Estate planning behaviour: A systematic literature review

Faziatul Amillia Mohamad Basir; Wan Marhaini Wan Ahmad; Mahfuzur Rahman Article Estate planning behaviour: A systematic literature review Journal of Risk and Financial Management Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Faziatul Amillia Mohamad Basir; Wan Marhaini Wan Ahmad; Mahfuzur Rahman (2023) : Estate planning behaviour: A systematic literature review, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, ISSN 1911-8074, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 16, Iss. 2, pp. 1-21, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020084 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/275152 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Basir, Faziatul Amillia Mohamad, Wan Marhaini Wan Ahmad, and Mahfuzur Rahman. 2023. Estate Planning Behaviour: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jrfm16020084 Academic Editor: Thanasis Stengos Received: 31 December 2022 Revised: 28 January 2023 Accepted: 28 January 2023 Published: 31 January 2023 Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Journal of Risk and Financial Management Systematic Review Estate Planning Behaviour: A Systematic Literature Review Faziatul Amillia Mohamad Basir 1, Wan Marhaini Wan Ahmad 1,* and Mahfuzur Rahman 2 1Department of Finance, Faculty of Business and Economics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia 2Department of Finance and Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Sharjah, Sharjah 27272, United Arab Emirates *Correspondence: wmar[email protected] Abstract: Estate planning is a financial tool for an individual to manage wealth upon his incapacitation or death. Although there are numerous studies on estate planning, there still needs to be an effort to systematically review the estate planning measurements. The paper aims to systematically review the literature published between 1990 to 2021 and evaluate the measures of estate planning and its methodological qualities. The systematic literature review process was guided by the PRISMA protocol, where the articles were selected based on established databases such as WOS, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. The final sample of 24 articles was reviewed for the estate planning measurement, and it was found that previous studies examined estate planning as a tool for financial, wealth distribution, and succession planning. The measurements of only 10 studies were found to be sufficiently validated, rendering other studies under review to be inadequate in establishing sound empirical conclusions. This review contributes to assisting future researchers in choosing well-validated measurements of estate planning and adapting them accordingly to each context. Keywords: planning measurement; estate planning; Islamic estate planning; systematic literature review 1. Introduction Estate planning has been an emerging research area in financial planning, economics, and accountancy. Understanding estate planning is essential to recognise the importance of wealth planning during a lifetime, as well as ensuring harmonious familial and social ties through smooth asset distribution upon death. From a practical perspective, estate planning could promote an efficient estate administration process that benefits a family, and eventually helps in improving a country’s social and economic development. Increasing unclaimed inheritances have been a severe issue, especially in developing countries, such as Malaysia and Singapore (Alma’amun and Kamarudin 2014). The amount of unclaimed assets in Malaysia for example has amounted to RM70 billion due to the delay in estate administration process and inadequate knowledge in estate planning (Abd. Wahab et al. 2021). Estate planning involves advanced decision-making on the distribution of assets to the next of kin or intended person(s) or charitable organization(s). The decisions can be independently decided by a person’s private information or influenced by others. As such, an individual is not making a rational choice by himself but instead following others’, a particular trait of herding behaviour. An individual that demonstrates this behaviour tends to follow, mimic of copy a majority without considering his own personal judgement (Andoko and Martok 2020;Cockburn et al. 2022;Munkh-Ulzii et al. 2018). In estate planning behaviour, the decisions are known to be an imitation of a group of individuals, and with the insufficient financial information, herding bias may exist especially during uncertain financial and economics market situations. Literature have highlighted the dependency of a person planning and deciding for his estate on the needs of the beneficiaries for J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020084 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jrfm J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 2 of 21 financial protection (Choi et al. 2019;Matchaba-Hove and Troskie 2019), and reducing family disputes (Garber 2019) and tax benefits (Venter 2014). Since estate planning is a prevalent that is associated with herding behaviour (Cockburn et al. 2022), this review provides an analysis of the associated determinants of estate planning behaviour that have been examined by previous studies. Further, there is yet a comprehensive review of existing estate planning instruments research. Past studies have shown that reviews on research instruments provide sound knowledge-based instruments to measure certain subject matter (Bing-Jonsson et al. 2013; Hanna et al. 2019). To date, literature reviews of estate planning are found to focus on narrative literature reviews that focus on Islamic estate planning (Ab Aziz et al. 2014; Abdullah et al. 2020) regarding authorship and subject patterns, research outputs, and publication type (Abdullah et al. 2020). Little effort is found that analyses a systematic review of estate planning instrumentation and methodology. A systematic literature review (SLR) has been acknowledged as a review process that locates and synthesizes relevant research that meet certain eligibility criteria in an organized, transparent, and replicable procedures (Higgins et al. 2011). There is yet a systematic literature reviews of estate planning measurement available, despite its importance for future research. As such, this review will assist future research particularly in choosing validated measurement and guide in the aspect of conceptual definitions from past studies on estate planning. This study aims to critically review and summarise the conceptual definitions and determinants used in past studies in measuring estate planning besides examining their research properties such as reliability, validity, response categories, and measurement model. Employing an integrative approach, this review checks the measurement of estate planning from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. This way, this study is hopefully of filling the current literature gap by providing a review of the estate planning instruments in terms of their conceptual definitions, determinants, and methodology. This review is significant to estate planning