International Journal of Bank Marketing

Subjective and objective financial literacy, opinion leadership, and the use of
retail banking services
Mohammad G. Nejad, Katayon Javid,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mohammad G. Nejad, Katayon Javid, (2018) "Subjective and objective financial literacy, opinion
leadership, and the use of retail banking services", International Journal of Bank Marketing, https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-07-2017-0153
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-07-2017-0153
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 06 June 2018, At: 00:19 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2018*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:161304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm

Subjective and
Subjective and objective financial objective
literacy, opinion leadership, and financial
literacy
the use of retail banking services
Mohammad G. Nejad
Fordham University, New York, New York, USA, and
Received 25 July 2017
Katayon Javid Revised 7 November 2017
Accepted 13 December 2017
USI Insurance Services, White Plains, New York, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between consumers’ subjective and
objective financial literacy (OFL) – the necessary knowledge and skills to make effective personal financial
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

decisions – and their effects on opinion leadership and the use of retail financial services.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 486 US participants were surveyed. The demographical profile
of the sample roughly resembled that of the USA population.
Findings – On average, consumers with moderate levels of OFL report lower subjective financial literacy
(SFL) compared to those with low or high levels of OFL. Moreover, while SFL and opinion leadership are
positively correlated, consumers with moderate levels of OFL reported lower opinion leadership compared to
those with high or low levels of OFL. The paper introduces financial literacy miscalibration as the
discrepancy between consumers’ objective and SFL. Financially illiterate respondents who perceived
themselves as financially knowledgeable reported high opinion leadership. Finally, a greater percentage of
financially – literate consumers reported owning checking and savings accounts, using online and mobile
banking for diverse purposes, and making fewer phone calls to customer services, compared to others.
Research limitations/implications – The paper integrates literature from financial literacy, consumer
knowledge, and opinion leadership to explain these findings and to further enhance our theoretical and
empirical understanding of objective vs SFL.
Practical implications – The discrepancies between objective and SFL may significantly influence
consumers’ financial decisions and the degree to which they expose themselves to the pertinent risks.
The paper discusses implications for public policy makers as well as marketing managers and researchers.
Originality/value – The study is the first to empirically explore the research questions following the
conceptual development.
Keywords Opinion leadership, Financial literacy, Consumer subjective and objective knowledge,
Financial literacy miscalibration
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Consumers make various financial decisions on a regular basis. Every exchange or
purchase decision entails a financial aspect which may include evaluating affordability and
comparing the associated costs among alternative choices. For example, shopping for an
automobile includes a decision on the brand and model, new or used car, and leasing
compared to purchasing. It also entails different financing options such as the interest rates,
fees, terms, and the payments. The more financially savvy customers may also consider
expenses associated with maintenance, repairs, and fuel in addition to the future resale
value of the car. These decisions significantly affect the total cost of car ownership.
However, consumers often make poor financial decisions that jeopardize the financial
well-being of themselves and their families. Many consumers do not save enough for
retirement and consumer and student debt has reached unprecedented levels (Mitchell and
Lusardi, 2015; Morrin et al., 2012; US Courts, 2016; Wolff-Mann, 2016).
International Journal of Bank
Marketing
This research was supported by the Gabelli School of Business, Fordham University. The authors © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-2323
thank Kristina Cordi for her research assistance. DOI 10.1108/IJBM-07-2017-0153
 IJBM This study focuses on consumer financial literacy as a critical factor that influences
consumers’ financial decisions. Financial literacy is the fundamental knowledge and skills that
capture one’s ability to make informed and effective personal financial and economic decisions
by understanding how money works (Lusardi and Mitchell, 2007; Starček and Trunk, 2013).
Previous research has differentiated between objective financial literacy (what one actually
knows, hereafter referred to as OFL) and subjective financial literacy – one’s perceptions of his/
her own financial literacy, hereafter referred to as SFL. The degree to which consumers believe
that they are able to make the right financial decision influences their financial decisions and
their perceptions of the relevant risks. So, SFL determines consumers’ approaches to making
personal financial decisions. OFL, however, affects the outcome of one’s financial decisions.
Financially literate consumers are expected to make better personal financial decisions. Those
with higher levels of OFL are less likely to engage in risky investments while those with higher
SFL are more susceptible to such investments (Hadar et al., 2013).
OFL and SFL should also lead to different behaviors including giving advice to others
and the use of financial services. Individuals often influence each other’s decisions in
various financial matters. Opinion leadership and one’s knowledge and expertise are two
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

different individual attributes, even though the two are often correlated (Nejad et al., 2014).
In the context of financial decisions, it is important to understand the relationship between
OFL and SFL on the one hand and opinion leadership on the other hand. Financial advice by
those with low OFL may have adverse outcomes. Moreover, financial institutions need to
understand how consumers’ OFL may affect use of their services such as owning checking
and savings bank accounts and alternative ways of banking services such as through
mobile, online, phone, or branch.
Understanding the discrepancies between one’s OFL and SFL is critical to understanding
consumers’ financial decisions. This study compares and contrasts OFL and SFL and the
discrepancies between them by exploring the following three research questions:
RQ1. What is the relationship between OFL and SFL?
RQ2. What is the relationship between OFL and SFL on one hand and opinion leadership
on the other hand?
RQ3. How does the OFL affect consumers’ use of personal banking services?
The research questions were explored through a survey of 486 participants recruited from a
national panel of US consumers. The analysis found that, on average, consumers with
moderate levels of OFL expressed lower SFL and opinion leadership compared to those with
low or high levels of OFL. SFL and opinion leadership, however, were positively correlated.
Moreover, consumers who overestimated their financial literacy demonstrated higher
degrees of opinion leadership. Finally, a higher percentage of financially literate consumers
(those with high OFL) own checking or savings accounts, use online and mobile banking for
more diverse purposes, and contact customer service less frequently compared to those with
lower OFL. The findings of this study offer new perspectives on how public policy makers,
managers, and researchers can combat issues related to consumer financial behaviors.
The next section expands on consumer OFL and SFL, followed by the conceptual
development that supports the hypotheses. The paper continues with the methodology and
the results. The final section discusses implications and directions for future research.

Consumer financial literacy

A recent study in 11 developed countries found that a large group of respondents in these
countries lack basic financial literacy. Many participants in these studies were unable to
answer simple questions about interest rates, inflation, or risk diversification (Mitchell and
Lusardi, 2015). While there is a positive relationship between education and financial
 literacy, many educated people are not financially literate (Lusardi, 2015). Financial literacy Subjective and
affects consumers’ financial well-being as financially literate consumers are more likely objective
to plan their finances, save, invest, and build wealth over time. They are less likely to financial
accumulate credit card debt or borrow more than what they can afford to pay back.
Such consumers manage their debts and loans more effectively by paying them on a timely literacy
manner rather than making minimum payments for debts with high interest (Babiarz and
Robb, 2014; Lusardi, 2015). Financial mistakes and risky financial behavior by financially
illiterate consumers are considered a key underlying factor of the 2008 financial crisis
(Gerardi et al., 2010). Finally, recent studies found that millennials are not as competent as
previous generations in financial literacy (e.g. Nejad and O’Connor, 2016). They graduate
with all-time high credit card and student debt, and they tend to rely on high-cost means of
borrowing money (de Bassa Scheresberg, 2013).
Two types of financial literacy may be distinguished from each other. OFL refers to a
consumer’s actual knowledge and skills with regards to making better financial
decisions – what one actually knows. SFL, however, relates to a consumer’s self-beliefs
and self-perceptions regarding his/her skills and knowledge – what a consumer thinks
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

