The specifics of the monetary culture of students

Malshakov Artem Andreevich Assistant-researcher of the Educational and Scientific Sociological Laboratory; Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 49/2 Leningradsky Ave., Moscow, 125167, Russia art.malshakov@gmail.com

Introduction

Handling money is an integral element of almost every person's daily life. Almost all aspects of social life in which an individual is involved inevitably require knowledge and money management skills from him. At the same time, the monetary sphere is constantly becoming more complicated every day: new financial instruments appear that require a proper approach and the ability to handle them, money takes on a new form – electronic varieties of money appear, which is one example of the digitalization of the economic sphere.

Monetary culture is a complex phenomenon that contains many specific features and various features. It covers various aspects of financial literacy and people's behavior in the field of monetary relations.

According to the NAFI analytical Center and the International Educational and Methodological Center for Financial Monitoring (IUMCFM), one in two (53%) young Russians believes that they do not have enough knowledge about the basics of financial security to protect themselves from financial fraud and other risks of losing money ^[1]. And 87% of young people expressed a desire to increase their awareness of this topic. Another NAFI study showed that the majority of Russian residents (91%) have experienced fraud attempts over the past year – this is 9% more than in 2022 ^[2]. According to the Central Bank of Russia, since the beginning of 2023, fraudsters have stolen 4.5 billion rubles from Russian accounts, which is 30% more than in the whole of last year ^[3]. And according to statistics from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, young people are more often victims of fraudsters, more often than other age groups ^[4].

Thus, a problematic situation is emerging, where, on the one hand, the field of money functioning is becoming increasingly complex, requiring people to have knowledge and financial management skills. On the other hand, many citizens, especially young people, do not have sufficient competence in this area, which can lead to financial problems. At the same time, in a turbulent economy, this problem becomes even more acute.

Literature review

A number of Russian authors have studied the monetary culture of youth in its various manifestations: O. M. Dudina and P. V. Razov considered monetary culture in its structural context ^[5], D. Y. Rogachev analyzed the financial behavior of students ^[6], K. A. Golubeva considered the financial literacy of students ^[7], V. O. Mokhova, A. A. Nikitina, K. A. Solovyova studied the relationship between students' attitude to money and their life orientations ^[8], M. A. Proskrura and N. V. Alikperova studied the insurance behavior of Russian students ^[9].

Foreign authors also explored various aspects of the monetary culture of students: T. A. Ajayi, O. V. Ugwoke, E. O. Onyeanu, R. O. Ugwoke, A. R. Onuorah studied the monetary behavior and financial literacy of accounting students ^[10], J. Manoj, A. K. Sudhakaran studied the practices of student money management ^[11], Z. Zéman, B. G. Kálmán, J. Bárczi, L. Pataki considered the impact of crises on the financial behavior of students ^[12], D. Yankovich, N. Rathee, V. S. Rathee studied the credit behavior of students of higher educational institutions ^[13], P. C. Andreou, D. Philip analyzed the relationship between financial literacy of students and financial literacy of their parents ^[14].

Monetary culture is a fairly broad category in terms of content, and it includes many different aspects. Considering its typology, the following types of financial culture can be distinguished depending on the scope of its implementation: consumer, savings, credit, insurance, investment and monetary.

By monetary culture, V. G. Vinogradsky understands "a set of norms, principles, habits and traditions that people are guided by when disposing of money." In the disposal of money, the researcher sees "the whole range of possible acts of financial behavior related to both the "extraction" of funds and their use" ^[15].

When considering the personal aspect of monetary culture, S. B. Abramova defines it through "a set of social attitudes, norms and values that are the regulator of monetary behavior of a person in a certain system of socio-economic relations" ^[16].

The formation of a monetary culture is conditioned by both objective and subjective factors. The objective ones include the economic distribution system established in a particular society, as well as the value system of society, including the peculiarities of mentality and socio-cultural influence.

The subjective aspects of monetary culture cover individual beliefs, preferences and attitudes of people towards money and financial issues. O. M. Dudina identified the following factors in this category ^[17]:

· Family values and attitudes;

· value orientations and personal attitudes;

· income level;

· Level of education;

· Professional status;

· Religious beliefs;

· personal experience of participation in economic processes.

The structure of monetary culture as a financial culture will include three interrelated elements: cognitive, value and behavioral components.

The cognitive component is associated with financial literacy, as well as an understanding of the fundamentals of the functioning of the monetary system.

