one dollar has no identity different from another. Thaler challenged this assumption through a series of experiments showing that people violate the principle of fungibility. He found that consumers mentally divide their money into separate "accounts" based on subjective criteria such as the source of the money (hard work vs. bonus/gift) or its intended use (saving for an apartment vs. vacation). Findings showed that people are willing to spend money defined as a "bonus" much more easily but will refuse to touch money defined as "savings," even if it means taking out an expensive loan. This phenomenon, known as "consumption from category," explains seemingly irrational behaviors (such as holding debt and savings simultaneously) and highlights that an effective financial model must consider how the individual emotionally labels their funds.

2.2 The Struggle for Execution: The Gap Between Understanding and Action

Recent literature identifies a focal shift: from the question of "what people understand" (literacy) to the more complex question-"why people fail to execute their financial plans." This phenomenon, known as the "intention-behavior gap," is explained through mechanisms of self-regulation and time management.

2.2.1 Ego Depletion and the Planner-Doer Model

Thaler and Shefrin (1981) proposed an internal Agency Theory describing the individual as two conflicting entities: the "Planner," focused on future well-being, and the "Doer," focused on satisfying present desires. To explain the Planner’s failure mechanism, Baumeister and Heatherton (1996) and Carver and Scheier (2001) developed the theory of "Ego Depletion." In laboratory studies, they showed that exerting self-control consumes mental energy (analogous to glucose).

When this resource is depleted due to stress, fatigue, or multiple decision-making tasks, the ability to resist temptation collapses. Strömbäck et al. (2017) examined this model in a broad financial context; in a study sampling thousands of participants, they found that self-control predicted financial behavior (such as saving and debt avoidance) more strongly and significantly than education level or income. This finding establishes the premise that the basis for proper financial conduct is psychological-regulatory, not just cognitive-computational.

2.2.2 Intertemporal Choice: Future Discounting

At the core of financial decision-making stands the Intertemporal Choice dilemma. Psychological research uses the concept of "Delay Discounting" to describe the rate at which humans devalue a reward the further it is in the future. DeHart and Odum (2015) and Hamilton and Potenza (2012) showed in their studies a high correlation between a "steep discounting rate" (extreme preference for the present) and a variety of risk behaviors, including addictions and financial mismanagement. Recent studies (Adamus and Grežo, 2021; Göllner et al., 2018) linked this to the concept of "Time Perspective": individuals capable of visualizing their "Future Self" tangibly tend to save more. Conversely, Choy and Cheung (2018) found that a focus on "Present Hedonism" leads to procrastination and financial inaction. This is a central anchor for our model, placing the "Time Axis" as one of the two dimensions defining the financial persona.

2.2.3 Avoidance and Repression: The Ostrich Effect

While some people act impulsively, others react to financial stress with freezing. Galai and Sade (2006) investigated the behavior of investors in the Israeli government bond market. They discovered an anomaly: liquid assets yielded significantly lower returns than less liquid assets, beyond what economic theory predicted. The psychological explanation they proposed is "The Ostrich Effect": investors prefer illiquid assets (where prices are not published daily) to "bury their heads in the sand" and avoid the emotional pain of exposure to volatility and negative information. Karlsson et al. (2009) confirmed this in a study examining login times to online investment accounts, finding that checking frequency drops dramatically when markets are down. This aspect relates directly to Action Control Theory by Kuhl (1994) and Beckmann (1994), who distinguished between "Action Orientation" (focus on solution) and "State Orientation" (wallowing in the problem and inaction). This literature provides the theoretical infrastructure for the "Control/Coping Axis" in the proposed model: the distinction between those who act upon reality and those who avoid it.

2.3 The Human Factor: Personality, Biology, and Interpersonal Variance

After establishing general mechanisms, the question arises as to why such great variance exists between people. This section examines the stable factors distinguishing between individuals.

2.3.1 The Big Five as Infrastructure for Behavior

The "Big Five" model (McCrae and John, 1992) has been extensively tested in the economic context. A literature review by Brown and Taylor (2014) and analyses of big data (Letkiewicz and Fox, 2014; Shaffer, 2020) yielded consistent findings:

Conscientiousness: Found to be the strongest predictor of saving, asset accumulation, and debt avoidance. This trait is linked to planning ability, delayed gratification, and goal adherence.
Neuroticism: Found to be linked to poor financial management. Fachrudin and Latifah (2022) showed that people with high anxiety levels tend to make rash decisions as a means of emotional regulation (e.g., shopping as compensation for low mood).

2.3.2 Biological Architecture: Genetics and Risk

Is risk propensity innate? Dreber et al. (2009) conducted a pioneering study in neuro-economics, examining the link between genetic variations and investment behavior among young men. They focused on the DRD4 gene, responsible for dopamine receptors in the brain. Findings showed that carriers of the 7R allele (associated with lower dopamine sensitivity) tended significantly to take more financial risks. The biological explanation is that these individuals require a higher level of stimulation ("Sensation Seeking") to feel arousal and satisfaction; thus, conservative financial management is experienced by them as boring and unrewarding. Sias et al. (2020) reinforced this direction, finding that genetic factors explain about 30% of the variance in stock market investment behavior. This implies that some financial "types" are biologically anchored, and therefore attempts at purely cognitive education ("explanation") may be ineffective for them.

2.3.3 Locus of Control

Another personality-cognitive variable, constituting a critical pillar in understanding interpersonal variance, is "Locus of Control," a concept coined by Rotter (1966). This concept distinguishes between individuals with an "Internal Locus of Control," who believe in their ability to influence their life outcomes, and those with an "External Locus of Control," who attribute success or failure to external factors (luck, fate, or "the system"). In the financial context, Cobb-Clark et al. (2016) showed that an internal locus of control is significantly positively correlated with responsible financial behavior, savings, and budgeting. The reason is that a belief in the ability to influence ("Self-Efficacy") encourages activity. Conversely, an external locus of control is linked to passivity and a sense of helplessness, preventing the individual from taking action to improve their situation even when tools are available. This distinction sharpens the understanding that the financial gap stems not only from a lack of knowledge but often from a subjective perception of inability to alter reality.

2.4 Deep Beliefs: Money Scripts and Intergenerational Transfer

Alongside biology, financial behavior is shaped by deep, pre-conscious psychological layers, termed "Money Scripts." Britt and Mentzer (2011) expanded on Klontz’s theory, identifying these scripts as core beliefs formed in childhood, often through indirect learning or economic traumas. Researchers identified four main patterns: Money Avoidance (belief that money is corrupting or immoral), Money Worship (belief that money will solve all life’s problems), Money Status (selfworth is dependent on financial status), and Money Vigilance (excessive frugality and secrecy). Unlike cognitive biases which are momentary and specific, or personality traits which are general, money scripts are stable internal narratives specific to money, operating at the unconscious level. They explain why certain behavioral patterns (such as chronic avoidance or compulsive spending) are so resistant to change, as they are anchored in the individual’s self-identity (Furnham et al., 2012).

2.5 Context and Capability: The Gap Between Financial Knowledge and Well-being

In light of psychological and behavioral findings, a shift has occurred in the perceived goal of financial interventions. A comprehensive meta-analytic review by Kaiser and Menkhoff (2017), examining 126 studies, found that classical financial education has a positive but very small and rapidly decaying effect on actual behavior. Consequently, bodies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2015) and the OECD (2025) redefined the goal as a transition from "literacy" (knowledge) to "financial well-being" and "capability." Studies by Netemeyer et al. (2018) and the Bank of Israel (2024c) show that financial well-being comprises not only the checking account balance but also a sense of security, control, and freedom of choice. Rosen and Sade (2022) even showed how different "nudges" affect different populations differently, necessitating the personalization of financial solutions based on the individual’s specific psychological profile.

2.6 Integrative Summary: Rationale for a Dual-Axis Model

The literature review reveals a complex picture of the factors influencing financial decision-making. However, out of the multitude of theories-from cognitive biases (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979), through ego depletion (Baumeister and Heatherton, 1996), to personality differences such as the Big Five model (McCrae and John, 1992) and Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966)-two meta-dimensions crystallize that organize human variance in this field:

The Time and Regulation Axis: This axis summarizes the literature dealing with the conflict between the present and the future. It ranges from impulsivity and steep discounting (System 1, Ego Depletion) to planning and delayed gratification (System 2, Future Perspective).
The Control and Coping Axis: This axis summarizes the literature dealing with the response to stress and uncertainty. It ranges from avoidance and passivity (Ostrich Effect, State Orientation, External Locus of Control) to activity and management (Action Orientation, Internal Locus of Control).

