Content uploaded by Joel B. Cohen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joel B. Cohen on Mar 03, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
LISA E. BOLTON, PAUL N. BLOOM, and JOEL B. COHEN?
The marketing of debt consolidation loans is intended to offer a financial
remedy to consumers faced with mounting debt and credit problems and
unable to meet their monthly payments. The authors argue that debt con-
solidation loan marketing overemphasizes the short-term benefits (e.g.,
lower monthly payments) and downplays the considerable downside of
these loans (e.g., longer repayment and more total interest paid). Two
experiments demonstrate that a financial literacy intervention combining
information about loans and lenders can help consumers understand and
respond to debt consolidation loan marketing (whereas a basic financial
numeracy intervention does not). Implications for consumers, marketers,
public policy makers, and researchers who work in the area of financial
literacy are discussed.
Keywords:loan marketing, financial literacy, money management
Using Loan Plus Lender Literacy Information
to Combat One-Sided Marketing of Debt
Consolidation Loans
Although the availability of consumer credit has many
advantages for consumers and the economy, the downside
for consumers has become increasingly evident. Consumers
carry high-interest credit card balances, debt repayment
consumes an increasing proportion of income, savings rates
decline, and mortgage defaults and bankruptcy rates soar.
For example, personal bankruptcy rates were up almost
30% in 2008, and 14.7% of U.S. families had debt exceed-
ing 40% of their income in 2007 (before the recession)
(U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee 2009). In 2007,
the average (median) balance for those carrying a balance
rose 30.4% (25%) to $7,300 ($3,000); in the preceding
three years, the average (median) rose 16.7% (9.1%) (Fed-
eral Reserve Board 2009). As these financial risks have
risen, the market has responded by offering “remedies” or
solutions to consumers’ financial problems.
*Lisa E. Bolton is Associate Professor of Marketing, Smeal College
of Business, Pennsylvania State University (boltonle@psu.edu). Paul N.
Bloom is Adjunct Professor of Social Entrepreneurship and Marketing,
Fuqua School of Business, Duke University (paul.bloom@duke.edu). Joel
B. Cohen is Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Warrington Col-
lege of Business, University of Florida (joel.cohen@warrington.ufl.edu).
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding support from the National
Endowment for Financial Education (www.NEFE.org). This research was
also funded in part by a Smeal Research Grant awarded to Lisa E. Bolton.
David Mick served as guest editor for this article.
Remedies refer to products or services designed to
reduce risk or offer solutions to problems in a variety
of substantive domains, such as health and security (e.g.,
smoking cessation aids, identity theft protection) (Bolton,
Cohen, and Bloom 2006). In the financial domain, reme-
dies include various offerings designed to help consumers
reduce financial risks by paying down debt—such as credit
counseling, home equity loans, payday loans, debt consoli-
dation, debt settlement, and other “solutions.” Perhaps iron-
ically, prior research has shown that a striking number of
these financial remedies involve loans—taking out debt to
solve problems associated with overspending and too much
debt. For example, home equity loans and lines of credit, as
well as mortgage advertising, are often promoted for debt
consolidation and credit problems (Perry and Motley 2009;
Williams 1999).
DEBT CONSOLIDATION LOAN MARKETING
The marketing of debt consolidation loans is intended to
offer a financial solution to consumers faced with mounting
debt and credit problems and worried about meeting their
monthly payments. Typically, such loan offers promise to
consolidate various consumer debts into a single loan, over
a longer period, and perhaps with a lower interest rate, thus
delivering a lower monthly payment. Although consolidat-
ing various loans at higher interest rates into a single loan
at a lower interest rate lowers monthly payments and may
alleviate immediate burdens for financially squeezed con-
sumers, there is a significant downside.
© 2011, American Marketing Association
ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic) S51
Journal of Marketing Research
Vol. XLVIII (Special Issue 2011), S51–S59
S52 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, SPECIAL ISSUE 2011
The Downside of Debt Consolidation
An important downside of debt consolidation is the trade-
off between the short-term relief of lower monthly payments
and the long-term financial burdens, especially much higher
total interest paid. Although consumer financial literacy is
certainly part of the problem, our initial qualitative analysis
of loan advertising found few advertisements that mentioned
higher interest or longer loan terms (Bloom, Bolton, and
Cohen 2010). Instead, the majority ignored the downside
and emphasized lower monthly payments and made “hassle-
free” claims. These arguably one-sided claims may appeal
to consumers faced with looming debt problems whose state
of mind may induce them to downplay the negative aspects
of debt consolidation. In addition, many debt-burdened con-
sumers can only obtain consolidation loans with relatively
high interest rates rather than the strongly promoted lower
rates. Simply put, these loans over time may mean much
more debt, not less.
Another downside of debt consolidation occurs if the
financial remedy—by promising to manage or reduce risk—
undermines financially protective behavior. That is, why
avoid risk if a remedy exists to take care of the problem?
The net effect is a form of moral hazard or risk compensa-
tion (e.g., Calkins and Zlatoper 2001; Richens, Imrie, and
Copas 2000; Rodgers 1996; Rogers and Greenfield 1999),
in which consumers trade away some of the safety gains
of the remedy by continuing to engage in risky behavior
and even increase their exposure to risk. For example, rather
than minimizing use of credit cards, debt consolidation loan
marketing might lead consumers to increase spending lim-
its on their cards or even acquire additional cards. Our
research confirms this downside. In a sample of college stu-
dents, exposure to a debt consolidation loan message low-
ered financial risk perceptions and increased risky financial
behavioral intentions, especially among those most at risk
(Bolton, Cohen, and Bloom 2006). A similar pattern also
occurred among adult consumers exposed to real and fic-
titious advertisements making debt reduction or no-hassle
claims (Bloom, Bolton, and Cohen 2010). Thus, this down-
side of debt consolidation loan marketing seems robust and
widespread.
