The objective of the present research is to study consumer decisions to utilize a line of credit. The life-cycle hypothesis from economics argues that consumers should intertemporally reallocate their incomes over their life stream to maximize lifetime utility. One form of intertemporal allocation is to use past income (in the form of savings) in the future. A second form is the use of future income in the present. This can only be done if consumers have access to a temporary pool of money that they can draw from and replenish in the future—a function performed by consumer credit. However, our research reinforces prior findings that consumers are unable to correctly value their future incomes, and that they lack the cognitive capability to solve the intertemporal optimization problem required by the life-cycle hypothesis. Instead, we argue that consumers use information such as the credit limit as a signal of their future earnings potential. Specifically, if consumers have access to large amounts of credit, they are likely to infer that their lifetime income will be high and hence their willingness to use credit (and their spending) will also be high. Conversely, consumers who are granted lower amounts of credit are likely to infer that their lifetime income will be low and hence their spending will be lower. However, based on research in the area of consumer skepticism and inference making, we also argue for a moderating role of the credibility associated with the credit limit. Specifically, we argue that the above effect of credit availability would be particularly strong for consumers who believe that the credit limit credibly signals their future earnings potential (i.e., a naïve consumer who has limited experience with consumer credit). However, as consumers gain experience with credit, they start discounting credit availability as a predictor of their future and start questioning the validity of the process used to set the credit limit. Hence, with experience the effect of credit limit on the willingness to use credit should be attenuated. We test these predictions in five separate studies. In the first experimental study, we manipulate credit limit and credibility and pose subjects with a hypothetical purchase opportunity. Consistent with our prediction, credit limit impacted the propensity to spend, but only when the credibility was high. In the second experimental study, we replicate these findings even when subjects were given information about their expected future salaries, and also show that the credit limit influences their expectation of future earnings potential. In the third study, we show that the mere availability (and increase) of current liquidity cannot explain our findings. In the fourth study, we conduct a survey of consumers in which we measure a number of demographic characteristics and also ask them for their propensity to spend in a given purchase situation. In the fifth study we use the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) dataset, a triennial survey of U.S. families that is designed to provide detailed information on the use of financial services, spending behaviors, and selected demographic characteristics. Results from both studies 4 and 5 provide further support for our proposed framework—credit limits influence spending to a greater extent for consumers with lower credibility: younger consumers and less-educated consumers. Across all studies we achieved triangulation by using a variety of approaches (surveys and experiments), subjects types (young students and older consumers), nature of predictor variables (manipulated and measured), dependent measures (purchase likelihood, credit card balance, new charges), and methods of analysis (ANOVA and regression), and consistently found that increasing credit limits on a credit card increases spending, especially when the credibility of the limit is high. This paper joins a growing body of literature in marketing and behavioral decision theory that goes beyond the traditional domains of inquiry (e.g., product choice, effects of marketing mix variables) and focuses on consumer decisions relating to the appropriate use of income to finance consumption. Our framework differs from prior research on the effect of payment mechanisms on spending in two significant ways. First, we are interested in the effects of the availability of credit on spending, and not necessarily in the effect of the transaction format that is associated with each payment mechanism. Second, while prior research has studied the point-of-purchase and historic (i.e., prepurchase) effects of credit, the present research is concerned with the availability of credit in the future. Specifically, our framework is invariant to the current and prior usage of credit by the consumer.
When Motivation is against Debtors' Best Interest: The Illusion of Goal Progress in Credit Card Debt Repayment
The authors explore the illusion of goal progress by consumers who own multiple credit cards and pay off their debt balances to facilitate the achievement of their subgoal rather than the superordinate goal of being debt-free. The first experiment shows that debtors use their savings toward the credit card debt they can pay off entirely or substantially, even if it is associated with the smallest balance and the lowest annual percentage rate rather than toward the debt with the highest annual percentage rate. The second experiment reveals that when the income available to pay down the debt is in the form of effortless money (i.e., windfall or reward money) as opposed to hard-earned savings, the tendency to allocate money toward the smallest credit card debt is exacerbated. However, people tend to pay their debt more rationally when the number of debt accounts increases. Finally, the third experiment shows that credit card debt repayment decisions depend on the nature of the debt (hedonic vs. utilitarian) and the timing of consumption benefits (past vs. future). The article concludes with a discussion of managerial and public policy implications.
