The Influence of Time Perspective and Financial Optimism on Financial Behaviour

(1)

The Influence of Time Perspective and Financial Optimism on

Financial Behaviour

(2)

The Influence of Time Perspective and Financial Optimism on

Financial Behaviour

Marijn Oele

Faculty of Economics and Business Qualification ‘Master Thesis’

Date: July 10, 2016

Address: Steenhouwerskade 4a-9, Groningen Phone: 06 15025381

E-mail: m.s.oele@student.rug.nl

(3)

Management summary

Problematic debts are a rising issue in the Netherlands. The costs for society are estimated at eleven billion euro’s and the expectations are that they will continue to rise. To stop the costs from further rising, this research aimed at discovering a way to alter financial behaviour and explore its antecedents. Although a debt could happen to anyone, this study specifically focused on MBO students. The local authority of Groningen started a campaign “jouw schuld = jouw schuld” in order to prevent the MBO students from falling into problematic debt. Throughout this campaign current study gathered data from MBO students. This research examined whether there were personal differences between students who want to borrow and students who do not want to borrow money. Firstly, there was a specific focus on the extent a student was focused on the present, a persons’ time perspective, and how this influenced the students’ borrowing behaviour. Secondly, the research tried to manipulate a students’ time perspective towards a more future orientation by a line of text which made them aware of the consequences of borrowing. Lastly, optimism about future income and its influence on a students’ borrowing behaviour was examined.

Time perspective seemed to be of influence on a students’ financial decision making. Students who were present oriented seemed to be more likely to borrow more money

compared to students who were not present oriented. Therefore time perspective might be a working instrument to expose the students who are at highest risk of getting into problematic debt. More guiding and attention should be given to these students. However, more research is needed in order to determine the influence of time perspective on a persons’ financial decision making.

To manipulate the students’ time perspective towards a more future orientation, half of the students received an extra line of text right before they had to make a financial decision. This line of text made them aware of the consequences of borrowing money. Results showed no influence of the manipulation on their financial behaviour. Since the extra warning did not alter the students behaviour, new methods should be explored. A possible solution might be coaching of the student by a teacher or mentor. The coaching session between student and mentor should then be focused on enhancing a students’ future time perspective when making financial decisions.

(4)

of their future income. Most of the students underestimated their future income compared to the average income of a graduated MBO student.

(5)

Preface

(6)

A lot of people can relate to the situation where they have too little money to buy something and are thinking of borrowing. Some people might decide to not buy the product, whilst others might decide to borrow money from a relative, friend or someone else. Being in debt means having an obligation to repay all borrowed money to the creditor. When the debt becomes too high and the person is not able to pay it back from his own earnings, then the debt is classified as a problematic debt. This not only affects himself and his creditors, but in the end the whole society. Madern (2014) estimated that in the Netherlands the total costs for society for one household with a problematic debt is around the 100.000 euro’s. With 1.1 million households in problematic debt, she estimated that in the Netherlands, households with financial problems cost the society around eleven billion euro’s in total. Based on this study it is easy to state concerning debt there is a problem. Prevention is necessary to decrease the number of people who fall into problematic debt.

To expand on the origin of the 100.000 euro per household, a few possible direct and indirect causes will now be discussed. First of all, having a debt is negatively related to the effort unemployed people put into finding a new job (Dubois & Anderson, 2010). This makes them longer dependent on social security. On average, people with financial problems use social security four to twelve months longer compared to those without financial problems (Jungmann, Geuns, & Kruis, 2011).

Next to that is having financial problems negatively related towards labour productivity (Garman, Leech, & Grable, 1996; Luther, Leech, & Garman, 1998; Kim & Garman, 2004). People with debt are more sensitive to stress and are prone to develop concentration problems. Employers have estimated that labour productivity is on average at least twenty to twenty-five percent lower for employees who are in debt (Madern, Bos & Van der Brug, 2012).

Thirdly, being in debt could cause a lot of stress, which is related to addiction

(Goeders, 2003). When people with an addiction or former addiction are exposed to stress, the probability of an increase of dosage or a relapse are higher. In the case this person needs professional help, society covers these costs if necessary. Moreover, being in debt is related to a higher chance on overweight (Drentea & Lavrakas, 2000), an increased pressure on social relationships (Dubois & Anderson, 2010) and more criminal behaviour (Hoeve, Jurrius, Van der Zouwen, Vergeer, Voogt, & Stams, 2011).

(8)

help, this person relies on support from the government, which in turn leads to costs for the society. To be able to stop these negative consequences from happening at all, this research will aim at providing new insights on why people fall into problematic debt.

Falling into problematic debt could happen to anyone, but this study will focus primarily on students of a MBO school, which teaches intermediate vocational education in the Netherlands. The reason to lay the focus on the MBO students is a recent study done by the national institute for family finance information (NIBUD). This research shows that the amount of MBO students with a debt is increasing (Van der Schors, Van der Werf, &

Schonewille, 2015). In 2015, twenty-one percent of the MBO students had a financial debt of average on €3.681 compared to seventeen percent of the students with an average of €1.265 in 2011. This is an increase of both the amount of money the students borrow and also the number of students in debt. On the bright side however, 79 percent of the students do not get into debt, which is still the majority of the students. This study will explore the differences between those who fall into debt and those who do not fall into debt and if these differences can be influenced.

As a reaction to the report of NIBUD, the local authorities of Groningen restarted a project in march 2016, to prevent MBO students from getting into debt, “jouw schuld = jouw schuld”. The title has a double meaning in Dutch. It means your debt is your debt, not

someone else’s debt and also your debt is your own fault. The campaign focused on teaching MBO students about loans, debt, financial decision making and increasing their financial literacy. Throughout this campaign this study gathered data from MBO students.

Many studies have examined the direct effect of financial education on financial literacy and consequently financial behaviour (see e.g. Fernandes, Lynch, & Netemeyer, 2014). Fernandes et al. (2014) found that only 0.1% of the variance in financial behaviour is explained by interventions to improve financial literacy. Our study will add to the research on financial behaviour by exploring how students’ borrowing behaviour is influenced. The reason behind this train of thought is that borrowing can be the start of falling into debt. Focusing on why twenty-one percent of the students do get into debt and the rest does not, this study aims to distinguish personal differences between the two groups of students.

(9)

Schors (2015) found that having a long-term attitude (instead of going for direct benefits trying to save for the future) has a bigger influence on not getting into financial problems in comparison with having knowledge on finance. Perhaps students who are more oriented towards the future, by having a long-term attitude, are less prone to borrow money compared to students who want to fulfil their immediate needs and are thus more oriented at the present.