Whether the advantages of debt consolidation loans
outweigh their disadvantages is likely to vary across
consumers and situations. Some empirical evidence sug-
gests that these loans may leave consumers no better off
(Moorman and Garasky 2008; Williams 1999). Further-
more, these and other loan products and services promising
various forms of “debt relief” are receiving increasing regu-
latory scrutiny (Federal Trade Commission 2009; Goodman
2010).
Debt Consolidation Loans and Financial Literacy
This research develops an information-based interven-
tion to help consumers better understand debt consolidation
loans, especially their downside. Not surprisingly, consoli-
dation loan marketers tend to overpromote the benefits and
underplay the disadvantages; therefore, our efforts focus
on providing a more balanced view of these loans. Our
intervention approach focuses on two dimensions—loan-
focused and lender-focused.
Loan-focused literacy. A loan-focused approach attempts
to improve financial literacy by increasing consumer
knowledge about loans—how and why loans work and their
advantages and disadvantages. Prior research on financial
literacy has tended to focus on the quantitative aspects of
financial literacy, which we refer to as financial numer-
acy, such as the ability to correctly answer questions about
compound interest and inflation. For example, research
suggests that U.S. consumers exhibit low levels of finan-
cial numeracy skills and that higher skills are associated
with improved financial decisions, including saving, retire-
ment planning, and borrowing (Bernheim 1995; Lusardi
and Mitchell 2009; Lusardi, Mitchell, and Curto 2010;
Moore 2003). This arithmetic form of financial literacy is
broadly applicable across consumer personal financial deci-
sions, in contrast with some recent efforts to develop more
advanced or domain-specific measures of investment liter-
acy (Lusardi and Mitchell 2009) and debt literacy (Lusardi
and Tufano 2009). For example, debt literacy (measured by
consumer ability to correctly answer questions about com-
pound interest, paying off credit card debt with minimum
payments, and the time value of money) was strikingly low
as well as associated with self-reported overindebtedness.
However, research on financial literacy tends to rely on
correlational relationships, and causal evidence (e.g., for
the effectiveness of financial literacy programs) is lacking
and/or mixed (Braunstein and Welch 2002). For debt con-
solidation loans, the relationships among annual percentage
rate (APR), loan lengths, monthly payments, and total inter-
est paid are of particular interest and constitute what we
refer to as domain-specific literacy or “loan literacy.”
Lender-focused literacy. Lender-focused literacy refers
to consumer knowledge about lenders, including how and
why particular lenders act as they do. The emphasis on
the why is deliberate because it represents a previously
untapped dimension of financial literacy. For example,
consumers may categorize lenders as financial institutions
(which may follow different rules) rather than marketers
attempting to persuade them to make a particular loan pur-
chase. The Fannie Mae National Housing Survey (Fannie
Mae 2002) indicates that 39% of consumers erroneously
believe that lenders are obligated to give them the best
rate for which they qualify—which, among other things,
might lead consumers to search less than they should to
obtain the best loan terms. Moreover, if consumers fail
to categorize lenders as marketers, they are less apt to
bring to mind or make appropriate adjustments for more
generalized understanding of persuasion tactics. Friestad
and Wright (1994) refer to persuasion knowledge as a
schemer schema and propose that consumers can use such
knowledge to cope with persuasion attempts. More recently,
Wright (2002) argues that consumers have social intelli-
gence about the marketplace (i.e., marketplace metacogni-
tion) that they can use to interpret marketing tactics. Most
prior research has tended to (1) examine general persuasion
knowledge rather than tactics specific to a class of prod-
ucts or services as we do in this research and (2) rely on
measures of preexisting knowledge rather than manipula-
tions of it, thus failing to isolate this type of knowledge
from other knowledge as well as related consumer charac-
teristics (Brown and Krishna 2004; Campbell and Kirmani
2000; Friestad and Wright 1994; Williams, Fitzsimons, and
One-Sided Marketing of Debt Consolidation Loans S53
Block 2004). Given that lender literacy is likely to be low,
our lender-focused intervention is designed to improve con-
sumer knowledge about lender motives and behaviors while
activating marketplace metacognition.
EMPIRICAL OVERVIEW
Our basic premise is that both loan-focused and lender-
focused dimensions are needed to improve consumer
understanding of and response to debt consolidation loan
marketing. Loan literacy, by providing information about
how and why loans work, should help consumers evalu-
ate loan appeals and assess the degree to which consol-
idation loans will reduce debt. Likewise, lender literacy,
by providing information about lenders, should help con-
sumers correct mistaken beliefs about lenders and better
assess their claims. Indeed, we believe that both interven-
tions are necessary. That is, lender literacy might increase
skepticism about lenders and their claims, but consumers
will also require loan literacy to know how to improve their
evaluation of the loans themselves. (Viewed another way,
loan literacy might provide information helpful to evaluat-
ing the loans, but lender literacy will prompt a more care-
ful evaluation of loan claims made by lenders.) Thus, we
hypothesize that loan- and lender-focused approaches will
be most effective when combined.
We present two experiments to test the effectiveness of
loan- and lender-focused literacy on consumer response
to debt consolidation loan marketing. When testing effec-
tiveness, we argue that a successful intervention should
(1) increase intentions to engage in financially protective
behaviors, such as prudent money management (because
one downside of debt consolidation loan marketing is its
negative impact on such behaviors); (2) reduce the favora-
bility of loan evaluations (which are likely overoptimistic
given one-sided marketing of these loans); and (3) increase
the perceived importance of interest in loan decisions
(because total interest paid is virtually ignored in consol-
idation loan marketing). The latter two criteria represent
consequences for consumers in the market for debt consol-
idation, whereas the first criterion represents broader con-
sequences for consumers in general whether in the market
for loans or not.
