The Paradox of the Payday Borrower: A Case Study of the Role of Planned Behavior in Borrowers’ Motivations and Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research used the theory of planned behavior as a framework to investigate the role of attitudes, behavioral control, norms, and previous behavior in payday loan borrowers’ difficulty or lack of difficulty in repaying loans. The data were collected from 138 respondents with payday loan experience via a questionnaire in a city in a western province in Canada as part of a campaign to change payday loan regulations. The research findings show that different approaches are necessary to address the needs of distinct types of payday borrowers, based on their repayment abilities and whether the loan improved their quality of life in the long term. Furthermore, we found, similar to previous literature, a group of payday borrowers who lack financial confidence. This sub-group is referred to as the “unsure” sub-group in our research and provides opportunities to improve the payday learning context. To accommodate the unsure group, payday lenders and conventional financial institutions can collaborate to offer innovative financial instruments, improve financial literacy through education, and provide better access to information about borrowers’ financial status. The confirmation of this unsure group also leads us to recommend further study to determine opportunities for payday borrowers to become better informed about their options, to increase financial confidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".