See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324623310

Understanding credit card payment behavior among college students

Article in Journal of Financial Services Marketing · March 2018

DOI: 10.1057/s41264-018-0042-0

CITATIONS READS

17 549

3 authors:

Shweta Singh David Rylander

Kean University Texas Woman's University
5 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 448 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tina Mims
University of North Texas
4 PUBLICATIONS 70 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shweta Singh on 24 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Financ Serv Mark
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-018-0042-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Understanding credit card payment behavior among college
students
Shweta Singh1 • David H. Rylander2 • Tina C. Mims2
Revised: 9 March 2018
 Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract College students remain a lucrative target mar-
ket for credit card companies even after the advent of the
Credit Card Act of 2009. Unfortunately, many students are
not prepared to use credit responsibly or make payments in
a timely manner. Numerous studies reveal risky student
credit behaviors, lack of credit knowledge or irresponsible
management of credit. However, there remains a need for
more information on college students’ payment behaviors.
This paper aims to explain credit card payment behavior
among college students by segmenting college students
into payment behavior groupings. Using an online survey,
students provided their credit card payment activity and
demographic characteristics. The results of this study shed
light on different credit card payment behaviors by seg-
menting college students into four behavioral segments
based on useful characteristics. Clear distinctions exist
between segments who behave in responsible ways versus
those who do not practice responsible behaviors. These
segmentation results add to the understanding of Lyons
(2004; Journal of Consumer Affairs 38 (1): 56–80) who
determined a means of identifying Financially at Risk
students (FAR) with payment behavior. Given potentially
& Shweta Singh
ssingh@kean.edu
David H. Rylander
DRylander@twu.edu
Tina C. Mims
TMims@twu.edu
1 however, the lack of experience in managing a budget
School of Management, Marketing and International
Business, Kean University, Willis 105, 1000 Morris Avenue,
Union, NJ 07083, USA
2
School of Management, Texas Woman’s University,
P. O. Box 425738, Denton, TX 76204-5738, USA
dangerous effects of targeted credit card marketing to
college students, findings about payment behavior of col-
lege students will help policymakers, credit card companies
and college administrators.
Keywords College students
Credit cards
Payment
behavior
Attitude
Perception
Introduction
Credit card issuers pursue college students on college
campuses and do so diligently for a few reasons. First,
college students are typically 18 or older, meaning they can
enter into a legally binding contract (Boykins et al. 2001).
Second, about two-thirds of college students work, so they
have some income that is within their control to spend
(Duca and Whitesell 1995; Dunkelberg and Smiley 1975;
Jacquelyn and Phylis 2000; Lester et al. 2005; Lyons 2004;
Norvilitis and MacLean 2010; Stanford 1999). Third, col-
lege students have higher than average lifetime earnings
potential, so hooking a college student on using revolving
credit can be very profitable for credit card issuers
(Dunkelberg and Smiley 1975; Jones et al. 2006; Lester
et al. 2005). Even with the federal legislation requiring a
second signature for adults under the age of 21 (2009),
college students remain a lucrative target market for credit
card companies.
With the growth of online shopping, credit cards are
used to purchase almost anything at almost any venue;
often leads to students being unable to keep up with
growing credit card debt (Boykins et al. 2001). While some
student card holders manage their credit responsibly, other
students are overwhelmed to the point that they amass too