EXPERIMENT 1: LOAN-FOCUSED AND
LENDER-FOCUSED LITERACY
In Experiment 1, we test the unique effects of loan-
focused and lender-focused literacy dimensions following
exposure to debt consolidation loan marketing. Because
we were less concerned with assessing the impact of our
eventual intervention than with understanding the separate
effects of each dimension (using exposure to typical debt
consolidation loan advertising by itself as a baseline), we
used a relatively homogeneous convenience sample of col-
lege students. College students are also an important popu-
lation in which to study the impact of loan marketing given
rising levels of debt and potential susceptibility to loan mar-
keting. (The average college graduate has nearly $20,000 in
debt; average credit card debt has increased 47% between
1989 and 2004 for 25- to 34-year-olds and 11% for 18- to
24-year-olds; and nearly one in five 18- to 24-year-olds is
in debt hardship, up from 12% in 1989 [Draut 2008].)
Method
Subjects and design. The experiment was a 2 (loan-
focused intervention/not) ×2 (lender-focused interven-
tion/not) between-subjects design. Participants were 127
undergraduate students who participated for extra credit
in an introductory marketing course, screened to eliminate
anyone with advanced finance coursework.
Materials and procedure. All participants were first
exposed to two advertising messages for debt consolida-
tion loans (a real and fictitious advertisement emphasiz-
ing the advantages of debt consolidation, including debt
reduction and no-hassle claims) to familiarize them with
such loans and provide a common baseline. In all condi-
tions, participants also read basic financial numeracy infor-
mation (titled “Loan Basics”) intended to be neutral and
factual in tone. This information included a description
of APR and an explanation and example of how loan
length affects monthly payments and total interest owed.
Doing this enables us to test whether loan- and lender-
focused dimensions of financial literacy have any added
value beyond basic financial numeracy.
Participants were then randomly assigned to receive
further information, either a loan-focused or a lender-
focused intervention or both. Participants who received a
loan-focused intervention message read information (titled
“Learn the Truth About Loans”) that indicated “When
loan repayment is stretched over time, you end up pay-
ing more overall interest” and that explained various loan
outcomes (e.g., not qualifying for lower interest rates and
winding up in more debt). Participants who received a
lender-focused intervention message then read information
(titled “Learn the Truth About Lenders”) that indicated
“Lenders are really sellers who act in their best inter-
est, not yours” and that explained various lender prac-
tices (e.g., hidden fees and penalties and deceptive prac-
tices). The conclusion drawn in each intervention message
stated “Don’t count on debt consolidation [loans/lenders]
to come to your rescue! When it comes to debt, these
[loans/lenders] aren’t the solution.” The interventions were
also similar in layout and graphics. After exposure to the
intervention, participants rated the information on two five-
point scales (with endpoints “uninformative/informative”
and “worthless/valuable”).
Participants then reported their money management
intentions on seven-point scales (with endpoints “definitely
will not/definitely will”) for the following items: “Pay off
the entire balance on credit cards each month,” “Keep three
months’ worth of living expenses as a cushion in savings,”
and “Budget and track monthly living expenses.” Partici-
pants also indicated their evaluation of debt consolidation
loans on two seven-point scales (“ineffective/effective” and
“risky/safe”) and rated the importance of interest and non-
interest criteria when making loan decisions as follows:
“Imagine for a moment that you decide to take out a debt
consolidation loan. Please rate how important each of the
following are to you.” Participants then rated (on five-
point scales with endpoints “unimportant/important”) the
following items: “convenience of a single monthly pay-
ment,” “low monthly payments,” “long repayment period,”
“low APR,” “low total interest paid,” and “easy applica-
tion process.”
S54 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, SPECIAL ISSUE 2011
Finally, participants responded to a ten-item quiz that
measures loan and lender financial literacy as a confirma-
tion of the intended effects of our interventions. The loan-
focused section included five multiple-choice questions
regarding loan terms and their effects on monthly payments
and interest owed. For example, participants were asked to
“imagine a debt of $1,000. How much will be owed after 5
years at an interest rate of 10% compounded annually” and
to select among six interval responses. The lender-focused
section included five true/false questions regarding lenders.
For example, participants were asked whether “lenders are
obligated to offer you the best loan terms possible given
your credit record.” We drew items from past financial lit-
eracy measures in the literature when possible.1
Results
We conducted analyses as a function of lender interven-
tion, loan intervention, and their interaction. Descriptive
means for key dependent variables appear in Table 1.
Manipulation checks. Ratings of the interventions indi-
cate that participants’ perceptions of their worth and value
did not differ (M =400560967; F <1). As intended, par-
ticipants’ scores on the financial literacy quiz revealed a
main effect of the loan intervention (Mloan =5015610307vs.
Mno-loan =4055610827; F4111235=4077, p<005); moreover,
the lender intervention marginally increased the propor-
tion of high-scoring participants on the lender-related items
(Õ2=3066, p=006). Stronger effects seem likely in a pop-
ulation lacking the education and sophistication of college
students; however, both achieved their intended purposes.
Money management. As expected, analysis of variance
(ANOVA) of money management intentions (coefficient
Á=076) revealed a two-way interaction of loan and lender
interventions 4F4111235=4081, p<005, partial ×2=0035.
1In our sampling of loan literacy levels, 24% of college students
answered the compound interest question described in the text correctly,
12% overestimated, and 64% underestimated. On the five-item loan liter-
acy quiz, 55% answered less than half correctly. In a convenience sample
of adults, 24% answered correctly, 25% overestimated, and 51% underes-
timated; on the five-item loan literacy quiz, 59% answered less than half
correctly. Although comparisons are fraught, Lusardi and Tufano (2008)
find that only 36% of adult consumers correctly answered their question
about compound interest loans. Turning to lender literacy, the Fannie Mae
National Housing Survey (Fannie Mae 2002) indicates that 39% of con-
sumers (erroneously) believe that lenders are obligated to give them the
best rate for which they qualify. In our own (convenience) sampling, 39%
of college students and 27% of adults held this erroneous belief.