he/she knows (Hadar et al., 2013). OFL and SFL relate to the literature on consumer
objective and subjective knowledge (Alba and Hutchinson, 2000).
Previous research findings have been inconsistent regarding the relationship between
consumer objective and subjective knowledge. The findings vary from insignificant or weak
correlations (r ¼ 0.08, 0.15) for pro-ecological behavior (Ellen, 1994) and medical services
(Duhan et al., 1997) to stronger correlations (r ¼ 0.54) for sewing machines (Brucks, 1985).
Only one recent study has reported the correlation between SFL and OFL, r ¼ 0.14
(Tang and Baker, 2016). A meta-analysis found an average correlation of 0.37 across studies
(Carlson et al., 2009). By including moderating variables, the authors were able to
accomplish a correlation of 0.84. Given the challenges of measuring objective knowledge,
Carlson et al. (2009) suggested that researchers may use subjective knowledge instead of
objective knowledge.
Researchers have measured alternative conceptualizations of consumer knowledge when
examining the relationship between consumer knowledge and other variables such as
opinion leadership. They have used subjective knowledge, product ownership, brand
awareness, visiting stores, and reading relevant publications such as magazines (e.g. Coulter
et al., 2002; Midgley and Dowling, 1993). These are proxies for objective knowledge which
may or may not reflect one’s actual objective knowledge. Previous studies often discuss the
relationship between consumer knowledge and opinion leadership without considering
the differences between alternative conceptualizations of consumer knowledge. This may
be because measuring consumer objective knowledge is often challenging or since
researchers have simply ignored the differences between subjective and objective
knowledge (Nejad et al., 2014).
In the area of financial literacy, using objective and subjective knowledge (i.e. OFL and
SFL) interchangeably can be misleading as OFL and SFL lead to distinct behavioral
outcomes. For example, investors with a higher degree of subjective knowledge of
investment products trade more often, more diversely, and more internationally compared
to others (Graham et al., 2009). Consumer SFL has a stronger effect on credit card debt than
OFL, but OFL negatively influences risky borrowing behavior (Xiao et al., 2011). Moreover,
consumers’ subjective knowledge about investment products leads to more risky
investment approaches. Consumer objective knowledge, however, negatively affects the
likelihood of investing in general, and more specifically, taking risky investment
approaches. This is due to the fact that objective knowledge highlights what one does not
know and reveals the true risks involved in decisions (Hadar et al., 2013), while subjective
knowledge is closely related to one’s previous experiences and confidence in making the
 IJBM right decisions (Alba and Hutchinson, 2000). The fact that OFL and SFL have different
effects on one’s decisions is in line with the “competence hypothesis” which suggests when
two events have equally probable outcomes, individuals prefer to invest in the one that they
perceive themselves as knowledgeable rather than the one in which they feel uninformed
(Hadar et al., 2013; Heath and Tversky, 1991).
Despite the importance of understanding the relationship between consumer OFL and
SFL, research is meager in this area. Babiarz and Robb (2014) found that both OFL and SFL
positively influence the accumulation of emergency saving funds and seeking financial
advices (Babiarz and Robb, 2014; Robb et al., 2012). Hadar et al. (2013), however, found that
the consumers with higher SFL are more likely to engage in risky financial behavior while
OFL does not show this effect. With the exception of one study that was conducted in China
(Tang and Baker, 2016), previous studies on OFL and SFL have primarily explored the
relationship between the two on one hand and various consumer financial behaviors on
the other hand and not the relationship between OFL and SFL. This study explores the
relationship between OFL and SFL and the effects they have on consumer attitudes and
behaviors. The study also proposes financial literacy miscalibration – the discrepancy
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

between OFL and SFL – as a critical factor.

Conceptual background
SFL and OFL
Every purchase decision (i.e. exchange) entails two areas of consideration – the product or
service and the financial aspects. The primary objective of every exchange is obtaining a
product or a service that fulfills consumer needs and/or wants. When evaluating the
financial aspects, consumers primarily focus on the price and affordability and not
necessarily whether their financial choices were optimal. When the financial aspect of a
decision is complex or entails multiple components, a thorough evaluation of the decision
requires one to establish and compare the outcomes of different choices with each other.
This is often infeasible, so consumers may never learn whether they made the optimal
decision. Since it is often challenging or impossible to compare alternative financial choices,
consumers rely on evaluating their experience with products or services post-purchase and
whether they were able to make the payments. Meanwhile, consumers frequently engage in
purchasing decisions, so they feel more or less familiar with the financial aspects of
purchases. Hence, they remain unaware of their real ability in making optimal financial
decisions. Thus, their perceptive financial literacy or SFL may be misaligned with their
actual financial literacy or their OFL.
A recent meta-analysis on the complex relationship between consumers subjective and
objective knowledge (Carlson et al., 2009) highlights several key findings: hedonic goods are
often more involving and associated with higher prices compared to utilitarian goods.
Thus, subjective and objective knowledge have a stronger relationship for hedonic goods
than for utilitarian ones. Moreover, it is easier for consumers to learn about products than
non-products, so subjective and objective knowledge exhibit a weaker relationship for
services compared to products. Finally, search attributes may be evaluated before a
purchase while evaluating experience attributes will only be possible post-consumption.
Hence, the relationship between subjective and objective knowledge is weaker for
experience attributes than for search attributes. Financial literacy relates to the utilitarian
aspects such as an investment or financing a purchase which often entails experience
attributes such as a mutual fund’s performance. These evidences suggest that OFL and
SFL are conceptually different and should be weakly correlated.
While previous studies have primarily focused on the correlation between subjective and
objective knowledge, there are reasons to believe that the two may exhibit a more complex
relationship. Brucks (1985) found that knowledgeable consumers are more efficient in their
 information search, they ask more questions, and the questions they ask are more relevant Subjective and
when making a purchasing decision. This goes along with Miyake and Norman’s (1979) title objective
that “to ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not known.” financial
Unknowledgeable consumers are unable to distinguish the “dimensional categories” of a
product’s functionality (Park and Lessig, 1981). Consequently, such consumers remain literacy
unaware of what they do not know. Knowledgeable consumers, however, search more
efficiently and look for more relevant attributes. For example, when searching for an
automobile, they look for fuel efficiency measures such as miles-per-gallon rather than fuel
range – the distance a car can travel with a full tank of fuel ( Johnson and Russo, 1984).
Consumers with moderate product familiarity feel less confident in relying on cues such as
the price and brand compared to those with high or low product familiarity and hence takes
more time to make their decisions (Park and Lessig, 1981). The less-knowledgeable
consumers are over-confident and consumers with moderate knowledge are
under-confident. This is due to the fact that consumers with a moderate degree of
product familiarity have some knowledge which helps them gain some information about
the purchase and know that there is a lot that they may not know (Park and Lessig, 1981).
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

While consumers frequently make financial decisions, they primarily focus on whether
they can afford the purchase or service and not necessarily whether the decision is optimal
from a financial perspective. This may even happen in the case of high-involvement
decisions. For example, someone who leases a car will consider whether he/she can afford
the down payment and the monthly payments and perhaps how these payments may affect
his/her other personal finances. The consumer may never evaluate the long-term total cost
of car ownership. Evaluating the decision post-purchase may primarily entail the experience
post-purchase rather than whether the financial aspects were optimal, especially compared
to other options.
Consumers with higher OFL are more likely to thoroughly evaluate the financial aspects
of their decisions (Mitchell and Lusardi, 2015). Their financial skills may improve over time
as they make more decisions and evaluate the outcomes over time which leads to a more
accurate understanding of their financial literacy (i.e. SFL). Those with low OFL, however,
do not possess the skills to evaluate the financial aspects of their decisions and may
primarily focus on their experiences with products or services. As long as they can afford
the payments, they may simply feel good about their purchase decision (including the
financial aspects) leading to higher SFL. Those with moderate levels of OFL, however, are
more likely to evaluate the financial aspects of their past decisions and learn the limitations
of their capabilities. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. Consumers with moderate degrees of OFL report lower SFL compared to those with
lower or higher levels of OFL.