much debt and maybe even leave college (Boykins et al.
2001; Gillis and Brobeck 1999; Manning 2000; Pirog and
Roberts 2007). Even student suicide is reported as a result
of anxiety brought on by excessive student debt (CARD
Act 2009; Awh and Waters 1974; Goff-Parker 2006; Willis
2009).
Unfortunately, many students are not prepared to take
on the financial responsibility of having a credit card. The
college student market is often considered vulnerable or
even naı̈ve (Jacquelyn and Phylis 2000; Lyons 2004; Pirog
and Roberts 2007; Soman and Cheema 2002). Past studies
reveal risky credit behavior, lack of credit knowl-
edge/credit use, and irresponsible management of credit
among college students (Palan et al. 2011; Roberts and
Jones 2001; Robb 2011; Xiao et al. 2011). Robb (2011)
goes on to say that coupling student credit card debt with
student loans reveals that 25 cents of every dollar earned
after graduation will go toward this debt. Among the vol-
ume of studies conducted with college students, our review
indicates that the payment behavior of college students
continues to be understudied.
Literature review
This review aims to determine what dimension(s) exist in
the literature about college students and credit card factors
empirically studied in the last decade and further identify
gaps for exploration. To conduct the literature search, the
first step was to turn to databases relevant to the subject as
suggested by Creswell (2013) and Hart (1998), such as
PsychInfo, Social Sciences Citation Index, Business Source
Complete, and ABI/Inform. The search was limited to
quantitative studies within the past 10 years using these
data sources. Keywords for the computer-based literature
search included credit, credit card, college, students, and
similar others. Second, using a snowballing technique (Hart
1998) we manually examined reference sections in litera-
ture reviews provided in the articles found during the first
step. These two steps resulted in a database of over 200
articles for further inspection. Third, we organized the
empirical papers by subject to collapse the empirical
studies into the highest level topic areas for labeling. While
research conducted prior to 2002 is of importance, current
research is used to identify themes and older articles used
as appropriate to discuss the themes found.
Our review indicates that over the past decade quanti-
tative research focused on the following themes: acquisi-
tion, attitudes, debt, decision criteria, financial knowledge,
payment, possession, personality, and use of credit. These
themes are explained next.
S. Singh et al.
Acquisition
The literature provides us with information about how
college students acquire credit cards. While acquisition
may or may not be the entire focus of the research found,
the results contribute to the overall understanding of how
college students obtain a card. Credit card acquisition is a
focus of Pinto and Mansfield’s research; they aimed to
understand how credit card companies use direct mail to
solicit to college students (Norvilitis and Santa Maria 2002;
Pinto and Mansfield 2006). As Pinto and Mansfield (2006)
indicate, credit card companies use a variety of means to
solicit college students, often freshmen are targeted, and
the primary method of communication appears to be direct
mail to acquire a new card holder.
Students acquire credit cards from a parent (Peltier et al.
2013), direct mail solicitation, on-campus solicitation, and
‘‘other’’ means (Hayhoe et al. 2005). While some authors
refer to the acquisition of credit cards as the promotion of
cards to students, the fact remains that students typically
acquire their cards through unsolicited mail (Warwick and
Mansfield 2000). Acquiring a credit card is also interpreted
as a way for students to ‘‘keep up with the Joneses’’
(Rugimbana 2007). Since Lyons (2004) found that how
students acquire their credit card appears to indicate
financial risk, acquisition is a theme recently studied by
Peltier et al. (2013) and Steffes et al. (2011) in more depth.
Attitudes
A healthy amount of literature covers student attitudes
toward credit cards. Predominantly influenced by knowl-
edge of consumer behavior (Ajzen 1996; Ajzen and Fish-
bein 1977), attitudes are known to be distinctly different
than behaviors and not always compatible. Attitude scales
developed by researchers have application in measuring the
attitudes of college students toward credit card issues.
Many dimensions of college student attitudes are studied
using a priori scales, the most recent being money attitudes,
attitudes toward credit cards, credit card companies, atti-
tudes toward credit use, and attitudes toward credit.
Lyons (2004) indicates that Xiao et al. (1995) was
among the first to focus on the attitudes of college students,
identifying favorable versus unfavorable attitudes toward
using credit cards. Lyons (2004) also mentions that Joo
et al. (2001) was among the first to examine student atti-
tudes toward credit cards in addition to attitudes toward
usage, not unlike the approach by Sloan and Mathews
(1970), who was one of the first to examine credit attitudes
in the general public. Joo et al. (2003) adapted a scale
developed by Awh and Waters (1974) to measure college
student attitudes toward credit cards. Examples of items
measuring attitudes include the following: the cost of using
Understanding credit card payment behavior among college students
credit cards is too high; it is unwise to use credit cards;
credit cards provide a needed service; and credit cards are
disliked (Joo et al. 2003).
With the economy registered among the top stories by
Pew Research Center’s project for excellence in journalism
(Pew-Forum 2011), college students’ credit, debt, and
money attitudes should be re-examined. College students’
attitudes toward credit cards, companies, and money
influence their credit card debt (Roberts and Jones 2001).
Recently, Limbu et al. (2012) studied attitude as it relates
to credit card abuse. Norvilitis and Santa Maria (2002)
reviewed Boyce and Danes (1998), arguing that in the
1990s college students were experiencing high levels of
discretionary income (Norvilitis and Santa Maria 2002),
which is something the later recession of the new millennia
may confound. A psychometric money attitude scale
developed by Yamauchi and Templer (1982) measured five
factors known as power/prestige, retention, time, distrust,
quality, and anxiety related to money attitudes (Robb and
Sharpe 2009), but little use of this scale by other
researchers can be found.
Warwick and Mansfield (2000) found that students have
realistic attitudes toward credit cards and payments. Since
the economy has dynamic social aspects (Klein 1977) and
attitudes are tied, in part, to economic conditions (Awh and
Waters 1974; Chien and Devaney 2001), a longitudinal
examination of college student attitudes seems warranted
to account for economic influences. The results of Nellie
Mae’s (2002) 15-year study identify a trend in attitude
change. As difficult economic times continue, along with
rising college costs, students report an observable rise in
hardship perceptions (Baum and O’Malley 2003).
There are few studies examining attitudes toward credit
card companies. Robb and Woodyard (2011) discuss eco-
nomic influences but do not investigate this topic quanti-
tatively. A recent study revealed that students exhibiting
negative attitudes toward credit card companies are more
likely to report that they rarely or never pay their balances
in full (Singh et al. 2016). Attitude toward credit card
companies is one of the understudied themes in this review.
Chien and Devaney (2001) reviewed the literature from
the 1970s through the 1990s to prepare for their study
aimed at predicting credit card use. Their results indicate
credit use being influenced by demographic (age, house-
hold size, etc.), economic (annual income and liquid
assets), and attitudinal factors (measured as favorable or
unfavorable attitudes such as ‘‘good idea to buy’’ using
credit). Pirog and Roberts (2007), in keeping with Bianco
and Bosco (2002), found that age and credit card scores
have significant correlation.
Debt
One of the most frequently observed themes in the litera-
ture is college student credit card debt. Most recently,
Peltier et al. (2016) examined student self-control with a
series of pre-/post-sequential decisions and the causal
impact on their financial anxiety. According to the litera-
ture between 1995 and 2003, college students appeared to
be responsible using credit cards and not accumulating
large amounts of debt (Lyons 2004). However, Lyons
(2004) goes on to report a concern for students accumu-
lating excessive amounts of debt leading to the develop-
ment of scales to determine which students are ‘‘financially
at risk’’ (FAR) (Lyons 2004; Robb and Pinto 2010).
College student debt is extensively examined by Baum
and O’Malley (2003). Baum and O’Malley (2003) utilize
the Nellie Mae (2002) survey of student borrowers to
explain the debt of college students in terms of the fol-
lowing dimensions: debt levels, extent of debt burden,
home and car ownership, attitudes toward debt, low income
borrowers, and racial/ethnic groupings (Baum and
O’Malley 2003).
Decision criteria
Decision criteria is a newer theme in the literature. There
are two schools of thought regarding college students’
credit card use and indebtedness (Blankson 2008). The first
school of thought is that using credit cards leads students
into debt and that students are potentially lured into this
situation by aggressive credit card company marketing
practices (Blankson 2008). The second school of thought
interpreted by Blankson (2008) is an argument claiming
that college student debt is an exaggeration, because
scholarly support finds evidence to contradict the first
school of thought. Evidence exists suggesting college stu-
dents are knowledgeable, act rationally, and have a clear
sense of financial responsibility (Blankson 2008). With this
discrepancy, the author aimed to develop scales that mea-
sure college students’ decision criteria for evaluating and
choosing a credit card. The underlying factors discovered
provide researchers with scales to measure the underpin-
nings of college students’ choice criteria, the buying power
the credit card provides, the incentives the credit card
brings, the reputation of the card, and the interest in the
students achieving a good credit rating (Blankson 2008).
Financial knowledge
College students are not considered to have the most
financial knowledge regarding credit cards, yet credit card
companies consider college students acceptable risks
(Bianco and Bosco 2002). Women generally have less