Table 1
LOAN- AND LENDER-FOCUSED DIMENSIONS OF FINANCIAL
LITERACY (EXPERIMENT 1)
Financial Money Importance
Literacy Management Loan of Low
Intervention N Intentions Evaluation Interest
None (control
group) 34 5.92 (.85) 2.97 (1.15) 4.15 (.69)
Loan-focused 34 5.62 (1.30) 3.19 (1.46) 4.21 (.75)
Lender-focused 31 5.55 (1.50) 2.89 (1.38) 3.84 (1.13)
Loan- and
lender-focused 28 6.19 (1.11) 2.21 (1.18) 4.82 (.57)
In the presence of the lender intervention, follow-up simple
effects indicate that the loan intervention increased money
management intentions 4F4111235=4013, p<005, Cohen’s
d=0435; in its absence, the loan intervention had no effect
4F4111235=1007, p=030). These results indicate that the
interventions work best in concert to enhance intentions to
engage in financially protective responding.
Loan evaluations. The ANOVA of the loan ratings (coef-
ficient Á=086) revealed a main effect of the lender inter-
vention 4F4111235=5024, p<005), qualified by its interac-
tion with the loan intervention 4F4111235=3072, p=005,
partial ×2=002). In the presence of the lender inter-
vention, the loan intervention decreased loan evaluations
4F4111235=3094, p<005, Cohen’s d =049); in its absence,
the loan intervention had no effect (F <1). That is, loan and
lender interventions are both required to decrease favorable
evaluations of debt consolidation.
Loan decisions. For the data regarding loan decision
making, the ANOVA of the interest-related items (coef-
ficient Á=076) revealed a significant effect of the loan
intervention 4F4111235=5089, p<0055, qualified by its
interaction with the lender intervention 4F4111235=4008,
p<005, partial ×2=002). In the presence of the loan inter-
vention, the lender intervention increased the perceived
importance of interest rates 4F4111235=9022, p<001,
Cohen’s d =057); in the absence of the loan intervention,
the lender intervention had no effect (F <1). (A correspond-
ing analysis of noninterest items is nonsignificant; p>022.)
Again, loan and lender interventions work best in concert
to improve loan decision making, specifically by increasing
the perceived importance of low interest.
In summary, a combined loan- and lender-focused inter-
vention increased money management intentions, reduced
loan evaluations (which were likely overoptimistic given
the one-sided marketing of these loans), and improved loan
decision making (by increasing the perceived importance of
low interest). Thus, loan and lender literacy together have
the potential to improve personal financial responding by
consumers. Strikingly, single interventions had no effect,
making it less likely that the mere increase in the amount
of information explains the success of our combined inter-
vention. Instead, we argue that loan-focused interventions
provide consumers with the knowledge to evaluate loans
more appropriately but that lender-focused interventions are
also needed to help consumers respond to the marketing
claims made by lenders.
EXPERIMENT 2: TESTING A COMBINED
INTERVENTION
The primary goal of Experiment 2 is to test the effi-
cacy of an intervention combining loan- and lender-focused
dimensions in a field sample of adult consumers. As a
secondary objective, we also compare the combined inter-
vention with an intervention providing only basic financial
numeracy information (i.e., explaining APR and com-
pounding interest over time). From a policy perspective, the
latter may be considered less intrusive and also consistent
with the kinds of disclosure information already used for
some other financial products (e.g., credit card disclosures).
It thus serves as a theoretically and substantively relevant
control group.
One-Sided Marketing of Debt Consolidation Loans S55
Method
Subjects and design. The experiment was a three-
group (no intervention, financial numeracy only, finan-
cial numeracy +combined intervention) between-subjects
design. Participants were 132 adult consumers drawn from
a commercial panel who owned at least one credit card
and who had not previously purchased a debt consolidation
loan. The sample skewed slightly toward women (55%),
with desirable heterogeneity of age (median 45–54 years),
income (median $40,000–49,999), and education (median
four-year college).
Materials and procedure. All participants were first
exposed to an advertising message we created for debt
consolidation loans that embodied central characteristics
of actual advertisements in emphasizing the advantages
of debt consolidation, including debt reduction and no-
hassle claims. Participants then provided their opinion of
the debt consolidation program featured in the advertise-
ment (on three seven-point scales with endpoints “a bad
idea/a good idea,” “ineffective/effective,” and “risky/safe”),
intended as a baseline measure of attitudes toward debt
consolidation after ad exposure and before the intervention.
Participants were then exposed to one of three differ-
ent intervention levels. Some participants were exposed
to basic financial numeracy information, and some
participants were exposed to this basic numeracy infor-
mation and a combined intervention emphasizing loan-
and lender-focused dimensions of financial literacy (as in
Experiment 1). The remaining participants received no
intervention and served as an ad-only control group for
comparison purposes.
Participants then reported their money management
intentions on seven-point scales (with endpoints “very
unlikely/very likely”) for the following items: “Pay off the
entire balance on credit cards each month,” “Keep three
months’ worth of living expenses as a cushion in sav-
ings,” “Budget and track monthly living expenses,” “Refi-
nance to extend the term of outstanding loans” (reverse
coded), “Take out a new loan when existing loans have
not been paid off” (reverse coded), and “Spend money in
advance of receiving it (e.g., buy-now-pay-later, pay-day
borrowing” (reverse coded). Participants also indicated their
evaluation of debt consolidation loans on four seven-point
scales (“negative/positive,” “a bad idea/a good idea,” “inef-
fective/effective,” and “risky/safe”). Participants also rated
the importance of interest and noninterest criteria when
making loan decisions (see Experiment 1 for wording).
Finally, participants responded to various background ques-
tions, including education and income (used as covariates
for control purposes).