Although the literature has identified these components separately, an integrative model bringing these two axes together to create a complete typology is missing. Existing models often focus on one aspect (e.g., risk aversion) and miss the full picture. The model presented in this work aims to fill this void by mapping four "Financial Personas" generated from the intersection of the time axis and the control axis, thereby offering a more precise diagnostic tool for research and practice.

3. Conceptual Framework: The "Time and Control" Model

Following the literature review that exposed the existing theoretical gap, this chapter presents the study’s original conceptual framework. The framework proposes that interpersonal variance in financial behavior can be organized around two central and independent (orthogonal) psychological meta-dimensions: Time Focus and Control Focus. The selection of these two axes relies on an integrative synthesis of extensive research literature, identifying them as latent variables that consistently explain patterns of decision-making, self-regulation, and choice under uncertainty (Adamus and Grežo, 2021; Rotter, 1966). Their combination creates an "overarching structure" that unifies insights from separate disciplines into a single coherent framework, explaining why individuals with similar resources develop completely different coping strategies.

The model was developed using a methodology of theoretical synthesis, beginning with the isolation of predictors with the highest explanatory power for financial well-being from recent meta-analytical studies, and continuing with the conceptual construction of the space created by their intersection. Each of the archetypes generated in the model was logically validated against existing literature on personality and self-regulation, as detailed below.

3.1 The Time Axis: Present vs. Future

The first dimension of the model, the Time Axis, defines the individual’s dominant cognitive and motivational orientation in the decision-making process. This axis examines the dialectical tension between satisfying immediate impulses and the willingness to allocate resources for future well-being. The theoretical infrastructure for understanding this dimension relies on a combination of personality psychology and social cognition. At the core of the axis stands the "Time Perspective" theory of Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), which defines time perception as an unconscious process wherein the individual partitions the flow of experience into categories that shape reality. The current model focuses on the polarity between two central orientations: on the one hand, "Present Hedonism," characterized by sensation seeking, novelty seeking, and aversion to current effort or pain; and on the other hand, "Future Orientation," characterized by the ability to plan, set goals, and perform Self-Regulation that enables delayed gratification.

To understand the cognitive mechanism enabling (or preventing) this delay of gratification, one must address the Construal Level Theory (CLT) of Trope and Liberman (2010) and the concept of "Psychological Distance." According to this approach, there is a direct link between temporal distance and the level of mental abstraction: distant events, such as retirement, are represented in the brain at a High-level Construal (abstract), while near events are represented at a Low-level Construal (concrete). This representational gap creates a motivational asymmetry, where the concreteness of the present triggers a strong emotional response and an urge for action ("Hot System"), while the abstractness of the future is experienced as vague and lacking urgency ("Cold System").

This integration sheds new light on financial behavior. In the proposed model, the individual’s position on the time axis reflects their ability to bridge this psychological distance. At the "Present" end of the axis, money functions as a resource for immediate emotional regulation (Mood Repair); for these types, the purchase provides a concrete reward that reduces anxiety, while the future cost undergoes "Hyperbolic Discounting" and is perceived as negligible. Conversely, at the "Future" end of the axis, the individual possesses the ability to experience "Self-Continuity" with their future self. This ability allows them to perceive abstract financial products as having concrete value of security and stability, and consequently to manage risks optimally (Göllner et al., 2018).

3.2 The Control Axis: Action vs. Avoidance

While the Time Axis defines the "When" (immediacy vs. delay), the second dimension of the model, the Control Axis, defines the "How"-that is, the individual’s Coping Strategy in the face of challenges, tasks, and financial pressures. This axis constitutes an operationalization of the critical gap between intention and action, relying on an integration of two complementary psychological approaches: the cognitive and the volitional.

At the cognitive layer, the axis is based on the concept of "Locus of Control" by Rotter (1966). The model examines the behavioral expression of this belief: the difference between individuals who believe in their ability to influence reality and act out of a sense of self-efficacy, and those who experience reality as imposed upon them and tend toward passivity. At the volitional layer, the axis relies on the "Action Control" theory of Kuhl (1994), which distinguishes between two personality orientations: "Action Orientation"-characterized by the ability to regulate negative emotions quickly and translate intention into execution even under pressure; and "State Orientation"-characterized by difficulty in emotional regulation, leading to rumination (obsessive circular thinking), hesitation, and freezing.

The financial significance of this synthesis is crucial. The axis distinguishes between active behavior-including initiative, ongoing monitoring of accounts, and seeking creative solutions to crises-and avoidant behavior. This avoidant behavior, known in economic literature as "The Ostrich Effect," as defined by Galai and Sade (2006), does not necessarily stem from laziness but serves as a psychological defense mechanism. Avoiding checking the financial portfolio or delaying debt treatment allows the individual to avoid the pain of cognitive dissonance and the feeling of regret, but at the cost of losing control over reality.

3.3 The Matrix: Mapping the Space

The conceptual innovation of the current model lies in the intersection of the two independent axes described above. The synergistic meeting between the Time Axis (Motivation) and the Control Axis (Execution) creates a two-dimensional space defining four distinct action spaces. Each quadrant in this matrix is not merely a technical combination of variables but represents a unique "solution space" where the individual attempts to cope with financial uncertainty.

In the first quadrant, combining a focus on the future with high activity, a space of strategic maximization is created. This is the zone where planning meets execution, represented in the model by the "Owl" archetype. The dynamics in this quadrant are characterized by a constant attempt to impose logical order on economic reality and maximize utility over time.

In contrast, in the second quadrant, combining the same future vision with executive passivity and avoidance, a space of prevention and preservation is created. This zone, represented by the "Turtle", is characterized by the tension between knowing ("what needs to be done") and anxiety ("what will happen if I make a mistake"), leading to a strategy of fortification and security at the expense of growth.

The lower part of the matrix presents a fundamentally different dynamic, focused on the present. In the third quadrant, the combination of a focus on the present with high activity creates a space of dynamic impulsivity. This quadrant, represented by the "Cheetah", is the zone where action precedes planning, and money serves as a means for immediate satisfaction and sensation seeking.

Finally, the fourth quadrant represents the "Dead Zone" of the matrix: the meeting between a focus on the present and passivity/avoidance. This meeting creates a space of retreat and repression, represented by the "Ostrich", where a complete detachment from financial reality occurs as an emotional defense mechanism.

This mapping of the four spaces provides the conceptual infrastructure for the next chapter. While this chapter sketched the logical boundaries of the matrix, the following chapter will dive into the depths of the archetypes ("The Personas") and analyze the unique psychological, cognitive, and biological mechanisms driving each of them.

Grid with cheetah, owl, ostrich, and turtle in quadrants labeled Action, Avoidance, Present, Future. Text: Control Focus, Time Focus. — Figure 1: Conceptual map of the four financial behavior archetypes placed along two axes: Time Focus (Present–Future) and Control Focus (Avoidance–Action).

4. Defining the Personas

This chapter presents the proposed typology of the four financial personas, serving as a direct continuation of the insights consolidated in the literature review. While the previous chapter examined how cognitive biases, emotions, financial well-being, and user classification models explain separate parts of economic behavior, this chapter merges the findings into a single integrative interpretive framework. The model demonstrates how the two fundamental axes-Time Focus and Control Focus-crystallize into four distinct coping strategies, each manifesting distinct psycho-economic patterns.

The characterization below defines "Ideal Types," which do not purport to describe the full personality complexity of every individual, but rather to represent dominant coping strategies. Each profile was analyzed through an integration of cognitive mechanisms (information processing, risk perception), motivational mechanisms (anxiety regulation, reward seeking), and behavioral mechanisms.

4.1 The Owl: Strategy of Maximization and Control

(Focus: Future + Action)

The "Owl" archetype represents a synthesis between a distinct future orientation and a high sense of control. At the personality level, this profile relies on high Conscientiousness, found to be the strongest predictor of net wealth accumulation and long-term financial planning (Letkiewicz and Fox, 2014; Shaffer, 2020). For the Owl, financial uncertainty is perceived as a cognitive challenge to be solved, rather than an emotional threat to be avoided. They operate from a distinct Internal Locus of Control, under the cognitive assumption that their economic well-being depends directly on their actions, skills, and advanced planning, rather than on luck or external circumstances (Cobb-Clark et al., 2016; Rotter, 1966). This belief drives them to adopt an "Action Orientation" pattern, enabling them to regulate emotions and focus on executing complex tasks (Kuhl, 1994).