knowledge about financial topics than their male counter-
parts (Chen and Volpe 2002). In a study to obtain insight
into the financial literacy of college students, Chen and
Volpe (2002) asked 924 male and female students to
respond to a variety of questions about their knowledge of
leasing, creditworthiness, credit reports, and annual per-
centage rates. The items Chen and Volpe (2002) used
essentially provided a test, similar to an academic test, to
score the participants’ answers to obtain a financial literacy
score of the respondents. A similar approach was taken by
Avard et al. 2005. Their research scored college freshman
on a 20-question financial literacy examination, and 92%
failed (Avard et al. 2005).
Bianco and Bosco (2002) pose a rhetorical question that
essentially asks why would educational institutions, seemly
interested in the students’ best interest, ask credit card
companies to educate students about credit use (Bianco
and Bosco 2002)? This question seems more logical in lieu
of this review. Shen (2014) explored how financial literacy
is affected by an individual’s cognitive ability, financial
knowledge, and financial education relative to their credit
card behavior. Standards exist for educators in K-12 to
follow financial education goals established by a coalition
of 180 members from education, government, and financial
service organizations (Yamauchi and Templer 1982). Yet,
Norvilitis and MacLean (2010) indicate that only 7.5% of
their undergraduate respondents learned how to manage
their finances from schooling (Norvilitis and Maclean
2010).
Payment
Payment is defined in the literature by the size of payment
made, such as a partial payment, full payment, or minimum
payment (Bianco and Bosco 2002; Worthy et al. 2010).
Payment may also convey who paid, such as a parent,
guardian, or the student (Bianco and Bosco 2002). Payment
intent and behavior are separately defined.
Soman and Cheema (2002) conducted experiments with
college students by providing them with scenarios (e.g.,
Imagine the following…) and then following up with
scaled items that measure the intent to make payments.
Their experiment aimed to identify the role of credit limits
and the intent to make payments. This insightful approach
is un-matched in the literature of the past decade. Lyons
(2004) is known for creating the label financially at risk
(FAR) by including delinquent payment practices by stu-
dents as the number two criterion for FAR classification.
Goff-Parker (2006) considers payment behavior in terms
of paying in full, paying on time, making minimum pay-
ments in relationship to marital status, gender, GPA, age,
and extracurricular activities. In a study conducted for
Oklahoma Regents, Tan (2003) reported payment behavior
S. Singh et al.
under ‘‘handling of debt’’ (Goff-Parker 2006). This study
by Tan (2003) and the work by Lyons (2004) are the most
overt in using payment as a means of understanding college
students and credit cards.
Personality
An understudied factor regarding college students and their
credit card behavior is personality. It is generally known
that personality is an internal influence in consumer
behavior (Babin and Harris 2016). Pirog and Roberts
(2007) showed how personality impacts college student
credit card use. They used the eight personality traits from
Mowen’s (2000) 3M framework (i.e., instability, introver-
sion, openness, agreeability, conscientiousness, body focus,
materialism, and need for arousal) for the purpose of
studying the impact on student credit card misuse (Pirog
and Roberts 2007). Already mentioned under the dimen-
sion of attitudes, Norvilitis et al. (2003) found that per-
sonality variables were generally not related to a student’s
level of debt while these same variables are related to
student attitudes toward money.
One particular dimension of personality is impulsivity.
Norvilitis et al. (2003) used the functional and dysfunc-
tional impulsivity scales created by Dickman and Meyer
(1988) and found that college students’ perceived financial
well-being relates to lower levels of dysfunctional impul-
sivity. Among other factors, Wang and Xiao (2009) mea-
sured the impact of student impulsivity on credit card
indebtedness. Their work extends findings by Pirog and
Roberts (2007) where impulsivity resulted in likely credit
card misuse.
Possession
Possession indicates having a credit card but not neces-
sarily using a credit card. SallieMae (2009) reports that
possession grew from 1998 where 67% of students sur-
veyed had 3.5 cards to 2008 where 84% of students sur-
veyed had 4.6 cards (SallieMae 2009). Wang and Xiao
(2009) used the number of credit cards held in the students’
own name and analyzed independent variables in light of
the dichotomous outcome of credit card possession, having
a balance due versus no balance due (Wang and Xiao
2009). The possibility exists to expand on Wang and Xiao
by examining the number of cards in possession in each of
the two dimensions. Researchers interested in studying
possession have the challenge of clearly conveying pos-
session versus usage, and the number in possession is likely
different than the number of cards in use by students.
Understanding credit card payment behavior among college students
Use
Credit card use includes any type of payment, such as
online payments, automatic payments, and, of course,
swiping the card. A growing concern is that 30% of stu-
dents report putting tuition costs on their credit cards
(Christel and Eriksdotter 2009; Willis 2009). Even during
the national credit freeze of 2009, college students were
using credit cards more than ever, charging upwards of
$2200 annually (Christel and Eriksdotter 2009). College
seniors carry more than four times the balance ($4100) of
their freshman counterparts ($939) in undergraduate pro-
grams (Christel and Eriksdotter 2009). The balances car-
ried by seniors and freshman have doubled and tripled,
respectively, just since 2004 (Christel and Eriksdotter
2009).
College students that use credit cards with greater fre-
quency for a variety of different purchases are among a
FAR segment of the student population (Robb 2007).
Quantifying frequency of use added additional evidence to
the FAR classification by Lyons (2004) when students were
examined by including their credit card ownership, the
amount of credit card debt incurred, the types of credit
cards held, and students’ attitude toward usage. The role of
parents is also a predictive indicator of FAR students.
When parents struggle with debt, students are also likely to
struggle with debt (Norvilitis and MacLean 2010). More
recently, Limbu et al. (2012) found that parental influence
can improve student credit card use while discouraging
over-use.
Research aim
Many universities are pulling away from relationships with
credit card issuers to remove appearances of encouraging
credit card usage and especially associating with credit
card debt. For example, all credit card affiliations with
public higher education institutions are prohibited by
Connecticut (McClure 2010). While private institutions in
Connecticut are not bound by the new state law, conver-
sations at the administration level maintain a vigilant
concern about credit card issues among the student popu-
lation (McClure 2010). As universities recognize their role
and responsibility in protecting their students from
unmanageable credit card debt, they seek a better under-
standing of the behaviors.
The credit card industry has the propensity to instill
dangerous attitudes toward credit and debt in college stu-
dents (Bianco and Bosco 2002). Therefore, a better
understanding of the nature of credit behaviors and student
differences will help policy makers, credit card companies,
and college administrators. This review demonstrates that
the payment theme, while investigated over the past dec-
ade, is understudied using segmentation analysis. The
purpose of this research is to add to a growing body of
work in the area of students’ credit card usage and discover
newer directions for understanding their payment behavior.
The following research questions guide a more detailed
look at varying behaviors of college students by identifying
distinguishing characteristics of students who exhibit
desirable payment behaviors from those who do not:
1. Does better knowledge and awareness of credit card
details have a positive influence on student payment
behaviors?
2. Do demographic factors like income and age correlate
with student payment behaviors?
3. Do some aspects of personality, like impulsivity,
negatively impact student payment behaviors?
4. Does increasing debt on credit cards propel the
students toward negative payment behavior?
5. Does using a credit card for convenience purposes as
opposed to a mechanism to advance short-term loans
impact students’ payment behavior?
6. Do credit card features such as high credit limits and
no annual fees have an impact on payment behaviors?
Methodology
Sample
An online survey instrument was used to obtain the
behavioral understanding of students’ payment activity. A
random sample of 400 graduate and undergraduate students
was taken from a demographically diverse public univer-
sity. The items used are a modified version of the survey
conducted by the Federal Reserve and presented in ‘‘Credit
Cards: Use and Consumer Attitudes, 1970–2000,’’ Thomas
A. Durkin. These questions were originally found in the
nationwide Survey of Consumer Finances in 1970 and
1977.
Additionally, our instrument included demographic
characteristics of the students as well as quantifying their
payment behaviors. Questions included whether students
are aware of credit card changing policies, number of credit
cards held, and behaviors related to credit card use and
payment. Since the aim of the research was to see if seg-
ments of students differ based on their payment behavior,
multinomial logistic regression was employed to answer
our research questions.
Among those responding to our survey, 64% were
undergraduates and nearly 85% of the students used credit
cards. Nearly 70% of the cardholders had used these cards
for more than 3 years and 51% reported having a credit
 S. Singh et al.