Financial literacy and opinion leadership

Previous studies have found a positive relationship between consumer knowledge and
opinion leadership. Domain-specific knowledge is considered a key attribute of
opinion leaders in a specific area (Iyengar et al., 2011; Nejad et al., 2014; Weimann, 1994).
Previous studies, however, have used alternative conceptualizations of consumer
knowledge when exploring the relationship between consumer knowledge and opinion
leadership (see section SFL vs OFL). The evidence provided earlier suggests a weak
relationship between OFL and SFL and H1 predicts lower SFL for consumers with moderate
levels of OFL. Previous studies found that subjective knowledge and self-confidence are
positively correlated (Alba and Hutchinson, 2000; Moorman et al., 2004). Others have found
a positive relationship between self-confidence and opinion leadership (Weimann, 1994).
Thus, there should be a positive relationship between SFL and opinion leadership.
 IJBM These evidences and the reasons explained in developing H1 suggest that the relationship
between OFL and opinion leadership in personal financial decisions (hereafter referred to as
opinion leadership) should be similar to that between OFL and SFL. Hence, we speculate the
following hypotheses:
H2a. Consumers with moderate degrees of OFL report lower opinion leadership
compared to those with lower or higher levels of OFL.
H2b. SFL and opinion leadership exhibit a positive relationship.

Financial literacy miscalibration

Alba and Hutchinson (2000, p. 123) defined consumer knowledge calibration as “the agreement
between objective and subjective assessments of the validity of information” and knowledge
miscalibration as “the absolute difference between objective and subjective knowledge”
(Alba and Hutchinson, p. 123). Higher miscalibration indicates more inaccurate perceptions
about one’s own skills and knowledge. This study defines financial literacy miscalibration as the
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

discrepancies between SFL and OFL. Financial literacy miscalibration captures a consumer’s
misperceptions about his/her financial abilities. Those with a positive miscalibration
(i.e. overestimate their financial literacy) are more prone to making financial mistakes.
However, consumers who have negative miscalibration underestimate their financial literacy
and are reluctant to take advantage of opportunities. For example, they may avoid reasonable
risks in choosing retirement investments that offer a greater potential for long-term returns.
Consumer confidence regarding their knowledge is strongly correlated with “upward
distortion” of memory. The more consumers are confident about the accuracy of their
memory, the more over positively they misremember past events. In other words, the more
consumers think that they are right, the more likely that they are wrong (Alba and
Hutchinson, 2000; Holmes et al., 1998). Similarly, Mitchell and Lusardi (2015) found that
many consumers who had strong confidence in their answers to financial literacy questions
were actually wrong.
H1 speculates that consumers with a moderate level of OFL are likely to have low SFL
and hence, a negative financial literacy miscalibration (i.e. SFLoOFL). H2a predicts a
positive relationship between SFL and opinion leadership. H2b speculates that
consumers with moderate degrees of OFL report lower opinion leadership than others.
Thus, consumers with negative financial literacy miscalibration demonstrate low opinion
leadership. Similarly, H1 suggests that consumers with low OFL, on average, have high SFL
and hence, high financial literacy miscalibration (i.e. SFL WOFL). According to H2a and
H2b, such consumers have a high degree of opinion leadership. H1 suggests that consumers
with high OFL are likely to have high SFL which leads to low to moderate degree of
financial literacy miscalibration (SFL and OFL are both high) and according to H2a and
H2b, they will have high opinion leadership. Hence, the following hypothesis is advanced:
H3. Consumers who have a positive financial literacy miscalibration exhibit greater
opinion leadership. Those with negative miscalibration of their financial literacy
demonstrate low opinion leadership.

Behavioral outcomes
Previous studies have explored the effect of consumers’ OFL and SFL on their personal
financial decisions and behaviors (e.g. Hadar et al., 2013; Lusardi and Mitchell, 2007;
Lusardi and Tufano, 2015; Morrin et al., 2012). This study expands this research by focusing
on consumer behaviors with regards to retail banking, an area that has important
managerial implications for retail financial services and banking.
 Unserved and underserved consumers represent a critical issue and a high priority for Subjective and
the financial industry, the well-being of society, and the global economy (Nejad, 2016; objective
Scott et al., 2011). For example, about 11 percent of Americans are disconnected from the financial
mainstream financial system because neither they nor their spouses have a bank account
and another 17 percent use alternative services such as payroll cards or pawn shops literacy
(Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2014; Federal Reserve, 2014). On average,
financially literate consumers plan and handle their personal finances better than those with
low OFL (Lusardi and Mitchell, 2007; Lusardi and Tufano, 2015). Possession of a bank
account connects one to the mainstream financial system, which is the first step in handling
personal finances effectively. Thus, a higher percentage of financially literate consumers
should own checking and/or savings accounts compared to others:
H4a. Financially literate consumers are more likely to own saving and/or checking
accounts than those with low OFL.
Financially literate consumers possess strong numeric and cognitive skills which may
motivate them to process information, learn new skills, and search for what is available in
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

the market (Lusardi, 2012; Mitchell and Lusardi, 2015). These characteristics are essential
for using new services such as online and mobile banking. Not only are financially literate
consumers more likely to use a service (e.g. online or mobile banking), but they may also use
the services for more diverse purposes (e.g. checking balance, transactions, paying bills,
transferring funds, depositing checks, etc.). Due to their reliance on cognitive skills,
financially literate consumers are more likely to resolve issues without needing to contact
customer service. The following hypotheses summarize this discussion:
H4b. A higher percentage of financially literate consumers use online and mobile
banking than less financially literate consumers.
H4c. Consumers with higher OFL are more likely to use online and mobile banking for
diverse purposes than those with lower degrees of OFL.
H4d. Financially literate consumers are more likely to resolve their financial issues on
their own and hence contact customer services less than those with lower OFL.

Method
Data
A third-party research firm collected the data for this study by surveying a sample recruited
from a national panel of consumers residing in the USA. After data cleaning and screening
for participants’ attention, the final data set comprised 486 usable survey responses.
The demographical profile of the sample roughly resembled that of the USA population
(www.census.gov). The composition of the sample in terms of ethnicity was as follows:
Caucasian (64 percent), African American (13 percent), Hispanic (14 percent), Asian
(7 percent), and others (2 percent). The sample consisted of 49 percent male and 51 percent
female respondents. Approximately 19 percent of the participants had not completed high
school, 44 percent had a high school diploma, 14 percent had completed some college or an
associate degree, 18 percent had bachelor’s degree, 4 percent held master’s degree, and
0.6 percent had earned a doctorate degree. About 7 percent of the respondents were between
18 and 24 years old, 18 percent reported an age between 25 and 34 years old, 21 percent were
in the 35-44 years age bracket, 20 percent were between 45 and 54 years old, 23 percent
were in the 55-64 years age bracket, and 11 percent were 65 years or older. With regards to
income, 24 percent reported an annual combined family income of less than $25,000,
31 percent were in the bracket of $25,000-$49,999, 24 percent were in the range of $50,000-
$74,999, 12 percent were between $75,000 and $99,999, 7 percent were between $100,000 and
 IJBM $149,999, and 2 percent reported an annual combined family income of $150,000 or more.
The respondents’ self-reported job titles were diverse including driver, retail clerk/cashier,
waitress, administrative assistant, nurse, paralegal, technician, IT specialist, software
developer, accountant, product analyst, business owner, billing manager, manager/director
(IT, tax, project, etc.), scientist, and teacher among others.

Measures
The questionnaire was prepared after a careful review of the literature on financial literacy,
consumer knowledge, and opinion leadership. Following a pretest of the initial questionnaire
with students, minor changes were made to the wording of some questions and new questions
were added. The questionnaire first asked participants about their self-perceptions such
as SFL and opinion leadership followed by questions regarding OFL. The order of questions
was important because respondents’ self-perceptions may be influenced by the types of
questions asked. For example, Hadar et al. (2013) manipulated respondents’ SFL by asking
them easy or difficult questions. Opinion leadership and SFL were measured first (before OFL)
using three items each eliciting seven-point scales (see Table I). SFL was measured using three
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

items adopted from Flynn and Goldsmith (1999) and modified to the context of financial
literacy (Morrin et al., 2012). Opinion leadership was measured using three items adopted from
Flynn et al. (1996), and modified for the purpose of this study.
OFL was measured using six questions (see Table II) that were adopted from the financial
literacy literature (Hadar et al., 2013; Lusardi, 2012, 2015; Lusardi and Mitchell, 2007;
Mitchell and Lusardi, 2015). The number of correct answers represented each respondent’s
OFL. Those who answered zero questions correctly received a score of 0 (low OFL) while
those who answered all questions correctly received a perfect score of 6 (high OFL).

Analysis and results

In the conceptual background section, we speculated a weak correlation between OFL
and SFL. As Table III displays, the correlation between objective and subjective
knowledge is only about 0.21, although statistically significant ( p o 0.001). This number is
slightly greater than the correlation value (0.14) that Tang and Baker (2016) found among
Chinese consumers.
H1 suggests that those with moderate degrees of OFL express lower SFL than those with
low or high OFL. The number of respondents who correctly answered 0 or 1 OFL questions
was relatively small (n ¼ 8, 27, respectively), so that the two groups were combined.

Subjective Opinion
Multi-item scales and individual scale itemsb knowledge leadership

Subjective knowledge (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.82)

I know a great deal about managing personal finances 0.70
I do not feel very knowledgeable about managing personal finances −0.92c
Compared to most others, I know less about managing personal finances −0.88c
Opinion leadership (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.96)
People that I know make financial decisions based on what I tell them 0.93
I often persuade others to manage their personal finances the way that I like
and prefer 0.95
Table I.
Measurement I often influence others’ opinions about managing personal finances 0.94
properties of the Notes: aFactor loadings produced factor analysis using principle component extraction and Varimax
scales and factor rotation; breverse-scaled item; call questions are asked on a seven scale with 1 being “strongly disagree”
loadingsa and 7 being “strongly agree”
 Subjective and
objective
financial
literacy
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

Table II.
Measurement
questions for
financial literacy

Objective Literacy Subjective Literacy Opinion Leadership

Subjective literacy r ¼ 0.209

p ¼ 0.000 Table III.
Opinion leadership r ¼ 0.002 r ¼ 0. 333 Correlation between
p ¼ 0.960 p ¼ 0.000 variables

A one-way ANOVA on OFL with SFL as the dependent variable demonstrated that OFL
(F(5, 480) ¼ 7.60, p o0.001) has a significant effect on SFL (see Figure 1). Due to unequal cell
sizes, Type III Sum of Squares was used. Post-hoc analysis using Tukey’s significance
difference test and Games-Howell test found that respondents with the highest OFL (those
who answered five or six questions correctly) reported the highest degree of SFL (M5 ¼ 5.02,
M6 ¼ 5.03). Following this group was the group with the lowest degree of OFL (M0, 1 ¼ 4.65)
and the next highest OFL group – those who answered four questions correctly (M4 ¼ 4.48).

6.00
5.02 5.03
Subjective Financial Literacy

5.00 4.65 4.48

4.03 4.19
4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 1.
Objective Financial Literacy – Total Number of Correct Answers
Subjective vs objective
financial literacy
Note: Group 1 includes those who answered 0 or 1 questions correctly
 IJBM Groups who achieved moderate degrees of OFL – provided two or three correct
answers – reported the lowest SFL (M2 ¼ 4.03, M3 ¼ 4.19). The results support H1.
Moreover, the group with the highest OFL reported higher SFL than those with the
lowest OFL. The results support H1.
H2a suggests that consumers with moderate degrees of OFL exhibit lower opinion
leadership compared to those with high or low degrees of OFL. H2b speculates that SFL and
opinion leadership are positively correlated. As Table III and panel A in Figure 2 display,
the correlation between SFL and opinion leadership is positive (r ¼ 0.33, p o0.001), hence
supporting H2b. The correlation between OFL and opinion leadership, however, is
insignificant (r ¼ 0.002, see Table III). As panel B of Figure 2 displays, the groups with the
lowest OFL reported the highest degree of opinion leadership (M1 ¼ 3.6) followed by groups
with high OFL (M5 ¼ 3.44, M6 ¼ 3.32). The groups with moderate OFL reported the lowest
degree of opinion leadership (M2 ¼ 3.17, M3 ¼ 3.19, and M4 ¼ 2.94). The differences across
groups in terms of opinion leadership were statistically supported through an ANOVA
(F(6, 480) ¼ 337.28, po 0.001). These results collectively support H2a suggesting significant
differences between the relationships of OFL and SFL with opinion leadership.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

H3 predicts that consumers with a positive financial literacy miscalibration exhibit

greater opinion leadership. Those with a negative miscalibration of their financial literacy

Panel A. Subjective Financial Literacy

5.00
4.43
4.50
4.00
3.59
Opinion Leadership

3.50 3.16
3.04 3.05
3.00
2.50
2.00 1.71
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2 3 4 5 6 7
Subjective Financial Literacy

Panel B. Objective Financial Literacy

4.00
3.60
3.44
3.50 3.32
3.17 3.19
2.94
3.00
Opinion Leadership

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Objective Financial Literacy – Total Number of Correct Answers
Figure 2.
The relationship Notes: For Panel A, because the number of observations in groups 1 and 2 was small
between financial (n = 4, 27), the two groups are combined and labeled 2. For Panel B, because the number
literacy and opinion
leadership of observations in groups 0 and 1 was small (n = 8, 27), the two group are combined and
labeled 1
 demonstrate low opinion leadership. Because the measurement scales used for objective Subjective and
and subjective knowledge are scaled differently, we cannot directly calculate the objective
difference between the two measures. Therefore, we divided each of objective and SFL financial
measures into three groups – low, average, and high – and explored financial literacy
miscalibration among participants. We calculated the cut-off points for three equal-sized literacy
groups for OFL and SFL. In line with our previous analysis on OFL, individuals
who answered five or six questions correctly were ranked high, those who answered
0, 1, or 2 questions correctly were ranked low and others who answered 3 or 4 questions
were ranked average. The results did not change when we moved the group with two
correct answers from low to moderate. For SFL, respondents with an average of 5.66 or
higher were ranked high, those who had an average of 3.33 or lower on SFL were ranked
low, and those who answered an average of 3.66-5.33 were ranked average. The resulting
final groups did not end up with exactly equal sizes because multiple respondent
have given each response. Moreover, identifying cells based on two variables – OFL and
SFL – further enhanced the differences between the cell sizes.
Table IV displays the number of participants in each cell based on SFL and OFL.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

The highlighted cells in the middle diagonal row in Panel A of this table represent whose
SFL and OFL are aligned with each other – they have the same level of OFL and SFL.
As this table displays, only a subset of respondents had a realistic perception of their
financial literacy: 53.6 percent for low OFL group (45 out of 84), 28.1 percent for those with
moderate levels of OFL (57 out of 203), and 41.2 percent for those with a high degree of OFL
(82 out of 199). In total, 37.9 percent of participants (184 out of 486) had realistic perceptions
of their financial literacy.
Moreover, a considerable percentage of respondents overestimated their financial literacy.
As Panel A of Table IV displays, this percentage was 46.4 percent among respondents with
low OFL (39 out of 84) and 23.2 percent among consumers with moderate OFL (47 out of 203).
In total, 17.6 percent of all respondents (86 out of 486) overestimated their financial literacy.
The analysis also found that a large percentage of consumers have negative financial literacy
miscalibration – they underestimated their financial literacy. This percentage was 58.9 percent
among consumers with high OFL (117 out of 199) and 48.8 percent among respondents with a
moderate OFL (99 out of 203). In summary, only 37.9 percent of participants had realistic
perceptions of their financial literacy (no miscalibration), 17.7 percent of all respondents
overestimated their financial literacy, and 44.4 percent underestimated their financial literacy.
In summary, a high percentage of consumers with low OFL rated their SFL as high and in

Subjective financial literacy

Low Average High Total

Panel A: number of respondents

Objective financial literacy
Low 45 24 15 84
Average 99 57 47 203
High 50 67 82 199
Total 194 148 144 486
Panel B: financial literacy miscalibration and opinion leadership
Objective financial literacy
Low 3.24a 2.78 4.60 3.35
Table IV.
Average 2.80 2.98 3.67 3.05 Financial literacy
High 2.75 3.22 3.90 3.39 miscalibration
Total 2.89 3.06 3.90 3.24 subjective vs objective
Note: aThe average score of opinion leadership score of pertinent participants financial literacy
 IJBM contrast, a large group of consumers with high or moderate OFL underestimate their financial
literacy. A test of proportions found that while a higher proportion of consumers with high
OFL rated their SFL high compared to others, the effect was statistically significant
(ϕ ¼ 0.271, po0.01; Cramer’s V ¼ 0.192, po0.01). Differences in cell sizes could be the reason
why a stronger effect was not observed.
We further examined the self-perceived opinion leadership by consumers with different
degrees of financial literacy miscalibration. As Panel B in Table IV displays, respondents with
high financial literacy miscalibration reported the highest opinion leadership (M ¼ 4.6).
Consumers with moderate and high OFL who reported high SFL also reported high opinion
leadership (3.67 and 3.90). Interestingly, the group with high OFL and low SFL reported the
lowest opinion leadership. We coded the consumers based on their objective and SFL and
analyzed the difference between groups using a one-way ANOVA. This was necessary because
the goal is to examine financial miscalibration and not the effect of each factor or the interaction.
The coding was done as follows: positive miscalibration as +1, negative miscalibration as −1,
and no miscalibration as 0. The results indicated a significant effect (F(2, 483) ¼ 33.82, po0.001).
Post-hoc analysis using Tukey’s significant difference test ranked the groups based on their
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

reported opinion leadership as follows: positive miscalibration (M ¼ 3.88), no miscalibration

(M ¼ 3.12), and negative miscalibration (M ¼ 2.41). The results support H3.
The final hypothesis, H4, concerns the behavioral outcomes of OFL with regards to using
banking services. H4 predicts that consumers with higher degrees of OFL are more likely to
have checking and savings accounts (H4a), use online and mobile banking services (H4b) and
for more diverse services (H4c), and contact customer services less frequently (H4d) than those
with lower OFL. As Figure 3 displays, a higher percentage of financially literate consumers
(i.e. high OFL) have checking (M6 ¼ 100 percent) and savings accounts (M6 ¼ 75 percent)
compared to the less financially literate individuals (M6 ¼ 88.6 percent, 57.1 percent). A χ2 test of
independence demonstrated a significant relationship between OFL and owning a checking
( w2ð6;480Þ ¼ 14.47 po0.05) or a savings account (w2ð6;480Þ ¼ 11.45 po0.05), and hence support
H4a. The analysis did not find a relationship between OFL and self-reported use of mobile or
online banking. The questionnaire further asked respondents to name their first and second
most used methods for completing their banking. While a greater percentage of consumers with
high OFL used online and mobile banking than consumers with low OFL (M6 ¼ 80.6 percent,
M1 ¼ 65.7 percent), the results were not statistically significant and H4b was not supported.
The results, however, support H4c. Financial literacy had a significant effect on
transferring funds between accounts (M6 ¼ 64.8 percent, M1 ¼ 31.4 percent, w2ð6;480Þ ¼ 16.94,
p o0.01), using mobile baking to deposit checks (M6 ¼ 28.4 percent, M1 ¼ 20.0 percent,
w2ð6;480Þ ¼ 12.99, p o0.05), and on using online banking to pay bills (M6 ¼ 60.2 percent,
M1 ¼ 54.3 percent, w2ð6;480Þ ¼ 10.03, p o0.1). Finally, the results support H4d (see Figure 3,
Panel B). A χ2 test of independence demonstrated a significant relationship between OFL
and frequency of contacting customer services (w2ð15;471Þ ¼ 30.74 p o0.01).

Discussion
This paper makes three key contributions in the areas of financial literacy, consumer
knowledge, and opinion leadership by exploring: the relationship between OFL and SFL; the
relationship between OFL and SFL on the one hand and opinion leadership on the other
hand; and the behavioral outcomes of OFL with regards to using retail banking services.
Table V provides a summary of these key findings.