Economically, the Owl is the ultimate representative of "System 2"-the logical, slow, and analytical system (Kahneman and Egan, 2011). They constantly strive to maximize utility through systematic data collection, risk management, and comparison of alternatives. However, this behavior exposes a latent failure known in psychological literature as the "Maximizer’s Trap": the attempt to reach the most optimal solution at any cost often leads to ignoring the "search cost" and the cost of time invested in the decision-making process.

Diagnostically, the Owl’s behavior can be identified through a pattern of "Over-Monitoring." They tend to maintain meticulous (sometimes obsessive) tracking of expenses and returns, at a higher resolution than necessary. Studies show that types with a strong future orientation and high delay of gratification (Göllner et al., 2018) may exhibit patterns of asceticism in the present for the sake of the future. The boundaries of this type are defined by the effectiveness of the action: as long as data collection leads to decision and execution, the individual functions as an "Owl." However, when analysis becomes an end in itself, there is a danger of sliding into rigid patterns that do not promote true financial well-being as defined by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2015), which includes a sense of freedom and control, not just accumulation.

The Core Trap: Cognitive Load and Decision Paralysis. The Owl’s central risk lies in the paradox where the attempt to achieve absolute control leads to a loss of flexibility. Over-reliance on "System 2," which is energetically demanding, can lead to mental exhaustion (Kahneman and Egan, 2011). In situations of data overload, the aspiration for maximum precision can cause "Analysis Paralysis," a phenomenon corresponding with the less adaptive sides of state orientation (Van Putten et al., 2010).

Case Study: Daniel (32), a data analyst, dedicated an entire weekend to building a complex Excel model to compare mortgage tracks, aiming to save a minuscule interest gap of 0.05%. This behavior demonstrates a failure in "Mental Accounting" (Thaler, 1985), where the monetary value of the saving was given absolute overweight, while the "Opportunity Cost" of his free time and the missed couple’s experience (forgoing a family outing) was underpriced. Daniel’s satisfaction stemmed from the very sense of control over the data, but in practice, the resources invested exceeded the marginal utility produced.

4.2 The Turtle: Strategy of Prevention and Preservation

(Focus: Future + Avoidance)

The "Turtle" archetype shares the future perspective and responsibility with the Owl but differs fundamentally in the emotional motivation organizing their action. While the Owl operates out of an aspiration for promotion and growth, the Turtle operates under a "Prevention Focus," as defined in Regulatory Focus Theory by Higgins (1997). For the Turtle, the supreme financial goal is not profit maximization, but regret minimization and avoidance of pain or loss. The dominant cognitive mechanism in the Turtle is high-intensity "Loss Aversion" (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979); their subjective value function is particularly steep on the loss side, such that the psychological pain of losing nominal capital dramatically outweighs the utility of potential yield

At the level of "Money Scripts," the Turtle belongs to the "Money Vigilance" category, as characterized by Klontz and Britt (2012). This script links money to anxiety and suspicion, viewing savings as an existential defense measure ("defensive wall") rather than an engine for self-realization. Unlike those with an internal locus of control who act to change reality, the Turtle tends toward "State Orientation" in the sense of difficulty regulating negative emotions. The fear of regret leads them to "Omission Bias"-the tendency to prefer harm caused by inaction over harm caused by proactive action.

The economic expression of this profile is a rigid adherence to the "Status Quo Bias." This bias causes the Turtle to prefer the familiar and safe over any change, even if the change carries a distinct positive expected utility. Consequently, the Turtle consistently chooses the passive "default option" - remaining in defensive financial products and accumulating checking account balances. Behaviorally, the profile is characterized by consistent but passive saving. The most distinct diagnostic sign is extreme liquidity preference, stemming from the psychological need for immediate money availability as an anxiety reducer. A critical difference between them and the "Ostrich" lies in the level of involvement: while the Ostrich disconnects from information ("ignorance"), the Turtle monitors their accounts with vigilance and worry, but the monitoring leads to paralyzing freezing rather than entrepreneurial action.

The Core Trap: Real Value Erosion. The tragic paradox of the Turtle is that the strategy designed to provide security in the short term generates significant risk in the long term. Systematic avoidance of yielding investments exposes their capital to "Inflation Risk," eroding the real value (purchasing power) of the money. In terms of financial well-being (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2015), the Turtle fails in the "Future Security" dimension: they may reach retirement age with a nominal sum that looks impressive but does not provide the planned standard of living.

Case Study: Rachel has held a balance of approximately 250,000 ILS in her checking account for five years. Although aware of solid investment alternatives, she avoids making a change, rationalizing that "the stock market is a casino." In terms of Kahneman and Tversky (1979), Rachel is willing to pay a very expensive "insurance premium" (in the form of lost cumulative real return) for the psychological value of avoiding potential loss. Her behavior demonstrates the power of the "Money Vigilance" script, overpowering cold economic rationale.

4.3 The Cheetah: Strategy of Impulsivity and Sensation Seeking

(Focus: Present + Action)

The "Cheetah" archetype represents the most dynamic and dangerous pole in the model: a synthesis between extreme focus on the present and an intense urge for immediate action. Unlike the Ostrich, who flees from financial reality, the Cheetah charges at it, but does so out of motives of momentary satisfaction rather than organized strategy. This psycho-economic profile is anchored in deep biological and personality mechanisms, primarily the need for Sensation Seeking. Research literature links this pattern to high sensitivity to the dopaminergic reward system in the brain; as shown by Dreber et al. (2009), carriers of certain genetic variations (such as DRD4) require higher stimulation levels to experience satisfaction, translating behaviorally into financial risk-taking and chasing quick returns. This neurobiological sensitivity also explains the acute tendency for FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out): the cognitive signal of a "fleeing opportunity" activates the same reward system as actual reinforcement, creating behavioral pressure to act quickly before the opportunity vanishes.

Cognitively, the Cheetah demonstrates the bias known as "Hyperbolic Discounting" in its most extreme form. According to DeHart and Odum (2015), this pattern is characterized by assigning dramatic overweight to immediate reward while almost completely discounting future utility. Consequently, the Cheetah’s perception of money undergoes a functional distortion: money is not perceived as an asset for accumulation or a resource for security, but as a means for flow and emotional experience ("fuel for life"). This leads to a basic failure in "Mental Accounting" (Thaler, 1985): the Cheetah tends to focus exclusively on incoming cash flow (gross) and the momentary feeling of wealth it generates, while completely ignoring future liabilities, tax burdens, or the need for rainy-day liquidity. Often, spending serves as a tool for emotional regulation, where the purchase provides a short-term dopaminergic spike compensating for feelings of stress, burnout, or boredom (Fachrudin and Latifah, 2022).

The behavioral expressions of this persona are characterized by high volatility. The Cheetah tends to adopt fashionable financial trends (such as crypto day-trading or "hot" stocks) out of emotional impulse rather than analysis, and is easily swept into "Lifestyle Inflation"-a state where every increase in income is immediately translated into an increase in expenses. However, the Cheetah’s critical vulnerability is the destructive cycle of "Boom and Bust." The lack of a safety net and planning leaves them exposed to external shocks, such that any change in cash flow can lead to collapse.

Case Study: Tomer (28), a successful salesperson. Tomer used a one-time quarterly bonus to purchase a luxury car and a home cinema system in a single day, under the hedonistic rationale that "success must be celebrated." He failed to see the big picture, ignoring that the bonus barely covered the cumulative deficit in his account from previous months. Consequently, as the initial thrill faded, he was left with long-term liabilities, a choked cash flow, and increasing dependence on expensive credit, illustrating the tragic gap between income-generating ability (high) and wealth-accumulating ability (low).

4.4 The Ostrich: Strategy of Avoidance and Repression

(Focus: Present + Avoidance)

The "Ostrich" archetype represents the most complex therapeutic and behavioral challenge in the model. This is a pattern combining a lack of future planning (similar to the Cheetah) with executive passivity (similar to the Turtle). However, unlike the Turtle who acts out of calculated caution, the Ostrich acts out of a psychological defense mechanism of repression. The accepted economic terminology to describe this pattern is "The Ostrich Effect," coined by Galai and Sade (2006). Researchers showed that investors tend to actively avoid exposure to negative financial information (such as checking portfolio status during market downturns) to protect themselves from emotional pain. For the Ostrich type, this effect is not localized but becomes an overarching life strategy: the encounter with money triggers negative emotional flooding-a mix of anxiety, shame, guilt, and helplessness-and the automatic reaction is "disengagement" and intentional ignorance. At the level of psychological mechanisms, the Ostrich is characterized by extreme "State Orientation" (Kuhl, 1994), where the difficulty in regulating negative emotion leads to total freezing and inability to perform simple technical actions.