Table 1 Data descriptive

68.66
Variables Frequency (%)
54.20
Pay balances in full
Always 32.63
Sometimes 33.47 35.91
Rarely 18.22

Distance
Never 15.68
12.87
Pay credit cards on time every month
8.74
Yes 75.42
8.31
No 24.58
3.77
Aware of changing policies on their credit cards
.00
Always 39.41
Sometimes 38.56 1 5 3 6 4 7 9 2 8
Rarely 14.4 Cluster ID
Never 7.63
Fig. 1 Dendrogram representing different clusters
Check credit card statements for error
Always 54.24
card limit of approximately $3000. Most of the students
Sometimes 27.12
were employed either full time (55%) or part time (25%),
Rarely 11.44
and nearly 60% were full-time students. Almost 74% did
Never 7.2
not receive any financial support from their parents and
Payment of annual fees
used either their own savings (39%) or student loans (53%)
Yes 28.39
to fund their education. A large proportion (nearly 81%) of
No 71.61
the students were between the ages of 21 and 40. Table 1
Age (years) includes the sample breakdown.
\ 21 4.66
21–30 57.63 Analysis
31–40 22.88
41–50 11.02 Using cluster analysis, groupings emerged based on whe-
51–60 2.54 ther students paid off their credit card balances in full every
[ 60 1.27 month or whether payments were made to their credit card
Income ($) companies on time every month. By viewing a dendro-
\ 20,000 11.86 gram, a jump in loss of information increases significantly
20,000–40,000 22.88 when moving from four to three, or, two clusters. Hence, a
[ 40,00–60,000 16.53 decision to retain four clusters was made for results
[ 60,000–80,000 15.68 reporting (Fig. 1).
[ 80,000–100,000 13.56 From Table 2, we can separate the four clusters by
[ 100,000 19.49 looking at the cluster means. Cluster 1 comprises of stu-
Credit limit ($) dents that always pay off their balances in full each month
Less than 1000 27.12 and make their credit card payments on time. Cluster 2
1000–3000 24.15 students sometime pay off their balances in full, and this
3001–5000 11.02 cluster mean for making on time payments every month is
5001–8000 11.44 close to the overall average across all clusters. Cluster 3
8001–10,000 7.2 consists of those students who rarely pay off their balances
[ 10,000 19.07 in full and also do not pay their credit cards on time. Lastly,
Number of credit cards held cluster 4 neither pays off their balances in full nor makes
1 30.93 timely payments on their credit cards. For the remainder of
2 25.42 the paper, we refer to the four clusters 1, 2, 3, 4 as ‘‘always
3 19.07 pays,’’ ‘‘sometimes pay,’’ ‘‘rarely pay,’’ and ‘‘never pay,’’
4 8.05 respectively.
[4 16.53 Using a multinomial logistic regression model, we found
differentiating factors between the four clusters of students.
Understanding credit card payment behavior among college students

Table 2 Cluster analysis

Size/cluster Overall Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
results
Number of observations 400 134 132 68 66
Proportion 1 0.335 0.33 0.17 0.165

Segmentation variables

Means of each segmentation variable for each segment

Segmentation variable/cluster Overall Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Always pay off balances in full 0.335 1 0 0 0

Sometimes pay off balances in full 0.33 0 1 0 0
Rarely pay off balances in full 0.17 0 0 1 0
Never pay off balances in full 0.165 0 0 0 1
Pay credit card on time 0.755 0.944 0.757 0.639 0.486

