Psychological Factors of Formal and Informal Monetary Borrowing


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The social category ‘borrowers’ is heterogeneous in a number of indicators. The article raises the problem of differences in the psychological characteristics of borrowers who prefer formal loans and loans from private individuals. The purpose of the study is to analyze the psychological characteristics of consumers of various types of loans. Based on previous research, the authors identified for analysis variables such as time perspective and long-term orientation of the individual, consideration of the consequences of one’s behavior, level of generalized trust, moral foundations, social beliefs and attitudes towards debt, which were presumably associated with people’s preferred type of borrowing. The sample consisted of users of financial services with various types of loans ( N = 1974); they were divided into three groups, homogeneous by type of loans: (1) the respondents who had only loans received from relatives, friends or acquaintances ( N = 97), (2) the respondents who had only loans from microfinance organizations (MFO) ( N = 97), and (3) the respondents who had only consumer loans ( N = 103). The analysis was carried out using the following methods and techniques: The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) by J. Haidt (adapted by O.A. Sychev), The Long-Term Orientation of Personality (LTOP) by T.A. Nestik, The Consideration for Future Consequences (CFC) by A. Strathman (adapted by T.A. Nestik), a short version of The Dual Process Model Scales by J. Duckitt (adapted by D.S. Grigoriev), a short version of The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) , The World Value Survey (WVS) , The Personal Belief in a Just World Scale by K. Dalbert with two subscales: belief in the justice of the world and belief in the justice of the world in relation to oneself (adapted by S.K. Nartova-Bochaver), and The Debt Behavior Express Inventory . In each group of the respondents, significant differences were found in the structure of relationships among the studied parameters. The results showed that the respondents who had only non-institutional loans, in contrast to those who had exclusively bank or MFO loans, were less loyal to their group (low traditionalism), which in their perceptions was associated with reduced trust in (regional) authorities. This may indicate the autonomy of these borrowers in social terms. The limitations of the study were also noted. Finally, the prospects for further research were outlined and the possibilities of practical use of the results obtained were determined.

About the authors

Eva N. Vikentieva

Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

Author for correspondence.
Email: vikentieva@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5531-1912
SPIN-code: 1210-1467

Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology and Human Capital Development

49/2 Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow, 125167, Russian Federation

Maria A. Gagarina

Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

Email: MGagarina224@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7812-7875
SPIN-code: 9851-4568

Doctor of Psychology, Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology and Human Capital Development

49/2 Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow, 125167, Russian Federation

Tatyana P. Emelyanova

Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: t_emelyanova@inbox.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0458-7705
SPIN-code: 4338-1645

Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Leading Researcher, Laboratory of Social and Economic Psychology