The behavioral expression of the Ostrich is quiet chaos. Unlike the Cheetah who makes consumer "noise," the Ostrich is simply not present. Diagnostic signs include unopened bank letters (physical or digital), ignoring calls from unknown numbers, and bureaucratic neglect (such as failing to claim tax refunds or duplicate insurance) stemming from fear of dealing with forms. This pattern does not necessarily stem from a lack of intelligence or lack of money, but from "Financial Paralysis." Studies show that this behavior is common among people who have experienced financial trauma or grew up in homes with "Money Avoidance" scripts (Klontz and Britt, 2012), where money was considered a taboo subject or a source of suffering.

The Core Trap: The Snowball Effect. The Ostrich’s strategy provides immediate and powerful psychological gain: short-term anxiety relief. However, the long-term price is devastating. Ignoring problems does not make them disappear but causes them to worsen exponentially: a small debt turns into a huge debt due to arrears interest, and a solvable problem turns into a legal crisis. As shown by Karlsson et al. (2009), avoidance of information creates a growing gap between objective reality and the individual’s subjective perception, until the inevitable crisis point.

Case Study: Yariv (40), a talented graphic designer, fell into a debt of 15,000 ILS following a divorce. Instead of settling the debt, he stopped opening envelopes from the bank and ignored warnings. Shame paralyzed him. Two years later, the debt swelled to 50,000 ILS due to interest and legal expenses, and his accounts were foreclosed. Yariv’s case demonstrates how a psychological defense mechanism (repression) transforms into the greatest economic threat to the individual.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Financial Personas: Psychological Drivers and Strategic Interventions

Persona	Matrix Position	Core Psychological Driver	Risk Attitude	Reality Perception Gap	Recommended Intervention
Owl	Future + Action	Control orientation and need for cognitive closure	Calculated, analytical risk-taking	Over-optimization that ignores opportunity cost over time	Decision framing; bounded choice architecture
Turtle	Future + Avoidance	Security seeking and prevention focus	Strong loss aversion	Cognitive blindness to purchasing power erosion	Gradual risk exposure; visualizing future value decay
Cheetah	Present + Action	Sensation seeking and reward orientation	High risk tolerance	Money illusion; hyperbolic discounting of future outcomes	Introducing intentional friction; automated pre-commitment saving
Ostrich	Present + Avoidance	Anxiety driven avoidance and repression	Systematic information avoidance	Dissociation from negative financial feedback to reduce dissonance	Micro-step task breakdown; self-efficacy reinforcement

5. Theoretical Discussion and Insights

This chapter aims to provide a direct answer to the research question guiding this work: How does the interaction between time perception and control style explain financial behavior patterns? While previous chapters presented the structural "skeleton" of the model (the axes and personas), the discussion below pours explanatory content into it. It demonstrates how the unique intersection between these two axes generates consistent internal logic ("Self-Adaptive Rationality") for each pattern, and explains why interventions that fail to account for this interaction are doomed to fail.

In this sense, the proposed model transcends its role as a merely descriptive mapping tool; it is a model with dynamic explanatory power, providing a broad theoretical framework for resolving existing contradictions in research literature and understanding persistent field gaps. In the following discussion, we will dive into the depths of the psychological and sociological mechanisms comprising the model, demonstrating how it sheds new light on past failures, expands the concept of human rationality, and explains complex patterns of technological adoption and social gaps.

5.1 Explaining the Failure of Generic Interventions: The Mismatch Between the Deficit Model and Psychological Reality

One of the most troubling puzzles in financial education research concerns the consistent and frustrating gap between the scope of inputs invested in information and education and the poverty of outputs obtained in behavioral change. The dominant paradigm among policymakers and regulators relies on the "Deficit Model," which assumes that undesirable financial behavior is a product of a knowledge deficit, and that filling this cognitive gap through information accessibility will necessarily lead to positive behavioral change. However, a vast body of empirical research, including comprehensive meta-analyses from the last decade, challenges the validity of this axiom. Findings indicate that improvement in financial literacy explains a minute, and sometimes statistically negligible, percentage of the variance in actual financial behavior (Strömbäck et al., 2017; Kaiser and Menkhoff, 2017). The dissonance between pedagogical investment and poor results demands a new theoretical explanation; recent studies emphasize that non-cognitive and personality factors are stronger predictors of saving behavior than mere financial knowledge (Parise and Peijnenburg, 2024). The model proposed in this work provides this framework by exposing the structural failure of these interventions: the erroneous assumption of target audience homogeneity.

Generic interventions are designed, consciously or implicitly, for the psychological profile of the "Owl"-a rational agent characterized by future orientation and high executive capability. For this type, the Deficit Model equation holds true: knowledge translates into power, and understanding leads to action. However, when the same intervention strategy is applied to profiles with different motivational and cognitive structures, it encounters barriers that are not cognitive in essence, rendering the information irrelevant or even harmful. A distinct example is seen in the analysis of "Ostrich" behavior. The failure to mobilize the Ostrich to action does not stem from a lack of intellectual understanding of their situation, but from the activation of primal emotional defense mechanisms. Professional literature describes the "Ostrich Effect" as an active tendency to avoid exposure to information that might threaten self-image or evoke anxiety (Galai and Sade, 2006; Karlsson et al., 2009). In this state, an institutional attempt to "breach" the wall of avoidance by flooding data or warnings generates emotional flooding in the Ostrich. As a paradoxical reaction, instead of the information motivating corrective action, it deepens the need for repression and emotional regulation through ignoring, thus achieving the opposite result of what was hoped for.

Similarly, the failure manifests differently but no less acutely among "Cheetah" types. Here, the gap stems not from anxiety but from a failure in self-regulation. The Cheetah demonstrates the classic intention-behavior gap; they may possess adequate financial knowledge and rationally understand the need for savings, but they fail the execution test due to cognitive biases such as "Hyperbolic Discounting," causing a systematic preference for immediate reward over future utility (Thaler and Shefrin, 1981). For the Cheetah, the problem is volitional (will-execution) rather than informational. Therefore, an educational program focusing on theoretical knowledge transfer without providing behavioral tools for hand-tying or impulse management is destined for pre-known failure, as it does not address the neurological-behavioral mechanism driving them.

A third facet of the failure is revealed through observing the "Turtle." This profile, characterized by extreme risk aversion and future orientation accompanied by anxiety, responds to information overload with freezing rather than action. The cognitive load created by multiple data points and investment options, combined with existential fear of making a mistake, leads to decision paralysis. For the Turtle, adding knowledge without building an infrastructure of psychological safety and trust only exacerbates the sense of helplessness. The synthesis of these analyses leads to the conclusion that the generic intervention is essentially elitist, as it "speaks the right language" only for a part of the population (the Owls). For the silent majority-the Ostriches, Cheetahs, and Turtles-it misses the psychological mechanism driving behavior, thus explaining the structural inefficiency of existing financial education systems.

5.2 Reinterpreting "Rationality" and the Structural Meaning of the Model’s Axes

Neo-classical economic models traditionally rely on the premise of the "Homo Economicus," striving to maximize economic utility in every decision. According to this approach, any deviation from action yielding the highest monetary profit is defined as a "failure" or "irrational" behavior. The current model challenges this dichotomy and proposes a conceptual expansion of the term to "Self-Adaptive Rationality." The central argument is that the individual’s target variables are not solely financial but include emotional and psychological resources. When behavior is examined through this prism, patterns previously seen as erroneous take on functional and coherent meaning, as they serve vital needs of emotional regulation and self-preservation.

A distinct example can be found in the analysis of the "Turtle’s" behavior. From a pure economic view, the Turtle’s decision to leave funds in a checking account during a period of soaring inflation is a losing and illogical decision. However, the model proposes analyzing this as a legitimate trade-off between different types of utility: the Turtle foregoes economic "interest yield" to purchase a product whose subjective value for them is infinite-certainty, anxiety reduction, and peace of mind. In the personal utility equation of an extreme risk-avoider, the "yield of calmness" is worth more than the nominal value of money. Studies show that time perspective directly affects risk-taking under gain and loss conditions, and that future-focused people tend to manage risk fundamentally differently from present-focused people (Sekscinska et al. , 2021). Therefore, foregoing profit is not a calculation error but a rational "insurance premium" payment for psychological stability. Similarly, the behavior of the "Ostrich," avoiding opening bank letters, is not a product of laziness or irresponsibility, but an active defense mechanism. Since exposure to financial information causes emotional flooding and real mental pain, the decision to avoid is a rational short-term decision aimed at "mood management" and minimizing immediate suffering. This understanding mandates a paradigm shift among financial advisors: attempting to convince a Turtle or Ostrich to act using logical arguments and Excel tables is doomed to fail, as it appeals to economic rationale, while the barrier driving them is rooted in psychological rationale.