Another influencer on a students’ borrowing behaviour might be the expectations regarding their future income after graduation. People who were optimistic about their financial future were found to have more debt compared to people who were less optimistic (Brown, Garino, & Taylor 2008). Perhaps students who are optimistic about their future income after they graduate allow themselves to borrow money at the moment whilst expecting to pay it back when they have their expected income.

However, what if a student who is graduated does not find a job or does not earn enough money to repay his debt? People who are optimistic tend to neglect the risks of their behaviour (Weinstein, 1980). Maybe students who are generally more oriented at the future and are expected to think of the consequences of their behaviour, will neglect all possible negative consequences when optimistic about their future income. Simply because they believe they will earn a high income after they graduate and the possible negative

consequences will not happen to them. If optimism about future income is of influence on a students´ borrowing behaviour, schools should focus their attention on teaching students about their possible future income and likelihood of finding a job, making sure they have a realistic image in their head.

This study will examine what the influence is of whether students are focused on the present (going for immediate benefits) or more on the future (trying to save), on the likelihood of a student borrowing money. And if it is possible to evoke a long-term attitude by giving them a line of text oriented at future consequences. Lastly will be examined if optimism about future income is of influence on the students’ borrowing behaviour.

Literature review

To explore personal differences between students who do want to borrow money and students who do not want to borrow money, this research will focus on two possible

predictors.

(10)

there is a difference between the two groups of students, there will be looked at their time perspective when making a financial decision. A persons’ time perspective determines if a person is focused on the past, present or future. The students’ time perspective will be examined in two different ways. At first the students’ time perspective will be measured, and secondly the students’ time perspective will be manipulated towards a future orientation.

The second predictor is about the expectations students have of their future income. Perhaps students who do borrow money think they will have enough money to repay their debt when they are graduated and have a job. People were found to be more likely to fall into debt when optimistic about their financial future, compared to those who were less optimistic (Brown et al., 2008). Therefore there will be looked at the influence of a students’ optimism about future income on whether or not the student wants to borrow money.

Furthermore, optimism might also have an influence on a persons’ future orientation. Optimism about future income might be negatively related to whether the students take all the possible negative consequences and future risks into consideration. It was found that

optimistic people are inclined to ignore the possible negative consequences of their behaviour (Wiebe & Black, 1977). Therefore, the influence of a students’ optimism about future income on the relation between time perspective and borrowing behaviour will be examined as well.

In the following part the conceptual model will be clarified. First time perspective will be discussed, divided into a measurement and manipulation part. Next will be elaborated on financial optimism and its effect on a students’ borrowing behaviour. Lastly, the interaction between time perspective and financial optimism will be addressed.

Time perspective measurement

A student has to manage his own finances, which involves a lot of choices. Does he choose for immediate benefits and spend all the money he has or does he aim at saving money for the future? This decision making process is influenced by his time perspective and has an influence on his financial situation (Jacobs-Lawson & Hershey, 2005).

(11)

Since attention is a subject of one’s intentional control, one may choose per situation which time frame one might wish to adopt. However although one can choose, most of the time an overreliance is developed on one or more time frames. This overreliance can become so consolidated that the persons’ time perspective can be treated in a similar way as

personality traits. This overreliance (on one or more time frames) is due to different learned factors of which the most influential are culture, education, religion, social class and family modelling (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). This research will focus on which time frame students adopt when making a financial decision.

Previous research shows that a person who is focused on the present is more likely to go for direct convenience and immediate benefits (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, &

Edwards, 1994; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). A person whose time perspective is more future oriented tends to be more aware of the potential long-term outcomes of his behaviour. Besides, he will be more willing to give up rewards in the present in order to achieve a long-term goal (Boniwell & Zimbardo, 2004; Strathman et al., 1994; Trommsdorff, 1983;

Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999).

A lot of research has been done on time perspective and its effect on behaviour. For example, a strong present orientation is a predictor for high levels of alcohol, drugs, and cigarette consumption. This whilst low levels of alcohol, drugs and cigarette usage are predicted by a strong future orientation (Henson, Carey, Carey, & Maisto, 2006; Keough, Zimbardo, & Boyd, 1999). People with a future oriented time perspective are better at

monitoring their performance and more able to evaluate whether their performance will result in goal achievement (Husman & Shell, 2008; Simons, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Lacante, 2004). When adopting a present time perspective, emotional goals are more prioritized (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999).

Several studies have shown a significant impact of time perspective on behaviour in personal finance (Hershey & Mowen, 2000; Howlett, Kees, & Kemp, 2008; Jacobs-Lawson & Hershey, 2005). Howlett et al. (2008) investigated the effect of a future orientation on

(12)

The former suggests that students make wiser financial decisions when they are more future oriented instead of present oriented. This study will investigate whether a students’ time perspective influences their borrowing behaviour. It is expected that students who are present oriented are more likely to borrow money.

Hypothesis 1: Students who are present oriented are more likely to borrow money compared to students who are not present oriented.

Time perspective manipulation

A question that arises is which time perspective the MBO students currently have. If these students are present oriented, they are perhaps not aware of the consequences of their current financial behaviour. Informing them about these consequences might thus be important. Age was found to be positively related to a longer planning horizon (de Rubio, 2015). This suggests that these young students have a rather short planning horizon. This effect supports another study done by Thaler and Shefrin (1981). They argued, that younger people were impatient and were therefore more likely to act upon short-term instead of long-term thinking.

Another reason why their view might be primarily short term, is because 64 percent of the students who borrow stated they have too little income. According to Mullainathan and Shafir (2013) poverty affects our cognitive capacity. People who experience poverty are often not capable in overseeing the consequences of their current behaviour. When poverty is experienced, the question about whether or not there is enough money to last through the day requires a lot of cognitive capacity. Therefore these people have less cognitive capacity for long-term planning (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013).

(13)

percent of the students said they experienced scarcity and they are still young, it is expected that they are present oriented and thus go for immediate benefits.

Because students are expected to be present oriented, manipulating them towards a more future time perspective might be of importance. A future orientation is expected to lead to wiser financial decision making. People who are present oriented are expected not to think about the consequences of their current behaviour (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). A line of text oriented at the possible future consequences of their behaviour, right before they have to make a financial decision, is expected lead to a more future orientation.

Hypothesis 2: Students who receive the manipulation towards a more future orientation are more likely to borrow money compared to students who will not receive the

manipulation.

Financial optimism

Whether or not students are able to repay their debt in the future depends largely on their future income. Perhaps students who are optimistic about their future income spend and borrow more money in the present since they expect to be able to repay the debt when they have a job after graduation and earn a sizable salary.

There are multiple theories on why people are optimistic, of which a few will be discussed here. First of all, most people believe they have a low chance of experiencing negative outcomes (Tyler & Rosier, 2009), such as not finding a job. Most people believe that being unrealistically optimistic is better than being accurate or pessimistic in personal

predictions (Armor, Massey, & Sackett, 2008).

(14)

Lastly, optimism is a consequence of the way people process information, which leads to the representativeness heuristic (Tversky, 1977). When someone has to estimate the chance of experiencing a particular event, for example falling into problematic debt, the person most of the time compares the self with the stereotype of this particular event. The stereotype of someone in debt is most of the time negative, which makes it less likely that people identify themselves with this stereotype. When a person does not identify with the stereotype, the person expects to have a low chance of experiencing this event and vice versa.

However, people are not optimistic all the time (Harris, Griffin, & Murray, 2008). People are less optimistic when they believe their estimates might be challenged, especially in near future. For example, when asked about their possible exam grade, students were more optimistic one month before receiving their grade in comparison with just one day before (Carroll, Sweeny, & Shepperd, 2006). Since a job is for most students still far ahead, this might lead them to have an optimistic image of their future income. People are also less unrealistic optimistic when they have prior experience to an event, for example when they already had a job before they decided to study. And people are less optimistic when they receive base-rate information about an event (Rothman, Klein, & Weinstein, 1996), for instance the likelihood of finding a job or knowledge about the average earnings of an

graduated MBO student in the same field. If students are found to be optimistic and this has a negative influence on their financial decision making, this information could be used to counteract their optimism.

Some research has been done on the link between optimism and financial decision making. A previous study has shown that people who are optimistic about paying off credit card debt make poorer decisions about credit card features, opting for cards with lower annual fees rather than lower interest rates (Yang, Markoczy, & Qi, 2007). Another study found that people who are optimistic about their financial future tend to have more debt compared to people who are less optimistic (Brown, Garino, Taylor, & Wheatley Price, 2005). In their paper, Brown et al. (2005) stated that it is optimistic financial expectations that are important in influencing debt rather than the accuracy of individuals predictions regarding their future financial situation. Optimistic financial expectations impact both the growth and the quantity of the debt. Another study by Brown and Taylor (2006) showed that current financial

optimism is inversely associated with saving.

Therefore it is expected that students who are optimistic about their financial future are more likely to borrow money compared to students who are less optimistic about their

(15)

Hypothesis 3: Participants who score high on financial optimism are more likely to borrow money compared to participants who score low on financial optimism.

Time perspective and financial optimism

Although a direct effect of optimism on financial behaviour is expected, it might also have a moderating role on the relationship between a persons’ time perspective and their likelihood of borrowing money. Researchers have found some disadvantages for individuals who are optimistic. Wiebe and Black (1997) asked students about their risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Afterwards they estimated their actual risk by asking them about their prior sexual experiences. Individuals who were optimistic, and rated their risk as low when it was in fact high were less interested in risk information and less likely to change their risk perceptions. In another study, Radcliffe and Klein (2002) found that

optimistic people who were at an increased risk for having a heart attack were less worried about their risk levels. Moreover did they retain less knowledge after reading about risk factors.

Based on the above it can be stated that optimistic people might not care about possible negative consequences or risks due to their behaviour. Perhaps, when a student is future oriented an thus is expected to think of the future consequences, optimism will counteract his future orientation since this person does not believe the risk or negative consequences apply to him (Weinstein,1980). They for instance expect to be able to pay-off their debt anyway. On the other hand this effect is not expected when students are oriented at the present. Those students are expected to not think of the consequences at all.

Hypothesis 4: Participants who are future oriented are more likely to borrow money when scoring high on financial optimism compared to when scoring low on financial

optimism.

This study will examine the effect of a students’ time perspective on their borrowing behaviour in two ways. First will be examined if a students’ time perspective is of predictive value on whether or not the student wants to borrow money. Secondly, will be explored whether manipulating a students’ time perspective towards a more future orientation alters their borrowing behaviour. Lastly will be studied what the influence is of a students’

(16)

a moderating role on the relationship between a students’ time perspective and his borrowing behaviour.

Figure 1: conceptual model

Methodology

Data collection and participants

This study consisted of a questionnaire which was handed out to Dutch MBO-students in Groningen. The questionnaire (see Appendix) consisted of three parts, of which the first two parts were unrelated studies and the third part was this study. On average students took about 20 minutes to fill in the questionnaire. Everybody who filled the questionnaire in participated in this study only once. Questionnaires were given during class at different times and days. A teacher was always present and all questions were in Dutch.

The sample consisted of 85 students, of which were 67 (78.8%) females and 16

(18.8%) males plus two missing values. The age of the participants ranged from 16 to 25 with

an average age of 18 (Mage=18.12, SD =1.573). The students were from two different schools,

(17)

Design

This study examined the effect of time perspective and financial optimism on borrowing behaviour. Time perspective was operationalized in two ways. One way was a measurement of the extent of how present oriented students were. The other was a

manipulation to make participants more future oriented. Participants were randomly assigned to the groups who did or did not get the manipulation.

Measures

The questionnaire started with a measurement of time perspective, the consideration for consequences scale (CFC-scale) (Rappange, Brouwer, & van Exel, 2009). This scale measured to what extent students were focused on the present. Students responded to each item on a 7-point scale (1 = very uncharacteristic of me; 7 = very characteristic of me). The higher a student scored on this scale, the more present oriented he was. This scale is an adjusted version of the original CFC-scale (Joireman, Shaffer, Balliet, & Strathman, 2012) and contains 7 items instead of 12. Questions included were for example: “I only do things that give me pleasure right away” and “I only do things that I enjoy at this moment. I will resolve any future problems when they occur”. All questions were translated to Dutch, to make them accessible for the students. The 7-item scale was chosen because of its fewer items and since it was still validated (Rappange, et al., 2009). The scale was deemed reliable

because the cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.789. The score on the CFC was calculated by taking the average of the 7 questions ( MCFC = 2.69 , SD= 0.69).

Next optimism was measured by asking the students how much income they expected to earn when they had finished their study. They could choose from less than €500,- until more than €3000,- per month in steps of €500,-. Optimism was used as an ordinal scale, the more the student thought he would earn after graduation, the more optimistic he was.

A students’ borrowing behaviour was examined by the amount of money a student was willing to borrow per month over different categories. The categories were chosen from a list of categories which MBO-students had chosen as categories they were willing to borrow money from (Van der Schors et al., 2015).

All students were presented with a table with two columns. In one column the

(18)

month for their school tuition, study material and health insurance, imagining they had to pay these products themselves. These values were later on added up into one variable, study and health insurance (M = 51.18 SD = 101.28). The question for the spare-time products was about how much a student was willing to borrow per month if he had little money on his bank account and was confronted with one of the following categories: sweets and snacks, mobile phone, going out and festivals, gifts, clothing, cigarettes and drugs and vacation. These values were added up into one variable, spare-time products (M = 81.92, SD = 130,21). Students had to answer this question for all categories apart. The numbers on both main themes were later on added up into one variable, the total amount of money a student wanted to borrow (M = 133.11, SD = 182.66).

In an attempt to manipulate the time perspective of half of the students (N=44) towards a more future orientation right before they had to make a financial decision, an extra line of text was given with the question were they had to fill in an amount of money they intended to borrow for a certain category. This extra line informed them about the

consequences of borrowing money: “Think about the consequences of every loan. Every euro you borrow has to be paid back! This means that you can spend less money in the future. What you do not borrow now can be spend later. If you do not borrow at the moment, you might be able to take a long vacation in the future”. The other half (N=41) was not given this manipulation.

A manipulation check was performed by asking whether or not the students took the consequences of borrowing into consideration. This question asked if they had thought about the consequences of borrowing when filling in the amount of money they intent to borrow. They answered this question on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 7 = yes very much) (M=4.73, SD= 2.07). In the following text this variable will be called consequences. On this variable was a median split performed (Median = 5) to differentiate students who scored low on considering consequences (N = 31) from those who scored high on considering

consequences (N=48).

Plan of analysis

(19)

outliers were examined. An outlier was a value more than three standard deviations of the mean. Those values were marked as missing values.

All the assumptions of the analysis were checked and the normality assumption was found to be violated. Therefore a logistic regression was used to test for our conceptual model. To make a logistic regression possible, students were assigned into two groups, based on their answers on the outcome variable. One group were students who did not wanted to borrow anything at all (N = 27), and the other were students who did want to borrow money in at least one of the categories (N = 58).

Since time perspective was operationalized in two ways, two models were tested. Since all independent variables were present in both models unique effects could be

examined. The first model included both time perspective variables, the financial optimism variable and an interaction between the measurement of time perspective and financial optimism.

The first hypothesis, the relationship between a students’ time perspective and whether or not the student was willing to borrow, was analysed by examining the main effect of the measurement of time perspective in the first model.

The second model included both time perspective variables, the financial optimism and an interaction variable as well. The interaction in the second model was between the manipulation variable of time perspective and financial optimism.

The second hypothesis, the relationship between whether or not students were informed about the consequences of borrowing and whether or not they wanted to borrow, was analysed by examining the main effect of the manipulation of time perspective in the second model.

The third hypothesis, the relationship between optimism and whether or not a student wanted to borrow money, was analysed by examining the main effect of optimism in both models.

The fourth hypothesis, the influence of financial optimism on the relationship between time perspective (measured and manipulated) and whether or not students wanted to borrow, was analysed by examining the interaction effects in both models

Results

(20)

consequences significantly more into consideration than students who did not receive the manipulation (Mconsequences = 4.46). It can be concluded that the manipulation did not evoke the

expected reaction.

To analyse the first hypothesis, the effect of time perspective on whether or not a student wanted to borrow money was examined in the first model. The main effect of time perspective did not show a significant result, Wald(1) = 2.581, Exp(B) = 5.529, p = 0.108. When controlling for all other variables in the model, a students’ time perspective was not of significant influence on whether or not a student wanted to borrow money.

However, when not controlling for all other variables in the model, with time perspective as single predictor on whether or not a student wanted to borrow, a marginally significant result was found, Wald(1) = 3.531, Exp(B) = 1.915, p = 0.060. Based on this result one might say the higher students scored on the time perspective scale and thus the more present oriented they were, the higher the chance that they would borrow money. However, since no significant effect of time perspective was found in the model when controlling for the other variables, it is concluded that the first hypothesis can be rejected.

To analyse the second hypothesis, the effect of the manipulation of time perspective on whether or not students wanted to borrow money, the second model was examined. The main effect of the manipulation was found to be non-significant, Wald(1) = 1.493, Exp(B) = 5.024, p = 0.222. Informing students about the consequences of borrowing right before they had to make a financial decision did not influence the chance whether or not they wanted to borrow money. It can be concluded that the second hypothesis can be rejected.

The third hypothesis, the influence of a students’ optimism about future income on whether or not a student wanted to borrow money, was analysed by examining the main effect of optimism in both models. In the first model, a non-significant result was found, Wald(1) = 0.529, Exp(B) = 1.743, p = 0.467. In the second model, a non-significant result was found as well, Wald(1) = 2.366, Exp(B) = 2.623, p = 0.124. A students’ optimism about future income did not influence whether or not the student wanted to borrow money. Therefore it can be concluded that the third hypothesis can be rejected.

(21)

The fourth hypothesis, the effect of a students’ optimism about future income on the relationship between a students’ time perspective and whether or not the student wanted to borrow money was analysed by examining the interaction effect in the first model. A non-significant result was found, Wald(1) = 0.835, Exp(B) = 0.765, p = 0.361. Students who were more future oriented were not more likely to borrow money when they expected to earn a high future income compared to students who expected to earn a low future income.

When analysing the interaction effect in the second model, which is the influence of a students’ financial optimism on the relationship between a students’ manipulated time

perspective and whether or not a student wanted to borrow money, a marginally significant result was found, Wald(1) = 3.376, Exp(B) 0.486, p = 0.066. This suggests that of the students who did receive the manipulation, the more a student expected to earn after graduation, the higher the likelihood the student wanted to borrow money. Because no significant result was found in both models, the fourth hypothesis was rejected.

To see if there were any other relations between any of the variables, correlations were calculated between all variables. Only significant correlations are mentioned here. A

significant correlation was found between time perspective and consequences (r = -.420, p < 0.000), which suggests a moderate negative relationship between these two. Students who scored high on the time perspective scale and are thus more present oriented, are likely to have scored low on the consequences questions. More variables were related to consequences, such as gender (r = 0.275, p < 0.016), which proposes that a male (1) is expected to consider the consequences more than a female (0). Level of study was also found to have a significant influence (r = 0.299, p < 0.008), which suggests that the higher the level, the more the

students considered the consequences of borrowing. And lastly, year of study (r = 0.311, p < 0.006), which proposes that the higher year a student is in, the more he or she will consider the consequences. Furthermore a significant correlation was found between gender and optimism (r=0.376, p < 0.001). This suggests that males think they will earn more money after graduation than females.

To further examine the correlation between a students’ time perspective and the score on the consequences question, a linear regression was performed. It was analysed if there was a relation between students’ time perspective and how much they considered the

(22)

To check if this difference was not due to the fact that half of the group were made aware of the consequences, the manipulation variable was added to the model and another linear regression was performed with an interaction effect between a students’ measurement of time perspective and the manipulation of time perspective. The model was found to be significant, R² = 0.248, F = 8.264, p < 0.000. The main effect of the manipulation, the relationship between the manipulation of time perspective and how much the students

considered the consequences, was analysed and a significant positive relationship was found, t= 2.534, B = 4.225, p < 0.013. This suggests that students who received the manipulation considered the consequences of borrowing more than students who did not receive the manipulation. The main effect a students’ measurement of time perspective on how much students considered the consequences was examined and found non-significant, t = 0.755, B = 0.702, p = 0.452. This proposes that in comparison with the manipulation, a students’

measurement of time perspective had a lower influence on how much a student considered the consequences of borrowing. The interaction effect was significant and a negative relationship was found, t = -.2.240, B = -1.341, p < 0.028. This suggests that the effect of time perspective on considering the consequences was stronger when a student did not receive the

manipulation compared to a student who did receive the manipulation.

To explore if there was a relation between how much a student considered the consequences and whether or not they wanted to borrow money (0=no, 1=yes), a logistic regression was performed. Results were marginally significant, Wald(1) = 3.217, Exp(B) = 0.788, p = 0.073. This suggests that the more the students considered the consequences of borrowing when filling in the amount of money, the lower the probability that they wanted to borrow money.

Discussion

In order to stop the costs from rising, new methods and insights are needed in how to keep MBO students from falling into problematic debt. This research tried to look at new approaches to prevent students from getting into problematic debt. Differences were

examined between students who did want to borrow money and students who did not want to borrow. This research provided new insights on students’ time perspective, financial optimism and its influence on their financial decision making.

(23)

treated as a single predictor, time perspective seemed to have some kind of influence on the likelihood of a student borrowing money. More research is needed to determine the influence of time perspective on borrowing behaviour.

In an attempt to change a students’ time perspective by the manipulation, this research explored if informing students of the negative consequences of borrowing right before they had to make a financial decision, would alter their borrowing behaviour. Students who were in the condition where they were informed about the consequences of borrowing, were not more likely to borrow money compared to students who were not informed about the negative consequences of borrowing money.

A reason might be that students did not read the manipulation to save time on filling out the questionnaire. Another clarification could be that there was no significant difference between the two conditions on the score on consequences. Although students who did receive the manipulation considered the consequences of borrowing a little bit more than students who did not receive the manipulation, this difference was not significant. This shows that warning the students, or informing them about the consequences, does not influence their financial behaviour. Perhaps they already know the negative consequences of borrowing and this information will not influence their borrowing behaviour

Next, the role of financial optimism on borrowing behaviour was examined. It was examined if the more the student thought he would earn after graduation, the higher the chance would be that he wanted to borrow money. How much students expected to earn after graduation did not influence their likelihood of borrowing money.

When looking at the influence of a students’ financial optimism on the relationship between a students’ time perspective and the likelihood of borrowing, no interaction was found. When a person was more future oriented, higher expectations of future income did not lead to a different borrowing behaviour.

When examining the influence of a students’ financial optimism on the relationship between the manipulation of time perspective and the likelihood of borrowing, it seemed as though there could be an interaction. Students who received the manipulation seemed to be more likely to borrow when having high expectations of future income in comparison with having low expectations of future income.

It was found that the students do not have a clear idea of their future income. Perhaps they are not consciously occupied with the thought of how much they will earn after

(24)

Theoretical implications

There are several theoretical implications that stem from these results. This article provided new insights in financial behaviour and its influencers. Firstly, this study adds upon the literature of time perspective. Current study showed that time perspective might have an impact on a persons’ financial behaviour as proposed by previous research (Hershey and Mowen, 2000; Howlett et al., 2008). Furthermore did this study use the 7 items CFC-scale and found that the use of this scale was sufficient as proposed by Rappange et al. (2009). It can be concluded that this scale can be a working instrument for measuring a person’s present orientation.

Furthermore it was found that students were not influenced by information about the consequences of borrowing money. This partly confirms that teaching students about financial decision making does not influence their financial behaviour (Fernandes et al., 2014). The reason this might be is because the information was not new to them or not person-specific which did not influence them. This however does not mean that texts in general will not help. Perhaps texts that are more aimed at their personal situation will have a better chance at influencing the students. More research is needed in which texts will prevent students from borrowing.

Financial optimism was not found to be of influence on borrowing behaviour. This is opposite of what was found in previous studies (Brown et al., 2005; Brown et al., 2008). Though this might be due to the measurement of optimism. In Brown et al. (2008) optimism was measured by a single question: “Looking ahead, how do you think you will be financially a year from now, will you be: Better off; Worse off; Or about the same?”(Brown et al., 2008, p. 862). Participants who rated themselves as better off were considered optimistic.

Furthermore, this question was asked to British households instead of students. If this question also applies to students is something for future research.

Practical implications

(25)

A possible step could be measuring the students’ time perspective, since time

perspective might be a predictor of whether or not students want to borrow money. Students who are present oriented may be more likely to borrow money compared to students who are not present oriented. Time perspective might than be a working instrument to expose the students who are at highest risk. By knowing which students are at greatest risk of falling into problematic debt, resources can be allocated effectively. For example mentors can keep an extra eye on their students who are at risk and intervene when needed. The earlier the school can detect that a student is at risk of falling into problematic debt, the higher the chance the school can help and the student can recover.

A manner in which the school can help is by altering a students’ time perspective towards a more future orientation. Time perspective is relatively stable, but is also something that can be learned. Instead of being focused on one or more time zones all the time, a

balanced time perspective is more preferred and leads to higher levels of happiness (Boniwell and Zimbardo, 2003). Balance is defined as “the mental ability to switch effectively among time perspectives depending on task features, situational considerations, and personal

resources, rather than be biased towards a specific time perspective that is not adaptive across situations” (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999, p. 285). When students are able to adopt a balanced time perspective, they might adopt a more future orientation when making financial decisions.

A possible intervention to teach a balanced time perspective could be coaching the students who are at risk (Boniwell, Osin, & Sircova, 2014). This individual coaching by their teachers or mentors could be used to enhance a future time perspective when making financial decisions. An intervention to develop a more future time perspective is ´best possible selves diary´ (Lyubomirsky, 2008) in which the students will have to write down a desired future for themselves. Then the teacher or mentor can emphasize the importance of making wise

financial decisions in order to obtain that desired future. When this intervention will be applied to those students who are at risk of falling into problematic debt, this might lower the amount of students who will fall into debt. More research is needed to develop such an intervention.

Limitations and future research

(26)

enough or just answered the questions randomly. Although this attitude is hard to impede when you ask someone to fill out a questionnaire. For future research it should be emphasized that students have enough time and should take the time to fill the questionnaire in as honest as possible.

Next to that the amount of participants in the study, which was not enough for all conditions, led to skewed comparisons between two or more groups. For future study a large sample size should be accomplished in order to make the results worthwhile.

This study showed that time perspective might be a factor that influences financial behaviour. However with the current scale, only present orientation was measured. Therefore it cannot be said that a student who is not present oriented is per definition future oriented (Rappange et al., 2009). For future research an option might be to use a more complete scale of time perspective, for example the Zimbardo time perspective inventory (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). This way a better distinction can be made between people who are oriented at the present and people who are oriented at the future. Furthermore the scale was oriented at the general attitude of a person. For future research it is suggested that a scale should be used which is situation specific. In this case the time perspective of a person at the moment he has to make a financial decision.

Future research should further explore how big the influence is of a students’ time perspective on their financial behaviour and why students are present oriented. If we know the answer to that question, perhaps a method could be developed to change their time

perspective to a more future oriented one which would lead to a lower chance of falling into problematic debt. A direction that could be looked into in future research is a coaching intervention that leads to a more balanced time perspective.

Another limitation might be the way in which the outcome variable was measured. During the questionnaires take-off questions were asked about what they had to fill in as the outcome variable. The question was sometimes misunderstood, which could have led to the biased answers, such as extreme and unlikely values. For future research, a solution might be to ask this question in an ordinal way, students then do not have to come up with a number out of the blue. Categorization makes it easier for them to apply it to their situation. An advice for future research is to test the questionnaire on a small group of the population to expose possible problems and misunderstandings before executing the actual research.

When looking at the financial optimism scale in this study, the focus lay on

(27)

future income is not an influencing factor on their financial decision making. However, a person can also be optimistic that he will always be able to repay his debt or optimistic that he will never fall into problematic debt. Future research should find out whether other kinds of optimism, such as the examples given, are related to financial behaviour.

Conclusion

This research aimed at providing new insights on how borrowing behaviour is influenced. Time perspective seems to be something that should be looked into further. It appears that students who are more present oriented are more likely to borrow than students who are less present oriented. The students who are present oriented might therefore be a group at risk of getting into problematic debt and more guiding and monitoring of this group is requested. Next to that an extra line of text with the consequences of borrowing did not alter the financial behaviour of the students. Also the expectations about future income after graduation had no influence on their financial decision making.

(28)

References

Armor, D. A., Massey, C., and Sackett, A. M. (2008). Prescribed optimism: Is it right to be wrong about the future? Psychological Science, 19, 329–331.

Boniwell, I., Osin, E., and Sircova, A. (2014). Introducing time perspective coaching: A new approach to improve time management and enhance well-being. International Journal Of Evidence Based Coaching And Mentoring, 12(2), 24-40.

——— and Zimbardo, P. G. (2003). Time to ﬁnd the right balance. The Psychologist, 16 (3), 129–131.

——— and ——— (2004). Balancing Time Perspective in Pursuit of Optimal Functioning. In P. A. Linley, S. Joseph, P. A. Linley, S. Joseph (Eds.) , Positive psychology in practice (pp. 165-178). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Brown, S., Garino, G., and Taylor, K. (2008). Mortgages and financial expectations: A household level analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 74, 857–878.

——— , ———, ———, and Wheatley Price, S. (2005). Debt and financial expectations: An individual and household level analysis. Economic Inquiry, 43(1), 100–120.

——— and Taylor, K. (2006). Financial Expectations, Consumption and Saving: A Microeconomic Analysis. Fiscal Studies, 27(3), 313-338.

Carroll, P., Sweeny, K., and Shepperd, J. A. (2006). Forsaking optimism. Review of General Psychology, 10, 56–73.

Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., and Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165-181.

de Rubio, A. R. (2015). Factors associated with households’ planning horizons for making saving and spending decisions. Family And Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 43(3), 284-292.

Drentea, P. and Lavrakas, P.J. (2000). Over the limit: the association among health, race and debt. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 50(4), 517–29.

Dubois, H. and Anderson, R. (2010). Managing household debts: Social service provision in the EU. Dublin: Eurofound

Epley, N. and Dunning, D. (2000). Feeling “holier than thou”: Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self or social prediction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 861–875.

(29)

Garman, E.T., Leech, I.E., and Grable, J.E. (1996). The Negative Impact Of Employee Poor Personal Financial Behaviors On Employers. Financial Counseling and Planning, 7, 157–168. Goeders, N.E. (2003). The impact of stress on addiction, Neuro psycho pharmacology, 13: 435– 441.

Harris, P. R., Griffin, D. W., and Murray, S. (2008). Testing the limits of optimistic bias: Event and person moderators in a multilevel framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1225–1237

Henson, J. M., Carey, M. P., Carey, K. B., and Maisto, S. A. (2006). Associations among health behaviors and time perspective in young adults: Model testing with boot-strapping replication. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 127-137.

Hershey, D. A. and Mowen, J. C. (2000). Psychological determinants of financial preparedness for retirement. Gerontologist, 40, 687-697.

Hoeve, M., Jurrius, K., Zouwen, M. van der, Vergeer, M., Voogt, M., and Stams, G.J. (2011) In de schuld, in de fout? Wodc, Den Haag.

Howlett, E., Kees, J., and Kemp, E. (2008). The role of self-regulation, future orientation, and financial knowledge in long-term financial decisions. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42, 223-242.

Husman, J. and Shell, D. F. (2008). Beliefs and perceptions about the future: A measurement of future time perspective. Learning And Individual Differences, 18(2), 166-175.

Jacobs-Lawson, J. M., and Hershey, D. A. (2005). Influence of future time perspective, financial knowledge, and financial risk tolerance on retirement savings behaviors. Financial Services Review, 14, 331-334.

Joireman, J., Shaffer, M. J., Balliet, D., and Strathman, A. (2012). Promotion orientation explains why future-oriented people exercise and eat healthy: Evidence from the two-factor consideration of future consequences-14 scale. Personality And Social Psychology

Bulletin, 38(10), 1272-1287.

Jungmann, N., van Geuns, R., and Kruis, G. (2011) Schuldhulpverlening loont! Hogeschool Utrecht/Regioplan, Utrecht/Amsterdam

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Keough, K. A., Zimbardo, P. G., and Boyd, J. N. (1999). Who’s smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic and Applied Social

(30)

Keselman, H. J., Algina, J., Lix, L. M., Wilcox, R. R., and Deering, K. N. (2008). A generally robust approach for testing hypotheses and setting confidence intervals for effect sizes.

Psychological Methods, 13, 110–129.

Kim, J., and Garman, E.T. (2004). Financial Stress, Pay Satisfaction and Workplace Performance. Compensation & Benefits Review, 36(1), 69–76.

Lusardi, A. (1998). On the importance of the precautionary saving motive. American Economic Review,88, 449–453.

Luther, R.K., Leech, I.E., and Garman, E.T. (1998). The Employer’s Cost for the Personal Financial Management Difficulties of Workers: Evidence from the U.S. Navy. Personal Finances and Worker Productivity, 2(1), 175–182.

Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). The how of happiness: A practical guide to getting the life you want. London: Sphere.

Madern, T., Bos, J., and van der Brug, D. (2012) Schuldhulpverlening in bedrijf. Financiële problemen op de werkvloer. Nibud Brink, H. Wesdorp, P.L. Jongerius, M. (2012)

Schuldhulpverlening in bedrijf. Een handreiking voor werkgevers en gemeenten. Divosa, Utrecht

——— and van der Schors, A. (2012). Financiële houding en vaardigheden als voortekenen van financiële problemen. Schuldsanering . Juni 2012, 25-27.

——— (2014) Overkoepelende blik op de omvang en preventie van schulden in Nederland, Nibud.

Mooij, M. de, Geerdinck, M., Oostrom, L., and van Weert C. (2011). Inkomens van afgestudeerden, 2007–2009. Den Haag/Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Mullainathan, S. and Shafir, E. (2013). Schaarste, hoe gebrek aan tijd en geld ons gedrag bepalen, Amsterdam: Maven Publishing, 2013

Rabinovich, A. and Webley, P. (2007). Filling the gap between planning and doing:

Psychological factors involved in the successful implementation of saving intention Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 444–461.

(31)

Rothman, A. J., Klein, W. M., and Weinstein, N. D. (1996). Absolute and relative biases in estimations of personal risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1213–1236.

Schmider, E., Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Beyer, L., and Bühner, M. (2010). Is it really robust? Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology: European Journal Of Research Methods For The Behavioral And Social Sciences, 6(4), 147-151.

Van der Schors, van der Werf, and Schonewille (2015). Mbo’ers in geldzaken 2015: Financiële situatie en gedrag van mbo-studenten. Nibud 2015. (accessed at 6 may, 2016)

(available at:

http://www.nibud.nl/wp-content/uploads/Rapport_Nibud-Mbo-onderzoek-april-2015.pdf )

Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., and Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682-685.

Shepperd, J. A., Klein, W. M. P., Waters, E. A., and Weinstein, N. D. (2013). Taking stock of unrealistic optimism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 395–411.

——— , Ouellette, J. A., and Fernandez, J. K. (1996). Abandoning unrealistic optimism: Performance estimates and the temporal proximity of self-relevant feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 844–855.

——— , Waters, E. A., Weinstein, N. D., and Klein, W. P. (2015). A primer on unrealistic optimism. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 24(3), 232-237.

Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., and Lacante, M. (2004). Placing Motivation and Future Time Perspective Theory in a Temporal Perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 121-139.

Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., and Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 66 742-752.

Thaler, R. H. and Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. The Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392–406.

Trommsdorff, G. (1983). Future orientation and socialization. International Journal of Psychology, 18, 381-406.

Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352

(32)

Tyler, J. M. and Rosier, J. G. (2009). Examining self-presentation as a motivational explanation for comparative optimism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 716–727.

Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806–820.

Yang, S., Markoczy, L., and Qi, M. (2007). Unrealistic optimism in consumer credit card adoption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 170–185.

(33)

Appendix

The complete questionnaire of this study

Student en Geld

Fijn dat je deze vragenlijsten van de Gemeente Groningen en de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen wilt invullen!

De twee vragenlijsten gaan over geld en de manier waarop je met geld omgaat. Je antwoorden worden alleen door de onderzoekers bekeken, niet door andere mensen. Je hoeft je naam nergens op te schrijven.

Dit boekje bestaat uit drie onderdelen. Lees bij ieder onderdeel de vragen rustig door voordat je je antwoord geeft. In totaal kost het invullen van alle vragen 10 tot 15 minuten.

Hartelijk bedankt voor je deelname!

Martijn Keizer (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)

(34)

Algemene vragen 1. Wat is je leeftijd? ……… Jaar oud 2. Wat is je geslacht?

o

Man

o

Vrouw

3. Welke opleiding volg je?

……… 4. Op welk niveau volg je deze opleiding?

o

Niveau 1

o

Niveau 2

o

Niveau 3

o

Niveau 4

5. In welk jaar van deze opleiding zit je?

o

Jaar 1

o

Jaar 2

o

Jaar 3

(35)

Onderdeel 1. Hoe denk jij over geld?

Hieronder volgen 11 stellingen over geld en de manier waarop je met geld omgaat. Geef voor iedere stelling aan of je het met deze stelling eens bent door een getal tussen

1 (helemaal niet mee eens) en 7 (helemaal mee eens) te omcirkelen.

1. Geld lenen is goed, omdat je daardoor meer van het leven kunt genieten.

Helemaal mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Helemaal mee eens

2. Grotere aankopen plan ik vooruit.

3. Het is nooit goed om een schuld te hebben.

4. Zelfs bij een laag inkomen zou je regelmatig een beetje moeten sparen.

5. Als je geld geleend hebt, betaal je dit zo snel mogelijk terug.

6. Ik kom vaak in de verleiding om dingen te kopen.

7. Ik houd er niet van om geld te lenen.

8. Het is belangrijk om te leven van datgene wat je hebt.

(36)

9. Soms is het goed om geld te lenen.

10. Ik koop vaak dingen spontaan.

Financiële problemen

De volgende stellingen gaan over hulp bij financiële problemen. Met financiële

problemen bedoelen we schulden die je niet zonder hulp van anderen kunt oplossen. Geef voor iedere stelling aan of je het met deze stelling eens bent door een getal tussen

1 (helemaal niet mee eens) en 7 (helemaal mee eens) te omcirkelen.

1. Als ik financiële problemen krijg weet ik waar ik hulp kan zoeken .

2. Als ik financiële problemen zou krijgen zou ik dat vertellen aan mijn directe sociale omgeving (ouders, broers/zussen en/of goede vrienden).