Multinomial logistic regression (MNL) is a generalized
linear model that is an extension of the binary logit logistic
regression and is useful when the nominal dependent
variable has more than two levels. This model eliminates
the need to limit analyses to two mutually exclusive groups
or collapse categories to two categories since the latter can
lead to estimates that are less efficient (Kwak and Clayton-
Matthews 2002). MNL uses maximum likelihood estima-
tion to determine the probabilities of belonging to a specific
category/cluster just like the binary logistic regression. The
advantage of MNL over models such as discriminant
analysis is MNL does not assume normality, linearity, or
homoscedasticity (Hair et al. 2002). MNL also allows
easier interpretation of the results by comparing each
cluster with a base cluster. The base cluster in our model is
cluster 1, which we labeled as ‘‘always pays,’’ as this is an
ideal payment behavior.
Results
The output from the MNL is presented in Table 3. A look
at the model fit statistics indicates lower levels of Akaike
information criterion (AIC) and Schwarz criterion (SC),
which is desirable. Both AIC and SC penalize the model
for its number of predictors used. Score and Wald tests are
Chi-square tests where at least one of the predictors’
regression coefficients is not equal to zero in the model.
The resulting small p values are indicative of all three tests
being significant.
Using ‘‘always pays’’ as the MNL base cluster, from the
log-odds estimate of the variables (Table 3), we conclude
the following:
• Number of credit cards held by students
Comparison to the base cluster indicates that a one unit
increase in the number of credit cards held is associated
with a 0.46 increase in the relative odds of being in
cluster ‘‘sometimes pay’’ and a 0.52 increase in the
relative odds of being in cluster ‘‘rarely pay.’’ Thus,
holding a lesser number of credit cards is linked with
more desirable payment behavior since the base cluster
‘‘always pay’’ consists of students that not only pay off
their balances in full each month but also make timely
payments on their credit cards. Lyons (2004) found that
FAR students held 4 or more credit cards and student
risk increased with the number of credit cards.
• Income
A one unit increase in income is associated with a 0.53
decrease in the relative odds of students being in cluster
‘‘never pay’’ and a 0.33 decrease in the relative odds of
being in cluster ‘‘rarely pay’’ versus cluster the base
cluster. We find that lower income is linked to
undesirable payment behaviors. Prior literature sug-
gests a link between income and consumer credit
behavior (Slocum and Mathews 1970), and among
college students, higher debt-to-income ratios and
credit behavior (Norvilitis et al. 2003); between lower
family incomes, higher student loan amounts and credit
card debt (Zhou and Su 2000); between low-to-middle
income groups and financial risk (Lyons 2004).
• Purpose of credit card usage
Credit cards are used by students to support certain
kinds of lifestyles such as convenience or short-term
loans (Robb 2011). Our findings indicate that the
purpose of credit card usage, whether for convenience
or as an advancement of short-term loans, is linked to
payment behavior. One unit increase in usage of credit
cards for convenience decreases the relative odds of
being in ‘‘never pay’’ versus the ‘‘always pay’’ cluster
by 1.83. Students who tend to use their credit card for
convenience purposes exhibit better payment behavior.
 S. Singh et al.

Table 3 Output from MNL model (Only statistically significant variables are shown here.)
Parameters Clusters Estimate Std. error Pr [ ChiSq

Number of credit cards held by students 2 0.46 0.16 0.006

3 0.52 0.19 0.008
Income 4 - 0.533 0.18 0.003
3 - 0.33 0.16 0.03
Purpose of credit card usage (convenience) 4 - 1.83 0.74 0.013
Average balance carried on credit cards 2 0.65 0.20 0.001
3 0.96 0.23 \ 0.0001
4 1.06 0.24 \ 0.0001
Impulsivity 3 1.26 0.54 0.019
4 1.35 0.69 0.0007
Age 2 0.46 0.22 0.044
Awareness and knowledge
Awareness regarding the interest rates being charged on the credit cards 4 - 1.87 0.69 0.007
Checking bills on a regular basis 4 - 0.89 0.42 0.03
3 - 1.03 0.52 0.04
Payment of annual fees 3 0.80 0.47 0.082
Credit limit 2 - 0.36 0.14 0.011
Criterion Intercept only Intercept and covariates

Model fit statistics

AIC 570.215 509.831
SC 580.285 520.668
- 2 LOG L 564.215 437.831
R-square: 44.91% Max-rescaled R-square: 48.28%

Chi-square Pr [ ChiSq

Testing global null hypothesis: BETA = 0

Likelihood ratio \ 0.0001
Score \ 0.0001
Wald \ 0.0001

• Average balance carried on credit cards urges the need for an immediate experience and creates
The average balance carried by millennials was $8864 an urgency to buy material objects rather than cau-
in 2014 (Lerner 2014). As the average balance on credit tiously consider the purchase (Wang and Xiao 2009).
cards increases so does customer riskiness in terms of Transient loss of self-control may lead to impulse
their probability of defaulting (Singh et al. 2013). We buying (Baumeister 2002). Students who are suscepti-
find that a one unit increase in the average balance ble to material possessions and are prone to make
carried by students increases their relative odds of impulsive purchases are more likely to acquire credit
being in cluster ‘‘sometimes pay’’ by 0.65, in cluster card debt (Norvilitis et al. 2006). Impulsivity can lead
‘‘never pay’’ by 1.06, and in cluster ‘‘rarely pay’’ by to negative consequences such as misuse of credit cards
0.96. Thus, as average balance increases so does the (Pirog and Roberts 2007).
probability of belonging to clusters that exhibit unde-
Wang and Xiao (2009) found that although the impulse
sirable payment behavior.
buying score for the group that carried balances was higher,
• Impulsivity
they did not find the relationship significant in their logit
Easy credit is one of the reasons for overspending
model. However, in our model of payment behavior, we
(Schor 1998). Credit cards make it easy for college
find the relationship between impulsivity and likelihood of
students to pay for impulsive purchases. Impulsiveness
Understanding credit card payment behavior among college students

belonging to clusters that exhibit undesirable payment (Curry 1999). However, we find little evidence regard-
behavior both significant and positive. In our model, ing the relation between payment of annual fees and
‘‘impulsivity’’ is measured by the statement ‘‘I am more likelihood of exhibiting negative payment behavior.
impulsive when I shop with a credit card.’’ Here, impul- Although we find that a one unit increase in payment of
sivity increases the relative odds of belonging to clusters annual fees increases the likelihood of belonging to
‘‘rarely pay’’ and ‘‘never pay’’ versus the base cluster cluster ‘‘rarely pay’’ relative to cluster ‘‘always pay,’’
‘‘always pay.’’ the significance supporting this finding is slight.
• Credit limits
• Age
Credit limit decisions are made based on factors such as
In general, as consumer age increases their probability
payment record, credit history, employment, and credit
of default decreases as they are more likely to belong to
score (Gerber 2012). When those who have good
the higher risk-adjusted revenue (RAR) cluster (Singh
payment records exhaust their credit limit, credit card
et al. 2013). However, prior research on age and college
companies typically will increase their credit limit
students indicates that as student age increases so does
(Punch 1992). Past credit is used typically by banks and
their tolerance toward debt and the number of credit
other lenders to determine credit limit (Tressler 1998).
cards held (Davies and Lea 1995). Students tend to be
This implies that only those students that have exhib-
more optimistic regarding their financial future (Hira
ited positive payment behavior are likely to qualify for
et al. 1993). This implies that they may be more open to
higher credit limits. Soman and Cheema (2002) found
take on debt, confident that they will be able to repay
that increased credit limits are not necessarily misused
the debt in due course of time. Our findings indicate
by experienced consumers since with experience the
that one unit increase in age increases the relative
effect of credit limit on willingness to use credit is
likelihood of belonging to cluster ‘‘sometimes pay’’ by
mitigated. We find that a one unit increase in credit
0.46.
limit decreases the relative odds of belonging to cluster
• Awareness and knowledge about their credit cards
‘‘sometimes pay’’ by 0.36 as compared to cluster
Prior studies show students do not have a lot of
‘‘always pay.’’
knowledge about the details on their credit credits
(Warwick and Mansfield 2000) and exhibit a general
lack of understanding (Lee and Hogarth 1999). We
used three measures to capture students’ awareness and Discussion and implications
knowledge regarding their credit cards:
Case study investigations reveal that college students
• Whether students were aware regarding changing
return from graduation with a degree, student loan debt,
policies on the credit cards
credit card bills, and even car payments (Vigeland 2011).
• Whether students were aware regarding the interest
This debt behavior begins and is measurable at high school
rates being charged on the credit cards
graduation, where half of high school graduates indicate a
• Whether students were checking their credit card
lack of knowing the basics of personal finance (Johnson
bills on a regular basis for billing errors
2010).
Our analysis indicates that students exhibiting negative The results of this study shed light on different credit
payment behavior are most likely to exhibit a lack of card behaviors among a demographically diverse sample of
awareness and knowledge about their credit cards. In fact, a college students, including undergraduate and graduate
one unit increase in awareness regarding card interest rates levels. Some clear distinctions exist between students who
actually decreased a student’s relative odds of being in behave in responsible ways versus those who do not
cluster ‘‘never pay.’’ Similarly, a one unit increase in practice responsible behaviors. Cluster 1 (always pay)
checking their credit cards bill led to a decrease in relative students, who pay full balances on time each month, are
odds of belonging to clusters ‘‘rarely pay’’ and ‘‘never predictably in better financial shape, with higher credit
pay.’’ limits and less debt. These students also check their
statements more carefully and have more positive percep-
• Payment of annual fees
tions of credit card companies. Of course, cluster 4 (never
Annual or yearly fees are charged by some credit card
pay) comprises of students who pay excessive credit card
companies for the convenience or benefits given to
fees, do not check their statements carefully enough, and
cardholders. Secured credit cards usually come with an
tend to view credit card companies as unfair.
annual fee. For people who have either never had a
An important question at this point is the chicken and
credit card or want to repair a poor credit history,
egg conundrum. Do cluster 1 students exhibit good credit
secured credit cards may be the best option to choose