Results
We conducted analyses as a function of the interven-
tion, post-ad-exposure debt consolidation attitudes (coeffi-
cient Á=096; standardized M =01SD =1), and their interac-
tion. Descriptive means for key dependent variables appear
in Table 2.
Money management. The ANOVA of money manage-
ment intentions (coefficient Á=077) revealed a signif-
icant effect of intervention condition 4F4211225=3054,
p<0055, a nonsignificant effect of post-ad attitudes (F <1),
Table 2
TESTING A COMBINED INTERVENTION (EXPERIMENT 2)
Money Interest
Corrective Management Loan Importance
Intervention N Intentions Evaluation (Relative)
None (control 48 5.68 (1.09) 2.93 (1.87) .71 (.84)
group) b = −041 (.17) b =1054 (.21) b = −023 (.12)
Basic financial 42 5.40 (1.27) 3.30 (1.47) .64 (.71)
numeracy b =01840205b=074 (.24) b = −018 (.14)
Loan- and 42 6.13 (1.06) 2.47 (1.92) .83 (.79)
lender-focused b =002 (.16) b =094 (.19) b =013 (.11)
Notes: Means, standard deviations, and coefficients for the initial con-
solidation attitude covariate are shown for each condition.
and their expected two-way interaction 4F4211225=2097,
p=005, partial ×2=0035.2For the no-intervention ad-only
condition, the coefficient for the attitude covariate was neg-
ative and significant (b = −04160177, t = −2044, p<005).
That is, more favorable attitudes toward debt consolidation
after exposure to a debt consolidation loan advertisement
led to a decline in intentions to manage money carefully—
consistent with the downside that such one-sided marketing
undermines financially protective behaviors.
We then conducted a spotlight analysis at more and
less favorable post-ad-exposure debt consolidation attitudes
(i.e., +1 SD and −1 SD) to understand the nature of
the two-way interaction. For the contrast of the combined
intervention versus no-intervention, the combined interven-
tion had no effect on money management intentions when
post-ad attitudes were already less favorable (i.e., −1 SD;
6.09 vs. 6.08, t =012, p=091) but, as intended, increased
money management intentions when attitudes were more
favorable (i.e., +1 SD; 6.12 vs. 5.22, t =2069, p<005,
Cohen’s d =083). However, by itself, the financial numer-
acy intervention actually lowered prudent money manage-
ment intentions (compared with the no-intervention control
group) when post-ad-exposure consolidation attitudes were
less favorable (i.e., −1 SD; 5.28 vs. 6.05, t = −2022, p<005,
Cohen’s d =071) and had no effect when consolidation atti-
tudes were more favorable (+1 SD; 5.65 vs. 5.22, t =1016,
p=025). These results suggest that an intervention com-
bining loan and lender literacy dimensions can successfully
encourage money management intentions (which are under-
mined when debt consolidation loan attitudes are favor-
able), in marked contrast with a basic financial numeracy
intervention (which seems to inadvertently exacerbate this
downside among people whose attitudes are less favorable).
Loan evaluations. The ANOVA of postintervention loan
evaluation ratings (coefficient Á=097) revealed an effect of
intervention condition 4F4211225=4086, p<0055, an effect
of post-ad-exposure attitudes 4F4111225=73038, p<0015,
and their expected two-way interaction 4F4211225=3065,
p<005, partial ×2=0025. For the no-intervention condi-
tion, the coefficient for the attitude covariate was significant
2For completeness’ sake, education and income effects were nonsignif-
icant (p>015) for all dependent variables with one exception: The high-
est levels of education (i.e., graduate-level vs. undergraduate or lower)
increased money management intentions 4F4311225=2058, p=0065.
S56 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, SPECIAL ISSUE 2011
(b =105460217, t =7045, p<001). That is, as post-ad atti-
tudes toward debt consolidation increased, loan evaluations
also increased.
We then conducted a spotlight analysis for more and
less favorable post-ad-exposure debt consolidation attitudes
(i.e., +1 SD and −1 SD) to understand the nature of the two-
way interaction. For the contrast of the combined interven-
tion versus no-intervention, the combined intervention had
no effect on loan evaluations when post-ad attitudes were
less favorable (i.e., −1 SD; 1.25 vs. 1.42, t = −041, p=068)
and, importantly, reduced loan evaluations when attitudes
were more favorable (i.e., +1 SD; 3.13 vs. 4.49, t = −3033,
p<001, Cohen’s d =073). Conversely, relative to the no-
intervention ad-only control group, the financial numer-
acy intervention increased loan evaluations when post-ad
attitudes were less favorable (i.e., −1 SD; 2.31 vs. 1.42,
t= −2012, p<005, Cohen’s d =048) and had no effect when
attitudes were more favorable (i.e., +1 SD; 3.80 vs. 4.49,
t= −1056, p=012). This undesirable effect of basic finan-
cial numeracy information is similar to that observed for
money management intentions. These results indicate that
an intervention combining loan and lender literacy dimen-
sions successfully targeted and reduced favorable attitudes
toward debt consolidation after exposure to debt consoli-
dation loan advertising, while the basic financial numeracy
intervention did not and sometimes increased debt consol-
idation attitudes.
Loan decisions. The ANOVA of the index reflecting the
perceived importance of interest versus noninterest items
(coefficient Á=080 and .76, respectively) in making loan
decisions revealed an interaction between intervention con-
dition and post-ad attitudes 4F4211225=3004, p=005, par-
tial ×2=0035; intervention condition and post-ad attitudes
were nonsignificant (respectively, F <1; F4111225=1063,
p=020). For the no-intervention ad-only condition, the
coefficient for the post-ad-attitude covariate was negative
(b = −02360127, t = −1091, p=006). That is, as attitudes
toward debt consolidation increased following ad exposure,
the relative importance of interest as a decision criterion
declined. This result is consistent with the one-sided nature
of such advertising, which emphasizes the advantages of
debt consolidation loans (e.g., lower monthly payments and
no-hassle claims) while underplaying the importance of
lower interest.