What Would You Do with $500? Spending Responses to Gains, Losses, News, and Loans
Abstract We use survey questions about spending in hypothetical scenarios to investigate features of propensities to consume that are useful for distinguishing between consumption theories. We find that (1) responses to unanticipated gains are vastly heterogeneous (either zero or substantially positive); (2) responses increase in the size of the gain, driven by the extensive margin of spending adjustments; (3) responses to losses are much larger and more widespread than responses to gains; and (4) even those with large responses to gains do not respond to news about future gains. These four findings suggest that limited access to disposable resources, and frictions in adjusting consumption, are important determinants of consumption behaviour. We also find that (5) households do not respond to the offer of a one-year interest-free loan, suggesting that this is not a consequence of short-term credit constraints; and (6) people do cut spending in response to news about future losses, suggesting that neither is this a consequence of myopia. A calibrated precautionary savings model with utility costs of changing consumption, and a sufficient fraction of low-wealth households, can account for these features of propensities to consume on both the extensive and intensive margins.
The Impact of Payment Frequency on Consumer Spending and Subjective Wealth Perceptions
Abstract Payment frequency is a fundamental yet underexplored feature of consumers’ finances. As higher payment frequencies are becoming more prevalent, consumers are receiving more frequent yet smaller paychecks. An analysis of income and expenditure data of over 30,000 consumers from a financial services provider demonstrates a naturally occurring relationship between higher payment frequencies and increased spending. A series of lab studies support this finding, providing causal evidence that higher (vs. lower) payment frequencies increase spending. The effect of payment frequency on spending is driven by changes in consumers’ subjective wealth perceptions. Specifically, higher payment frequencies reduce consumers’ uncertainty in predicting whether they will have enough resources throughout a period, increasing their subjective wealth perceptions. As such, situational factors that reduce prediction uncertainty for those paid less frequently (e.g., the timing of consumers’ expenses, income levels) moderate the impact of payment frequency. The effects of payment frequency on subjective wealth and spending can occur even when objective wealth favors those with lower payment frequencies. More broadly, the current work underscores a need to understand how timing variations in consumers’ income impact their perceptions, behaviors, and general well-being.
Knowing When to Spend: Unintended Financial Consequences of Earmarking to Encourage Savings
Maintaining savings is an important financial goal. Yet there are times when savings should be spent, such as when people face unavoidable costs, and spending their savings allows them to avoid high interest rate debt. Existing behavioral research has focused on consumer decisions between savings and discretionary spending and has proposed interventions to promote savings in these contexts. However, when spending is not discretionary, such interventions could risk exacerbating a pattern found in economic research in which people borrow high interest rate debt while maintaining savings that earn low levels of interest. To examine how mental accounting interacts with considerations of personal responsibility and guilt to contribute to this pattern, this article explores whether people spend their savings when they need money most: during emergencies. Six studies reveal that people's tendency to preserve savings by borrowing from a high interest rate credit option varies as a function of the savings’ intended use. Paradoxically, people are most likely to turn to high interest rate credit with the belief that doing so is the responsible option.
A Debt Puzzle
Over 60% of US households with credit cards are currently borrowing – i.e., paying interest – on those cards. We attempt to reconcile the high rate of credit card borrowing with observed levels of life cycle wealth accumulation. We simulate a lifecycle model with five properties that create demand for credit card borrowing. First, the calibrated labor income path slopes upward early in life. Second, income has transitory shocks. Third, consumers invest actively in an illiquid asset, which is sufficiently illiquid that it can not be used to smooth transitory income shocks. Fourth, consumers may declare bankruptcy, reducing the effective cost of credit card borrowing. Fifth, households have relatively more dependents early in the life-cycle. Our calibrated model predicts that 20% of the population will borrow on their credit card at any point in time, far less than the observed rate of over 60%. We identify a resolution to this puzzle: hyperbolic time preferences. Simulated hyperbolic consumers borrow actively in the revolving credit card market and accumulate relatively large stocks of illiquid wealth, matching observed data.