behaviors because they have enough money to pay their
balances? Or do they have more money because they use
credit more responsibly and avoid fees? The truth likely
lies in the middle. College students with greater financial
needs tend to get themselves into additional financial
trouble with irresponsible credit behaviors, which then
compounds the problem. This makes it critical for colleges
to help those students with better guidance and protection
from financially dangerous debt. Legislation can only go so
far in keeping predatory credit offers away from campus.
College administrators need to resist the temptation of
allowing credit card firms to find loopholes in targeting
students, especially the most vulnerable students.
A summary of results regarding the research questions
reveals some predictable results and some questions that
still need additional exploration. For the first question,
better knowledge and awareness of credit cards did corre-
late positively with student payment behaviors. With
regard to demographics characteristics that distinguish
among different payment behavior clusters, we found that
income and age do correlate with student payment behav-
iors (question 2). For the third question, impulsivity cor-
related positively with undesirable payment behaviors
(question 3). As the average balances on their credit cards
increased so did the likelihood of students exhibiting
undesirable payment behavior (question 4). We also found
support for correlation between credit cards being used as a
convenience mechanism and desirable payment behavior
(question 5). The sixth question showed that higher credit
limits are correlated with better payment behaviors; how-
ever, the direction of causality is not certain. We found
little support for correlation between lack of annual fees
and payment behavior.
Further examination of demographics, including finan-
cial situation, could lead to better identification of students
who need the most support in managing debt (Baumeister
2002; Hayhoe et al. 2000; Hira et al. 1993; Lyons 2004;
Wang and Xiao 2009). Additional research is needed to
develop a causal model of payment behavior. If credit card
companies do not take the initiative to protect vulnerable
college students, the onus must shift to legislators or col-
lege administrators (2009). It is not in the college’s best
interest to have students falling further in debt. Excessive
debt can lead to higher attrition or difficulties if the stu-
dents do manage to graduate. Developing financially
responsible graduates should be an ethical requirement, but
it also produces alumni who can have more opportunities—
and are in a better position to contribute to their alma
mater.
The good news is that, at least in this sample, most
students pay attention to their statements and policies, pay
balances in full at least some of the time, and pay on time.
However, this study has limitations. The sample was from
S. Singh et al.
a single, though diverse, college population. Questions still
exist as to the direction of causality among some charac-
teristics and behaviors, so a definitive causal model is not
currently feasible. Future research could elaborate on these
relationships and see whether they hold in other samples.
References
Ajzen, I. 1996. The social psychology of decision making. Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: A
theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psycho-
logical Bulletin 84 (5): 20.
Avard, S., E. Manton, D. English, and J. Walker. 2005. The financial
knowledge of college freshmen. College Student Journal 39 (2):
321–339.
Awh, R.Y., and D. Waters. 1974. A discriminant analysis of
economic, demographic, and attitudinal characteristics of bank
charge-card solders: A case study. Journal of Finance 29 (3):
973–980.
Babin, B.J., and E.G. Harris. 2016. Consumer behavior. Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Baum, S., and M. O’Malley. 2003. College on credit: How borrowers
perceive their education debt. NASFAA Journal of Student
Financial Aid 33 (3): 7–19.
Bianco, C.A., and S.M. Bosco. 2002. Ethical issues in credit card
solicitation of college students—The responsibilities of credit
card issuers, higher education and students. Teaching Business
Ethics 6 (1): 45–62.
Blankson, C. 2008. Measuring college students’ choice criteria of
credit cards: Scale development and validation. Journal of
Marketing Management 24 (3/4): 317–344.
Boyce, L., and S. Danes. 1998. Evaluation of the NEFE high school
financial planning program. Englewood, CO: National Endow-
ment for Financial Education.
Boykins, A., W. Wagner, R. Behnen, J. Cunningham, M. Harding, C.
Liese, and M. Wright. 2001. Report of the House Interim
Committee on Consumer Protection and Credit Cards on
College Campuses, 29. Jefferson City, MO: House of Repre-
sentatives, State of Missouri.
Baumeister, R.F. 2002. Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure,
impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research 28: 670–676.
CARD Act. 2009. Credit card accountability responsibility and
disclosure act of 2009. Consumer Protection. 2009–2010 ed.
Chen, H., and R.P. Volpe. 2002. Gender differences in personal
financial literacy among college students. Financial Services
Review 11 (3): 289.
Chien, Y., and S.A. Devaney. 2001. The effects of credit attitude and
socioeconomic factors on credit card and installment debt.
Journal of Consumer Affairs 35 (1): 162.
Christel, P.N., and E. Eriksdotter. 2009. Data shows students charge
average of $2,200 in direct education expenses research. Reston,
VA: Sallie Mae.
Creswell, J.W. 2013. Research design, qualitative quantitative and
mixed methods approaches, 304. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Curry, P. 1999. 10 Questions before getting secured credit card.
Bankrate.com, 2012. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-
cards/10-questions-before-getting-a-secured-credit-card-1.aspx.
Accessed 5 March 2018.
Understanding credit card payment behavior among college students
Davies, E., and S.E.G. Lea. 1995. Student attitudes to student debt.
Journal of Economic Psychology 16: 663–679.
Dickman, S.J., and D.E. Meyer. 1988. Impulsivity and speed-
accuracy tradeoffs in information processing. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology 54: 274–290.
Duca, J.V., and W.C. Whitesell. 1995. Credit cards and money
demand: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Money, Credit and
Banking 27 (2): 604–623.
Dunkelberg, W.C., and R.H. Smiley. 1975. Subsidies in the use of
revolving credit. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 7 (4):
469–490.
Gerber, C. 2012. Get a higher credit limit. Love to Know, n.d., http://
creditcards.lovetoknow.com/get_a_higher_credit_limit. Acces-
sed 28 Feb 2012.
Gillis, J., and S. Brobeck. 1999. Credit card debt imposes huge costs
on many college students; Previous research understate extent of
debt and related problems, 7. Washington, DC: Consumer
Federation of America.
Goff-Parker, K. 2006. Maxed out: Film renews focus on students’
credit card suicides. Wall Street Journal. New York: Dow Jones
and Company.
Hair, J.F., R.L. Tatham, and R.E. Anderson. 2002. Multivariate data
analysis. London: Prentice Hall.
Hart, C. 1998. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science
research imagination. London: Sage Publications.
Hayhoe, C.R., L. Leach, M.W. Allen, and R. Edwards. 2005. Credit
cards held by college students. Financial Counseling and
Planning 16 (1): 1–10.
Hayhoe, C.R., L.J. Leach, P.R. Turner, M.J. Bruin, and F.C.
Lawrence. 2000. Differences in spending habits and credit use
of college students. Journal of Consumer Affairs 34 (1):
113–133.
Hira, T.K., V.S. Fitzsimmons, J.L. Hafstrom, and J.W. Bauer. 1993.
Factors associated with expectations of household’s future
financial condition. Journal of Family and Economic Issues
14: 237–256.
Jacquelyn, W., and M. Phylis. 2000. Credit card consumers: College
students’ knowledge and attitude. Journal of Consumer Market-
ing 17 (7): 617–626.
Johnson, A. 2010. FICO score and frappuccino… Yes, there’s a
difference. ABA Banking Journal 102 (6): 6.
Jones, S.A., T.A. Suter, and E. Koch. 2006. Advertising—Affinity
credit cards as relationship marketing tools: A conjoint analytic
exploration of combined product attributes. Sport Marketing
Quarterly 15 (3): 138.
Joo, So-hyun, Grable, J.E., and Bagwell, D.C. 2001. College students
and credit cards. In Proceedings of the Association for Financial
Counseling and Planning Education, 8–15.
Joo, So-hyun, J.E. Grable, and D.C. Bagwell. 2003. Credit card
attitudes and behaviors of college students. College Student
Journal 37: 405–419.
Klein, B.H. 1977. Dynamic economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kwak, C., and A. Clayton-Matthews. 2002. Multinomial logistic
regression. Nursing Research 51 (6): 404–410.
Lee, J., and J. Hogarth. 1999. The price of money: Consumers’
understanding of APRs pand contract interest rates. Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing 18 (1): 66–76.
Lerner, M. 2014. Is your credit card debt average? And what’s
average?. AOL.com. https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2014/
06/11/is-your-credit-card-debt-average/20910119/. Accessed 8
March 2018.
Lester, D., A. Forman, and D. Loyd. 2005. Internet shopping and
buying behavior of college students. Services Marketing Quar-
terly 27 (2): 123–138.
Limbu, Y., B. Huhmann, and B. Xu. 2012. Are college students at
greater risk of credit card abuse? Age, gender, materialism and
parental influence on consumer response to credit cards. Journal
of Financial Services Marketing 17 (2): 148–162.
Lyons, A.C. 2004. A profile of financially at-risk college students.
Journal of Consumer Affairs 38 (1): 56–80.
Manning, R.D. 2000. Credit card nation: The consequences of
America’s addiction to credit. New York, NY: Basic Books.
McClure, A. 2010. Curtailing credit cards. University Business 13 (2):
7.
Mowen, J.C. 2000. The 3M model of motivation and personality:
Theory and empirical applications to consumer behavior.
Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Nellie, Mae. 2002. Undergraduate students and credit cards: An
analysis of usage rates and trends.
Norvilitis, J.M., and M.G. Maclean. 2010. The role of parents in
college students’ financial behaviors and attitudes. Journal of
Economic Psychology 31 (1): 55–63.
Norvilitis, J.M., M.M. Merwin, T.M. Osberg, P.V. Roehling, P.
Young, and M.M. Kamas. 2006. Personality factors, money
attitudes, financial knowledge, and credit-card debt in college
students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36 (6):
1395–1413.
Norvilitis, J.M., P.B. Szablicki, and S.D. Wilson. 2003. Factors
influencing levels of credit-card debt in college students. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology 33 (5): 935–947.
Norvilitis, J.M., and P. Santa Maria. 2002. Credit card debt on college
campuses: Causes, consequences and solutions. College Student
Journal 36 (3): 356.
Palan, K.M., P.C. Morrow, V. Blackburn, and I.A. Trapp. 2011.
Compulsive buying behavior in college students: The mediating
role of credit card misuse. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice 19 (1): 81–96.
Peltier, J., A. Dahl, and J. Schibrowsky. 2016. Sequential loss of self-
control: Exploring the antecedents and consequences of student
credit card debt. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 21 (3):
167–181.
Peltier, J., N. Pomirleanu, M. Endres, and E. Markos. 2013. Psycho-
social factors impacting credit acquisition and use by college
students. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 18 (4):
271–284.
Pew-Forum 2011. Disaster, economic anxiety, but little interest in
war. The Year in News 2010, Project for Excellence in
Journalism. Pew Research Center: Pew Research Center.
Pirog, S.F., and J.A. Roberts. 2007. Personality and credit card misuse
among college students: The mediating role of impulsiveness.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 15 (1): 65–78.
Pinto, M., and P. Mansfield. 2006. Direct mail credit card solicitation
of college students: An exploratory study. Services Marketing
Quarterly 27 (4): 27–34.
Punch, L. 1992. The latest anti-attrition tool: More credit. Credit Card
Management 5 (5): 48–51.
Robb, C.A. 2007. College students and credit card use the effect of
personal financial knowledge on debt behavior. https://mospace.
umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/4793. Accessed 5 March
2018.
Robb, C.A. 2011. Financial knowledge and credit card behavior of
college students. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 32 (4):
690–698.
Robb, C.A., and M.B. Pinto. 2010. College students and credit card
use: An analysis of financially at-risk students. College Student
Journal 44 (4): 823–835.
Robb, C.A., and A.S. Woodyard. 2011. Financial knowledge and
‘best practice’ behavior. Journal of Financial Counseling and
Planning 22 (1): 36–46.