We then conducted a spotlight analysis at more and
less favorable post-ad-exposure debt consolidation attitudes
(i.e., +1 SD and −1 SD) to understand the nature of the two-
way interaction. Again, the combined intervention (versus
no-intervention) had no effect on interest importance when
post-ad attitudes were less favorable (i.e., −1 SD; .81 vs.
1.04, t = − 1003, p=031) but, as intended, increased the rela-
tive importance of interest when attitudes were more favor-
able (i.e., +1 SD; 1.07 vs. .59, t =2008, p<005, Cohen’s
d=057). The financial numeracy intervention had no effect
on interest importance when post-ad-exposure consolida-
tion attitudes were less favorable (i.e., −1 SD; .97 vs. 1.04,
t= −028, p=078) or more favorable (i.e., +1 SD; .61 vs.
.59, t =007, p=094). Thus, the intervention combining loan
and lender literacy dimensions successfully improved loan
decision making by increasing the perceived importance of
interest; the basic financial numeracy intervention did not.
In summary, more favorable debt consolidation attitudes
following ad exposure are associated with less prudent
money management intentions and the reduced impor-
tance of interest—consistent with the undesirable effects of
debt consolidation loan marketing. An intervention provid-
ing basic financial numeracy information had no desirable
effects and may even backfire by creating more favorable
loan attitudes. It would seem that something more than
financial numeracy information is needed to help con-
sumers respond to fairly one-sided debt consolidation loan
marketing, perhaps because such information is perceived
as relatively neutral, more challenging, and less imme-
diately relevant. In contrast, an intervention comprising
loan- and lender-focused information was successful. The
combined intervention undermined favorable loan evalu-
ations and improved financially protective behaviors and
loan-related decision making (through the perceived impor-
tance of low interest).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The main contributions of this research are twofold.
First, we provide evidence that debt consolidation loan
marketing can have potentially harmful consequences on
consumers’ personal finances. Specifically, favorable debt
consolidation loan attitudes undermine financially protec-
tive behaviors (e.g., prudent money management) and
worsen loan decisions (e.g., by reducing the perceived
importance of low interest when choosing a loan). We
show that a well-constructed financial literacy intervention
improves these responses and helps correct unreasonably
favorable debt consolidation loan attitudes that are based
on one-sided information. Second, we expand the litera-
ture on financial literacy by (1) decomposing literacy into
two dimensions, loan- and lender-focused (the latter almost
ignored until now), and (2) manipulating these dimensions
rather than relying on measurement to demonstrate their
combined efficacy. As expected, a combined intervention
helps consumers respond to debt consolidation marketing—
by overcoming more favorable loan attitudes, encouraging
money management intentions, and improving loan deci-
sions by increasing the perceived importance of interest.
Financial Products and Financial Literacy
Low levels of financial literacy are a matter of increasing
global concern (Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development 2008). Although most measures of finan-
cial literacy typically focus on basic concepts (e.g., under-
standing inflation and compound interest), consumers need
to make complex decisions regarding cash flow manage-
ment, credit, savings and retirement, and home ownership.
Meanwhile, there has been an explosion of financial prod-
ucts, and these products have grown increasingly com-
plex, with the risk and responsibility for decisions about
them being shifted toward consumers (e.g., choice in retire-
ment savings) (Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development 2008). Lack of financial literacy has been
linked to problems with debt and lower levels of retirement
planning and saving (Lusardi and Mitchell 2007; Lusardi
and Tufano 2009; Van Rooij, Lusardi, and Alessie 2007).
Some of these problems reflect basic numeracy difficul-
ties, such as poor understanding of interest rates (Lee and
Hogarth 1999) and a general tendency to underestimate
One-Sided Marketing of Debt Consolidation Loans S57
exponential growth and thereby undersave and overborrow
(Eisenstein and Hoch 2005; Stango and Zinman 2008).
Although we agree that such numeracy difficulties are prob-
lematic, our research suggests that basic financial numeracy
is insufficient to help consumers understand and respond to
more specific financial products, including debt consolida-
tion loans.
Moreover, financial problems may also arise from
“lay theories” of personal finance (see Molden and
Dweck 2006), including widespread and harmful “con-
sumer finance myths” (Emmons 2004). These lay theo-
ries may be especially harmful when the downside of
financial remedies are not understood. For example, the
myth that “all that matters is your monthly payment”
leads people to favor lower interest from longer duration
loans, thus pushing payment burdens into the future. In
the case of borrowing, the monthly payment myth coin-
cides with the belief that resources will be less constrained
in the future (Zauberman and Lynch 2005). Similarly, the
myth that lenders are obligated to offer the lowest rate
for which consumers qualify may reduce consumer search
and lead consumers to accept suboptimal loan terms. As
our work attests, a financial literacy intervention that tar-
gets such myths, specifically erroneous lay beliefs about
loans and lenders, can improve financial decision making.
These myths or lay theories are also evident in the heuris-
tics and biases that drive underinvesting for retirement
(Bernartzi and Thaler 2007) and, more generally, represent
a promising avenue for consumer research to understand
(and improve) personal financial behaviors.