OFL vs SFL
Due to the challenges entailed in measuring consumer objective knowledge, researchers
have measured consumers’ subjective knowledge as a proxy for objective knowledge
(Coulter et al., 2002; Midgley and Dowling, 1993). In the area of financial literacy, this study
 Panel A. Owning checking and savings accounts
100.0% Subjective and
100.0% 95.6%
88.6% 87.8% 87.8%
91.9% objective
90.0%
75.2% 75.7%
financial
80.0% 75.0%
literacy
70.0% 63.3% 61.1%
57.1%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Objective Financial Literacy
(Total Number of Correct Answers)
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

Has Checking Account Has Saving Account

Panel B. Contacts with Customer Services

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% No Response

40% 1-2 Times a Week

30% 2-3 Times a Month

20% 0-1 Times a Month
10%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 3.
Objective Financial Literacy The behavioral
(Total Number of Correct Answers) outcomes of objective
financial literacy
No Response 1-2 Times a week 2-3 Times a Month 0-1 Times a Month

Objective financial literacy (OFL)

Consumer attribute Low Moderate High

Subjective financial literacy (H1) High Low High

Opinion leadership (H2a, H2b) High Low High
Owning checking or saving bank account (H4a), using online Low Moderate High
and mobile banking for diverse purposes (H4c)
Frequency of contacting customer services (H4d) Moderate Moderate Low
Other key finding
Subjective and objective financial literacy demonstrated a correlation of only 0.21
Subjective financial literacy and opinion leadership have a positive relationship (H2) Table V.
Consumers who have a positive financial literacy miscalibration exhibit greater opinion leadership. Key findings
Those with negative miscalibration of their financial literacy demonstrate low opinion leadership (H3) of the study
 IJBM demonstrates that consumers’ SFL and OFL are different attributes that are weakly
correlated (r ¼ 0.21). Moreover, participants with moderate degrees of OFL reported lower
SFL than those with high or low levels of OFL. In fact, many financially illiterate consumers
are unaware of their lack of financial literacy. Philosophers refer to this phenomenon as
“ignorance.” A famous quote attributed to Plato notes, “Ignorance, the root and the stem of
every evil.” Plato’s Symposium denotes that “For herein is the evil of ignorance, that he who
is neither good nor wise is nevertheless satisfied with himself: he has no desire for that of
which he feels no want” (Buchanan, 1948, p. 162). Confucius notes, “This is wisdom: to
recognize what you know as what you know, and recognize what you do not know as what
you do not know” (Slingerland, 2003, p. 13)[1]. These suggestions highlight the importance
of an alignment between subjective and objective knowledge and the threats of having a
high subjective knowledge by those who lack actual knowledge. Plato uses the term “double
ignorance” to refer to those who assume they are knowledgeable while they lack real
knowledge and notes: “This second kind of ignorance, when possessed of power and
strength, will be held by the legislator to be the source of great and monstrous times”
(Benardete, 2000, p. 268)[2].
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

Henry et al. (2013) found that when consumers have problems with their credit cards,
such as in paying their balances, they often perceive themselves as vulnerable and feel less
responsible for their financial problems and blame the credit card companies. The results of
this study offer additional reasons for why consumers often may not take responsibility for
their financial failures. Lack of awareness about their state of financial literacy may make
financially illiterate consumers even more vulnerable to fraud and deceptive marketing
activities (Hadar et al., 2013; Morrin et al., 2012).
Many financial institutions such as Visa (2016) and MasterCard (2016) have recently
developed customer financial literacy programs. Bank of America has created online
YouTube videos in order to improve consumers’ financial behavior and money habits. Many
governmental agencies and educational institutions (e.g. The United Nations Association of
the USA) have also designed financial literacy curriculum (United Nations Association,
2014). However, there are concerns regarding the effectiveness of these programs in the long
term (Huston, 2010; The Economist, 2014). Participants’ motivation is a critical factor in the
success of every educational program. This study finds that financially illiterate consumers
are often unaware of their lack of financial literacy, and hence lack the motivation to
improve. These educational programs, public media, and financial industry should focus on
increasing financially illiterate consumers’ awareness of their lack of financial literacy and
the importance of this knowledge to their financial well-being.

Financial literacy and opinion leadership

Extensive studies have highlighted the critical role that opinion leaders play in the success
of products and services by forming the public opinion about them (Goldenberg et al., 2009;
Nejad et al., 2014; Weimann, 1994). These studies have underscored consumer knowledge as
a critical attribute of opinion leaders. However, the majority of previous studies on opinion
leadership have measured consumer knowledge using subjective knowledge, product
ownership, brand awareness, visiting stores, and reading of relevant publications such as
magazines (e.g. Flynn et al., 1996; Midgley and Dowling, 1993). Moreover, these studies have
generally compared the self-reported subjective knowledge between opinion leaders and
others and concluded that opinion leaders are, on average, more knowledgeable than others.
The opinion leadership of consumers with various degrees of knowledge (high knowledge
vs low knowledge consumers) has remained unexamined for the most part, including for
financial literacy.
This study found three key insights with regards to the relationship between financial
literacy (OFL and SFL) and opinion leadership: there is a positive relationship between SFL
 and opinion leadership; consumers with moderate OFL reported lower opinion leadership Subjective and
compared to others; and financial literacy miscalibration – the degree to which consumers objective
overestimate their financial literacy – has a positive relationship with opinion leadership. financial
The positive relationship between SFL and opinion leadership is in line with previous
studies. However, the relationship between OFL and opinion leadership is concerning. literacy
Two groups of participants exhibited high opinion leadership: the financially literate
consumers (high OFL) and those with low degrees of financial literacy (low OFL) – this
group reported the highest opinion leadership. Opinion leadership by the first group,
financially literate consumers, is expected and desirable by researchers, managers, and
public policy makers. However, the reported opinion leadership by consumers who lack
financial literacy raises questions regarding the type of information that this group of
opinion leaders may communicate to others. Financial literacy miscalibration is a critical
factor that positively influences one’s opinion leadership. The highest degree of opinion
leadership was reported by consumers who have the greatest misperceptions about their
financial literacy (high SFL and low OFL). Plato called this type of influence “transferred
ignorance” (Vogt, 2012).
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

Opinion leaders are expected to be knowledgeable in a specific domain because

consumers generally seek to learn from those who are more knowledgeable than themselves.
Previous research has primarily overlooked the fact that what matters are the opinion
seeker’s perceptions of the opinion leader’s knowledge and not the opinion leader’s actual
(objective) knowledge. Those who have a high degree of financial literacy miscalibration
may influence others’ perceptions about their financial literacy. Recent studies have
identified opinion leaders based on the number of their social ties as the most connected
customers (e.g. Libai et al., 2013; Nejad et al., 2015). The results of this study suggest
that such opinion leaders might not be so knowledgeable. Xiao et al. (2011) found that
college students from low-income families conform more to their peers’ expectations and
engage more in risky financial behavior compared to those from families with higher
socio-economic status. Thus, they are more susceptible to influences from opinion leaders
who may lack the necessary knowledge.
Public policy makers and marketing managers should consider these findings when
focusing on the influences of consumers on each other. Knowledgeable opinion leaders
may enhance public knowledge by communicating accurate and true information to others.
The findings provide evidence that some opinion leaders with a high degree of financial
literacy miscalibration may actively advise (and mislead) others by communicating their
false knowledge and misunderstandings to those who take their advices.

Financial literacy and retail banking services

Previous research shows that financially literate consumers manage their personal finances
more effectively than others (Lusardi, 2015). This study finds that they also use retail
banking services more efficiently. All financially literate participants reported having a
checking account and 75 percent of them reported having a savings account, compared to
88.6 and 57.1 percent, respectively, among those with low financial literacy. Financially
literate respondents were also more likely to use online and mobile banking for diverse
purposes and applications and they reported contacting customers services less frequently
than others. Given that offering banking services online and via mobile entail lower costs for
financial institutions compared to serving them in branch or via phone banking, financially
literate consumers may be less costly for firms.

