This paper offers a systematic literature review of age-related disparities in the adoption of digital payment systems, a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly relevant as financial transactions become predominantly digital. Using the SPAR-4-SLR protocol, 66 scholarly contributions published between 2014 and 2024 are examined and categorised into four thematic clusters: demographic determinants, behavioural drivers, structural barriers linked to the grey digital divide, and emerging insights from neurofinance. The review highlights a multifactorial set of barriers that limit older adults’ engagement with digital payments, including usability challenges, cognitive and physical limitations, digital skill gaps, and perceived security risks. These obstacles are further amplified by structural inequalities such as socio-economic status, geographic location, and infrastructural constraints. While digital payments are often presented as tools of inclusion, the findings underscore the risk of exclusion for ageing populations without tailored design and policy interventions. The review also identifies areas for further research, particularly at the intersection of ageing, cognitive function, and human–technology interaction, proposing a research agenda that supports more inclusive and age-responsive financial innovation.

Financial literacy assessments typically rely on sample surveys containing sets of questions designed to gauge respondents’ comprehension of fundamental financial concepts necessary for making informed decisions. The answers to such questions, either categorical or continuous in nature, generally include a “Do not know” option. If those who choose the “Do not know” option are not a random sample of the population but exhibit peculiar characteristics, treating these observations as either incorrect responses or as missing data may distort the results regarding the determinants of financial literacy. A noteworthy case lies in the observation from survey studies that women tend to choose the “Do not know” option more frequently than men. In similar cases, treating the “Do not know” responses as incorrect answers increases the gender gap in financial literacy while treating them as missing values reduces the gap. We propose using a model with sample selection, which enables us to disentangle the inclination to answer “Do not know” from actual responses. By applying this model to a representative sample of the UK population, we do not find any systematic gender gap in financial knowledge. The study’s novel treatment of “Do not know” responses contributes valuable insights to the broader discourse on the determinants of financial literacy and the related gender-based differences.

Survey studies consistently observe that women tend to choose the “Do not know” option more frequently, although this does not necessarily indicate a lack of knowledge. Overlooking potential disparities in the proportion of respondents between genders may inflate reported statistics on the gender gap in financial literacy. However, with few exceptions, researchers often do so. Our contribution to this literature involves the application of a model with selection, allowing us to disentangle the attitude to answer “Do not know” from actual responses. This paper investigates the gender gap in financial literacy using the 2018 UK Financial Capability Survey. We do not find any systematic gender gap. The study’s novel treatment of “Do not know” responses contributes valuable insights to the broader discourse on the determinants of financial literacy among the population and the related gender-based differences.

We use a laboratory experiment to explore the effect of a change in pre-trade anonymity in a quote-driven dealer-to-customer market, organised as a request for quote (RFQ). We consider two treatments in which dealers interact with two types of customers (informed or uninformed). In the first treatment, there is no anonymity: dealers know whether the customer that sent them the request for quote is informed or uninformed. In the second treatment, there is complete anonymity: dealers do not know the type of customers they are interacting with. We find that anonymity improves price efficiency, whereas it does not adversely impact dealers’ trading profits. Our results contribute to the debate on transparency versus the adoption of anonymity in financial markets.