13 Yaroslavskaya St, bldg 1, Moscow, 129366, Russian Federation

References

  1. Achtziger, A., Hubert, M., Kenning, P., Raab, G., & Reisch, L. (2015). Debt out of control: The links between self-control, compulsive buying, and real debts. Journal of Economic Psychology, 49, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.04.003
  2. Buranbaeva, L.Z., Sabirova, Z.Z., & Nurova, A.R. (2019). The formal and informal character of the borrower's credit behavior. Vestnik BIST (Bashkir Institute of Social Technologies), (1), 24–30. (In Russ.)
  3. Clark, C.B., Swails, J.A., Pontinen, H.M., Bowerman, S.E., Kriz, K.A., & Hendricks, P.S. (2017). A behavioral economic assessment of individualizing versus binding moral foundations. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.052
  4. Dalbert, C., Lipkus, I., Sallay, H., & Goch, I. (2001). A just and an unjust world: structure and validity of different world beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00055-6
  5. Dang, L.P.X., Hoang, V.-N., Nghiem, S.H., & Wilson, C. (2023). Social networks with organisational resource, generalised trust and informal loans: Evidence from rural Vietnam. Economic Analysis and Policy, 77, 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.11.016
  6. Delis, M., Galariotis, E., & Monne, J. (2021). Economic condition and financial cognition. Journal of Banking & Finance, 123, 106035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2020.106035
  7. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.75
  8. Emelyanova, T.P., Vikentieva, E.N., & Gagarina, M.A. (2022). Socio-psychological features consumers of various types of loans. Voprosy Psychologii, 68(1), 73–83. (In Russ.)
  9. Gagarina, M.A. (2022). Individual’s debt relations as a problem of social and economic psychology. Theoretical and experimental psychology, 15(2), 121–136. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-0861-2022-2-121-135
  10. Gagarina, M.A., & Padun, M.A. (2021). Debt behavior express inventory: development and validation. Psychological Studies, 14(78), 3. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v14i78.124
  11. Graeber, D. (2015). Debt: The first 5000 years. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press. (In Russ.)
  12. Grigoryev, D.S. (2017). Development of a short version of the dual process model scales: right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, dangerous and competitive worldviews. National Psychological Journal, (4), 30–44. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2017.0403
  13. Guirkinger, C. (2008). Understanding the coexistence of formal and informal credit markets in Piura, Peru. World Development, 36(8), 1436–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.07.002
  14. Gulevich, O.A., & Sarieva, I.R. (2020). Social beliefs, political trust and readiness to participate in political actions: comparison of Russia and Ukraine. Social Psychology and Society, 11(2), 74–92. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2020110205
  15. Harrison, N., Chudry, F., Waller, R., & Hatt, S. (2015). Towards a typology of debt attitudes among contemporary young UK undergraduates. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2013.778966
  16. Haschenko, V.A. (2011). Subjective welfare scale and subjective economic well-being. Psychological Journal, 32(3), 27−42. (In Russ.)
  17. Haultain, S., Kemp, S., & Chernyshenko, O.S. (2010). The structure of attitudes to student debt. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(3), 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.01.003
  18. Jochemczyk, Ł., Pietrzak, J., Buczkowski, R., Stolarski, M., & Markiewicz, Ł. (2017). You Only Live Once: Present-hedonistic time perspective predicts risk propensity. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.010
  19. Joireman, J., Sprott, D.E., & Spangenberg, E.R. (2005). Fiscal responsibility and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.002
  20. Kamleitner, B., Hoelzl, E., & Kirchler, E. (2012). Credit use: Psychological perspectives on a multifaceted phenomenon. International Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.628674
  21. Kireeva, O.V., Diomin, A.N., & Pomazan, I.A. (2016). Motivational component of attitude toward credits of persons of different age. Polythematic Online Scientific Journal of Kuban State Agrarian University, (123), 1049-1065. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21515/1990-4665-123-073
  22. Leonard, S., Zhang, J.W., & Howell, R. (2019). Spending well: how time perspectives impact consumer values and financial decisions among middle-aged adults. Research in Human Development, 16(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2019.1670568
  23. Muzhichkova, Yu.E. (2015). Psychology of ordinary ideas about debts and credits. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University, (4), 37–44. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.12737/17057
  24. Nartova-Bochaver, S.K., Podlipnyak, M.B., & Khokhlova, A.Y. (2013). Belief in a Just world and mental well-being in deaf and hearing youth and adultsts. Clinical Psychology and Special Education, 2(3), 1–14. (In Russ.)
  25. Nestik, T.A. & Nikishina, O.S. (2021). Attitudes towards the pandemic and individual time perspective: Russian validation of the short version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI-15). Yaroslavskii Psikhologicheskii Vestnik, (3), 29–36. (In Russ.)
  26. Nestik, T.A. (2020). Russian validation of the consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC-14). Institute of psychology Russian Academy of Sciences. Organizational Psychology and Labor Psychology, 5(3), 55–88. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.38098/ipran.opwp.2020.16.3.003
  27. Nestik, T.A. (2021). Socio-psychological predictors and types of personal long-term orientation. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 42(4), 28–39. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920016008-4
  28. O’Grady, T., & Vandegrift, D. (2019). Moral foundations and decisions to donate bonus to charity: Data from paid online participants in the United States. Data in Brief, 25, 104331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104331
  29. Sekścińska, K., Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, J., & Maison, D. (2018). Individual differences in time perspectives and risky financial choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.038
  30. Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D.S., & Edwards, C.S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742
  31. Strebkov, D.O. (2007). Models of credit behavior and factors for their choice. Sociological Studies, (3), 52–62. (In Russ.)
  32. Sweet, E., Kuzawa, C.W., & McDade, T.W. (2018). Short-term lending: Payday loans as risk factors for anxiety, inflammation and poor health. SSM Population Health, 5, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.05.009
  33. Sychev, O.A., Protasova, I.N., & Belousov, K.I. (2018). Diagnosing moral foundations: Testing of the Russian version of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. Russian Psychological Journal, 15(3), 88–115. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2018.3.5
  34. Yarasheva, A.V., Burdasova, Ju.V., & Dokholyan, A.S. (2014). Peculiarities of consumer behaviour of Russians in the sections of macroregions and socially wealthy groups. Regional problems of transforming the economy, (7), 27–34. (In Russ.)
  35. Yuan, Y., & Xu, L. (2015). Are poor able to access the informal credit market? Evidence from rural households in China. China Economic Review, 33, 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2015.01.003
  36. Yudin, G.B. (2015). The moral nature of debt and the making of responsible debtor. Voprosy Ekonomiki, (3), 28–45. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2015-3-28-45
  37. Zimbardo, P.G., & Boyd, J.N. (2015). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, W. van Beek (Eds.). Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application: Essays in Honor of Philip G. Zimbardo (pp. 17–55). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07368-2_2

Copyright (c) 2024 Vikentieva E.N., Gagarina M.A., Emelyanova T.P.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies