The Psychological Architecture of Financial Decision-Making: An Analysis of Money Scripts

I. Summary: What the Money Script Research Shows

Money scripts are beliefs about money that researchers think form in childhood, and the Klontz inventory sorts them into four types: Avoidance, Worship, Status and Vigilance. In one 2011 survey of 422 people, the first three were associated with weaker finances. These are associations, not causes, and a 2025 report did not support the inventory's four-factor structure.

1.1. Introduction

Financial planning has long relied on quantitative models. Researchers in financial psychology and financial therapy have argued that beliefs and emotions also shape what people do with money. The "money script" idea is one of the better-known frameworks in that field. This review summarizes what the original studies measured, what they found, and what they did not show.

1.2. What Are Money Scripts?

Klontz and Klontz (2009) proposed that money scripts are beliefs people hold about money that are (a) developed in childhood, (b) often passed down through family systems, (c) typically unconscious, (d) shaped by context, and (e) involved in adult financial behavior.¹ In the 2011 inventory paper, this was presented as a hypothesis from earlier work. The 2011 study itself surveyed adults at one point in time, so it did not test where the beliefs came from.¹ Example items from the inventory include "Money corrupts people," "Things would get better if I had more money," and "You should not tell others how much money you have or make."¹

1.3. The Klontz Framework

Klontz, Britt, Mentzer and Klontz (2011) asked 422 people to rate their agreement with 72 money-related statements. A factor analysis produced four groups of items, which the authors named Money Avoidance, Money Worship, Money Status and Money Vigilance.¹ These four scales became the Klontz Money Script Inventory (KMSI). The inventory was later revised, cutting the number of statements from 51 to 32 (the KMSI-R).⁴ Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for the four scales ranged from .70 to .84.¹

1.4. Summary of Key Findings

In a follow-up analysis of the same 422-person sample, Klontz and Britt (2012) reported that Money Avoidance, Money Worship and Money Status scores were associated with lower net worth, lower income and more revolving credit card debt, and that Money Vigilance scores appeared to be protective.² Scores on these scales also predicted several disordered money behaviors, such as compulsive buying, pathological gambling, financial dependence and financial enabling.² These are statistical associations in a single survey. The authors themselves note that the data cannot show whether the beliefs come before the outcomes or the other way around.¹

The sample was not representative. It was a convenience sample, and the authors call it a pilot study. About 82 percent of respondents were Caucasian, the authors describe the sample as having relatively high levels of net worth and education, and the survey link went to a free listserv for financial planners, coaches and mental health providers.¹ ² The authors say the findings are limited to similar samples.¹

II. Background: How Scripts Are Thought to Form

2.1. The Proposed Mechanism

The original authors drew on social learning theory, which holds that people tend to carry beliefs about money and money skills from childhood into adult life.¹ They suggested that scripts may not help if parents or other caregivers did not have a healthy relationship with money.¹ Klontz and Klontz (2009) also hypothesized that scripts can be especially hard to change when they are tied to emotionally charged or traumatic events.¹ These are the authors' hypotheses. The 2011 study did not follow people from childhood, and its mean comparisons found no statistically significant differences in the four script scales by childhood socioeconomic status.¹ The authors did report a small correlation between higher status scores and lower childhood socioeconomic status (r = .10), and they offered it as a possible reason for overspending, not as evidence of where scripts come from.¹

2.2. Do Parents Shape How Children Handle Money?

Studies outside the money script literature give more direct evidence that parents matter, with modest effects. None of them measured money scripts.

Webley and Nyhus (2006) report that parental behavior, such as discussing financial matters with children, has a modest but consistent link to children's economic behavior and to economic behavior in adulthood.⁷ We saw this abstract through a secondary source.
Jorgensen and Savla (2010) surveyed 420 college students and found that perceived parental influence had an indirect and moderately significant influence on financial behavior, mediated through financial attitude, but did not have an effect on financial knowledge.⁸ The sample was students and the measures were self-reported.
Neppl, Senia and Donnellan (2016) followed 273 families over time. Economic hardship led to economic pressure, which was associated with parental emotional distress and couple conflict, which was associated with harsh parenting and child problem behavior.⁹ The outcome was child behavior, not adult money habits.

2.3. Differences Between Professional Groups

Klontz and Britt (2012) compared groups in their sample. Mental health professionals scored significantly higher on Money Avoidance (M = 43.06) than financial advisers (M = 38.42).² The study does not explain why. Possible reasons, such as career choice, training or the way people were recruited, were not tested here.

2.4. Scripts and Financial Behavior

Klontz and Britt (2012) used regression analysis to see which scripts predicted which behaviors in the 422-person sample. The reported patterns were:²

Compulsive buying: predicted by higher Avoidance, Worship and Status scores, and by lower Vigilance scores. The scripts together explained about 25 percent of the variance.
Pathological gambling: predicted by higher Status and lower Vigilance. About 8 percent of the variance.
Compulsive hoarding and workaholism: predicted by higher Avoidance and Worship. About 10 percent of the variance.
Financial dependence: predicted by higher Worship and Status. About 9 percent of the variance.
Financial enabling and financial denial: predicted by higher Avoidance and Worship and lower Vigilance. About 11 and 20 percent of the variance.

Even the strongest result leaves most of the variation unexplained. Prediction here is statistical, and the survey cannot show that a script causes a behavior.

III. The Klontz Money Script Inventory (KMSI and KMSI-R)

3.1. How the Inventory Was Built

The KMSI came from the 2011 factor analysis described above. A later revision (Taylor, Klontz & Britt, 2016) shortened it to 32 statements.⁴ The authors of a 2018 practitioner framework describe the KMSI-R as empirically validated to identify beliefs around money that may affect financial behaviors.⁴ They also point out the usual limits of Likert-style questionnaires, including social desirability and acquiescence bias.⁴

Evidence on the revised inventory is mixed. Taylor, Klontz and Britt (2016), the instrument's developers, reported high reliability for the KMSI-R and weak-to-moderate positive correlations with another money attitudes scale, in a student sample of 326.⁵ A 2025 report funded by the National Endowment for Financial Education found that factorial validity was not supported, with poor fit indices for the four-factor model, and that invariance across groups was not supported.⁶ We read that report only through secondary descriptions and could not confirm a journal version, so check the primary source before relying on its details. Treat the four scripts as a conversation tool, and not as a validated map of how people think.

3.2. Scoring

KMSI respondents rate agreement with each statement on a six-point scale. A higher total on a scale means a stronger tendency to agree with that scale's items.¹ ⁴ In the 2011 paper, the four scales were all positively and significantly correlated with each other.¹ That means people who score high on one scale tend to score somewhat higher on the others too, so a person is better described by a profile than by a single label.

3.3. What Each Scale Contains

Table 1: Items from the 2011 KMSI factor analysis

Script	Example items (Klontz et al., 2011)	Authors' description
Money Avoidance	"I do not deserve a lot of money when others have less than me." "Money corrupts people."	Believes money is bad or that they do not deserve it; money may stir up fear, anxiety or disgust¹
Money Worship	"Things would get better if I had more money." "More money will make you happier."	Believes more money will solve problems and bring happiness¹
Money Status	"Your self-worth equals your net worth." "People are only as successful as the amount of money they earn."	Ties self-worth to net worth; sees a clear distinction between socioeconomic classes¹
Money Vigilance	"It is important to save for a rainy day." "You should not tell others how much money you have or make."	Alertness, watchfulness and concern about money; some privacy about it¹

IV. The Four Scripts in the Original Data

A. Money Avoidance

Klontz et al. (2011) describe money avoiders as people who believe money is bad or that they do not deserve it.¹ In their discussion, the authors say people with avoidance scripts may self-sabotage their financial success, may avoid spending on reasonable purchases, or may spend or give money away so as to keep little in their control.¹ These are the authors' descriptions, not separately measured results.

In the 2011 data, higher avoidance scores were associated with being younger, non-White and unmarried, with lower education, income and net worth, and respondents who did not know their net worth scored highest.¹ The authors note they cannot tell whether low income comes first or the beliefs do.¹ Klontz and Britt (2012) found avoidance scores predicted compulsive buying, hoarding, financial enabling and financial denial.²

B. Money Worship

Money worshippers agree with statements such as "Things would get better if I had more money."¹ In the 2011 data, higher worship scores were associated with the same demographic pattern as avoidance, plus carrying credit card debt from month to month.¹ Klontz and Britt (2012) found worship scores predicted compulsive buying, hoarding, workaholism, financial dependence, enabling and denial.²

A separate 2021 study of clients of one Midwest retirement plan advisory firm found worship was positively associated with receiving investment advice from financial software and with doing one's own research.³ That study reports associations only.

C. Money Status

Status scripts tie self-worth to net worth.¹ In the 2011 data, people with higher status scores were more likely to be younger, non-White and unmarried, and to have lower education and income and a lower childhood socioeconomic status.¹ The authors suggested that status beliefs might put people raised in lower-income homes at risk of overspending or excessive risk-taking, and said they could not tell which came first.¹ Klontz and Britt (2012) found status scores predicted compulsive buying, pathological gambling and financial dependence.²

D. Money Vigilance

The 2011 authors describe vigilance as alertness, watchfulness and concern about money, and say it may encourage saving and frugality. They add that excessive wariness or anxiety can keep a person from enjoying the security money provides.¹ In the data, vigilance scores were not significantly correlated with age, income or net worth. Higher scores were associated with not carrying credit card debt from month to month and with being non-White, and the lowest income quartile scored higher than the third quartile.¹ The authors suggest that the credit finding may partly reflect vigilant people having fewer credit cards.¹ Klontz and Britt (2012) reported vigilance as a protective factor, with higher scores predicting lower compulsive buying, gambling, enabling and denial.²

V. Money Scripts and Trust in Investment Advice

5.1. The Study

Sholin, Lim, Reiter, Antonoudi and Lurtz (2021) used data from a Midwest retirement plan advisory firm to look at how money scripts relate to the use of investment advice and trust in it. They looked at four sources: family and friends, financial software, financial professionals, and one's own research.³ This review relied on the abstract and the journal editor's summary of the paper. The sample size, full results and limitations were not available to us.

5.2. Reported Associations

Table 2: Associations reported in the abstract (Sholin et al., 2021)

Money Script	Association reported
Money Avoidance	Negatively associated with trust in professional financial advice³
Money Worship	Positively associated with receiving investment advice from financial software and doing one's own research³
Money Status	Negatively associated with trusting one's own research³
Money Vigilance	Positively associated with using a financial professional for investment advice and with trusting advice from a financial professional and from family and friends³

Associations not listed here may exist. The abstract does not say whether other combinations were tested and found not significant.

5.3. What This Means in Practice

The Sholin et al. (2021) results are associations in one firm's client base. They do not show why people trust or distrust a source. Any explanation, such as a client avoiding advice because advisers remind them of money, is a hypothesis for a coach or planner to explore with the individual client.

VI. Using the Inventory: A Published Four-Step Framework

6.1. The Source

Arpin Begina, Hickingbottom, Luttrull, McCoy and Klontz (2018) published a four-step framework for financial planners who want to use the KMSI-R with clients.⁴ The framework is a practitioner proposal built around a case study of an "amalgam of clients". It was not tested in a trial.⁴ Bradley Klontz, one of the inventory's authors, is also an author of that paper.

6.2. The Framework

Step 1: Administer. The authors say the assessment may be given during discovery. Because the statements can be sensitive, they note it often makes sense to wait until trust is established. They say it may be most common in the second or third interaction, and rarely if ever in the first meeting. Options include completing it in the office or assigning it as homework. They suggest leaving the scoring key off the client's copy so clients do not misread their own results, while leaving the final call to the planner's judgment.⁴

Step 2: Analyze. Scoring is described as straightforward, but the authors say the analysis should use the results together with other subjective and objective data, including the client's financial status and readiness to change. They say this supports seeing the client as a whole person rather than as a financial snapshot.⁴

Step 3: Clarify. The planner discusses the responses with the client using open-ended questions, to learn the context behind the answers and to check that they are authentic. The authors recommend describing results rather than labeling clients with script names.⁴

Step 4: Incorporate. The planner uses the findings in the financial planning process. The authors suggest this may enhance the client's perceived value of the planning work.⁴

Arpin Begina and colleagues link the framework to the six-stage model of change (pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance and termination) as a theoretical base.⁴

6.3. Practical Ideas (Not From the Studies)

The studies above did not test any self-help exercise. The ideas below are common coaching practice, offered as starting points rather than proven methods:

Notice your first reaction to money questions and ask where it comes from.
Check whether a belief fits your goals today.
For avoidance, some practitioners suggest small regular habits, such as a short weekly review of accounts.
For status and worship patterns, some practitioners suggest asking what matters beyond money.

Table 3: The framework in one view

Step	What the authors describe	Source
1. Administer	Usually after trust is built, often the 2nd or 3rd interaction; scoring key withheld from the client	Arpin Begina et al., 2018⁴
2. Analyze	Combine scores with other data and the client's readiness to change	Arpin Begina et al., 2018⁴
3. Clarify	Open-ended dialogue about high-scoring statements	Arpin Begina et al., 2018⁴
4. Incorporate	Use the insights in planning and coaching	Arpin Begina et al., 2018⁴

VII. Conclusion

The money script research gives financial coaches a vocabulary and a screening tool. In one survey of 422 people, three scripts (Avoidance, Worship and Status) were associated with weaker financial indicators and several disordered money behaviors, and Vigilance was associated with fewer of them.¹ ² The studies are cross-sectional and the sample was not representative, so the results show patterns rather than causes. The measure's four-factor structure was not supported in an independent 2025 test. A coach can use the inventory as a way to start a conversation, and should treat any one person's score as a starting point and not a diagnosis.

Works Cited

Klontz, B., Britt, S. L., Mentzer, J., & Klontz, T. (2011). Money Beliefs and Financial Behaviors: Development of the Klontz Money Script Inventory. Journal of Financial Therapy, 2(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.4148/jft.v2i1.451
Klontz, B. T., & Britt, S. L. (2012). How Clients' Money Scripts Predict Their Financial Behaviors. Journal of Financial Planning, November 2012. https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/article/journal/NOV12-how-clients-money-scripts-predict-their-financial-behaviors
Sholin, T. L., Lim, H. N., Reiter, M., Antonoudi, E., & Lurtz, M. (2021). The Money Scripts Related to the Use and Trust of Investment Advice. Journal of Financial Therapy, 12(2). https://journals.newprairiepress.org/jft/article/id/5560/
Arpin Begina, M., Hickingbottom, J. L., Luttrull, E. G., McCoy, M., & Klontz, B. T. (2018). Identify and Understand Clients' Money Scripts: A Framework for Using the KMSI-R. Journal of Financial Planning, March 2018, 46-54. https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/MAR18%20Begina.pdf
Taylor, C. D., Klontz, B., & Britt, S. L. (2016). Reliability and Convergent Validity of the Klontz Money Script Inventory-Revised (KMSI-R). Journal of Financial Therapy, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-9771.1100
National Endowment for Financial Education (2025). Report on the factorial validity of the KMSI-R (Reiter et al., Texas Tech University). Seen through secondary descriptions only.
Webley, P., & Nyhus, E. K. (2006). Parents' influence on children's future orientation and saving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(1), 140-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.06.016
Jorgensen, B. L., & Savla, J. (2010). Financial literacy of young adults: The importance of parental socialization. Family Relations, 59(4), 465-478. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00616.x
Neppl, T. K., Senia, J. M., & Donnellan, M. B. (2016). Effects of economic hardship: Testing the family stress model over time. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 12-21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26551658/