Financial literacy and quality of life: a moderated mediation approach of fintech adoption and leisure

Abstract

Purpose

This study explores the relationship between financial literacy and quality of life (QoL). The study further examines the mediating effect of fintech adoption and the moderating effect of leisure on the relationship between financial literacy and QoL.

Design/methodology/approach

Using convenience sampling, 345 respondents participated in a cross-sectional survey. To test the moderated mediation hypotheses, the PROCESS macro was used.

Findings

The results reveal the mediating effect of fintech adoption on the relationship between financial literacy and QoL, highlighting the importance of digital literacy in an increasingly digitalized society. Moreover, leisure moderates the mediating relationship. Individuals with high leisure are more likely to perceive the uncertainties and risks associated with new technology optimistically – an observation supported by existing literature on the relationships among leisure, perceived freedom, and internal locus of control.

Practical implications

Financial literacy must incorporate digital literacy in order to utilize innovative technology for more efficient financial management. Additionally, having a sense of control over life outcomes can lead to well-being.

Originality/value

Previous research on fintech adoption is mostly related to financial inclusion for the unbanked population in underprivileged rural areas. Here, fintech usage by the general public is the focus. The study also reveals the significance of leisure, as those who have high financial literacy are more likely to adopt fintech when they have more freedom in their lives, which leads to higher QoL.

Peer review

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-10-2021-0633.

Citation

Kakinuma, Y. (2022), "Financial literacy and quality of life: a moderated mediation approach of fintech adoption and leisure", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 49 No. 12, pp. 1713-1726. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-10-2021-0633