That being said, improving financial literacy seems chal-
lenging. The little research that exists suggests that the
effectiveness of financial literacy programs is poor and/or
uncertain (for a review, see Lusardi 2004; Lusardi and
Mitchell 2007; see also Bell, Gorin, and Hogarth 2009;
Cole and Shastry 2009). Importantly, some specific pro-
grams that have shown promise (e.g., Quick Enrollment,
Save More Tomorrow; Choi, Laibson, and Madrian 2006;
Keller and Lusardi 2012; Thaler and Benartzi 2004) may
work primarily by simplifying decisions (e.g., through
defaults and planning aids) rather than improving financial
literacy. Our research also speaks to this challenge insofar
as an intervention to improve loan literacy (i.e., information
about loan terms and the dis/advantages of consolidation
loans) had no impact unless coupled with an intervention
to improve lender literacy (i.e., information about lender
motives and tactics). Although these findings suggest that
efforts to improve personal financial behaviors are difficult,
we note that the combined approach was successful, imply-
ing that an emphasis on both dimensions in financial edu-
cation programs might increase their effectiveness. Indeed,
the low rates of lender literacy observed herein suggest
that consumers may view lenders as agents acting in con-
sumers’ interests, rather than as sellers acting in their own
self-interest. Questionable marketing may contribute to this
perception with appeals that encourage trust combined with
deceptive practices, such as appearing to offer credit coun-
seling or signaling nonprofit status when the firm has other
objectives. A better understanding of marketplace metacog-
nition and lay theories of personal finance—regarding loans
and lenders or, more generally, financial products and their
providers—would be of great benefit in understanding how
the marketing of financial products intended to help con-
sumers can sometimes lead to harm.
Limitations
We acknowledge several limitations in this research pro-
gram. First, we rely on self-report measures of inten-
tions rather than actual behavior. Studying the impact of
loan marketing and interventions on actual behavior over
a period sufficient to encompass changing economic and
personal conditions would be valuable but is, of course,
challenging. To obtain added insights, we conducted a
survey using a commercial financial panel of U.S. con-
sumers and found correlational evidence linking more favor-
able attitudes toward debt consolidation with lower FICO
scores (Bloom, Bolton, and Cohen 2010). Second, our loan-
focused and lender-focused interventions were multifaceted,
and further research might be useful to pinpoint which
aspect of the information within each intervention had the
most impact. It is perhaps not surprising that an effortful
intervention might be necessary to affect entrenched behav-
iors in the domain of personal finances. Investigating the
longer-term impact of such interventions is warranted.
Implications
This research has several pragmatic implications. First,
consumers in serious financial difficulty who are consid-
ering debt consolidation loans may be especially vulner-
able to current promotional practices, given low levels of
financial literacy and the motivation to downplay longer-
term negative aspects of debt consolidation (heightened
by fears of immediate creditor actions). Findings showing
that both loan and lender literacy are needed to improve
financial decision making can be used by organizations
that currently advocate for and provide consumer finan-
cial education (e.g., the National Endowment for Financial
Education; credit counselors, schools, churches, and other
educators) to create and/or improve informational interven-
tions. Credit counselors are particularly valuable to edu-
cate distressed consumers who are targeted by marketers
promising “debt relief.” For that reason, we have developed
an audiovisual form of our intervention that is currently
under trial by a credit counseling agency that provides
financial literacy seminars to consumers. Second, increas-
ing awareness of why and how consumers are seduced
by the apparent remedy of debt consolidation loans may
increase the willingness of third parties to provide finan-
cial education about loan marketing. For example, the mil-
itary (arguably a leader in this area) provides financial
literacy programs during training, universities are already
involved in providing financial assistance to students (and
may want to reconsider their collaboration with debt con-
solidation marketing), and large employers could expand
existing training that is part of benefits or employee assis-
tance. (More generally, though, we note that the question
of how to deliver financial literacy education effectively
to consumers remains a challenge—as the current state of
financial literacy attests.) Finally, responsible lenders, when
put on notice as to serious consequences for consumers due
to overpromoting the benefits of debt consolidation while
underplaying downside consequences, might want to con-
sider more balanced marketing approaches, perhaps as a
S58 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, SPECIAL ISSUE 2011
way to differentiate themselves from less legitimate com-
petition and/or to gain broader support from policy makers
and regulators, such as the newly created Consumer Finan-
cial Protection Bureau.
REFERENCES
Bell, Catherine, Daniel Gorin, and Jeanne Hogarth (2009), “Does
Financial Education Affect Soldiers’ Financial Behaviors?”
Networks Financial Institute Working Paper 2009-WP-08.
Benartzi, Shlomo and Richard H. Thaler (2007), “Heuristics and
Biases in Retirement Savings Behavior,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 21 (3), 81–104.
Bernheim, Douglas (1995), “Do Households Appreciate Their
Financial Vulnerabilities? An Analysis of Actions, Percep-
tions, and Public Policy,” in Tax Policy and Economic Growth,
Washington, DC: American Council for Capital Formation,
1–30.
Bloom, Paul N., Lisa E. Bolton, and Joel B. Cohen (2010), “Help-
ing Consumers Respond Responsibly to the Advertising and
Availability of Debt Consolidation Loans,” Interim Reports to
the National Endowment for Financial Education.
Bolton, Lisa E., Joel B. Cohen, and Paul N. Bloom (2006), “Does
Marketing Products as Remedies Create “Get Out of Jail Free
Cards’?” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (June), 71–81.
Braunstein, Sandra and Carolyn Welch (2002), “Financial Liter-
acy: An Overview of Practice, Research, and Policy,” Federal
Reserve Bulletin, 88 (November), 445–57.
Brown, Christina L. and Aradhna Krishna (2004), “The Skep-
tical Shopper: A Metacognitive Account for the Effects of
Default Options on Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research,
31 (December), 529–39.
Calkins, Lindsay Noble and Thomas J. Zlatoper (2001), “The
Effects of Mandatory Seat Belt Laws on Motor Vehicle Fatal-
ities in the U.S.,” Social Science Quarterly, 82 (December),
716–32.
Campbell, Margaret C. and Amna Kirmani (2000), “Consumers’
Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility
and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 69–83.
Choi, James J., David Laibson, and Brigitte C. Madrian (2006),
“Reducing the Complexity Costs of 401(k) Participation
Through Quick Enrollment,” NBER Working Paper 11979
(January).
Cole, Shawn A. and Gauri Kartini Shastry (2009), “Smart Money:
The Effect of Education, Cognitive Ability, and Financial Lit-
eracy on Financial Market Participation,” Harvard Business
School Finance Working Paper No. 09-071 (February).