Consumer Financial Decision Making: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going
When making purchasing decisions, consumers consider their available budget and determine what payment method they will use as well as how they will finance the purchase. Consumers must also plan for long-term consumption by considering short- and long-term savings objectives, taking into account how they will invest money saved, as well as how they will borrow needed money and repay outstanding loans. This issue of the Journal of Association of Consumer Research explores financial decision making, which we define as the accumulation and use of resources across time, as reflected by consumers’ behavior and choices.
Context-Dependent Drivers of Discretionary Debt Decisions: Explaining Willingness to Borrow for Experiential Purchases
Abstract Mental accounting research suggests that consumers prefer borrowing for longer-lasting purchases in order to receive benefits from the purchases as they pay for them. In contrast, two sets of archival data and five lab studies show that consumers are more willing to borrow for experiential versus material purchases, even though experiential purchases tend to have a shorter physical duration. Further, framing the same purchase as more experiential than material increases willingness to borrow. This effect occurs because purchase timing is more important for experiential purchases—a function of consumers’ aversion to missing out on planned consumption. Thus, we moderate the proposed effect by varying whether the borrowing decision impacts planned consumption. Other differences between material and experiential purchases, such as scarcity or expected happiness, cannot similarly explain our results. Moreover, our conceptualization allows us to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the previous and current research by examining the relative impact of purchase-timing importance and payment-benefit duration matching in different contexts (i.e., “purchasing” and “source-of-funding” decisions).
The Red, the Black, and the Plastic: Paying Down Credit Card Debt for Hotels, Not Sofas
Using transaction data from a sample of 1.8 million credit card accounts, we provide the first field test of a major prediction of Prelec and Loewenstein’s theory of mental accounting: that consumers will pay off expenditure on transient forms of consumption more quickly than expenditure on durables. According to the theory, this is because the pain of paying can be offset by the future anticipated pleasure of consumption only when money is spent on consumption that endures over time. Consistent with this prediction, we found that repayment of debt incurred for nondurable goods is an absolute 10% more likely than repayment of debt incurred for durable goods. The strength of this relationship is comparable to an increment in 15 percentage points in the credit card annualized percentage rate. Our results have not only managerial implications for the structuring of financial transactions (e.g., that credit card customers should be given the option of paying off specific purchases) but also more general implications for exploiting variations in the pain of paying in incentive schemes aimed at customers and employees. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, behavioral economics.
Consumption Response to Credit Expansions: Evidence from Experimental Assignment of 45,307 Credit Lines
In a field experiment that constructs a randomized credit limit shock, participants borrow to spend 11 cents on the dollar in the first quarter and 28 cents by the third year. Effects extend to those far from the limit, those who had the new limits as available credit, and those with a liquid asset buffer. In the short-run, flexible and installment contracts are used in tandem, with unconstrained using installments more. Long-run borrowing is predominantly using installments. Near limits, participants borrow when credit expands but save out of constraints when limits are tight. Findings support a buffer-stock interpretation emphasizing precautionary saving.
The Effects of Prior Spending on Future Spending Decisions: The Role of Acquisition Liabilities and Payments
Research in mental accounting shows that prior spending influences a consumer's decision to make a new spending decision (Heath and Soll 1996, Soman 2001). In particular, greater spending in a particular category reduces the likelihood of further spending in that category. In the present research, we decompose “spending” into two distinct episodes—the acquisition liability episode during which a purchase is made accompanied by a commitment to pay (e.g., using a credit card) and the payment episode during which the consumer's wealth actually gets depleted (e.g., paying the credit card bill). Using a controlled laboratory experiment and real world data from a group of consumers, we replicate earlier findings that prior spending influences a pending spending decision, but also show that the location of both the acquisition liability episode and the payment episode play a role. Our results contribute to an understanding of the dynamic mental accounting of acquisition liability and actual outflows.
