Attitudes

Paraphrased from Allport (1935), the most commonly cited definition of attitudes is: ‘…learned predispositions to respond to an object or class of objects in a consistently favourable or unfavourable way’ (Assael, 1998, p.282; Blythe, 2014, p.82). Attitudes consist of three components; affect, behaviour and cognition, which make up the ABC model. Solomon et al. (2010, p.277) define each component:

Affect refers to the way a consumer feels about (emotions) an attitude object, e.g. loans

85

Behaviour involves the person’s intention to do something with regard to an attitude object

Cognition refers to the beliefs a consumer has about an attitude object

Several theories use the ABC model as a foundation for exploring attitude. The four most commonly discussed are hierarchies of effect, the attitude toward object (ATO) model, the theory of reasoned action (TRA), and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). These will be considered briefly in turn, to give an overview of the concepts. It is noticeable when discussing these theories, that the underpinning is rational; heavily influenced by economic theory (Brown and Deaton, 1972; Sheth, 1979; Tadajewski, 2009).

Hierarchies of effect - The ABC model is commonly arranged into several hierarchies of effects (Table 5), of which the experiential hierarchy has particular impact in this instance. This hierarchy stresses the emotional response as a central consideration towards attitude construction, particularly ‘…when a product is perceived as pleasurable or expressive’ (Assael, 1998, p.287). Assael’s discussion focuses on hedonic, positive emotions, however I would postulate (and will in later chapters) that negative emotions also prioritise the affect component in attitude construction towards objects.

Table 5: Four hierarchies of effect

(Assael, 1998, p.287; Babin and Harris, 2016, p.132) Type of Hierarchy/purchase

context

Sequence

High-involvement Beliefs - Emotion - Behaviour Low-involvement Beliefs - Behaviour - Emotion Experiential Emotion - Behaviour - Beliefs Behavioural influence Behaviour - Beliefs - Emotion

It is well documented in CB and marketing literature that it is necessary to change attitudes in order to influence CD-M and change CB (Hoyer et al., 2012, p.128). To change attitudes, all three components must be

86

understood. An examination of the extant literature has shown that there is little research studying indebtedness from an individual experiential perspective focusing on the affective heuristic; that explores what it feels like to be in debt, the emotional implications of the impact of indebtedness on daily lives, and how individuals cope with the stigma and stress associated with debt. Little is known about the ‘tipping point’, when manageable debt becomes unmanageable, except that it is different for individuals (Eccles et al., 2002). Cohen et al. (2008, as cited by the FSA, 2008, p.53) suggest that ‘…judgements that are evoked by genuine subjective feelings and moods are influenced by the affective heuristic’. Further, while irrationality and irrational behaviour in relation to financial (mis-)management is often discussed, underlying feelings and emotions which may contribute to irrationality appear overlooked (FSA, 2008; Dunning et al., 2012; FCA, 2013a).

The Attitude Towards Object (ATO) model (also known as the Fishbein model) – Fishbein (1973) suggested that a customer’s attitude towards an object is based upon a range of beliefs about the object, and how those beliefs are evaluated. Respondents score objects on a semantic differential scale (belief) and give a favourableness rating of each scale, culminating in attitude being determined by weighted belief scores (Evans et al., 2009). The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA - also known as the behavioural intentions model) – Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) TRA was proposed as an improvement over the ATO model (Babin and Harris, 2016), and builds on the ABC model by adding a fourth component of the opinions of others, called the ‘subjective norm’ (Evans et al., 2009). A diagrammatical version of the model can be seen in Fig. 19. This model also considers to a greater extent the notion of outcome evaluations (consequences), which may be a factor in the attitude towards an object.

TPB – this theory offers a small addition to the TRA, by including a ‘perceived control’ component (Babin and Harris, 2016). This considers any challenges in performing a behaviour, and how much control customers feel they have in making a product selection. For example, a product in short supply might be difficult to buy, leading a customer to feel no control in being

87

able to buy it. Farquhar and Rowley (2009, p.434) suggest a consumer’s ‘…sense of control over the management, utilization and conversion of their time and effort in achieving their goals’ is linked to the convenience of a service to that consumer. This links to payday loans being seen as convenient due to their fast approval rates and accessibility to those with poorer credit ratings (Chapter 2).

Fig. 19: Theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)

In considering the development of the TPB model, in relation to borrowing, the ‘influence of others’ aspect seems very relevant at this stage (this is further explored in Section 3.5.1. Reference groups). Two further theories that consider ‘others’ in light of attitudes towards objects is Balance Theory and Social Judgement Theory. These theories both try to explain how attitudes towards objects can change, which may be of use in terms of exploring how people decide to use a payday loan in the first instance.