Financial literacy and consumer well-being: an example

To present evidence on the monetary costs of consumers’ suboptimal financial decisions,
this study explored the rent-to-own industry in North America. Rent-to-own stores offer
 IJBM consumers the option of renting a product and making certain number of weekly or monthly
payments until they own the product. The stores offer free delivery and installation,
free returns, and the choice of upgrading the product at any time (by paying the difference
at the time of exchange).
The idea seems reasonable for someone who does not have the resources to buy the
product or for someone who needs a product for a short period of time. However, the prices
paid for these services are excessively high. Consumer protection organizations have
discouraged shopping at these stores due to their unreasonably high actual costs to
consumers and the fact that consumers who reinstate their lease-to-own agreements lose
the benefits of what they have already paid (CNN Money, 2013; Consumer Reports, 2015;
Federal Trade Commission, 2015). The research team collected data regarding the prices of
several products from two national rent-to-own stores[3] in a major urban area in Northeastern
USA in June 2016 and compared them with those at other retailers (see Table VI).
As Table VI displays, the average retail price of rent-to-own stores across the categories
was 2.57 times the average retail price which translates into financing with annual interest
rates of between 100 percent (for washer and dryer) and 370 percent (for tablet). Rent-to-own
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

decisions are misguided from a financial perspective, especially given that most other retailers
in the USA offer payment installment options. For example, consumers can finance the
TV listed in Table VI for 18 months from Best Buy with 0 percent interest, leading to about
$50 monthly payments for 18 months plus a nominal application fee. Both the monthly
payments and the total cost of this offer will be significantly lower than the $129.99 (store 1) or
about the $159 (store 2) monthly payments from rent-to-own stores. The customer will pay the
total retail price of the product after only a few months of paying inflated installments to
rent-to-own stores. Consumers who lack a decent credit status may not take advantage of
installment offerings at mainstream retailers, but they can rent from rent-to-own stores.
However, these consumers should take extra caution when making purchasing decisions with
the intention of improving their financial situation as paying substantial prices to rent-to-own
stores may not be the best option for them.
Despite the fact that the decision to shop at rent-to-own stores is suboptimal for
consumers[4], the industry has grown significantly to about $8.5 billion annually with
8,900 stores in North America, serving 4.8 million households at any given time. Moreover,
the majority of rent-to-own customers are low-income families – 41 percent had annual
household income of less than $24,000 and 96 percent earned less than $50,000 a year
(www.rtohq.org/about-rent-to-own/). While these families need to make optimal financial
decisions, they mismanage their scarce resources by making poor financial decisions.
Not only are these consumers perhaps unaware of the detrimental effects of their decisions
on their financial well-being, but they may also lead their peers into engaging in such
shopping behavior.

Limitations and future research

This study offered novel findings with regards to financial literacy, consumer knowledge,
opinion leadership, and behavioral outcomes such as using various retail banking services.
Future research can further expand these findings in B2B contexts or in other consumer
domains such as technology products, fashion, music, and restaurants, among others.
While the study used an established measure of opinion leadership, future research can
examine the research questions using other methods of measuring opinion leadership such
as peer-identified methods (snowball, sociometric, or key informants’ rating) in which
members of a closed society or social group are asked who they seek advice from in a
specific topic (Nejad et al., 2014). Recent studies found heterogeneity and homophily among
consumers play critical role in the spread of negative word of mouth and the effectiveness of
marketing activities. Heterogeneity captures the degree to which consumers are different
 Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

Rent-to-own Rent-to-own Avg. rent-to- Amazon. Best Sears Avg. retail Average
Product (Store 1) (Store 2) own price ($) com ($) buy ($) ($) price ($) ratiob

Kitchen appliances
Refrigerator (Frigidaire 18 cu. Ft. Top Mount $69.99 × 24 mos $22.00 × 52 wks 1,411.88 599.00 529.99 629.99 586.33 2.41
Freezer-Black) ¼ $1,679.76c ¼ $1,144.00
Stove (Frigidaire 30” Smoothtop Electric Range $146.99 × 12 mos $34.00 × 52 wks 1,765.94 604.99 579.99 664.99 616.66 2.86
Stainless Steel) ¼ $1,763.88 ¼ $1,768.00
Dishwasher (Whirlpool Portable Dishwasher White) $109.99 × 12 mos $31.00 × 52 wks 1,465.94 629.00 629.99 699.99 652.99 2.24
¼ $1,319.88 ¼ $1,612.00
Electronics
TV (LG 55"Class LED (2160p) Smart 4 K Ultra HD $129.99 × 24 mos $37.00 × 52 wks 2,521.88 897.00 899.99 854.95 883.98 2.85
TV – Gray Black) ¼ $3,119.76 ¼ $1,924.00
Speakers (LG 2.1 ch 320 W Soundbar with Wireless $34.99 × 24 mos $10.00 × 52 wks 679.88 217.00 219.99 217.00 218.00 3.12
Subwoofer and Bluetooth Connectivity) ¼ $839.76 ¼ $520.00
Tablet (Galaxy 9.7) $74.99 × 12 mos $14.00 × 52 wks 813.94 239.00 229.99 229.99 232.99 3.49
¼ $899.88 ¼ $728.00
Laptop (HP Star Wars Special Edition 15.6” Intel Core i5 $99.99 × 18 mos $22.00 × 52 wks 1,471.91 849.99 799.99 701.00 783.66 1.88
Notebook) ¼ $1799.82 ¼ $1,144.00
Household appliances
Air Conditioner (Frigidaire – 12,000 BTU Window $54.99 × 12 mos $17.00 × 52 wks 771.94 360.00 359.99 434.95 384.98 2.01
Air Conditioner – White) ¼ $659.88 ¼ $884.00
Washer and Dryer (Frigidaire White Washer And $129.99 × 24 mos $48.00 × 52 wks 2,807.88 1,179.00 1,259.99 1,636.74 1,358.58 2.07
Electric Dryer Combo) ¼ $3,119.76 ¼ $2,496.00
renttoown price c
Notes: aThe prices of each product from different retailers are captured for identical products on the same day; Average Ratio ¼ Average
Average retail price ; “mos” stands
for number of months and wks stands for number of weeks. Rent-to-own stores only report the amount of payment per period and not the total price
objective

literacy
Subjective and

to-own prices with

Table VI.
financial

other retailersa
A comparison of rent-
 IJBM from each other in terms of a certain attribute and homophily captures the degree to which
consumers are connected to others like themselves (Nejad et al., 2015, 2016). Future studies
can explore these two critical factors with regards to financial literacy to better understand
how a society’s financial literacy is formed.
The study established the relationship between several critical variables. Future research
can enhance these findings by examining the underlying consumer attributes between those
who are financially literate and those who lack financial literacy. To what degree are the
differences between these two groups due to their individual factors such as their cognitive
abilities vs environmental factors such as education and social influence? Finally, the study
was conducted on consumers in the USA. It will be interesting to replicate the study using
samples from other countries and compare the results across different cultures.

Notes
1. This quote is often used as “real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.”
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

2. The following poem summarizes these speculations:

Men are Four:
He who knows, and knows that he knows; Rides the horse of wisdom, across the dome of the
skies!

He who knows, but knows not that he knows; Needs to wake up, help him open his eyes!
He who knows not, but knows that he knows not; Drags his limping mule, across the lows and
the highs!

But he who knows not, and knows not that he knows not; Wallows in the deep darkness of
ignorance, until the day that he dies!

(Ebne Yamin, Persian Poet 1285-1367, Original Translation to English by Isabel Burton 1831-1896).
3. The names of rent-to-own stores are available from the author.
4. We do realize that renting instead of owning may be optimal for some consumers who need a
product for a limited period of time. However, with the additional costs currently charged by rent-
to-own stores, such decisions are suboptimal from the perspective of financial cost of ownership.