The value component contains a person's value orientations and ideas about the right and wrong use of money, as well as an understanding of the position of money in the value hierarchy of a person.

Based on the approach of psychologist M. Rokich, money can be considered in the context of terminal and instrumental economic values, that is, values-goals and values-means ^[18]. Thus, G. G. Sillaste noted that when considering money as instrumental values, they act for a person as a factor that helps to achieve terminal values such as happiness, comfort, security, etc. ^[19]. At the same time, based on a person's life priorities, money can also act as terminal values.

V. I. Verkhovin notes that in the mass consciousness, the attitude towards money is determined by what position they occupy in the value system ^[20]. Also, in his opinion, it is important how money is compared and regulated by social norms and values, as well as what goals dominate in different periods of a person's life cycle.

Another important value aspect of monetary culture is the attitude towards the origin of money. The social quality of monetary culture is related to the attitude of people towards their sources of income. E. R. Valuiskova believes that monetary culture can be considered positive if public opinion is dominated by the belief in the permissibility of only legitimate sources of income, or if these sources do not violate moral norms ^[21].

The third behavioral component, monetary behavior, is how people implement their monetary attitudes and values in practice (in everyday life, practice).

Different scientific fields offer different interpretations of this concept. In economics, monetary behavior is considered as part of the monetary sphere, which consists of economic sectors involved in the functioning of the monetary system. In sociology, monetary behavior is presented as a type of financial behavior based on the use and management of monetary resources, taking into account the norms, customs and rules accepted in society. Psychological research highlights approaches related to moral assessments, economic consciousness and self-awareness, economic identity of a person, as well as psychological attitude to money, which are the result of the process of economic socialization.

A. V. Yarasheva considered three types of monetary behavior: receiving, accumulating and spending money ^[22].

Thus, it should be noted that a single conceptual approach to understanding monetary culture has not developed in scientific discourse: different authors put different meanings into its definition. At the same time, many researchers, studying monetary culture, focus on only one of its components. In this regard, it is important to analyze the monetary culture in its entirety, including all its structural components.

Research methodology

The empirical part of the study involved conducting a mass questionnaire survey of students. In March 2024, 434 Financial University students enrolled in full-time bachelor's degree programs were interviewed online. A two-stage sampling was implemented in the study. At the first stage, a stratified sample was used, where faculties acted as strata. Subsamples were calculated for each faculty (Table 1).

Table 1. Size of subsamples by strata.

At the second stage, a simple random sample was used: respondents were randomly selected from each stratum (faculty). When calculating the sample of the author's research, the reliability level of the results was 95%, with an assumption of 5% error. The volume of the constructed sample totaled 392 people, while the number of people who actually took the survey was 434, which is slightly larger than the sample size.

The survey toolkit based on the operational research model included three blocks of questions: a block dedicated to monetary knowledge; a block dedicated to monetary values and a block dedicated to monetary behavior.

The first set of questions was aimed at revealing how well students are informed about various aspects of finance and money circulation, as well as how they have knowledge and understanding of the functioning of the main financial spheres (savings, lending, insurance, investing). The second set of questions was aimed at considering the monetary value orientations of students, their attitudes, ideas and stereotypes of thinking about money. The third set of questions was aimed at identifying the degree of involvement of students in the monetary sphere, to determine the experience, actions and practices implemented in the field of finance.

In order to assess the level of formation of the elements of the students' monetary culture, they were offered a number of statements that they had to evaluate: whether or not to relate to them. Based on each statement, a simple normalized index was calculated, which can be used to judge how well certain components of the monetary culture are formed. The indices were calculated using the formula: i = a*1 + b*0.75 + c*0.5 + d*0.25 + e*0, where a is the proportion of positive responses ("Completely agree"), b, c and d are intermediate responses, e is the proportion of negative responses ("Completely disagree"). Since a five-term scale was used in the construction of questions, each division of the scale was assigned a weight (proportional to each answer option: 1, 0,75, 0,5, 0,25, 0). The resulting index value varies from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating a low degree of severity of the measured characteristic, 0.5 – intermediate, and 1 – the highest.

Based on the results of the calculation of the indices, a correlation analysis was carried out to determine the relationship between various elements of monetary culture and socio-demographic characteristics of students.

Based on the obtained indices of monetary knowledge and practices, a hierarchical cluster analysis using the Word method was carried out. According to the clustering results, when selecting 3 clusters, 92.2% of the initial grouped observations were classified correctly; a fairly high value, which indicates the reproducibility of the solution.