Draut, Tamara (2008), “Economic State of Young America,”
(May 6), [available at http://archive.demos.org/pub1568.cfm].
Eisenstein, Eric M. and Stephen J. Hoch (2005), “Intuitive Com-
pounding: Framing, Temporal Perspective, and Expertise,” work-
ing paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Emmons, William R. (2004), “Consumer-Finance Myths and
other Obstacles to Financial Literacy,” Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis Working Paper 2005-03.
Fannie Mae (2002), “Fannie Mae National Housing Survey: The
Growing Demand for Housing,” (accessed June 29, 2011), [avail-
able at http://www.fanniemae.com/global/pdf/media/survey/
survey2002.pdf].
Federal Reserve Board (2009), “Survey of Consumer Finances
2007,” (February), (accessed June 29, 2011), [available at http://
www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2009/pdf/scf09.pdf].
Federal Trade Commission (2009), “Proposed Rules: Telemarket-
ing Sales Rule,” 16 CFR Part 310, Federal Register, 16 (19),
4669–79.
Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persua-
sion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion
Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 1–31.
Goodman, Peter S. (2010), “Peddling Relief, Firms Put Debtors in
a Deeper Hole,” New York Times, (June 18), [available at http://
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/business/economy/19debt.html].
Keller, Punam Anand and Annamaria Lusardi (2012), “Employee
Retirement Savings: What We Know and What We Are Dis-
covering for Helping People to Prepare for Life After Work,”
in Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collec-
tive Well-Being: Reviews and Frontiers, David Mick, Simone
Pettigrew, Connie Pechmann, and Julie Ozanne, eds. New York:
Routledge.
Lee, Jinkook and J.M. Hogarth (1999), “The Price of Money:
Consumers’ Understanding of APRs and Contract Interest
Rates,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18 (1), 66–76.
Lusardi, Annamaria (2004), “Savings and the Effectiveness of
Financial Education,” in Pension Design and Structure: New
Lessons from Behavioral Finance, Olivia S. Mitchell and
Stephen Utkus, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 157–84.
and Olivia Mitchell (2007), “Financial Literacy and
Retirement Preparedness,” Business Economics, 42 (1), 35–44.
and (2009), “How Ordinary Consumers
Make Complex Economic Decisions: Financial Literacy and
Retirement Readiness,” NBER Working Paper No. 15350
(September).
, , and Vilsa Curto (2010), “Financial Literacy
Among the Young: Evidence and Implications for Consumer
Policy,” NBER Working Paper No. 15352 (September).
and Peter Tufano (2009), “Debt Literacy, Financial Expe-
riences and Overindebtedness,” NBER Working Paper 14808
(March).
Molden, Daniel C. and Carol S. Dweck (2006), “Finding
‘Meaning’ in Psychology: A Lay Theories Approach to
Self-Regulation, Social Perception, and Social Development,”
American Psychologist, 61 (3), 192–203.
Moore, Danna (2003), “Survey of Financial Literacy in
Washington State: Knowledge, Behavior, Attitudes and Experi-
ences,” Technical Report 03-39, Social and Economic Sciences
Research Center, Washington State University.
Moorman, Diann C. and Steven Garasky (2008), “Consumer Debt
Repayment Behavior as a Precursor to Bankruptcy,” Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, 29 (June), 219–33.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008),
“Taking Financial Literacy to the Next Level: Important Chal-
lenges and Promising Solutions,” in OECD-US Treasury Interna-
tional Conference on Financial Education Proceedings, Vol. 1.
Washington, DC: 7–8, [available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/
15/41635334.pdf].
Perry, Vanessa G. and Carol M. Motley (2009), “Where’s the Fine
Print? Advertising and the Mortgage Market Crisis,” California
Management Review, 51 (1), 29–44.
Richens, John, John Imrie, and Andrew Copas (2000), “Condoms
and Seat Belts: The Parallels and the Lessons,” Lancet, 355
(January 29), 400–403.
Rodgers, Gregory B. (1996), “Bicyclist Risks and Helmet Usage
Patterns: An Analysis of Compensatory Behavior in a Risky
Recreational Activity,” Managerial and Decision Economics,
17 (September–October), 493–507.
One-Sided Marketing of Debt Consolidation Loans S59
Rogers, John D. and Thomas K. Greenfield (1999), “Beer Drink-
ing Accounts for Most of the Hazardous Alcohol Consumption
in the U.S.,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60 (November),
732–39.
Stango, Victor and Jonathan Zinman (2008), “Exponential Growth
Bias and Household Finance,” Journal of Finance, 64 (6),
2807–49.
Thaler, Richard and S. Benartzi (2004), “Save More Tomorrow:
Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving,”
Journal of Political Economy, 112 (S1), S164–87.
U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (2009), “Vicious Cycle:
How Unfair Credit Card Company Practices Are Squeez-
ing Consumers and Undermining the Recovery,” (May 12),
[available at http://jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id
=42840b23-fed8-447b-a029-e977c0a25544].
Van Rooij, Maarten, Annamaria Lusardi, and Rob Alessie (2007),
“Financial Literacy and Stock Market Participation,” Michigan
Retirement Research Center Research Paper No. 2007-162.
Williams, Flora L. (1999), “Costs and Benefits of Loan Consoli-
dation,” Financial Counseling and Planning, 10 (2), 61–73.
Williams, Patti, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, and Lauren G. Block (2004),
“When Consumers Don’t Recognize ‘Benign’ Intentions Ques-
tions as Persuasive Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research,
31 (December), 540–51.
Wright, Peter (2002), “Marketplace Metacognition and Social
Intelligence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (March),
677–82.
Zauberman, Gal and John G. Lynch (2005), “Resource Slack
and Propensity to Discount Delayed Investments of Time Ver-
sus Money,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
134 (1), 23–37.
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) is the property of American Marketing Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