Another layer of insight arises from analyzing the topological structure of the model and the relations between axes. Research literature in personality psychology often points to a positive correlation between future orientation and internal locus of control. This implies that statistically, a significant part of the population is expected to cluster along the "Main Diagonal" of the matrix-from the Owl persona (High-High), representing functional alignment, to the Ostrich persona (Low-Low), representing passivity and avoidance. Previous models tended to focus on these poles, representing "predictable" and consistent behavior.

However, the diagnostic value and theoretical innovation of the current model lie precisely in its ability to identify, characterize, and name the "Secondary Diagonal" types-the Turtle and the Cheetah. These types present a state of personality dissonance: a gap between cognition (time perception) and emotion or execution ability. The Turtle represents a dissonance between understanding the future and emotional paralysis, while the Cheetah represents a dissonance between high executive capability and planning shortsightedness. Separate identification of this group is critical, as dissonance types are those who most often fall "between the cracks" in standard interventions. They do not fit the classic profile of knowledge deficiency, and therefore require a unique strategy bridging the gap between potential and realization, addressing the internal conflict hindering them.

5.3 Technology as a Double-Edged Sword: Digital Adoption Patterns and the Accessibility Paradox

The digital revolution in financial worlds (Fintech) is perceived in literature and public discourse as a tool for investment democratization and improving economic well-being. The prevailing assumption is that removing technical barriers and improving information accessibility will serve the entire population equally. The current model challenges this optimistic assumption and proposes an alternative thesis: technology is not neutral; it serves as a "Personality Amplifier," exacerbating the user’s basic psychological tendencies. Instead of reducing behavioral gaps, the digital interface may actually widen them, depending on the individual’s position on the model’s axes.

An extreme example of the amplifier effect can be seen in the encounter between the "Cheetah" type and fast trading apps and crypto platforms. These interfaces were designed, sometimes intentionally, using Gamification techniques and immediate feedback, stimulating the brain’s dopaminergic reward system. For the Cheetah, characterized ab initio by sensation seeking and impulsivity stemming from a present-focused time perspective (Lee and Song, 2011; Gulley, 2011), technology removes the "protective friction" that existed in the old world (such as the need to call a banker). Technological efficiency becomes a trap for them: it allows translating a momentary emotional impulse into an irreversible financial action within milliseconds. In this case, high accessibility does not empower the user but empowers their regulatory failure.

Conversely, for the "Ostrich," technology is experienced as an invasive and threatening factor. While Personal Financial Management (PFM) tools may grant the "Owl" a sense of control and satisfaction through graphs and reports, for the Ostrich, the exact same tools generate anxiety. "Push Notifications" alerting to low balance or budget overruns are perceived as an intrusion into the protected psychological space. The paradox is that the technology that could help them most (automated reminders, status reflection) is the one evoking the fiercest resistance due to the pain avoidance mechanism. The result is "Digital Abandonment" or refusal to adopt tools that surface repressed reality.

Among the "Turtle" group, the adoption barrier is of a different order: a crisis of trust. The Turtle, driven by a deep need for security and risk aversion, struggles to adopt technologies perceived as intangible or as a "Black Box." Studies examining willingness to adopt innovations such as digital wallets, robo-advisors, or Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) indicate that for anxious types, the issue of privacy and data security constitutes a threshold condition preceding any functional utility of convenience or yield (Plato-Shinar et al., 2025; Hohenberger et al., 2019). The Turtle will adopt technology only after it undergoes full standardization and is proven completely stable, and often only if mediated through a human factor serving as an "Anchor of Trust." The model thus clarifies that the key to technology implementation lies not only in improving User Experience (UX) but in aligning the interface with the emotional regulation mechanisms of different users.

5.4 he Environmental Context: The Scarcity Trap and Life Under Existential Threat

The discussion of financial personas, as presented so far, might create a false impression that economic behavior is a deterministic product of innate personality traits. The current model seeks to refute this perception and emphasize that position on the matrix does not exist in a vacuum but is deeply influenced by the sociological, economic, and geopolitical context in which the individual operates. This recognition requires a sharp analytical distinction between a behavioral pattern stemming from a stable personality tendency and a behavioral pattern constituting an adaptive response to environmental and temporary stress situations (Beckmann, 1994; Kuhl, 1994).

A central pillar in understanding environmental influence is the "Psychology of Scarcity." Poverty is not merely a state of lacking material resources but a cognitive state depleting mental "bandwidth." Scarcity creates a "Tunnel Vision" effect, where human attention is entirely captured by immediate survival and coping with present crises. In this state, the cognitive capacity required for long-term planning is severely impaired. In model terms, this means chronic scarcity pushes individuals, sometimes involuntarily, toward the lower quadrants of the matrix ("Present"). In Israel, this phenomenon is particularly prominent among disadvantaged populations, such as in the Arab and Ultra-Orthodox sectors. In these sectors, structural barriers of infrastructure accessibility and low digital literacy generate behavioral patterns resembling the "Ostrich" (avoidance and disconnection) (Mesch and Talmud, 2011; Bank of Israel, 2024c). However, this classification is misleading; this is not psychological avoidance stemming from internal anxiety, but forced avoidance stemming from lack of choice and inability to interface with the modern financial system.

Furthermore, the current model requires unique adaptation to the Israeli anomaly: life under continuous security stress and existential threat. Psychological literature dealing with Terror Management Theory and collective trauma indicates that under a sense of threat to life, the human cognitive system tends to dramatically shrink time perspective. When the future is perceived as fog-shrouded or dangerous, focus naturally shifts to the "Here and Now." This dynamic may explain behavioral fluctuations at the macro level: waves of hedonistic and immediate consumption characterizing the "Cheetah" pattern (the phenomenon of "eat and drink for tomorrow we die"), serving as an emotional regulator and compensation for lost security, or alternatively, retreat into "Ostrich" behavior of gathering, freezing, and denial of the threatening reality.

In these situations, the individual’s position in the model reflects a temporary state of survival, not a character trait. This distinction is critically important for policymakers and regulators. When the source of "irrational" behavior is environmental-whether due to poverty or security trauma-classical educational solutions of "habit change" are doomed to fail and may even be perceived as detached and patronizing. Instead, the required response must be structural: creating an economic environment aimed at reducing friction, using culturally adapted "nudges" that bypass the need for complex decision-making under pressure (Rosen and Sade, 2022), and building security mechanisms increasing external certainty for the citizen. Only integration between psychological understanding of the individual and sociological analysis of the environment will allow the model to serve as an effective tool for reality change.

5.5 ynamism and Mobility in the Model: From Static Mapping to Behavioral Change

A central question arising from the typological analysis concerns the stability of personas over time. Is the position on the matrix a deterministic decree of fate, or is there a possibility for mobility toward the optimal quadrant of the "Owl"? The current model asserts that while personality tendencies are relatively stable, their behavioral expression can be shaped and changed through environmental adaptation and self-regulation tools. In fact, the model serves not only as a diagnostic tool but as a map outlining the strategy of change ("The Path to the Owl") for each type, utilizing different psychological mechanisms.

For the Cheetah, the transition toward an Owl behavior pattern (future-oriented action) does not require changing the impulsive character but creating a Choice Architecture that limits it. Economic literature suggests the use of "Commitment Devices" as an external solution to the internal self-control problem (Thaler and Shefrin, 1981). The change strategy for the Cheetah relies on saving automation and investing in mechanisms creating "Positive Friction," making impulsive withdrawal difficult. In other words, to become an Owl, the Cheetah needs a technological "Golden Cage" neutralizing the need for momentary decision-making.

In contrast, the Turtle’s challenge is the opposite: they do not need restraint but empowerment. Their transition toward the Owl slot depends on building self-efficacy and restoring trust. Studies show that gradual exposure to controlled risks, using technologies simplifying complexity and granting a sense of control (such as risk-free investment simulations), can reduce anxiety levels and motivate action (Hohenberger et al., 2019). For the Turtle, the path to change passes through a cumulative experience of success that undermines freezing and reinforces internal locus of control perception.

The most complex case is that of the Ostrich. Here, mobility requires first and foremost a change in attentional focus. Since the main barrier is the pain involved in encountering information, the strategy must be based on "Dosed Exposure"-serving financial information in small, non-threatening, solution-focused doses, avoiding the activation of the repression mechanism (Karlsson et al., 2009). The goal is not to turn the Ostrich into an Owl overnight, but to motivate them first toward the Cheetah slot (present action) or the Turtle (future consciousness), as a necessary intermediate stage.