research in the following ways. First, it provides a more comprehensive review that focuses on estate planning measurement research properties such as reliability, validity, response categories and measurement properties. Second, in the review of the measurements, it includes the measurement of Islamic estate planning. The inclusion of this measurement into the searching criteria is essential as estate planning is an emerging research in developing countries, especially in Malaysia, due to its distinct estate legal and administration processes, as compared to those applicable to the Non-Muslims (Karunamoorthy 2017;Naiimi 2016). This review, thus, broadens the discussion on the estate planning measurement from both conventional and Islamic estate planning. This allows a richer understanding, which is pertinent to satisfy the mounting need to integrate knowledge pertaining to estate planning in various context. Finally, this review also analyses the determinants or variables that have been used by previous studies in measuring estate planning. As the herding behaviour is prevalent, especially during an individual’s financial decision-making, the analysis will in return assist future research on the associations between estate planning and herding behaviour, in which to the best knowledge of the researcher, is still not available in any literatures. As such, this systematic literature review contributes to several methodological research aspects. First, this study expands the year of review from 1991 to 2021 enabling the elucidation of the latest pattern of estate planning measurements. This can narrow the knowledge gap in providing information on trends of estate planning measurement that have been used by previous researchers, and to assist future researchers in choosing well-validated instruments for estate planning. Further, this study used three main databases to explain the estate planning measurement, namely the Web of Sciences, Scopus, and Google Scholar, while the previous review on estate planning had omitted the Web of Sciences as one of their main databases. In this sense, this review provides extensive discussion on estate planning measurement based on systematic ways. The analysis of this study can be used to help scholars identify gaps and guide future research on estate planning measurement. Overall, this study gives significance for the scholars, educators, J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 3 of 21 and researchers as it encapsulates the state-of-the-art development in the estate planning research field. The remaining part of the paper begins with the review methodology. Then, an analysis of systematic literature review (SLR) results is reported, starting with the descriptive analysis of publication trends, and followed by conceptual definitions of estate planning, its determinants, and estate planning measurement evaluation. The last part of this paper summarizes the discussion of the result and presents the limitations of the paper before proposing some future research directions. 2. Review Methodology 2.1. Review Protocol-ROSES This SLR paper uses the ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) protocol and the reason for using it is based on its suitability to review diverse perspectives from a wide array of subjects (Haddaway et al. 2018). As mentioned in ROSES protocols, the first process in the SLR paper is formulating the research questions according to the PICO method, where “P” stands for Problem or Population, “I” for Interest, and “CO” for Context (Shaffril et al. 2021). The process commences to proceed to the next strategy, which begins with document searching, followed by identification, screening, eligibility, quality appraisal, and data extraction/analysis processes to form a standard SLR paper on estate planning measurement. 2.2. Formulation of Research Question The research question can be formulated using two sources, namely: (i) the suggestions from Bing-Jonsson et al. (2013), which this study is linked with, the SLR measurement concept; and (ii) the mnemonic of PICo, where “P” signifies (population or problem), “I” (interest), and “Co” (context) (Lockwood et al. 2015). The authors applied these three main aspects as part of the review, measurement (problem), estate planning (interest), and previous scholars (context). Eventually, the authors formulate the main research questions of this study, which is as stated below. “What are the conceptual definitions and determinants used by previous scholars to measure estate planning?” “What are the methods used by previous scholars to measure estate planning?” 2.3. Systematic Searching Strategies The authors adapted three systematic searching strategies, as suggested by Shaffril et al. (2021), which include identification, screening, and eligibility. The processes that observe by observing the recognized way of locating and synthesizing the relevant studies helps in ensuring a structured and transparent SLR. 2.3.1. Identification The authors begin the identification process by rectifying the main keywords based on the formulated research questions: estate planning, measurement, and definitions. The search for main keywords is conducted through synonyms and related terms using online thesaurus (Thesaurus.com accessed on 14 February 2021), past studies, and based on experts’ opinions. After the detailed keyword searching process, several keywords were inserted, like estate planning, including will planning, wealth planning, bequest planning, intergenerational transfer planning, wealth distribution planning, estate planning decisions, and charitable estate planning. Besides, similar keywords for Islamic estate planning are also being considered to search for conventional and Islamic perspectives, namely wasiyyah planning, Islamic will, include planning, and Islamic inheritance planning. Further, the authors used keywords that are relatable to estate planning measurement searching such as define, model, concept, factors, determinants, scale, index, assessment, measure, and index, to confine the scope of the systematic literature reviews, thus emphasizing the definitions and measurement of estate planning. As word estate will interlink J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 4 of 21 with subjects such as real estate, land, farm, plantation, and forest, the authors excluded these keywords for a precise identification process. Scopus and the Web of Science are the central databases sources used during identification. The combination of these keywords uses search functions such as field code functions, phrase searching, wildcards, truncation, and Boolean operators, as suggested by Shaffril et al. (2021). A total of 437 potential articles were identified from the selected databases (see Table 1). Table 1. Search string used in the selected databases. Database String Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“estate planning”) OR (“Islamic estate planning”) OR (“will planning”) OR (“wasiyyah planning”) OR (“wealth planning”) OR ((“bequest* planning”) OR (“bequest giving”)) OR (“Islamic will planning”) OR (“Islamic inheritance planning”) OR (“intergenerational transfer planning”) OR (“wealth distribution planning”) OR (“charitable estate planning”) OR (“estate planning decision*”) AND NOT (“real estate” OR “land” OR “farm*” OR “plantation*” OR “forest*”) AND (“define*” OR “model” OR “concept*” OR “factor*” OR “determinant*” OR “scale” OR “index” OR “assessment” OR “measure*” OR “link”)) Web of Sciences TS = ((“estate planning”) OR (“Islamic estate planning”) OR (“will planning”) OR (“wasiyyah planning”) OR (“wealth planning”) OR ((“bequest* planning”) OR (“bequest giving”)) OR (“Islamic will planning”) OR (“Islamic inheritance planning”) OR (“intergenerational transfer planning”) OR (“wealth distribution planning”) OR (“charitable estate planning”) OR (“estate planning decision*”) NOT (“real estate” OR “land” OR “farm*” OR “plantation*” OR “forest*”) AND (“define*” OR “model” OR “concept*” OR “factor*” OR “determinant*” OR “scale” OR “index” OR “assessment” OR “measure*” OR “link”)) 2.3.2. Screening After the identification process, the following review process is the screening procedure, where articles need to be included or excluded from the study based on specific criteria (see Table 2). According to Kraus et al. (2020), a number of articles reviewed in SLR are subject to the maturity of the research field. This review does not initially limit the screening process to specific years of publication because estate planning is a niche topic in a less mature field. Limiting the review timeline will hinder this study’s overall aim, which focuses on measurements of estate planning. The authors considered only journal articles that emphasized their research methodology. Thus, it does not include literature reviews and discussion papers. Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Criteria Inclusion Exclusion Document type Journal articles (with empirical data and measurement). Review articles, conference proceedings, chapters in a book, conceptual papers, and others. Language English. Non-English (Malay, Spanish, French, and others). Nature of study Focus on measurement variables. Not focused on measurement variables. Area of study Social sciences (business, management, finance, accounting, and economics). Nonsocial sciences studies (engineering, medicine, forestry, land development, arts and humanities, psychology, and others). Further, English journal articles were considered to minimize confusion. Since the objective of this review is to focus on estate planning measurement, only social sciences, business, accounting, management, finance, and economics studies were considered. After a thorough selection process, 303 articles were excluded from the following review process because they did not meet the above inclusion criteria, leaving only 135 articles for the final review process. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 5 of 21 2.3.3. Eligibility The authors conducted the eligibility process by examining the keywords and themes of the papers that match the established inclusion criteria (see Table 2). Nineteen articles were excluded during the title screening stage, and during the abstract screening stage, 88 articles were removed. In total, 108 articles were excluded in this stage as they did not focus on the estate planning measurement but only on specific estate planning instruments. Hence, only 47 articles were qualified for the quality appraisal stage (see Figure 1). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24 Figure 1. Screening process flow (adapted from PRISMA 2020 diagram flow). The authors collaboratively appraise the quality of the eligible papers using the Fitzpatrick criteria mentioned above. Each article was assessed by these seven criteria with three options of “yes”, “no”, and “n/a”, which is not applicable especially for articles that used primary data sources. The article were included in the review if they passed at least three criteria (Shaffril et al. 2021). At the end of quality appraisal process, all authors agreed that all articles included in the review passed the minimum quality requirements, particularly on methodology. Out of 48, only 24 articles are finalized for the data extraction and analysis stage. The quality assessment findings are reported in Table 4. Figure 1. Screening process flow (adapted from PRISMA 2020 diagram flow). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 6 of 21 2.3.4. Quality Appraisal Following the systematic literature review process, the authors conducted a quality appraisal to ensure the quality of the articles’ content. For this review paper, the authors applied the Fitzpatrick criteria to select the estate planning outcome and assess the quality of the included instruments (Fitzpatrick et al. 1998) (see Table 3). The eight criteria that the authors should apply to evaluate estate planning measurement, based on Fitzpatrick criteria are reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness. However, this paper replicates the study of Bing-Jonsson et al. (2013), where they used only seven criteria to evaluate respondent-based outcome measures. Responsiveness is deemed to be excluded as it is unfit for this review paper since it does not involve changes of estate planning over the time. Table 3explains the selected criteria. Table 3. Criteria to evaluate estate planning measurement (adapted from Bing-Jonsson et al. 2013). Reliability Requires an instrument that is reproducible and internally consistent. Internal consistency is measured by, for example, Cronbach’s α. Reproducibility is assessed by test-retest reliability. Validity Is assessed for a specific purpose and setting. Face, content, and construct validity are the most relevant. Face and content validity can be evaluated by examining the questionnaire’s content and how it was developed. Construct validity is assessed through statistical criteria called convergent and discriminant validity. Precision Refers to the ability of the measurement to reflect actual changes or differences in estate planning measurement. One of the main influences on the accuracy of an instrument is the format of response categories, such as scales used in the questionnaire. Interpretability It measures the meaning of the scores from an instrument. It is reflected by the analysis tools used to measure estate planning. Acceptability Addresses how acceptable an instrument is for respondents to complete by eliciting respondents’ views about the instrument and evaluating the response rate. Feasibility Is concerned with how easy the instrument can administer and lead a process. This paper focuses more on the types of data collection methods that the researchers used in measuring estate planning. Appropriateness Concerns whether the instrument is appropriate to measure the intended research objectives of the study. The tools need to be focused and psychometrically sound to be considered appropriateness. The appropriateness involves a complete evaluation of the instruments considering all the criteria. The authors collaboratively appraise the quality of the eligible papers using the Fitzpatrick criteria mentioned above. Each article was assessed by these seven criteria with three options of “yes”, “no”, and “n/a”, which is not applicable especially for articles that used primary data sources. The article were included in the review if they passed at least three criteria (Shaffril et al. 2021). At the end of quality appraisal process, all authors agreed that all articles included in the review passed the minimum quality requirements, particularly on methodology. Out of 48, only 24 articles are finalized for the data extraction and analysis stage. The quality assessment findings are reported in Table 4. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 7 of 21 Table 4. Quality appraisal based on The Fitzpatrick Criteria for evaluating measurement instruments. Authors Research Design Reliability Validity Precision Interpretability Acceptability Feasibility Appropriateness Number of Criteria Fulfilled Inclusion in the Review Kim and Stebbins (2021). QN / / / / n/a / / 6\7 / Abd. Wahab et al. (2021) QL / x / / / / x 5\7 / Hutchings et al. (2020) QN x x x / x / x 2\7 x Kamarudin et al. (2020) QL / / / / / / x 6\7 / Said et al. (2020) QN / / / / x / / 6\7 / Choi et al. (2019) QN x / / / / / / 6\7 / Singh et al. (2019) QN / / / / / / / 6\7 / Mahapatra et al. (2019) QN / / x / / / x 6\7 / Basah and Tahir (2019) QN x / / / / / / 7\7 / Matchaba-Hove and Troskie (2019) QN / / / / / / / 7/7 / Koss and Baker (2018) QN / / / / x / / 6\7 / Gill et al. (2017) QN / / / / / / / 7/7 / DeBoer and Hoang (2017) QN / / / / / / / 7/7 / Sanders and Smith (2016) QN x / / / / / / 6/7 / Stark and Nicinska (2015) QN / / / / / / / 7\7 / Chong et al. (2015) QN / / / / / / / 7\7 / Brandon and Crenshaw (2015) QN / / / / / / / 7\7 / Venter (2014) QN / / / / / x / 6\7 / Sargeant and Shang (2011) QL x / / / / / / 6\7 / Wiepking et al. (2012) QN / / / / / / / 7\7 / Yu and Ting (2011) QN x / x / x x x 2\7 x Wiepking et al. (2010) QN / / / / / / x 6\7 / Van der Merwe (2010) QN / / / x / / / 6\7 / James (2009) QN / / / / / / / 7\7 / Goetting and Martin (2001) QN / / / / / / / 7\7 / File and Prince (1996) QN x x / / x x x 2\7 x Edwards (1991) QN / x / / / / / 6\7 / QN = quantitative, QL = qualitative, n/a = not applicable as it is secondary data research, / = fulfilled the quality assessment, x = not fulfilled the quality assessment. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 8 of 21 2.3.5. Data Extraction and Analyses The data extraction begins with the thematic analysis, which refers to a process of deriving the pattern of existing studies from critical reading and repetitive analysis, as suggested by Braun and Clarke (2019) and Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006). This review conducts a deductive thematic approach. The main ideas were adapted from the structure study of Bing-Jonsson et al. (2013) and Spasojevic et al. (2018), where SLR in estate planning that focuses on the research methodology is uncommon. The main ideas encompass essential methodology evaluations such as definition, indicators, and instrument evaluations. Then, with the help of two co-authors as experts, the measurement criteria were validated, and data were analysed based on the agreed structure of the analysis. After the validation, the main ideas were reduced into two, in which the Fitzpatrick et al. (1998) criteria were combined under the subtopic of instrument evaluations except for appropriateness. Finally, the instruments were evaluated based on definitions, indicators, and instrument evaluation. The ideas were maintained during the analysis, and data were extracted based on the validated main ideas and their subtopics. 3. Analysis of SLR Results This section is divided into two sections, where the first section analyses the 24 selected journal articles with estate planning as their prime discussion. Later, a detailed discussion of estate planning measurements is conducted using thematic analysis. 3.1. Descriptive Analysis of Publication Trends Figure 2demonstrates the number of estate planning publications over the years. The graphs show a flat trend from 1991 to 2007. Between 2009 and 2012, there was a steady growth shown in two journal articles for the year 2010. The significant development of estate planning publications occurred from 2015 onwards, with 2019 recording the highest number of publications at 10 articles. Over the years, estate planning has emerged, especially in the past five years. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24 et al. 2021; Brandon and Crenshaw 2015), experts (Kamarudin et al. 2020) and elderly persons (Chong et al. 2015). Samples from charity organisations also were used in the studies of Sargeant and Shang (2011) and Wiepking et al. (2010, 2012). Besides, respondents from these two articles were from family businesses in Eastern Cape Province (Matchaba-Hove and Troskie 2019) and South Africa (Van der Merwe 2010). Further, most authors used less than 300 samples for their study, which amounted to six articles (Basah and Tahir 2019; Chong et al. 2015; Edwards 1991; James 2009; MatchabaHove and Troskie 2019; Said et al. 2020). Meanwhile, two articles’ sample were in the range of 301–600 respondents (Mahapatra et al. 2019; Van der Merwe 2010), and lastly, more than 601 respondents were from the remaining three articles (Brandon and Crenshaw 2015; Gill et al. 2017; Wiepking et al. 2010, 2012). Articles that used secondary data approach vary in their databases sources. Choi et al. (2019), Koss and Baker (2018), and James (2009) used data from The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (Sonnega et al. 2014). Other authors used distinguished secondary data sources such as the National Financial Capability Study (NFCS) (Kim and Stebbins 2021), Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (Woosley et al. 2017), Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) (DeBoer and Hoang 2017), Survey on Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) (Stark and Nicinska 2015) and Study of Aging and Health Dynamics (AHEAD) (Goetting and Martin 2001). However, only Sanders and Smith (2016) used legal data sources from Co-operative Legal Services (CLS), a national law firm that analysed written wills from 1 January 2012 to 15 January 2013. Figure 2. Distribution number of articles published between 1991 to 2021. Table 5. Frequency table on country where the selected studies conducted. Country Estate Planning Islamic Estate Planning Grand Total United States 9 9 Malaysia 1 4 5 South Africa 3 3 Australia 2 2 United Kingdom 2 2 India 2 2 European countries 1 1 Grand Total 20 4 24 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 5 3 4 2 10 4 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1991 1996 2001 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Number Of Published Article Year of Publication Figure 2. Distribution number of articles published between 1991 to 2021. The analysis found that estate planning has gained substantial attention worldwide. Table 5reports the frequency of publication based on countries where the studies were conducted. Result shows that most of the publications focused in the USA context (Choi and Wilmarth 2019;DeBoer and Hoang 2017;Edwards 1991;Goetting and Martin 2001;James 2009;Kim and Stebbins 2021;Koss and Baker 2018;Sargeant and Shang 2011;Woosley et al. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 15 of 21 Further, it is found from the SLR analysis, studies also had tested external factors that drive the estate planning behaviour. Some of these variables, such as normative variable, captured the influence of other people on an individual behaviour. Sanders and Smith (2016) in this case, has tested on non-pecuniary mechanism, which involved social norms for bequest giving, while Matchaba-Hove and Troskie (2019) included family norms such as one of the determinants of estate planning decisions among family businesses. Wiepking et al. (2010), examining on charitable bequest behaviour, also covered reciprocity, altruistic, political, and religious values. 3.5. Reliability and Validity In most articles included in this study, literature reviews on estate planning were explicitly or implicitly used to argue for content validity. For instance, the seminal instrument proposed by Edwards (1991) was adapted by Gill et al. (2017) for its estate planning decisions index. Brandon and Crenshaw (2015) adopted the method of expert reviews, where four expert reviews were used to evaluate the instrument. Two instruments were evaluated for the response processes through a pilot study in pre-testing on the targeted sample. Brandon and Crenshaw (2015) conducted a pilot study at nine family business units, while Van der Merwe (2010) performed a pilot study on 43 older adults before finalising their instrument. However, not much explanation about the dimensions of the pilot study used by Brandon and Crenshaw (2015) and Van der Merwe (2010). Meanwhile, for studies that used secondary data, the evaluation of instruments is based on the guidelines by Tasi´c and Bešlin Feruh (2012), which focus on errors and bias in using secondary data in marketing research instead of focusing on reliability and validity. Evaluating instruments that use secondary data sources is based on design validity, data reformation, and dependability (Flintermann 2014;Tasi´c and Bešlin Feruh 2012). Three instruments that used secondary data sources were the reputable sources from a reputable national survey conducted to target respondents, such as INFRA-a reputable financial education foundation, established Health and Retirement Study, and Study of Aging and Health Dynamics (AHEAD). Besides, all three instruments explained the vital relationship that affected the study’s findings during the research process. Even missing values are reported in the study of Goetting and Martin (2001). The author also provides a brief justification and treatment of the missing values. Apart from that, evidence for reliability and validity was sufficiently provided. Most of the articles studied were tested for reliability and validity for instruments that opted for primary resources. Only Basah and Tahir (2019) have not reported its instrument’s reliability. Further, the instruments included in their study used diverse ways of interpreting its validity, where most of them used multiple regression analysis to evaluate its criterion validity. It has been found that recent studies were using more updated validity tests such as exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). All instruments used Cronbach Alpha regarding reliability, except for Edwards (1991), where the Hoyte reliability test was used to measure estate planning knowledge. For the instrument that used secondary data resources, its reliability and validity were evaluated as proposed by Tasi´c and Bešlin Feruh (2012). Overall, it is found that most of the instruments were assessed with sufficient psychometric tests for reliability and validity. 3.6. Precision On the precision part of the evaluation, five instruments used Likert-type scales varying from 3 to 7 as the response category. The remaining employed a dichotomous scale based on (Edwards 1991) for survey-based studies, while Goetting and Martin (2001); Kim and Stebbins (2021) for secondary data studies. Only (Edwards 1991) used different response categories, which were true/false, for its 32 items in measuring estate planning knowledge. Most instruments that opted for secondary data sources used a dichotomous scale (yes, no) coded as one respondent has a will and 0 otherwise. Table 6reported further J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 16 of 21 details regarding response categories under “precision” as it indicates the accuracy of an instrument. 3.7. Interpretability Based on the Fitzpatrick criteria, the interpretability of measurement is being assessed by looking at the analytical tools to measure estate planning. The reviewed articles found that most studies use sufficient analysis tools to report their findings. For studies that use primary data, Said et al. (2020), Matchaba-Hove and Troskie (2019), Gill et al. (2017), and Van der Merwe (2010) used multiple regression analysis in testing the research hypothesis. In reporting the estate planning measurement validity, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis are being conducted, especially in the most recent studies. However, Brandon and Crenshaw (2015) and Edwards (1991) used descriptive analysis and Pearson Chi-square analysis as their main analysis tools to measure estate planning. It is also found that in the study of Matchaba-Hove and Troskie (2019), Van der Merwe (2010), and Edwards (1991), the operationalisation of the estate planning construct is tabulated in a precise way. Regarding the secondary data-based study, most studies report its logistics regression analysis, while one study has reported robustness tests across generations (Kim and Stebbins 2021). 3.8. Acceptability and Feasibility The authors evaluate the acceptability criteria of the measurement by eliciting respondents’ views about the instrument and its response rate. Based on the reviewed instruments, most studies reported a moderate to high response rate. Whereas for those studies that reported low response rates, the justifications are explained by reporting the responses process. The final criterion under evaluation assessment, based on Fitzpatrick’s criteria, is feasibility, which concerns the data collection methods that the researchers opted for in measuring estate planning. As for primary data studies, most instruments were developed through a questionnaire. Recent studies found that an online questionnaire is an emerging data collection method compared to a physical or mail questionnaire. While for secondary data, the feasibility of all secondary data sources is aligned with the measurement of estate planning as the sources are most reliable in capturing the estate planning data of the respondents. 3.9. Appropriateness The instrument’s appropriateness is the final criterion for selecting a measurement device (Fitzpatrick et al. 1998). The measurement’s appropriateness concerns the instrument’s fitness for a particular research objective. Many aspects should be considered in evaluating the instrument with various evidence, including its concepts, content assessment, reliability, construct validity, precision, interpretability, acceptability, and feasibility. The attribute of the instrument must be examined comprehensively because there is no complete set of evidence that can determine its appropriateness (Bing-Jonsson et al. 2013). However, an article’s actual instrument assessment evidence should be adequate for the reader to determine the instrument’s quality and suitability for a specific purpose. Table 6reports the detailed appropriateness of measurement of these 10 estate planning instruments. Most instruments are recommended for their appropriateness in every detailed criterion adapted from the Fitzpatrick criteria. Seminal estate planning measurement was introduced by (Edwards 1991), in which its appropriateness of measurement is sufficient, and Gill et al. (2017) subsequently adapted it to measure its estate planning index. However, only two are classified as poor in terms of their appropriateness due to insufficiency in reporting their reliability, validity, and minimal interpretations of the measurement. However, it was found that some measurements have the potential to develop a more viable estate planning instrument for future research. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 17 of 21 4. Discussions At glance, this study reviews estate planning measurements that used by previous researchers, adapting in more systematic ways. First, the descriptive analysis of publication trends was reported based on year, methods, countries in the study undertaken, the unit of analysis, the number of samples, and secondary data resources. The descriptive analysis undertaken by this review is more comprehensive than narrative literature review conducted by Abdullah et al. (2020) as the year search criteria is widen until 2021, and it considered estate planning journal articles from the Web of Sciences, Scopus, and Google scholar databases. Further, the analysis of this review was elaborated focus on the methodology than the descriptive part. This review also documented conceptual definitions of estate planning based on three contexts, which is financial planning, wealth distribution tools and succession planning. The conceptual definitions of estate planning have never been discussed in any of the estate planning literature review paper. The categorization of context by the researcher in this review will assist future researchers on defining the estate planning in their context. Then, this review also reported on the determinants that used by previous studies in measuring estate planning. This is in line with Abdullah et al. (2020), a review paper on the possible causes of delay in estate planning. However, this review has elaborated it into demographic and behavioural factors. In addition, it is found that studies had discussed on the relationship of family norms (Matchaba-Hove and Troskie 2019), social norms (Stark and Nicinska 2015) and affection (Kamarudin et al. 2020) that link towards estate planning. These determinants are one of the external factors and link to herding behaviour that been defined by Cockburn et al. (2022); Munkh-Ulzii et al. (2018). Matchaba-Hove and Troskie (2019) found that family norms is significant to the estate planning decisions especially for family businesses. It indicates that individual that engage with financial planners to decide on estate plan is influenced by family’s financial norms, that learned since the early ages from their respective families. The act of copying behaviour that existed in the family business culture is deemed to be significant in the context of estate planning among family businesses (Matchaba-Hove and Troskie 2019). Hence, this marks a need for future discussions on norms and how it relates to herding behaviour. The main part of the review is on estate planning measurement in terms of conceptual definitions and measurement evaluation. The measurement evaluation is adapted from the method that been used by Bing-Jonsson et al. (2013); Fitzpatrick et al. (1998) criteria. However, this review is novel as it came up with the idea of categorizing the conceptual definition of estate planning into three, which is financial planning, wealth distribution, and succession planning, besides evaluating the measurement based on previous studies of estate planning. Hence, it enriches the knowledge of the interested researchers, scholars, and educators for their understanding of estate planning and its measurement. However, this study has two main limitations. First, estate planning literature is limited to access. It is an emerging research interest, but it lacks in terms of published articles in reputable databases, which limits the thorough search efforts of this study. The current researchers have adapted the technique of systematic literature review and covered as many as possible, especially from the WOS, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. However, there is not much literature available compared to other financial planning literature. Besides, the current researchers also acknowledge limitations in their search criteria. The attention of literature on estate planning in this review is focused solely on the Web of Sciences (WOS), Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. There may be possibilities for other development of estate planning measurements unavailable through these databases. Similarly, this study narrowed down the search criteria only to English-language publications. Such practices may be overlooked in the high-quality instruments published in other than English languages, such as Malay and Portuguese. This study is also restricted to journal articles, as it ignored relevant papers that may have been published in other formats such as proceedings, books, theses, or other publications. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 18 of 21 5. Conclusions The aim of this paper is to review conceptual definitions and estate planning measurement. On the part of conceptual definitions, the study found that estate planning has been defined as financial planning, wealth distribution, and succession planning tools. Then, the review discussed the determinants that were used by previous researchers. These determinants are majority comes from demographic factors and behavioural factors. Hence, it can be concluded that future research is needed to relate estate planning with herding behaviour, despite its importance in dealing with uncertainties in the market. This review indirectly opens further discussion in the aspect of behavioural economics that integrate with cognitive and psychological factors affecting individual’s financial decision-making particularly in estate planning. Besides, this study reviews 10 estate planning instruments that fall within recent eligibility criteria. It is found that the evidence of the instruments’ quality was inconsistent and, in most cases, insufficient. Only five instruments were developed on precise definitions of estate planning. However, an explicit description of the construct that one aims to measure is a basis for assessing and presenting evidence for validity. Psychometric testing is a common practice, but this study discovered that the evidence of the psychometric quality of the identified was poor in two of 10 instruments. This study is remarkable as an initial effort to be included in the estate planning measurement as the main subject of systematic literature review. Previously, other scholars have conducted literature reviews, particularly on Islamic estate planning. The strength of this review is deriving from the fact that it follows rigorous guidelines for conducting systematic literature reviews. Hence, it contributes to building knowledge of existing estate planning in the literature and comprehending the existing estate planning measurement. In the future, researchers should be clear about their conceptualization of the construct they measure when developing and using estate planning measurement instruments, and evaluate the appropriateness. Further, the need to embrace psychometrics as a methodology is essential for assessing the validity of estate planning measurements. Besides, this study only concentrated on the systematic literature review of estate planning measurement. This review may assist future researchers in deciding whether to employ an existing estate planning evaluation instrument or to opt for self-developed measurement. For future research, it is suggested to include the component of bibliometric analysis as it will document the review in more analytical aspects. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.A.M.B., W.M.W.A. and M.R.; methodology, F.A.M.B.; validation, W.M.W.A. and M.R.; formal analysis, F.A.M.B.; investigation, F.A.M.B.; resources, F.A.M.B. and W.M.W.A.; writing—original draft preparation, F.A.M.B.; writing—review and editing, F.A.M.B. and M.R.; visualization, F.A.M.B.; supervision, W.M.W.A. and M.R.; project administration, F.A.M.B., W.M.W.A. and M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Data Availability Statement: The data from this systematic literature review was sourced from Scopus and Clarivate Web of Science. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References Ab Aziz, Muhammad Ridhwan, Mohammad Noorizzuddin Nooh, Khairil Faizal Khairi, Fuadah Johari, Azrul Azlan Iskandar Mirza, and Nurul Izzati Nordin. 2014. A review on literatures in planning and managing of islamic wealth distribution (2001–2013). Library Philosophy and Practice, 1144. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1144/ (accessed on 9 August 2021). Abd. Wahab, Norazlina, Selamah Maamor, Zairy Zainol, Suraiya Hashim, and Kamarul Azman Mustapha Kamal. 2021. Developing best practices of Islamic estate planning: A construction based on the perspectives of individuals and estate planning providers. ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance 12: 211–28. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 19 of 21 Abdullah, Muhammad Mui’zz, Naimah Mohamad Nasir, Nasrul Hisyam Nor Muhamad, Muhammad Ridhwan Ab Aziz, Abdul Bari Awang, and Mek Wok Mahmud. 2020. A literature review on islamic estate planning from year 2014 to 2019. Library Philosophy and Practice 4290: 1–29. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85098078368&partnerID=40 &md5=2d681baf49bdeb3d43c6418998ea6647 (accessed on 9 August 2021). Alma’amun, Suhaili, and Mohd Khairy Kamarudin. 2014. Nomination of insurance policy for Singaporean Muslims. Journal Pengurusan 42: 63–73. [CrossRef] Altfest, Lewis. 2004. Personal financial planning: Origins, developments and a plan for future direction. The American Economist 48: 53–60. [CrossRef] Andoko, Andoko, and Yenni Martok. 2020. Explanatory analysis of financial planning on household financial behaviour. Journal of Accounting and Management Innovation 4: 124–38. Basah, Sarimah, and Putri Rozita Tahir. 2019. Islamic estate planning (IEP): Key factor for muslim women not having estate planning Products. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change 7: 145–59. [CrossRef] Bing-Jonsson, Pia Cecilie, Ida Torunn Bjørk, Dag Hofoss, Marit Kirkevold, and Christina Foss. 2013. Instruments measuring nursing staff competence in community health care: A systematic literature review. Home Health Care Management & Practice 25: 282–94. [CrossRef] Brandon, Dorothy P., and Kevin Crenshaw. 2015. An assessment of estate planning among older adults in Alabama. Journal of Extension 53: 23. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11: 589–97. [CrossRef] Choi, Shinae L, and Melissa J. Wilmarth. 2019. The Moderating Role of Depressive Symptoms Between Financial Assets and Bequests Expectation. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 40: 498–510. [CrossRef] Choi, Shinae L., Ian M. McDonough, Minjung Kim, and Giyeon Kim. 2019. Estate planning among older Americans: The moderating role of race and ethnicity. Financial Planning Review 2: e1058. [CrossRef] Chong, Shyue Chuan, Suhaili Alma’amun, and Bik Kai Sia. 2015. Bequest motives among older Malays in Selangor. Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia 49: 17–26. [CrossRef] Cockburn, Tina, Kelly Purser, Ho Fai Chan, Bridget J. Crawford, Stephen Whyte, and Uwe Dulleck. 2022. A Behavioural Economics Analysis of Will Making Preferences: When to Begin and Who Should Have the Most Input? Minnesota Journal of International Law. [CrossRef] DeBoer, Dale R., and Edward C. Hoang. 2017. Inheritances and bequest planning: Evidence from the survey of consumer finances. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 38: 45–56. [CrossRef] Edwards, Kay P. 1991. Planning for family asset transfers. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning 2: 55–78. Available online: https: //www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-52549088135&partnerID=40&md5=b84dae55561d40a6430b66efec5728e5 (accessed on 4 May 2021). Fereday, Jennifer, and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. 2006. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5: 80–92. [CrossRef] File, Karen Maru, and Russ Alan Prince. 1996. Attributions for family business failure: The heir’s perspective. Family Business Review 9: 171–84. [CrossRef] Fitzpatrick, Ray, Claire Davey, Martin J. Buxton, and David R. Jones. 1998. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2: 1–74. [CrossRef] Flintermann, Beatrix. 2014. The Quality of Market Research Reports—The Case of Marketline Advantage and the Automobile Industry. Master’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. Available online: https://purl.utwente.nl/essays/66122 (accessed on 7 July 2022). Garber, Julie. 2019. 5 Reasons You Need an Estate Plan. Available online: https://www.thebalance.com/top-reasons-why-you-needan-estate-plan-3505444 (accessed on 22 March 2022). Gill, Amarjit, Harvinder S. Mand, John D. Obradovich, and Neil Mathur. 2017. Influence of meditation on estate planning decisions: Evidence from Indian survey data. Financial Innovation 3: 1–18. [CrossRef] Goetting, Marsha A., and Peter Martin. 2001. Characteristics of older adults with written wills. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 22: 243–64. [CrossRef] Haddaway, Neal R., Biljana Macura, Paul Whaley, and Andrew S. Pullin. 2018. Roses Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: Pro Forma, Flow-Diagram and Descriptive Summary of the Plan and Conduct of Environmen-tal Systematic Reviews and Systematic Maps. Environmental Evidence 7: 7. [CrossRef] Hanna, Fadie, Ron Oostdam, Sabine E. Severiens, and Bonne J. H. Zijlstra. 2019. Domains of Teacher Identity: A Review of Quantitative Measurement Instruments. Educational Research Review 27: 15–27. [CrossRef] Higgins, Julian P. T., Douglas G. Altman, Peter C. Gøtzsche, Peter Jüni, David Moher, Andrew D. Oxman, Jelena Savovi´c, Kenneth F. Schulz, Laura Weeks, and Jonathan A. C. Sterne. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343: d5928. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 20 of 21 Hutchings, Becky, Karen Richel, Gretchen Manker, Surine Greenway, and Luke Erickson. 2020. Prelude to Estate Planning: Helping Older Adults Simplify Theirlives before Meeting with Professionals. Journal of Extension 58: 1–6. Available online: https://www. scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85088592490&partnerID=40&md5=98e67dc4bf43228e85b56dae55395835 (accessed on 4 May 2021). James, Russell N., III. 2009. Health, wealth, and charitable estate planning: A longitudinal examination of testamentary charitable giving plans. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38: 1026–43. [CrossRef] Kamarudin, Mohd Khairy, Nasrul Hisyam Nor Muhamad, Suhaili Alma’amun, Abdul Hafiz Abdullah, Syahrulnizam Saat, and Nurul Osman Samurah. 2020. Inter vivos transfers based on affection for wealth distribution planning in Malaysia. Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business 7: 299–307. [CrossRef] Karunamoorthy, Kumaraswamy. 2017. Malaysian Perspective in Estate Planning. In Readings in Personal Financial Planning, Shariah Wealth Management and Case Studies. Edited by Lahsasna Ahcene. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Mesbah Sdn Bhd, pp. 111–19. Kim, KyoungTae, and Richard Stebbins. 2021. Everybody dies: Financial education and basic Estate Planning. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning 32: 402–16. [CrossRef] Koss, Catheryn S., and Tamara A. Baker. 2018. Where There’s a Will: The link between estate planning and disparities in advance care planning by white and black older aldults. Research on Aging 40: 281–302. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Breier, and Sonia Dasí-Rodríguez. 2020. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16: 1023–42. [CrossRef] Lockwood, Craig, Zachary Munn, and Kylie Porritt. 2015. Qualitative Research Synthesis: Methodological Guidance for Systematic Reviewers Utilizing Meta-Aggregation. JBI Evidence Implementation 13: 179–87. [CrossRef] Mahapatra, Mousumi Singha, Jayasree Raveendran, and Anupam De. 2019. Building a model on influence of behavioural and cognitive factors on personal financial planning: A study among Indian households. Global Business Review 20: 996–1009. [CrossRef] Matchaba-Hove, Tony, and Teneille Troskie. 2019. Family business owners’ perceptions on seeking estate planning assistance. International Journal of Economics and Finance Studies 11: 53–71. [CrossRef] Munkh-Ulzii, Batmunkh John, Michael McAleer, Massoud Moslehpour, and Wing-Keung Wong. 2018. Confucius and Herding Behaviour in the Stock Markets in China and Taiwan. Sustainability 10: 4413. [CrossRef] Naiimi, Nasri. 2016. Pengurusan Pusaka Islam Wasiat dan Hibah di Malaysia Isu dan Aplikasi. Changlun: Penerbit Universiti Utara Malaysia. Ryan, C. 1995. Are family businesses better? In Productivity South Africa. Cary: SAS Institute. Said, Nadzirah Bt Mohd, Hafizah Binti Zainal, Noormariana Binti Mohd Din, Siti Afiqah Binti Zainuddin, and Tahirah Binti Abdullah. 2020. Attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control as determinant of hibah giving intent in Malaysia. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change 10: 61–70. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-8 5079695703&partnerID=40&md5=75144d3119bd37a2ef776a42bdec2f8d (accessed on 5 July 2020). Sanders, Michael, and Sarah Smith. 2016. Can simple prompts increase bequest giving? Field evidence from a legal call centre. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 125: 179–91. [CrossRef] Sargeant, Adrian, and Jen Shang. 2011. Bequest giving: Revisiting donor motivation with dimensional qualitative research. Psychology and Marketing 28: 980–97. [CrossRef] Shaffril, Hayrol Azril Mohamed, Asnarulkhadi Abu Samah, and Syafila Kamarudin. 2021. Speaking of the devil: A systematic literature review on community preparedness for earthquakes. Natural Hazards 108: 2393–419. [CrossRef] Singh, Er Gurpreet, Er Nitika Kapoor, and Sandeep Singh Kang. 2019. Measuring perception of Punjab’s people in personal financial planning using psychometric scale. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research 8: 1926–33. Sonnega, Amanda, Jessica D. Faul, Mary Beth Ofstedal, Kenneth M. Langa, John W. R. Phillips, and David R. Weir. 2014. Cohort Profile: The Health and Retirement Study (HRS). International Journal of Epidemiology 43: 576–85. [CrossRef] Spasojevic, Bojana, Gui Lohmann, and Noel Scott. 2018. Air transport and tourism–a systematic literature review (2000–2014). Current Issues in Tourism 21: 975–97. [CrossRef] Stark, Oded, and Anna Nicinska. 2015. How inheriting affects bequest plans. Economica 82: 1126–52. [CrossRef] Tasi´c, Svetlana, and Marija Bešlin Feruh. 2012. Errors and issues in secondary data used in marketing research. The Scientific Journal for Theory and Practice of Socioeconomic Development 1: 326–35. Van der Merwe, Stephan. 2010. The determinants of the readiness to let go among senior generation owner-managers of small and medium-sized family businesses. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 13: 293–315. [CrossRef] Venter, Elmarie, Christo Boshoff, and Gideon Maas. 2003. The influence of relational factors on successful succession in family businesses: A comparative study of owner-managers and successors. South African Journal of Business Management 34: 1–13. [CrossRef] Venter, Jan M. P. 2014. Are South African financial advisor addressing the estate planning objectives that are important to their client? Risk Governance and Control: Financial Markets and Institutions 4: 125–31. [CrossRef] Wagner, Jamie, and William B. Walstad. 2019. The Effects of Financial Education on Short-Term and Long-Term Financial Behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs 53: 234–59. [CrossRef] Wiepking, Pamala, Kym Madden, and Katie McDonald. 2010. Leaving a legacy: Bequest giving in Australia. Australasian Marketing Journal 18: 15–22. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023,16, 84 21 of 21 Wiepking, Pamala, Wendy Scaife, and Katie McDonald. 2012. Motives and barriers to bequest giving. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 11: 56–66. [CrossRef] Woosley, Angela, Sharon M. Danes, and Marlene Stum. 2017. Utilizing a Family Decision-Making Lens to Examine Adults’ End-of-Life Planning Actions. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 38: 33–44. [CrossRef] Yu, Vincent F., and Hsiu-I. Ting. 2011. Identifying key factors affecting consumers’ choice of wealth management services: An AHP approach. Service Industries Journal 31: 929–39. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.