The Role of Underconfidence in Retirement Planning and Financial Satisfaction in the United States: A Mediation and Multigroup Analysis

Mengya Wang; Suzanne Bartholomae; Jonathan Fox

doi:10.2478/irfc-2026-0002

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

The Role of Underconfidence in Retirement Planning and Financial Satisfaction in the United States: A Mediation and Multigroup Analysis

International Review of Financial Consumers

Volume 11 (2026): Issue 1 (June 2026)

By: Mengya Wang, Suzanne Bartholomae and Jonathan Fox

Open Access

|Jun 2026

Figures & Tables

Structural Equation Model Predicting Financial Satisfaction

Structural Equation Model with Education Level

Table A1.

Sample characteristics

Variable	All	By Gender		By Education
Percentage	Whole sample (20,198)	Female (10,845)	Male (9,353)	Low education (13,091)	High education (7,107)
Underconfidence	12.5	13.0	11.8***	13.2	12.4*
Overconfidence	22.8	19.8	25.4***	25.9	17.2***
Retirement planning
Calculating retirement needs	46.0	40.8	51.9***	37.3	61.4***
Employer retirement account	56.2	53.9	59.7***	45.6	76.4***
Non-employer retirement account	34.4	30.0	39.5***	23.5	57.3***
Gender
Female	54.0			57.5	47.8***
Male	46.0			42.5	52.2***
Marital Status
Married	49.0	46.5	51.9**	42.3	61.1***
Single	33.4	31.3	35.8***	37.8	25.4
Divorced/widowed/separated	17.6	22.2	12.3***	19.9	13.5
Employment Status
Work full-time	38.6	31.9	46.4***	31.1	51.7***
Work part-time	7.9	6.5	9.6 ***	8.3	7.2***
Self-employed	8.7	10.2	7.0 ***	9.5	7.2***
Homemaker	6.7	11.6	1.0 ***	8.3	3.8***
Full-time student	2.8	3.2	2.3 ***	3.7	1.1***
Permanently sick/disabled	5.6	6.3	4.9 ***	7.9	1.6***
Unemployed	8.1	8.5	7.7 ***	10.6	3.6***
Retired	21.6	21.9	21.2 ***	20.3	39.4***
Mean
Financial satisfaction (1-10)	5.9	5.5	6.5***	5.4	6.5***
Objective literacy (0-6)	3.0	2.8	3.4***	2.6	3.7***
Subjective literacy (1-7)	5.1	4.8	5.3***	4.9	5.4**
Age (1-6)	3.7	3.7	3.8	3.6	4.0***
Education (1-7)	4.4	4.3	4.6***
Income (1-10)	4.2	4.0	4.7***	3.6	5.6***

1 Note: Percentages were compared using Pearson chi-square tests; means were compared using one-way ANOVA (F-tests) to examine differences by gender and education level;

1 *p<.05;

1 **p<.01;

1 ***p<.001.

Table A2.

Correlation among key variables

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Financial satisfaction	1	-0.21***	0.33***	0.31***	0.36***
2. Underconfidence		1	-0.08***	-0.07***	-0.09***
3. Retirement needs			1	0.33***	0.38**
4. Employer retirement account				1	0.36***
5. Non-employer retirement account					1

1 Note: ***p <0.001

Table A3.

Comparison between constrained and free model by gender

	χ²	df	Δχ²	Δdf	P	CFI	RMSE A
Constrained model	1733.5	50				.933	.058
Free model	1542.2	32	191.2	18	<0.001	.944	.068
Model with following constraints
UC → RetPlan	1543.7	33	1.54	1	0.21	.938	.067
UC → Sat	1563.3	33	21.1	1	<0.001	.938	.068
RetPlan → Sat	1542.3	33	0.34	1	0.55	.938	.067

1 Note: UC = Underconfidence; RetPlan = Retirement planning behaviors; Sat = Financial satisfaction. χ² = Chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; Δ = change in degree of freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

Table A4.

Indirect and direct effects by gender

	Female	Male
Indirect effect:	-0.20	-0.26
UC → RetPlan → Sat	[-0.27, -0.12]	[-0.35, -0.17]
Direct effect:	-0.99	-1.48
UC → Sat	[-1.12, -0.84]	[-1.64, -1.32]

1 Note: The estimates are presented as unstandardized estimates; The brackets indicate unstandardized 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.

Table A5.

Comparison between constrained and free model by education level

	χ²	df	Δχ²	Δdf	P	CFI	RMSE A
Constrained model	1742.9	50				.912	.058
Free model	1485.7	32	258.2	18	<0.001	.925	.067
Model with following constraints
UC → RetPlan	1507.6	33	21.92	1	<0.001	.924	.067
UC → Sat	1485.8	33	0.15	1	0.69	.924	.066
RetPlan → Sat	1491.1	33	5.42	1	<0.05	.924	.064

1 Note: UC = Underconfidence; RetPlan = Retirement planning behaviors; Sat = Financial satisfaction. χ² = Chisquare; df = degrees of freedom; Δ = change in degree of freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

Table A6.

Indirect and direct effects by education level

	HighEd	LowEd
Indirect effect:	-0.40	-0.14
UC → RetPlan → Sat	[-0.52, -0.29]	[-0.21, -0.07]
Direct effect:	-1.17	-1.21
UC → Sat	[-1.35, -0.98]	[-1.34, -1.08]

1 Note: HighEd = Higher education (bachelor’s degree or higher); LowEd = Lower education (less than a bachelor’s degree); The estimates are presented as unstandardized estimates; The brackets indicate unstandardized 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/irfc-2026-0002 | Journal eISSN: 2508-464X | Journal ISSN: 2508-3155

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 15 - 31

Published on: Jun 30, 2026

Published by: International Academy of Financial Consumers

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Underconfidence,

retirement planning,

financial satisfaction

Related subjects:

Business and economics,

Political economics,

Economic policy,

Business management,

Corporate social responsibility (CSR), compliance management, business ethics,

Industries,

Banks, financial service provider, insurers,

Law,

Commercial law,

Consumer protection

© 2026 Mengya Wang, Suzanne Bartholomae, Jonathan Fox, published by International Academy of Financial Consumers
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 11 (2026): Issue 1 (June 2026)

The Role of Underconfidence in Retirement Planning and Financial Satisfaction in the United States: A Mediation and Multigroup Analysis

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Table A1.

Table A2.

Table A3.

Table A4.

Table A5.

Table A6.

Paradigm

My account