Balance Theory was first proposed by social psychologist Heider (1958). It is based on the consistency principle, whereby people favour consistency between their attitudes, beliefs and behaviours (Babin and Harris, 2016). This asserts that consumers:

‘…maintain a degree of balance between cognitive and affective components and in this respect the approach is congruent with Target behaviour Behavioural intention

Attitude to target behaviour Beliefs that the

behaviour leads to certain outcome evaluations Evaluations of these outcomes Subjective norm Belief that others think

the subject should or shouldnt't perform the

behaviour Subjects motivation to

comply with these other people

88

cognitive consistency [and if] we experience inconsistency between components, we will change our attitude in order to create

harmony’

- Evans et al., 2009, p.107, own emphasis This is best explained between a triangular framework between the consumer, object and the ‘other’ person (Fig. 20).

Fig. 20: Balance theory (Adapted from Evans et al., 2009)

Here, on the left, the consumer has a negative attitude towards the payday loans, perhaps because he has heard several horror stories about them in the news. However, the consumer has a trusted friend who has used a few payday loans without any issues, and recommends them if you are short of money for a few days before payday. Balance theory dictates that this imbalance between the three actors needs resolving; so either the consumer can change his attitude towards the object (payday loans), or adjust his attitude towards his friend to balance the triangle (on the right). In this instance, it may mean the consumer softens their opinion of payday loans, enough to try them on the recommendation of the friend.

89

Social Judgement Theory also considers the influence of others on attitude change. This is a more complex theory, related predominantly to professional settings where judgements are made repeatedly (Hardman, 2009). Although the context is somewhat different, the core idea is relevant; people make decisions based on environmental and ecological validity ‘cues’. These cues form a ‘lens’. The resulting ‘lens’ model ‘…assumes that we do not perceive the world directly but rather through a ‘lens consisting of various items of information (cues)’ (Hardman, 2009, p.10). The lens model (Fig. 21) derives from work of Brunswik (1952; 1955), with work in the 60s and 70s further developing the lens aspect (e.g. Sherif and Hovland, 1961; Sherif et al., 1965; Hammond et al., 1975).

Fig. 21: The lens model

(Simplified from Brunswik, 1952 and Hardman, 2009)

From the lens model, it was decided that an individual could agree or disagree with the opinions of their environment; the degree of which has

90

been categorised as three latitudes; rejection, acceptance and non- commitment (Sherif and Hovland, 1961). At opposite ends: rejection and acceptance. If a person deems the position of another as agreeable, either or the same opinion as them, or of an opinion that they can understand, they are likely to accept that position. Alternatively, they can reject a position. However, there are discrepancies in this, in that there are degrees of positions, degrees of acceptableness, and degrees of involvement so there needs to be understanding of both the person and the ‘lens’ to make any real contextualised comment. In the middle of these two positions, is the latitude of noncommitment, which is where the person feels indifferent towards the viewpoint. In decision-making, Sherif and Hovland (1961) claimed the bigger the difference in viewpoints, the more attitude adjustment may occur, providing it falls within the latitude of acceptance or noncommitment. Any ideas falling in the reject latitude were unlikely to change the attitude of the person. Fig. 22 is from a study of students’ political attitudes (Fazio et al., 1977) and shows a hypothetical position of an individual’s accept or reject conditions.

Fig. 22: Example of how attitude latitude’s may be mapped from a political opinion study

91

These theories suggest that aside from having a personal position towards an object, people have degrees of what they believe is acceptable or unacceptable for other people’s positions. This means that personal attitudes usually have some sway, providing the other person’s opinion is not so extreme as to fall into the latitude of rejection. Involvement on behalf of both parties is also important, for example, a more involved person tends to dictate a greater rejection latitude (Sherif and Hovland, 1961).

It may be useful to consider in relation to payday loans where the latitudes or acceptance and rejection lie with each consumer.

3.4.2. Identity

Consumer researchers have ardently explored connections between identity and consumption choices (e.g. Levy, 1959, Sirgy; 1982; Solomon, 1983; Belk, 1988; McCracken, 1989; Fournier, 1998; Prothero, 2002; Epp and Price, 2008; Townsend and Sood, 2012). ‘Self’ and ‘identity’ are interchangeable terms (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003), and will be used interchangeably.

The concept of ‘self’ has groundings in psychology (e.g. Epstein, 1973; Moscovici, 1992), psychoanalysis (e.g. Freud, 1900) and sociology (e.g. Giddens, 1991). The self represents the ‘…totality of the individual’s thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object’ (Rosenberg, 1979, p.7). This is therefore a way that an individual defines their self-concept, gives meaning to their own identity (Babin and Harris, 2016).