In conclusion, the model suggests that the "Owl" is not necessarily an innate personality type but an acquired functional state. By accurately identifying the starting barriers-regulation for the Cheetah, security for the Turtle, and emotional coping for the Ostrich-personalized "scaffolding" can be built, allowing each type to climb toward optimal financial behavior, even if their basic psychological motives remain different.

6. Proposals for Future Empirical Research

The model proposed in this work lays a new conceptual infrastructure for understanding financial behavior; however, to transform from a theoretical framework into a scientifically valid model, a translation of abstract concepts into measurable tools is required. The central challenge facing future research is establishing the validity and reliability of the model through a multi-layered research design, combining psychometric measurement, quantitative analyses, and longitudinal studies. This chapter outlines an operational action plan aimed at validating the dual-axis structure, examining its predictive power regarding actual behavior, and assessing its unique contribution relative to existing frameworks in the psychology of money and behavioral economics.

6.1 Developing the Measurement Tool: The Financial Persona Inventory (FPI)

The first and necessary step is the development of a standardized psychometric tool, the "Financial Persona Inventory" (FPI), which will position each individual within the matrix space based on their scores on the two central axes: the Time Axis and the Control/Action Axis. The construction of the tool will not take place in a vacuum but will rely on the integration of existing measurement scales. It should be based on foundational literature in the psychology of money, such as money attitude scales (Furnham, 1984; Yamauchi and Templer, 1982), while adapting them to the new dual-axis structure.

For the Time Axis, operationalization will be based on Zimbardo’s Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). This scale is considered the gold standard in the field and allows capturing the nuances between future orientation and various present orientations, such as Present-Hedonistic characterizing the Cheetah, and Present-Fatalistic characterizing the Ostrich (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). Using this tool will allow quantifying the subject’s "horizon of vision" and isolating the future component as a central predictor variable.

For the Control and Action Axis, a more complex synthesis is required to distinguish between a sense of control and execution ability. To this end, items from Rotter’s "Locus of Control" scale (Rotter, 1966), examining the belief in the ability to influence outcomes, should be combined with Kuhl’s Action Control Scale (ACS-90) (Kuhl, 1994). Kuhl’s scale is critical to the model, as it distinguishes between "State Orientation" characterizing hesitation and freezing (Turtle), and "Action Orientation" characterizing initiative and execution (Owl/Cheetah). The combination of these dimensions will create a weighted index of "Active Financial Capability," transcending traditional distinctions of introversion/extroversion.

6.2 Testing Construct Validity and Discriminant Validity

After formulating the research tool, the validation phase requires conducting a large-scale quantitative study on a representative sample. The central goal is to examine via Factor Analysis (both exploratory and confirmatory) whether the items indeed statistically cluster into the two independent (orthogonal) theoretical factors the model assumes, and whether the four quadrants represent distinct and stable categories

A critical layer in the validation process is establishing "Discriminant Validity" vis-à-vis the Big Five model. Literature indicates links between Conscientiousness and savings (Brown and Taylor, 2014), and between Neuroticism and financial anxiety (Fachrudin and Latifah, 2022). The research challenge is to prove that the Persona Model explains variance in financial behavior not explained by these general personality traits. Proving this "added value" will substantiate the claim that financial psychology requires dedicated diagnostic tools, and that generic personality measures are insufficient for predicting complex economic behavior.

6.3 Longitudinal Studies: Dynamics of Stability and Change

One of the open questions the model raises concerns the stability of the persona over time. To decide whether this is a stable personality trait or a changing reactive state, a longitudinal research design is required. Such a study will allow examining the "plasticity" of the model in the face of significant life events (such as dismissal, marriage, or national crises).

Based on scarcity literature and the effects of stress on cognition, it can be hypothesized that external stress situations-such as the security reality in Israel or an economic crisis-will cause a "migration" of individuals toward the avoidance and present quadrants. Combining repeated measurements over time with qualitative in-depth interviews will allow mapping these trajectories and understanding causal mechanisms. These findings will be of paramount importance for understanding the distinction between personality tendency and environmental constraint, as discussed in the previous chapter.

6.4 Examining Predictive Validity

The ultimate test of any applied model is its ability to predict behavior in the real world. To this end, a study must be designed cross-referencing self-reporting in the FPI questionnaire with objective financial data (subject to privacy and ethical limitations). Target variables will include metrics such as credit score, debt-to-income ratios, investment portfolio composition, and pension savings rates. Based on existing literature, specific research hypotheses can be formulated for each persona:

The Owl is expected to show a positive correlation with Net Worth accumulation and pension planning, aligning with findings on the link between future orientation and economic well-being (Shaffer, 2020).
The Cheetah is expected to show a correlation with high consumer debt and speculative trading patterns, as an expression of impulsivity and difficulty delaying gratification (Ahmed et al., 2023; Rook, 1987).
The Turtle, characterized by risk aversion, is expected to hold irrationally high liquidity (cash) rates and avoid capital market participation, a phenomenon linked in literature to avoidance and anxiety (Galai and Sade, 2006).
The Ostrich is expected to present information gaps ("black holes" in reporting) and avoidance of using digital monitoring tools, as part of the threatening information avoidance mechanism (Karlsson et al., 2009).

Furthermore, it would be interesting to examine the link to Subjective Financial Well-being. The definition of financial well-being is multi-dimensional and includes subjective perceptions of security and freedom of choice (Brüggen et al., 2017). It may be found that Owls, despite their good objective situation, experience high levels of worry and load (Netemeyer et al., 2018), a finding that would shed light on the psychological price of financial responsibility.

6.5 Implications for Intervention Research

Finally, the model opens a door for experimental research in the field of interventions ("Nudges"). Future research could examine whether aligning the message and financial tool to the specific persona improves results relative to a generic intervention. For example, whether using "Commitment Devices" is more effective for the Cheetah, while information simplification and cognitive load reduction are more effective for the Turtle and Ostrich (Thaler and Shefrin, 1981; Rosen and Sade, 2022). Proving the effectiveness of personalized intervention will constitute the final stamp of approval for the model’s applied validity and pave the way for policy change in financial education and fintech product design.

7. Applied Implications: From Theory to Reality-Shaping Practice

The typological model proposed in this work does not remain an abstract intellectual exercise; it carries operative potential to fundamentally transform the interface between the financial, educational, and public systems and the individual. While previous chapters dealt with diagnosis and mapping, this chapter is dedicated to "translating" psychological insights into practical tools. The discussion below will demonstrate how adopting the perspective of the four archetypes enables a transition from a generic and inefficient approach to a differential approach that maximizes the financial well-being of the individual and society.

7.1 Fintech and Adaptive Product Design

In an era characterized by Big Data richness and Artificial Intelligence capabilities, the Fintech industry stands before a perceptual revolution: the transition from "Static Design" to "Adaptive Design." Today, financial systems are capable of identifying the user’s persona not only based on questionnaires but through analyzing their "Digital Phenotype"-login patterns to the app, reaction speed to notifications, and the mix of expenses and savings (Van Putten et al., 2010; Strömbäck et al., 2017). This identification capability mandates abandoning the "One Size Fits All" paradigm in favor of interfaces responding in real-time to the user’s psychological needs.

For the Ostrich type, the digital interface is required to adopt principles of "Calm Technology." Since any excess information is experienced as a threat, the system must hide complexity, filter noise, and present only the "next best action." Using Gamification that emphasizes small and immediate victories is critical for building a sense of self-efficacy and preventing withdrawal.

Conversely, the interface designed for the Cheetah must operate in the opposite direction and generate "Positive Friction." Literature dealing with behavioral design suggests mechanisms such as a "Cooling-off Period" for large transactions or visualization illustrating the cost in terms of work hours, aiming to curb impulsivity at the moment of truth (Thaler and Shefrin, 1981).

The design challenge vis-à-vis the Turtle requires reframing financial products. According to Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997), the Turtle is driven by a Prevention Focus. Therefore, the interface should present "What If" simulations illustrating the risk of inaction (such as money erosion by inflation), and market investment products in terms of "Future Insurance" and "Value Protection," rather than "Profit Opportunity."

Finally, the Owl requires an interface granting a sense of control and management. For them, analytical dashboards, access to in-depth data, and customization options should be provided, satisfying their cognitive need for understanding and monitoring. Future applications, such as autonomous AI Agents, could act as a "Copilot" balancing user tendencies-calming the Ostrich’s anxiety and curbing the Cheetah’s gallop.

7.2 Financial Pedagogy and Differential Counseling

The model’s implications mandate a fundamental change in the classroom and the counseling room as well. The central insight is that the educator or financial advisor does not stand before an "audience," but before a collection of individuals with diverse psychological barriers. The success of the educational process depends on the ability to adopt a differential approach. Studies indicate that advisor personality and its alignment with client personality dramatically affect advice adoption and trading patterns (Tauni et al., 2018).

Work with the Ostrich requires a therapeutic-behavioral approach, focusing first and foremost on shame reduction and Desensitization-gradual and controlled exposure to numbers and economic reality, while creating a safe space. Vis-à-vis the Turtle, the pedagogical focus should be on building trust and rational risk management. The advisor must challenge catastrophic perceptions regarding the capital market and present hedging strategies as a response to the need for security.

In contrast, attempts to educate the Cheetah on manual budget management or expense tracking are usually doomed to failure due to self-regulation difficulties. The pedagogical solution for them lies in the transition from "Discipline" to "Automation." They should be directed to create "Autopilot" mechanisms (such as standing orders for savings on payday) bypassing the need for momentary decision-making. Vis-à-vis the Owl, the challenge is often the opposite-teaching them to "let go" and avoid Micromanagement, while satisfying their intellectual curiosity through advanced tools.

7.3 Public Policy: From Choice to Fairness

At the macro level, policymakers in central banks and finance ministries are required to abandon generic campaigns in favor of Psychographic Segmentation and informed use of "Choice Architecture." Designing policy adapted to different personas may dramatically increase compliance rates. Recent publications by the American Psychological Association emphasize that people save more money when financial goals are presented in a way that aligns with their personality traits (American Psychological Association, 2023).

Take, for example, the launch of a national savings program for children. Marketing the program must be executed in four parallel variations:

For the Cheetah, emphasize ease and automation ("Set and forget - money is deducted automatically").
For the Turtle, emphasize security, state guarantee, and protection of the child’s future.
For the Owl, present yield data, management fees, and analytical comparisons.

However, the greatest challenge is the Ostrich. For this population, explanation is insufficient. The state is required to set savings as a "Default Option" requiring active action to opt-out, thereby protecting the Ostrich from their tendency toward passivity.

This approach to public policy, acknowledging human diversity and rationality limits, is not only more economically efficient; it is more socially just. It prevents a situation where state benefits are utilized only by those with high literacy (Owls), and makes financial security accessible to marginalized and avoidant populations as well.

8. Limitations of the Model

Despite the explanatory and applied potential of the proposed model, it is vital to acknowledge its inherent limitations and qualify its boundaries, as required in research seeking to maintain scientific integrity and interpretive precision. Discussing these limitations does not undermine the model; on the contrary, it sharpens the conditions under which it is valid and prevents erroneous or simplistic application of its insights.

First, it must be remembered that any typological model, by its very nature, involves heuristic abstraction. The proposed two-dimensional matrix constitutes an analytical reduction of a complex, multi-dimensional, and continuous psychological reality. The division into four distinct archetypes is intended to organize thinking and identify patterns, but it does not purport to provide a deterministic or exhaustive description of human personality in all its nuances. In practice, personality traits such as time orientation or locus of control exist on a continuum rather than in rigid dichotomous categories. Consequently, many individuals in the population may be located in intermediate ("hybrid") zones or present a complex profile combining characteristics from several quadrants simultaneously, depending on the specific situation and life domain.

This limitation leads directly to the issue of context dependence. The model describes a dominant behavioral tendency, but it should not be viewed as a static predictor unaffected by external circumstances. Literature distinguishing between "Trait" and "State" teaches that financial behavior is dynamic; a person may function as a calculated "Owl" in their professional environment but demonstrate avoidant "Ostrich" patterns in their personal life under emotional load or family crisis. Furthermore, macroeconomic changes affect public "migration" on the matrix: periods of boom may fuel over-optimism and encourage "Cheetah" patterns among the general public, while recession or soaring inflation may push rational investors into a defensive "Turtle" position.

Another critical layer of limitations concerns the influence of exogenous and structural variables, and specifically the scarcity trap. The model focuses on individual psychology, but the weight of socio-economic variables must not be obscured. Psychosocial factors are closely linked to financial literacy (Murphy, 2013), and financial capability has been found to be a factor directly influencing physical and mental health (Sun and Chen, 2022). There is a real danger of "Psychologization of Poverty"-attributing poverty to flawed personality traits. It must be emphasized that present-focused behavior among poverty populations does not necessarily stem from a hedonistic personality (Cheetah) or psychological repression (Ostrich), but often from a completely rational survival constraint. Using the model to label disadvantaged populations, whose maneuvering space is already limited, would constitute a distortion of its purpose and a scientific error.

Additionally, attention must be paid to possible cultural biases. The model was developed under the inspiration of Western-individualist research literature, assuming the individual is the exclusive decision-making unit and that "financial independence" is a supreme value. In the multicultural Israeli context, this assumption requires critical examination. In collectivist and traditional societies (such as the Arab or Ultra-Orthodox sectors), financial decision-making is often familial, tribal, or communal. In these cases, social norms and community obligations ("Mutual Guarantee") may override the individual’s personality tendencies. Applying the model to these populations will require cultural adaptations and the inclusion of social influence variables not currently represented in the matrix.

Finally, it is worth noting that the model in its current format is a Conceptual Framework. Although well-anchored in existing research literature and integrating validated theories, it has not yet stood for direct empirical testing as a unified and complete model. As detailed extensively in Chapter 6, follow-up studies are required to develop dedicated measurement tools and examine the precise causal link between the personas and actual financial outcomes. Until this validation is performed, the model should be treated as a diagnostic tool generating working hypotheses (Hypothesis Generating), rather than as a proven law of nature.

9. Conclusions

This study set out to address the paradox defining the current economic era: the widening dissonance between technological prosperity and infinite information availability, and the persistent difficulty of individuals and households in making optimal economic decisions. While financial tools have become more sophisticated, algorithmic, and accessible than ever, human nature remains unchanged-complex, emotional, saturated with cognitive biases, and often helpless in the face of data overload. The central conclusion arising from the analysis is that prevalent financial failures do not necessarily stem from a "Knowledge Deficit," but from a "Misalignment" between the cold, rational system and the user’s hot psychological mechanisms.

In response to this gap, the work presented an integrative model mapping the variance in financial behavior based on the intersection of two deep psychological axes: the Time Axis (the tension between present and future) and the Control Axis (the tension between action and avoidance). The resulting topology yielded four distinct archetypes-the Strategic Owl, the Preserving Turtle, the Impulsive Cheetah, and the Avoidant Ostrich. The model does not purport to replace existing economic theories but to provide them with a "Psychological User Interface." It enables understanding, predicting, and classifying different coping patterns coherently, granting a new common language for the discourse between advisors, educators, policymakers, and the public.

The significance of the model extends beyond theoretical discourse; its power lies in its ability to generate a paradigmatic shift in the practical realm. The transition from a didactic and generic approach of "One Size Fits All" financial education to an approach of "Precision Finance" allows for generating dramatically effective interventions. Instead of trying to force the "Cheetah" to act like an accountant, or flooding the "Ostrich" with threatening information, the model proposes designing a Choice Architecture that bypasses the unique psychological barriers of each type rather than colliding with them. Applying the model in developing adaptive fintech products and designing inclusive public policy holds the potential to improve financial well-being de facto.

In conclusion, the model offers a necessary infrastructure for bridging the abyss gaping between mathematical precision and human complexity. In an era where financial systems speak the language of numbers, interest rates, and yields, human beings continue to respond in the language of emotion, meaning, and security. The model proposed in this article is an attempt to build the essential bridge that will connect these worlds in a stable, empathetic, and sustainable manner.

Want to find out what animal you are? Take our questionnaire

References

Adamus, M., & Grežo, M. (2021). Individual differences in behavioural responses to the financial threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, 110916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110916

Ahmed, Z., Ramadhan, A. S., & Pangaribuan, C. H. (2023). The influence of Big Five personality on impulse buying behavior in online shopping. Journal of E-business and Management Science, 1(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.61098/jems.v1i1.39

American Psychological Association. (2023, February 27). People save more money when their goals fit their personality traits [Press release]. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/02/save-money-personality-traits

Bank of Israel. (2024a). Skills of Israel's population by international comparison: Initial findings of the 2022–2023 PIAAC survey. https://www.boi.org.il/en/communication-and-publications/press-releases/skills-of-israel-s-population-by-international-comparison-initial-findings-of-the-2022-2023-piaac-survey/

Bank of Israel. (2024b). Annual report 2023. https://boi.org.il/en/communication-and-publications/regular-publications/bank-of-israel-annual-report/bank-of-israel-annual-report-2023/

Bank of Israel. (2024c). The Bank of Israel publishes the Statistical Bulletin for 2023. https://boi.org.il/en/communication-and-publications/press-releases/the-bank-of-israel-publishes-the-statistical-bulletin-for-2023/

Bank of Israel. (2025). Annual report 2024. https://www.boi.org.il/en/communication-and-publications/regular-publications/bank-of-israel-annual-report/bank-of-israel-annual-report-2024/

Barberis, N., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). A model of investor sentiment. Journal of Financial Economics, 49(3), 307–343.

Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7(1), 1–15.

Beckmann, J. (1994). Action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 155–196). Hogrefe & Huber.

Brüggen, E. C., Hogreve, J., Holmlund, M., Kabadayi, S., & Löfgren, M. (2017). Financial well-being: A conceptualization and research agenda. Journal of business research, 79, 228-237.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.013

Britt, S. L., & Mentzer, J. (2011). Money beliefs and financial behaviors: Development of the Klontz Money Script Inventory. Journal of Financial Therapy, 2(2), 14–37.

Brown, S., & Taylor, K. (2014). Household finances and the "Big Five" personality traits (IZA Discussion Paper No. 6940). Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press.

Choy, E. E. H., & Cheung, H. (2018). Time perspective, control, and affect mediate the relation between regulatory mode and procrastination. PLOS ONE, 13(12), e0207912. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207912

CIMA. (2018). Identify and understand clients' money scripts: A framework for using the KMSI-R. Journal of Financial Planning, 31(3), 46–55.

Cobb-Clark, D. A., Kassenboehmer, S. C., & Sinning, M. G. (2016). Locus of control and savings. Journal of Banking & Finance, 73, 113–130. https://economics.uq.edu.au/files/45875/498.pdf

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2015). Financial well-being: The goal of financial education. https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201501_cfpb_report_financial-well-being.pdf

DeHart, W. B., & Odum, A. L. (2015). The effects of the framing of time on delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.125

Dreber, A., Apicella, C. L., Eisenberg, D. T., Garcia, J. R., Zamore, R. S., Lum, J. K., & Campbell, B. (2009). The 7R polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4) is associated with financial risk taking in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(2), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.11.001

Fachrudin, K. A., & Latifah, S. (2022). Relationship between individual characteristics, neurotic personality, personal financial distress, and financial behavior. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2105565

Foltice, B., & Ilcin, P. (2019). The influences of locus of control, debt, and framing on retirement contributions. Journal of Advanced Studies in Finance, 10(1), 34–44.

Furnham, A. (1984). Many sides of the coin: The psychology of money usage. Personality and Individual Differences, 5(5), 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(84)90025-4

Furnham, A., Wilson, E., & Telford, K. (2012). The meaning of money: The validation of a short money-types measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 707–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.020

Galai, D., & Sade, O. (2006). The "ostrich effect" and the relationship between the liquidity and the yields of financial assets. The Journal of Business, 79(5), 2741–2759.

Göllner, L. M., Ballhausen, N., Kliegel, M., & Forstmeier, S. (2018). Delay of gratification, delay discounting and their associations with age, episodic future thinking, and future time perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2304. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02304

Gulley, T. (2011). The influence of time perspective on physical activity intentions and behaviors among adolescents residing in central Appalachia (Doctoral dissertation). East Tennessee State University. https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2548&context=etd

Hamilton, K. R., & Potenza, M. N. (2012). Relations among delay discounting, addictions, and money mismanagement: Implications and future directions. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 38(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2011.643978

Higgins, E.+ T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280

Hohenberger, C., Lee, C., & Coughlin, J. F. (2019). Acceptance of robo-advisors: Effects of financial experience, affective reactions, and self-enhancement motives. Financial Planning Review, 2(2), e1047.

Kahneman, D., & Egan, P. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

Kaiser, T., & Menkhoff, L. (2017). Does financial education impact financial literacy and financial behavior, and if so, when? The World Bank Economic Review, 31(3), 611–630.

Karlsson, N., Loewenstein, G., & Seppi, D. (2009). The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38(2), 95–115.

Klontz, B. T., & Britt, S. L. (2012). How clients’ money scripts predict their financial behaviors. Journal of Financial Planning, 25(11), 33–43.

Kuhl, J. (1994). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the Action Control Scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 47–59). Hogrefe & Huber.

Lee, S., & Song, E. (2011). Influences of time perspective on impulsive purchase tendency. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 21(4), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2011.9726524

Letkiewicz, J. C., & Fox, J. J. (2014). Conscientiousness, financial literacy, and asset accumulation of young adults. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 48(2), 274–300.

Masters, R. (1989). Study examines investors’ risk-taking propensities. Journal of Financial Planning, 2(3), 151–155.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

Mesch, G. S., & Talmud, I. (2011). Ethnic differences in Internet access: The role of occupation and exposure. Information, Communication & Society, 14(4), 445–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.562218

Milana, C., & Ashta, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence techniques in finance and financial markets: A survey of the literature. Strategic Change, 30(3), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2403

Netemeyer, R. G., Warmath, D., Fernandes, D., & Lynch, J. G. (2018). How am I doing? Perceived financial well-being, its potential antecedents, and its relation to overall well-being. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(1), 68-89. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx109

Murphy, J. L. (2013). Psychosocial factors and financial literacy. Social Security Bulletin, 73(1), 73–81.

Odean, T. (1998). Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? The Journal of Finance, 53(5), 1775–1798.

OECD. (2025). Supporting informed and safe use of digital payments through digital financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/21de47d1-en

Parise, G., & Peijnenburg, K. (2024). Noncognitive determinants of retirement saving behavior (Wharton Pension Research Council Working Paper No. 2024-12). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4976817

Plato-Shinar, R., Maman, L., Shema-Zlatokrilov, L., & Yaacobi, N. (2025). The willingness of the public to adopt a digital shekel. Bank of Israel. https://www.boi.org.il/media/chspotkv/new-the-willingness-of-the-public-to-adopt-a-digital-shekel.pdf

Qureshi, F. H., Sokić, K., & Khawaja, S. (2025). Impulsive buying tendencies and personality: Cognitive and affective aspects. Psychiatry International, 6(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint6010005

Richardson, T., Elliott, P., & Roberts, R. (2013). The relationship between personal unsecured debt and mental and physical health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(8), 1148–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.08.009

Rosen, M. H., & Sade, O. (2022). The disparate effect of nudges on minority groups. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 11(3), 605–643. https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfac011

Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1086/209105

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

Sekścińska, K., Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, J., & Maison, D. A. (2018). Future and present hedonistic time perspectives and the propensity to take investment risks: The interplay between induced and chronic time perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 920.

Sekścińska, K., Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, J., & Maison, D. (2021). Risky financial choices in a gain and loss decision frame – The role of chronic and situationally induced time perspectives. Current Psychology, 40(2), 853–863. https://d-nb.info/1171055307/34

Shaffer, J. A. (2020). Forethought and intelligence: How conscientiousness, future planning, and general mental ability predict net worth. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, 109853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109853

Sias, R., Starks, L., & Turtle, H. J. (2020). Molecular genetics, risk aversion, return perceptions, and stock market participation (Working Paper No. w27638). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Stanisławski, K. (2019). The coping circumplex model: An integrative model of the structure of coping with stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 694. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00694

Strömbäck, C., Lind, T., Skagerlund, K., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2017). Does self-control predict financial behavior and financial well-being? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 14, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.04.002

Sun, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2022). Is financial capability a determinant of health? Theory and evidence. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 43(4), 744–755.

Tauni, M. Z., Majeed, M. A., Mirza, S. S., Yousaf, S., & Jebran, K. (2018). Moderating influence of advisor personality on the association between financial advice and investor stock trading behavior. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 36(5), 947–968.

Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.

Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392–406.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963

Van Putten, M., Zeelenberg, M., & Van Dijk, E. (2010). Who throws good money after bad? Action vs. state orientation moderates the sunk cost fallacy. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(1), 33–36.

Van Raaij, W. F., Riitsalu, L., & Poder, K. (2023). Direct and indirect effects of self-control and future time perspective on financial well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 99, 102667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2023.102667

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669–689.

Yamauchi, K. T., & Templer, D. I. (1982). The development of a Money Attitude Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(5), 522–528. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4605_14

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271