3. Als ik financiële problemen zou krijgen zou ik hulp zoeken bij een officiële instantie (bijvoorbeeld de gemeente).

4. Ik denk dat er mensen zijn die mij kunnen helpen als ik financiële problemen krijg.

(37)

Je eigen financiële situatie

De stellingen hieronder gaan over je eigen financiële situatie. Geef voor iedere stelling aan of je het met deze stelling eens bent door een getal tussen 1 (helemaal niet mee

eens) en 7 (helemaal mee eens) te omcirkelen.

1. Ik weet ongeveer hoeveel geld er op dit moment op mijn bankrekening staat.

2. Ik weet hoeveel inkomsten ik maandelijks heb.

3. Ik probeer geld te sparen voor de toekomst.

4. Als ik geld heb, geef ik het direct uit.

5. Ik heb geregeld geen geld op mijn bankrekening.

6. Ik controleer eerst hoeveel geld ik heb voordat ik een aankoop doe.

7. Ik maak me vaak zorgen om mijn eigen financiële situatie.

(38)

Wat is je maandelijks inkomen ongeveer? Kleur het bolletje dat bij jouw situatie past.

o

Minder dan 100 euro per maand

o

Tussen de 100 en 200 euro per maand

o

Meer dan 700 euro per maand

o

Zeg ik liever niet

In hoeverre kun je maandelijks rond komen? Kleur het bolletje dat bij jouw situatie past.

o

Het lukt me makkelijk iedere maand rond te komen, zonder geld te lenen (van ouders/vrienden/bank)

o

Het lukt me meestal iedere maand rond te komen, zonder geld te lenen (van ouders/vrienden/bank)

o

Ik moet wel eens geld lenen (van ouders/vrienden/bank) om maandelijks rond te komen

o

Ik moet vaak geld lenen (van ouders/vrienden/bank) om maandelijks rond te komen

o

Ik moet altijd geld lenen (van ouders/vrienden/bank) om maandelijks rond te komen Heb je op dit moment schulden? Kleur het bolletje dat bij jouw situatie past.

o

Ja

o

Nee

Geld verdelen

Stel je voor dat je een maandelijks inkomen hebt van €200. Hoe zou je dit geld uitgeven? Kleur de bolletjes voor de mogelijke uitgaven die jij zou doen.

o

Zorgverzekering €90,-

o

Uitgaan €30,-

o

Uitgaan €60,-

o

Telefoonabonnement €30,-

o

Nieuwe schoenen €80,-

o

Kleding €50,-

o

Uitje met vrienden €40,-

Zou je in deze situatie geld proberen te lenen zodat je extra uitgaven kan doen?

(39)

Hoe belangrijk zijn de volgende uitgaven voor je? De belangrijkste uitgaven zijn de uitgaven die je zeker zou willen doen; de minst belangrijke uitgaven zijn minder belangrijk voor je. Zet een 1 voor de belangrijkste uitgave, een 2 voor de één na

belangrijkste, enzovoort.

…. Zorgverzekering …. Kleding

…. Telefoonabonnement …. Dagje weg met vrienden …. Uitgaan

…. Sportlidmaatschap …. Nieuwe schoenen

(40)

Onderdeel 2

Dit onderdeel van de vragenlijst bestaat uit een paar algemene vragen en een paar

vragenover je gevoelens en gedachten in de afgelopen maand. Lees de vragen rustig

door en kies de antwoorden die het beste bij je passen. Algemene vragen

A. Woon je op jezelf?

o

Ja, al ……... maanden (vul in hoeveel maanden je al op jezelf woont)

o

Nee

B. Ben je recent 18 jaar oud geworden?

o

Nee, dat duurt nog ……… maanden (vul in over hoeveel maanden je 18 wordt)

o

Nee, ik ben al 19 jaar of ouder

o

Ja, ik werd ……… maanden geleden 18 jaar. (vul in hoeveel maanden je al 18

bent)

Gevoelens en gedachten

De vragen in deze vragenlijst zijn gericht op je gevoelens en gedachten in de afgelopen maand. Geef bij iedere vraag aan hoe vaak je bepaalde gevoelens en gedachten hebt ervaren in de voorbije maand.

Hoewel sommige vragen op elkaar lijken, zijn er toch verschillen en

is het de bedoeling dat je alle vragen invult. De beste manier om dit te doen is om elke vraag vrij snel te beantwoorden, je hoeft er niet lang over na te denken. Omcirkel het cijfer dat overeenkomt met jouw antwoord op de vraag.

0 = Nooit 1 = Bijna nooit 2 = Soms

3 = Redelijk vaak 4 = Erg vaak

1. Hoe vaak ben je, gedurende de afgelopen maand, boos geweest omdat er iets

onverwachts gebeurde?

0 1 2 3 4

(Nooit) (Erg vaak)

2. Hoe vaak heb je, gedurende de afgelopen maand, het gevoel gehad dat je geen controle had over de belangrijke dingen in het leven?

0 1 2 3 4

(Nooit) (Erg vaak)

3. Hoe vaak heb je je, gedurende de afgelopen maand, nerveus of gestrest gevoeld?

0 1 2 3 4

(41)

4. Hoe vaak heb je je, gedurende de afgelopen maand, zeker gevoeld over je vermogen om met persoonlijke problemen om te gaan?

0 1 2 3 4

(Nooit) (Erg vaak)

5. Hoe vaak heb je, gedurende de afgelopen maand, het gevoel gehad dat de dingen verliepen zoals je wilde?

0 1 2 3 4

(Nooit) (Erg vaak)

6. Hoe vaak heb je, gedurende de afgelopen maand, gemerkt dat je niet om kon gaan met alle dingen die van je verwacht werden?

0 1 2 3 4

(Nooit) (Erg vaak)

7. Hoe vaak ben je, gedurende de afgelopen maand, in staat geweest de irritaties in je leven onder controle te houden?

0 1 2 3 4

(Nooit) (Erg vaak)

8. Hoe vaak heb je, gedurende de afgelopen maand, het gevoel gehad dat je alles onder controle had?

0 1 2 3 4

(Nooit) (Erg vaak)

9. Hoe vaak ben je, gedurende de afgelopen maand, boos geweest over dingen waar je geen controle over had?

0 1 2 3 4

(Nooit) (Erg vaak)

10. Hoe vaak heb je, gedurende de afgelopen maand, het gevoel gehad dat problemen zo groot werden dat je ze niet aankon?

0 1 2 3 4

(Nooit) (Erg vaak)

The Influence of Time Perspective and Financial Optimism on Financial Behaviour

The Influence of Time Perspective and Financial Optimism on

Financial Behaviour

The Influence of Time Perspective and Financial Optimism on

Financial Behaviour

Table of Contents

Student en Geld

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Onderdeel 1. Hoe denk jij over geld?

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Onderdeel 2

o

o

o

o

o