Timing to the Statement: Understanding Fluctuations in Consumer Credit Use
We show that consumers spend 15% more per day in the first week following the receipt of a credit card statement than in the days just prior to the statement. This increase in spending includes both an increase in the likelihood that they use the credit card in the first weeks following their statement and an increase in transaction amount on days they use the credit card. In contrast to the effect on credit card spending, debit card spending is unaffected by credit card statement issuance, suggesting that consumers are not simply switching among modes of payment. Our estimates are based on exogenous variation from bank-assigned statement dates. We propose and test several alternative explanations to this spending puzzle: optimization of the free float, salience effect of the credit card statement, mental accounting, liquidity constraints, and automatic payments. We find that the consumers most apt to spend early in the credit card cycle tend to be those who do not revolve balances and are not close to their credit limit. Thus, this paper documents a puzzle with mixed support for several alternative explanations. This paper was accepted by David Simchi-Levi, finance.
On shifting consumers from high‐interest to low‐interest debt
Abstract In the United States, many consumers are increasingly accumulating debt, much of which is harmful and expensive. Prior research has devoted a great deal of attention to understanding why consumers generally get into debt and the strategies they can use to repay existing debts. While this work has furthered the agenda of helping consumers reduce or eliminate their overall debt balances, it has failed to emphasize the fact that for many consumers, debt may be unavoidable. This article aims to promote research that addresses not only overall debt reduction but also the need for consumers to shift from more to less costly types of debt. By shedding light on the psychological reasons why consumers may naturally gravitate toward more costly forms of debt when less costly ones may be available, we offer a novel perspective on why consumers get into and stay in debt longer than they should. This new angle has the potential to spur on further research into the ways consumers can use debt more effectively and less expensively in service of the overarching goal of debt reduction.
Present-Biased Preferences and Credit Card Borrowing
Some individuals borrow extensively on their credit cards. This paper tests whether present-biased time preferences correlate with credit card borrowing. In a field study, we elicit individual time preferences with incentivized choice experiments, and match resulting time preference measures to individual credit reports and annual tax returns. The results indicate that present-biased individuals are more likely to have credit card debt, and to have significantly higher amounts of credit card debt, controlling for disposable income, other socio-demographics, and credit constraints. (JEL D12, D14, D91)
Managing Mental Accounts: Payment Cards and Consumption Expenditures
Does mental accounting matter for total consumption expenditures? We exploit a unique setting in which individuals exogenously received a new credit card, without requesting one. Using random variation in the time of receipt we show that individuals temporarily increase total consumption expenditure by making purchases with the new card without reducing spending on the others. We do not observe a corresponding increase in indebtedness. Total consumption expenditure rises even for the least liquidity-constrained individuals. The evidence is consistent with consumers treating methods of payment as nonfungible budget categories, as suggested by models of mental accounting and narrow bracketing.
Purchase Justifiability Drives Payment Choice: Consumers Pay with Card to Remember and Cash to Forget
AbstractAlthough consumers often have multiple payment methods at their fingertips, such as cash and credit/debit cards, prior research is silent on how consumers choose between them. We home in on a key element of purchase—purchase justifiability—that affects how consumers choose to pay. Analysis of 118,042 real-world purchases and six experiments reveals that when consumers are motivated to forget (vs. remember) a purchase because they see it as difficult (vs. easy) to justify, they have an increased preference to pay with cash (vs. card) because cards create a “paper/electronic trail” that aids memory retrieval. These payment preferences are strongest among consumers most likely to recall/track their card spending, and manifest only when card expenses are trackable. We reconcile our results with the classic effect of payment method on pain of paying and discuss implications for merchants and for financial institutions designing payment methods of the future.
Co-holding behaviour: unlocking the puzzle
This article seeks to explain why households decide to simultaneously hold both credit and savings products. Beyond the arguments of ignorance or behavioural biases commonly used in the literature,...
