The observed model results are displayed above in Figure 3 as well as below in Tables 5 and 6. As noted previously, the FPB variables were split between those financial planning behaviors that are done independently and those that are done with the help or consultation of others. Proactive personality had a positive influence (beta = 0.295, p-value = 0.0000) on FPB (d) and on FPB (i) (beta = 0.241, p = 0.012) but negative influence on LS (beta = -0.028 , p = 0.803). FPB (d) had a negative influence on LS (beta = -0.158, p = 0.144). FPB(i) had an influence on LS (beta = 0.246, p = 0.089). With respect to the controls, the “financial status”
variable had a positive impact on LS (beta = 0.018, p = 0.824) and health status variable had a non-significant relationship with LS (beta = 0.166, p = 0.071). Extraversion (beta = 0.111, p = 0.219) had a positive impact on LS while Emotional stability (beta = -0.281, p = 0.009) had a negative impact on LS.
The r-square or coefficient of determination measures the model’s predictive accuracy for a given endogenous variable. In Table 6, the r-square ranges from 0 to 1, with higher levels indicating higher levels of predictive accuracy. In order to evaluate the structural model, the research discipline must be considered, and latent variables, as a rule of thumb, are respectively described as substantial, moderate, or weak (Hair et al., 2013; Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009). Using this as an approximate guide, both FPB(d) (0.087) and FPB(i) (0.587) as well as LS show an r-square value of 0.0232, which are all below 0.25 and are considered weak.
Table 5 Path Coefficients
Path Coefficients Sample Mean (M) Standard Deviation (STDEV) T Statistics (|O/STDEV| ) P Values Agreeableness -> LS 0.045 0.014 0.086 0.52 0.604 Conscientiousness -> LS 0.078 0.08 0.096 0.812 0.417 Financial Status -> LS 0.018 0.031 0.08 0.222 0.824 Emotional Stability -> LS -0.281 -0.259 0.107 2.628 0.009 Extraversion -> LS 0.111 0.101 0.09 1.231 0.219 FPB (d) -> LS -0.158 -0.141 0.108 1.464 0.144 FPB (i) -> LS 0.246 0.232 0.144 1.703 0.089 Health -> LS 0.166 0.2 0.092 1.808 0.071 Openess -> LS -0.041 -0.042 0.095 0.431 0.667 PP -> FPB (d) 0.295 0.335 0.063 4.685 0 PP -> FPB (i) 0.241 0.265 0.095 2.527 0.012 PP -> LS -0.028 -0.011 0.113 0.249 0.803
Table 6 R-Square Values
R-Square R-Square Value Sample Mean
Standard Deviation T-Statistic P- Values FPB(d) 0.087 0.116 0.042 2.088 0.037 FPB (i) 0.058 0.083 0.04 1.444 0.149 LS 0.232 0.315 0.067 3.447 0.001
IV DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to examine the role that personality traits play in planning and creating a successful retirement, and how these traits impact certain behaviors such as financial planning in achieving life satisfaction during retirement. More specifically, it examines what specific personality types are more likely to prompt one to pursue planning for a successful financially sound retirement, with the expectation that ultimately this planning leads to life satisfaction during retirement. Proactive personality has been established as a key personality trait that was established empirically after the Big Five personality had become the standard. In this study, I treated proactive personality as separate and distinct trait from the Big Five and tested its link to financial planning behavior as well as life satisfaction in retirement.
With respect to H1 (Proactive personality is positively correlated with life satisfaction post- retirement, controlling for the Big Five personality traits), the model data indicate that there is no statistically significant relationship between Proactive Personality and Life Satisfaction during retirement and the path produces a beta coefficient of-0.028 (p-value = .813). This suggests that although those possessing a proactive personality trait could pursue behavioral paths that lead to an ideal retirement, there is not a significant relationship between proactive personality and life satisfaction in retirement.
With respect to H2a (Proactive personality is positively related to financial planning behavior-independent FPB(i)) and H2b (Proactive personality is positively related to financial planning behavior-dependent FPB(d)), the results of the study indicated that proactive
personality has a positive significant relationship with both FPB (d) and FPB (i). The reported beta for the path PP-FPB (d) is 0.299 (p-value = 0.00) and the beta for the path PP – FPB (i) is 0.221 (p-value = 0.008). The proactive personality trait motivates certain behaviors to achieve a desired outcome. The study aimed not only to find the link between the two constructs, but to
effectively analyze if people with proactive personality are more likely to pursue certain behaviors over others.
As a part of the analysis, a list of behaviors or activities were included that would be considered either independent or dependent. The goal when developing the financial planning behavior scale was to examine if people with proactive personality are likely to pursue financial planning behaviors that are more independent based on such behaviors such as reading books, attending a seminar, or setting up systematic savings, or if instead they are more likely to pursue activities that involve collaborating with others. Results here suggest that proactive personality leads to both types of planning behavior. This is interesting because both types of behavior are potentially important, and proactive personality seems to be associated with greater use of both types of behavior.
With respect to H3 (“The relationship between proactive personality and life satisfaction in retirement is partially accounted for by differences in financial planning behavior”), there is no mediation effect because there is no direct effect of proactive personality and life satisfaction for the mediators to account for; therefore, there is not a mediation effect by financial planning behavior. Also, neither FPB (i) nor FPB (d) had significant effects on life satisfaction in the model.
The findings of the present study are not aligned with those of previous literature that speak to several articles on the relationship between planning behavior and personality. Robb et al. (2015) concluded that personality drives what type of advice one seeks, while Bindl et al. (2012) found that proactivity leads to proactive goal striving. Other studies have concluded that personality can predict retirement behaviors (Blekesaune & Skirbekk, 2012) and that stable personality characteristics can predict retirement behaviors. It is unclear why these results were
observed in the present study given effects for proactive personality in prior research as well as effects for planning on satisfaction. It may be a sampling phenomenon, or it may be that these variables play less of a role in these phenomena than previously thought. Additional research might continue to explore these relationships in other samples.