Some theorists believe that the core of one’s self is fixed by late adolescence (e.g. Freud, 1900; Block, 1981), however others believe it to be more fluid in nature and therefore pliable to a later age (e.g. Shrauger and Schoeneman, 1979; Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003; McInnes and Corlett, 2012). This aligns with consumer research which advocates a dynamic, malleable self (e.g. Belk, 1988; Aaker, 1999; Shankar et al., 2009). Both of these views contend that a person’s self is constructed through subjective experiences.

92

Accordingly, it is assumed that individuals do not have one, singular, constant identity, but can create multiple, fluctuating, and sometimes competing identities (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003, Alvesson et al., 2008). It is acknowledged that ‘…people will act differently according to the situation, influenced by social roles, cues, and the need for self-presentation’ (Aaker, 1999, p.45). Identity can be thought of as an on-going, ever changing project (McAdams, 1996), for which an individual must strive, justify and defend on a daily basis (McInnes and Corlett, 2012).

Watson (2008, p.130) suggests this is part of an individual ‘doing’ identity work; to perform a particular identity to fit into a particular context:

“…everyone engages in identity work… however, there will be considerable variations in how relatively active or passive individuals are in the light of the circumstances in which they find themselves at various stages of their life.”

Identity work is ‘…prompted by social interaction that raises the questions of ‘who am I?’ and ‘who are we?’ (Alvesson et al., p.15). Sveningsson and Alvesson (2003, p.116) describe identity work as a concept that:

“…refers to people being engaged in forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening or revising the constructions that are productive of a sense of coherence and distinctiveness [that may occur] in complex and fragmented contexts... More generally, specific events … serve to heighten awareness of the constructed quality of self-identity and compel more concentrated identity work”.

An individual can be considered to be ‘doing’ identity work when they perform a particular identity to fit into a particular setting (Watson, 2008). Identity work emphasises the ‘internal’ identity element, and it focuses on how individuals themselves attempt to form their personal identities (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003; Watson, 2008; McInnes and Corlett, 2012). However, Watson (2008) states that it is also important to acknowledge the external or outward facing aspects of identity as part of identity work.

93

Sveningsson and Alvesson (2003) also determine that within the multiplicity of identities assumed by an individual, there are ever present tensions (Beech et al., 2012), contradictions, fragmentation, discord and, significantly; struggle (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003; Watson, 2008, Alvesson, 2010). The struggle in manifesting differing, temporary views of the self with different levels of dominance, in different contexts can potentially be a source of cognitive dissonance. The ‘identity as struggle’ makes self-identity ‘…both more comfortable and problematic’ (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003, p.1186) as fluctuating contexts and a variety of identities will require constant modification to become socially acceptable within a situation and as the individual strives ‘…for comfort, meaning and integration and some correspondence between a self-definition and [a] situation’ (p.1189).

In order to acknowledge ‘struggle’ in identity work, Watson (2008, p.129) offers an adapted conceptualisation, suggesting:

“Identity work involves the mutually constitutive processes whereby people strive to shape a relatively coherent and distinctive notion of personal self-identity and struggle to come to terms with and, within limits, to influence the various social- identities which pertain to them in the various milieux in which they live their lives.”

In part, some of this struggle may come from differences in the self-identity and the social-identity. Watson (2008, p.131) makes the distinction of the self-identity being the individual’s own concept of themselves; who they believe they are, or aspire to be, and social-identity being a cultural, discursive or institutional concept of who someone might, or should be.

Identity is important from a marketing perspective because consumers are ‘…motivated to act in accordance with their self-concepts’, often using products to reveal their self-concepts to others (Babin and Harris, 2016, p.124). Belk (1988) suggests that people consume goods and brands in line with their overall ‘identity project’. People organise their activities and enabling possessions around the labels by which they recognise themselves and members of society (Belk, 1988; Kleine et al., 1993). Consumption in line with certain reference group identities (and rejecting other group

94

identities) is considered in Section 3.5.1. Consumption as a means of constructing identity is a key idea within CCT (Arnould and Thompson, 2005), where identity projects is a key strand (see Section 3.6).

Symbolic consumption ‘…is the tendency of consumers to rely and focus on the meanings attached to goods, beyond their physical properties, and provides and important means by which consumers define themselves’ (Szmigin and Piacentini, 2015, p.247). Consumer goods have the potential for symbolic meaning, which an individual may wish to communicate with others as part of their self-concept. However, a shared understanding must exist if the symbol is to have meaning (Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967). For example, the symbolic meaning of money has been discussed as a leisure symbol (Haggard and Williams, 1992), or a symbol of the ability to acquire material items, but also to fulfil desires (e.g. Bijleveld and Aarts, 2014).

Although there is a large amount of research relating to self and identity, spanning a variety of literature bodies, there is a gap in exploring money as an identity enabler. In consumer studies, there appears to be little focus on affording the consumption objects that are used to communicate to our external audiences. Borrowing money to enable participation in activities that shape the identity will be explored in the findings.