Due to the fact that the results of the calculation of the indices demonstrated an average degree of formation and their values turned out to be close to each other, when comparing them, a one-factor analysis of variance was additionally performed to determine the level of significance of the differences, which showed that the differences are statistically significant (Sig. = 0).

The results of the study

Monetary knowledge. In accordance with the first set of questions, the level of formation of students' monetary knowledge was first measured: the corresponding indices were calculated. The values of the indices obtained for each judgment are shown in Figure 1. It should be noted that a factor analysis was also carried out, which confirmed the calculation of the aggregated index: all the variables used in the index measure the same indicator (factor) – monetary knowledge.

Figure 1. Indices of students' monetary knowledge.

In general, the index value of monetary knowledge (the aggregated index of monetary knowledge) was I=0.66.

It can be noted that students have a greater understanding of how wages are calculated (I=0.76), an understanding of the general principles of lending (I=0.73), as well as an understanding of the difference in risks in credit cooperatives and microfinance organizations compared with banks (I=0.73). Students know the main types of insurance and their potential benefits the worst (I=0.46).

The results of the correlation analysis demonstrated the presence of a weak but statistically significant relationship between a number of social characteristics of students (academic performance, financial situation, course of study) and indicators of students' monetary knowledge.

With an increase in financial situation, knowledge of such financial aspects as budget planning (correlation coefficient R=0.16), payroll (R=0.09), calculation of tax deductions (R=0.10) and the potential benefits and risks of various savings instruments (R=0.10) increases. The aggregated index of monetary knowledge in the high-resource group of students (material status above average) was I = 0.77, in turn, in the low-resource group I = 0.63.

As the course of study increases, knowledge of payroll calculation (R=0.10), calculation of tax deductions (R=0.09), as well as the main types of insurance of their potential risks (R=0.09) increases. The aggregated index value of monetary knowledge in freshmen was I=0.63, in sophomores I =0.66, and in third and fourth year students I=0.68.

The value of the aggregated index of monetary knowledge also increases in parallel with the academic performance of students: the index indicator for excellent students is at the level of I = 0.67, and for triples and twos I = 0.63.

Monetary values. In the first question of this block, students had to express their agreement or disagreement with the statement that "money is the main thing in life." The indicator of the normalized index was I= 0.48, which demonstrates the divergence in the value perception of money: for almost equal proportions of students, money is both important and not important. But it is important to note that those who expressed full agreement (8.8%) are half as many as those who expressed firm disagreement (17.0%).

This was followed by a question about the relationship to the source of income, where the respondent had to choose the statement closest to him. Three quarters of respondents (74.5%) believe that the source of income should not contradict social norms. A quarter of respondents have the opposite opinion: for 16.6% of students, the source of income can be anything; for 8.9% of students, the source of income in a crisis is also not important.

At the same time, when asked what earned money means to the respondents, more than half of the students (53.5%) replied that this is "an honest way of earning money."

It can be assumed that for some students, dishonest earnings do not always contradict social norms. And the fact that almost one in ten notes that the source of income is not important in the context of sanctions underlines the importance of external factors, such as the sanctions imposed.

Opinions were divided on the question of whether students would prefer an interesting, but less paid and creative job to an uninteresting, but highly paid one. The index of willingness to choose an uninteresting high-paying job (to the detriment of an interesting low-paid one) was I=0.52. This suggests that equally there are students who are willing to sacrifice the creative component of the work process for the sake of a high income, and there are students who are not ready to take such a step.

To measure the attitude of students towards the use of money, the question was asked about the degree of agreement with the statement "If there is money, then it needs to be spent." A normalized index was calculated, the value of which was I=0.53. This indicator indicates that students are equally determined to spend money and save money.

The analysis of students' monetary values also assumed the identification of attitudes to commit irrational and deviant monetary practices: assessment of their own tax behavior, assessment of the actions of unscrupulous taxpayers, experience in giving bribes, as well as willingness to give bribes in the future.

The majority of students (91.1%) consider themselves decent taxpayers. But it is important to note that only one in three (36.7%) expressed condemnation towards unscrupulous taxpayers. The majority (57.9%) expressed indifference to the actions of dishonest taxpayers. And 5.4% expressed support for this category.

When asked about the experience of bribery, 86.4% of students replied that they had no such experience. At the same time, 13.5% admitted that they had given a bribe. However, when asked about their willingness to pay a bribe in the future, if it would be guaranteed to help solve the problem, more than half of the respondents (56.1%) would be ready to resort to this action to some degree of confidence. One in five students (19.9%) turned out to be completely confident in their willingness to pay a bribe.

Based on questions about monetary values and questions about irrational and deviant monetary attitudes, an index of legally conscious monetary attitudes was calculated (Fig. 2). In addition, a factor analysis was carried out, which confirmed the correctness of the calculation of the aggregated index: all variables included in the calculation of the index are combined into one indicator (factor) – law-conscious monetary attitudes.

Fig.2. The index of legal-minded monetary attitudes.

The index shows how well students have formed a legal consciousness regarding money; how much their monetary attitudes do not contradict legal norms. In general, the index value is at an average level (I=0.60). Students are legally aware of their source of income, but to a lesser extent they are legally aware of corruption. The aggregated value of this index has a higher value for excellent students (I=0.69) and students studying at the Faculty of Economics and Business (I=0.68).

Monetary behavior. When analyzing monetary behavior and monetary practices, it is important to consider first of all the sources of income – where students get money from in order to use and dispose of it. For more than half of the students, the source was parental assistance (63.5%) and wages (60.7%). Also, based on this, it can be noted that 60.7% of respondents for whom wages are a source of income are working students. For every third student, the source is a scholarship (30.4%), and for every tenth – an investment (12.8%). In addition, respondents noted social benefits (benefits, subsidies, pensions), part-time work, and business income as a source of income.

One of the main aspects of money management is budget planning. Three quarters of students plan their income and expenses (74.4%). Of these, slightly more than half (52.1%) are engaged in budget planning on a regular basis.

In order to consider the culture of money management, it is important to analyze not only the budget and income of students, but also expenses. The main items of expenditure are shown in Fig. 3. (the question assumed a multiple answer).

Fig. 3. Categories of students' main expenses.

It can be stated that for most students, the main part of their expenses was food and basic necessities. But at the same time, it is interesting that those who spend their money on education are more than half as many (22.2%) as those who spend their money on recreation, entertainment and travel (51.6%). Among the "Other" options, students noted paying for housing, transportation, car maintenance, animal care, hobbies and collecting.

When analyzing student expenses, an important aspect is to consider the expenditure of available funds. If students had free money, first of all they would put it aside for accumulation – this is how 66.8% of respondents answered. One in five (20.8%) would spend this money on themselves or their loved ones. Also, some students noted that free money would be used for investing.

In the context of considering consumer behavior, it is important to identify the susceptibility to spontaneous purchases. Spontaneous purchases were understood as an unplanned, spontaneous decision to purchase a product or service made immediately before the purchase. The lack of planned expenses and a predisposition to make purchases under the influence of desires may indicate irrationality in handling money.

Three quarters (75.2%) of students noted that they had made such purchases over the past year. A third of respondents (34.9%) replied that they make such purchases once a month, another third (32.1%) spontaneously buy something every six months or less.

In a separate open question, respondents were asked what is the motive for making spontaneous purchases. Approximately equal proportions of responses were dominated by the effects of mood, emotional state (32%) and the emergence of a spontaneous desire to purchase a product / service (33%). Also among the answers are the opportunity to spend free money (15%), the opportunity to relieve stress or please yourself (12%), the impact of marketing elements – the availability of discounts, advertising, bright packaging (7%).

According to V. Zelizer's theory of multiple money, depending on the source of receiving money, the spending of this money will also differ ^[23]. In fact, more than half of the students (55.1%) replied that they spend money differently depending on what their source is.

To assess the formation of competent monetary practices, students were asked to assess the degree of their agreement with the above statements. Subsequently, a normalized index was calculated for each judgment and for everything in general. The results are shown in Figure 4. After that, a factor analysis was performed, which confirmed the correctness of the calculation of the aggregated index: all variables included in the calculation of the index measure the same indicator (factor) – monetary practices.

Fig. 4. Indices of students' monetary practices.

Index indicators demonstrate that the majority of students are literate in recognizing financial fraudsters (I=0.80) and in drawing up financial plans and goals (I=0.61).

The general (aggregated) index of monetary practices was I=0.61, which rather demonstrates the competent behavior of students in the monetary sphere. The highest value of this indicator is noted among fourth–year students (I=0.64); students of the Faculty of Finance (I= 0.67) and the Faculty of Economics and Business (I= 0.66), as well as high-resource students - I = 0.68.

On the contrary, the lowest indicators of the aggregated index are among first-year students (I=0.58); students of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications (I=0.55) and the Higher School of Management (I=0.58); low-resource students (I=0.57).

Despite the fact that students for the most part have the ability to recognize financial fraudsters, a fifth of students (20.8%) became their victims.

In order to evaluate money management practices in the main financial areas, a number of questions were formed about the actions of students in these areas. First of all, it was asked whether students have experience in the main financial fields: in the field of savings, lending, insurance, investment (Table 2). The experience in financial spheres was understood as the presence of students' actions and practices related to the use of funds in these areas.

Table 2. Students' experience in the main financial fields.

The only area where most students have any experience is saving (80.6%). The areas in which students are least involved are insurance and lending.

Next, the respondents gave their own assessment of their experience in the above areas: successful or unsuccessful. Successful experience was understood as the absence of negative consequences for the student in terms of his financial situation; unsuccessful experience, in turn, was characterized by the presence of negative consequences. The vast majority have a successful experience. However, almost one in four respondents (23.2%) who invested has had unsuccessful experience (Table 3).

Table 3. Self-assessment of students' experience in the main financial fields.

Those students who have experience in saving most often did so through a bank account (73.9%) or a savings deposit (62.9%).

To understand how literate the respondents were when applying for a loan, a list of actions was given where students had to choose the actions they performed. Most of those who used the loan services read the loan agreement, analyzed the loan terms, estimated the interest rate, assessed the material possibilities of paying off the loan and assessed the risks and possibilities of the loan – more than 64% of students. Less than half of the respondents compared different loan offers (44.1%) and analyzed credit conditions (20.5%). It is important to note that almost one in ten (9.5%) did not perform any of these actions.

One of the main indicators of competent and responsible credit behavior is the absence of overdue loan payments. Among the students who applied for a loan, almost 15% had overdue loan payments.

To assess the literacy of students' behavior in the field of insurance, an index indicator was calculated based on a question of agreement or disagreement with the proposed judgments. Thus, the indicator of the ability to distinguish the required insurance in a particular life situation was I = 0.58, and the indicator of the ability to compare different types of insurance products and make a choice based on life goals and circumstances, life cycle events was I = 0.56. The formation of these skills is at an average level.

The index indicator was also calculated to assess behavioral practices in the field of investment. Thus, the index value of the ability to compare the profitability of various investment products was I=0.65, and the indicator of the ability to assess the degree of risk of a particular investment product was I=0.63. These values indicate that the formation of these skills is slightly above average.

When investing, most students primarily pay attention to the prospects of the investment sector (50.3%). 21.8% of students pay attention to the lowest risk, and 19.5% pay attention to the highest return. At the same time, 6.1% noted that they are guided by a combination of factors, as well as a balance between risk and profitability.

Cluster analysis. Using cluster analysis, variables were selected from three semantic blocks of the questionnaire, which included such components of monetary culture as monetary knowledge, monetary values and monetary practices. The structure of each cluster (group) is shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Index values of variables of each cluster group.

The first cluster (group) is characterized by developed components of knowledge and practices. This group of students is characterized by high awareness in the aspect of financial planning, calculating government deductions, calculating wages; in the intricacies and specifics of the functioning of various financial instruments and in the financial and economic sphere as a whole. At the same time, students of this group have a well-developed practical component of monetary culture. In addition to knowledge and understanding of various aspects of the sphere of money circulation, they also implement money management practices: budget planning, following financial plans and goals, experience in using various financial instruments. At the same time, it is important to note that this cluster (in comparison with other clusters) has the largest percentage of those who have experience in the main financial fields (savings, lending, insurance, investing) and this experience, in comparison with the experience of students from other clusters, is more often positive (successful). Another specific feature of this cluster is the lack of demonstration of irrational and deviant money management practices: students of this group are mostly conscientious taxpayers who strongly condemn the actions of unscrupulous tax payers, and these students would be less willing to resort to bribery.

In quantitative terms, this is 45.7% of students. The gender ratio in this model is approximately equal: 47.7% of men and 52.3% of women. Students of the budgetary form of education prevail. The largest number of students of this model study at the faculties of finance and Economics: the Faculty of Finance (22.9%) and the Faculty of Economics and Business (15.6%).

The third cluster is the opposite of the first one. Students of this group are characterized by low indicators of monetary knowledge. The formation of the practical aspect of monetary culture is also at a low level. At the same time, their distinctive feature is a high indicator of negative (unsuccessful) experience in various financial spheres relative to other clusters. Another specific feature is that irrational and deviant practices with money are more often implemented among students of this cluster.

8.5% of students belong to this model. It is dominated by women (72.2%), as well as students on a paid basis (52.8%). The majority of students of this model study at non-financial faculties: the Faculty of Higher School of Management (27.8%) and the Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications (19.4%).

The second cluster is an intermediate group in terms of content between the first and third clusters. Students of this cluster demonstrate the formation of monetary knowledge and practices at the average level. The experience of these students in the main financial fields is rather successful, but the indicators are slightly lower than those of the first cluster. There is also ambiguity regarding irrational and deviant practices.

It is dominated by female students (74.6%), as well as students on a budget basis (57.5%). In this model, students studying at the faculties of social and technical orientation prevail: the Faculty of Information Technology and Big Data Analysis (19.5%) and the Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications (13.7%).

Students' assessment of their financial literacy. Students were asked to evaluate their own knowledge in the field of financial literacy. Self-assessment of their own knowledge demonstrated that 41.0% of students rate their knowledge at an average level, 36.2% rate slightly above average. Only one in ten rated it at a high level – 9.8%. The index value was I=0.60, which indicates that, in general, students rate their knowledge in finance slightly above average.

But at the same time, the absolute majority (89.9%) of students expressed a desire to improve their financial literacy.

When using money, 42.5% of respondents are more likely to handle it competently. Half of the respondents (52.6%) noted that literacy in using money depends on the situation.

Monetary culture. As a result of calculating three aggregate indices (the index of monetary knowledge, the index of legal monetary attitudes, the index of monetary practices), an aggregated index of students' monetary culture was formed (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. The aggregated index of monetary culture.

The aggregated index indicates that the monetary culture of students and its complex indicators are formed slightly above the average (I=0.61). The most well–formed component of monetary culture is monetary knowledge. At the same time, monetary practices are formed slightly worse – by 6 p.

The value of this index is most important for fourth-year students (I=0.66); for students of the Faculty of Economics and Business (I=0.69) and the Faculty of Finance (I=0.69). On the contrary, the lowest value is for freshmen (I=0.55), as well as for students studying at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications (I=0.57) and the Higher School of Management (I=0.58).

Conclusion

Thus, the concept of monetary culture includes three main components – monetary knowledge (cognitive component), monetary values (value component) and monetary behavior (behavioral component).

The cognitive component consists of financial literacy, knowledge related to the use of money; understanding the functioning of finance. The aggregated index value of monetary knowledge was I=0.66 – the indicator shows a level of formation slightly above average. To a greater extent, students have an understanding of how wages are calculated (I=0.76), an understanding of the general principles of lending (I=0.73), as well as an understanding of the differences in risks in credit cooperatives and microfinance organizations compared with banks (I=0.73). Students know the main types of insurance and their potential benefits the worst (I=0.46).

The value component includes monetary attitudes, beliefs, value orientations, habits, traditions, and stereotypes of thinking. The indicator of the normalized index of the value of money was I= 0.48, which demonstrates the divergence in the value perception of money: for almost equal proportions of students, money is both important and not important.

Students' legal attitudes are formed at an average level (I=0.60). Students are legally aware of their source of income, but to a lesser extent they are legally aware of corruption.

The behavioral component includes monetary behavior and monetary practices. The overall index of monetary practices was I=0.61, which rather demonstrates the competent behavior of students in the monetary sphere. Most students are literate in recognizing financial fraudsters (I=0.80) and in making financial plans and goals (I=0.61).

According to the results of the study, it can be concluded that the monetary culture of students is unevenly developed, individual structural elements are formed at a higher level than others: students' monetary knowledge is formed more pronounced than their monetary practices and legal attitudes. At the same time, the manifestation of unconscious and irrational forms of monetary attitudes and practices is also noted. The most well-formed monetary culture is among students of the faculties of financial and economic orientation, undergraduates and students with high financial status.

The results of the study can be useful in the development of recommendations, tactics, strategies and methods for improving students' financial literacy, as well as in the implementation of the state's youth policy. In addition, they can be used for educational and methodological purposes.

It should also be noted that the described methodology for studying monetary culture has certain limitations. Since the sample of this study was made up of students of a Financial University, when studying students of other universities and other regions, it is necessary to take into account the orientation of higher educational institutions, as well as the specifics of the monetary sphere and socio-cultural characteristics of a particular region.