Robb, C.A., and D.L. Sharpe. 2009. Effect of personal financial
knowledge on college students’ credit card behavior. Journal of
Financial Counseling and Planning 20 (1): 25–43.
Roberts, J.A., and E. Jones. 2001. Money attitudes, credit card use,
and compulsive buying among American college students.
Journal of Consumer Affairs 35 (2): 213–240.
Rugimbana, R. 2007. Generation Y: How cultural values can be used
to predict their choice of electronic financial services. Journal of
Financial Services Marketing 11 (4): 301–313.
SallieMae 2009. How undergraduate students use credit cards.
SallieMae’s National Study of Usage Rates and Trends 2009.
SallieMae.
Schor, J. 1998. The overspent american: Up scaling. Downshifting
and new Consumer, New York: Basic Books.
Singh, S., B.P.S. Murthi, and E. Steffes. 2013. Developing a measure
of risk adjusted revenue (RAR) in credit cards market: Impli-
cations for customer relationship management. European Jour-
nal of Operational Research 224 (2): 425–434.
Singh, S., D. Rylander, and T. Mims. 2016. College students and
credit card companies: Implications of attitudes. Journal of
Financial Services Marketing 21 (3): 182–193.
Shen, N. 2014. Consumer rationality/irrationality and financial
literacy in the credit card market: Implications from an
integrative review. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 19
(1): 29–42.
Slocum Jr., J.W., and H.L. Mathews. 1970. Social class and income as
indicators of consumer credit behavior. Journal of Marketing 34:
69–74.
Soman, D., and A. Cheema. 2002. The effect of credit on spending
decisions: The role of the credit limit and credibility. Marketing
Science 21 (1): 32–53.
Stanford, W.E. 1999. Dealing with student credit card debt. About
Campus 4 (1): 12.
Steffes, E., B. Murthi, and R. Rao. 2011. Why are some modes of
acquisition more profitable? A study of the credit card industry.
Journal of Financial Services Marketing 16 (2): 90–100.
Tan, D.L. 2003. Oklahoma college student credit card study. Norman,
OK: University of Oklahoma, Center for Student Affairs
Research.
Tressler, C. 1998. Credit scoring: A consumer education perspective.
Credit World 86 (6): 29–31.
Vigeland, T. 2011. Out of college, not on her own. New York Times,
23 March 2011.
Wang, J., and J.J. Xiao. 2009. Buying behavior, social support and
credit card indebtedness of college students. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (1): 2–10.
Warwick, J., and P. Mansfield. 2000. Credit card consumers: College
students’ knowledge and attitude. Journal of Consumer Market-
ing 17 (7): 617–626.
View publication stats
S. Singh et al.
Willis, G. 2009. Kids’ credit cards. CNNMoney: CNN.
Worthy, S., J. Jonkman, and L. Blinn-Pike. 2010. Sensation-seeking,
risk-taking, and problematic financial behaviors of college
students. Journal of Family and Economic 31 (2): 161–170.
Xiao, J.J., C. Tang, J. Serido, and S. Shim. 2011. Antecedents and
consequences of risky credit behavior among college students:
Application and extension of the theory of planned behavior.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 30 (2): 239–245.
Xiao, Jing J., F.E. Noring, and J.G. Anderson. 1995. College students’
attitudes towards credit cards. Journal of Consumer Studies and
Home Economics 19 (2): 155–174.
Yamauchi, K.T., and D.J. Templer. 1982. The development of a
money attitude scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 46 (5):
522.
Zhou, L., and H.J. Su. 2000. Predicting college student debt: An
exploratory study of behavioral determinants. In Proceedings of
the Association of Financial Counseling and Planning Educa-
tion, 133–140.
Shweta Singh is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Kean
University, New Jersey. She received her Ph.D. in Management
Science with a concentration in Marketing from The University of
Texas at Dallas. Her research interests and publications are in the
areas of customer relationship management, efficiency analysis, direct
marketing, and credit card marketing.
David H. Rylander is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Texas
Woman’s University. He has taught a wide variety of marketing
courses at undergraduate and graduate levels and is actively involved
with experiential learning and study tours. Previous journal articles
and conference presentations have included the topics of sales force
socialization, teaching approaches, and sustainability. Dr. Rylander is
a Sam Walton Fellow (sponsor for Enactus) and a proponent for
interdisciplinary programs and service learning projects.
Tina C. Mims is an August, 2013 graduate in marketing from an
AACSB program, specializing in small business and social media.
Her dissertation, on innovation teams, created a means to audit
internal functions of marketing teams in consumer packaged goods
industries. Dr. Mims has extensive industry experience at Fortune 100
firms as well as hands-on ownership as an entrepreneur in both for
profit and non-profit companies. Dr. Mims uses an active learning
approach in both graduate and undergraduate courses. She is also the
executive director of the Business Hub for Women Entrepreneurs at
TWU.