References
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (2000), “Knowledge calibration: what consumers know and what they
think they know”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 123-156.
Babiarz, P. and Robb, C.A. (2014), “Financial literacy and emergency saving”, Journal of Family and
Economic Issues, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 40-50.
Benardete, S. (2000), Plato’s “Laws”: The Discovery of Being, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Brucks, M. (1985), “The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Buchanan, S. (1948), The Portable Plato, Viking Press, New York, NY.
Carlson, J.P., Vincent, L.H., Hardesty, D.M. and Bearden, W.O. (2009), “Objective and subjective
knowledge relationships: a quantitative analysis of consumer research findings”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 864-876.
CNN Money (2013), “Rent-to-own furniture, jewelry can cost you double”, available at: http://money.
cnn.com/2013/11/07/pf/rent-to-own/ (accessed June 26, 2016).
Consumer Reports (2015), “Be cautious of rent-to-own deals”, available at: www.consumerreports.org/
cro/news/2015/07/be-cautious-of-rent-to-own-deals/index.htm (accessed June 26, 2016).
 Coulter, R., Feick, L. and Price, L. (2002), “Changing faces: cosmetics opinion leadership among women Subjective and
in the new Hungary”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 11/12, pp. 1287-1308. objective
De Bassa Scheresberg, C. (2013), “Financial literacy and financial behavior among young adults: financial
evidence and implications”, Numeracy, Vol. 6 No. 2, p. 5.
literacy
Duhan, D.F., Johnson, S.D., Wilcox, J.B. and Harrell, G.D. (1997), “Influences on consumer use of
word-of-mouth recommendation sources”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 283-295.
Ellen, P.S. (1994), “Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowledge effects on
pro-ecological behaviors”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (2014), “Fdic releases national survey of unbanked and
underbanked”, October 29, available at: www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2014/pr14091.html
(accessed May 5, 2015).
Federal Reserve (2014), “Consumers and mobile financial services 2014”, Board of Governers of the
Federal Reserve, Washington, DC.
Federal Trade Commission (2015), “Be cautious of rent-to-own deals”, available at: www.consumer.ftc.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

gov/articles/0524-rent-own-costly-convenience (accessed June 26, 2016).

Flynn, L. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), “A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 57-66.
Flynn, L., Goldsmith, R. and Eastman, J. (1996), “Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: two new
measurement scales”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 137-147.
Gerardi, K., Goette, L. and Meier, S. (2010), “Financial literacy and subprime mortgage delinquency:
evidence from a survey matched to administrative data”, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Working Paper Series, Atlanta, GA.
Goldenberg, J., Han, S., Lehmann, D.R. and Hong, J.W. (2009), “The role of hubs in the adoption
process”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Graham, J.R., Harvey, C.R. and Huang, H. (2009), “Investor competence, trading frequency, and home
bias”, Management Science, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 1094-1106.
Hadar, L., Sood, S. and Fox, C.R. (2013), “Subjective knowledge in consumer financial decisions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 303-316.
Heath, C. and Tversky, A. (1991), “Preference and belief: ambiguity and competence in choice under
uncertainty”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-28.
Henry, P., Garbarino, E. and Voola, R. (2013), “Metacognitions about consumer protection and
individual responsibility in the credit card domain”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 32-44.
Holmes, J.B., Waters, H.S. and Rajaram, S. (1998), “The phenomenology of false memories: episodic
content and confidence”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 1026-1040.
Huston, S. (2010), “Measuring financial literacy”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 296-316.
Iyengar, R., Van Den Bulte, C. and Valente, T.W. (2011), “Opinion leadership and social contagion in
new product diffusion”, Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 195-212.
Johnson, E.J. and Russo, J.E. (1984), “Product familiarity and learning new information”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 542-550.
Libai, B., Muller, E. and Peres, R. (2013), “Decomposing the value of word-of-mouth seeding programs:
acceleration vs expansion”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 161-176.
Lusardi, A. (2012), “Numeracy, financial literacy, and financial decision-making”, National Bureau of
Economic Research (No. w17821), New York, NY.
Lusardi, A. (2015), “Financial literacy: do people know the ABCs of finance?”, Public Understanding of
Science, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 260-271.
 IJBM Lusardi, A. and Mitchell, O.S. (2007), “Baby boomer retirement security: the roles of planning, financial
literacy, and housing wealth”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 205-224.
Lusardi, A. and Tufano, P. (2015), “Debt literacy, financial experiences, and overindebtedness”,
Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 332-368.
Mastercard (2016), Know-How for Financial Success, available at: www.mastercard.us/en-us/consumers/
get-support/financial-education.html (accessed June 27, 2016).
Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1993), “A longitudinal study of product form innovation:
the interaction between predispositions and social messages”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 19, pp. 611-625.
Mitchell, O.S. and Lusardi, A. (2015), “Financial literacy and economic outcomes: evidence and policy
implications”, The Journal of Retirement, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 107-114.
Miyake, N. and Norman, D.A. (1979), “To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not
known”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 357-364.
Moorman, C., Diehl, K., Brinberg, D. and Kidwell, B. (2004), “Subjective knowledge, search locations,
and consumer choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 673-680.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

Morrin, M., Broniarczyk, S.M. and Inman, J.J. (2012), “Plan format and participation in 401(k) plans:
the moderating role of investor knowledge”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 254-268.
Nejad, M.G. (2016), “Challenges and opportunities for innovation in financial services”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Nejad, M.G. and O’Connor, G. (2016), “An intersectional approach to evaluating consumer financial
literacy”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 308-324.
Nejad, M.G., Amini, M. and Babakus, E. (2015), “Success factors in product seeding: the role of
homophily”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 68-88.
Nejad, M.G., Amini, M. and Sherrell, D.L. (2016), “The profit impact of revenue heterogeneity and
assortativity in the presence of negative word-of-mouth”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 656-673.
Nejad, M.G., Sherrell, D.L. and Babakus, E. (2014), “Influentials and influence mechanisms in new
product diffusion: an integrative review”, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 185-208.
Park, C.W. and Lessig, V.P. (1981), “Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and
heuristics”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 223-231.
Robb, C.A., Babiarz, P. and Woodyard, A. (2012), “The demand for financial professionals’ advice: the role
of financial knowledge, satisfaction, and confidence”, Financial Services Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, p. 291.
Scott, L., Williams, J.D., Baker, S.M., Brace-Govan, J., Downey, H., Hakstian, A.-M., Henderson, G.R.,
Loroz, P.S. and Webb, D. (2011), “Beyond poverty: social justice in a global marketplace”,
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 39-46.
Slingerland, E. (2003), Confucius Analects, Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN and Cambridge.
Starček, S. and Trunk, A. (2013), “The meaning and concept of financial education in the society of
economic changes”, in Nada, T.Š. and Goran, Đ. (Eds), Active Citizenship by Knowledge
Management & Innovation: Proceedings of the Management, Knowledge and Learning
International Conference, Orebro, pp. 1443-1452.
Tang, N. and Baker, A. (2016), “Self-esteem, financial knowledge and financial behavior”, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 54, June, pp. 164-176.
The Economist (2014), “Back to basics”, July 11, available at: www.economist.com/blogs/freeex
change/2014/07/financial-literacy (accessed June 29, 2016).
US Courts (2016), “Table f – bankruptcy filings (March 31, 2016)”, available at: www.uscourts.gov/
statistics/table/f/bankruptcy-filings/2016/03/31 (accessed July 2, 2016).
 United Nations Association (2014), “UNA-USA and PwC launch new curriculum to foster financial Subjective and
literacy for a global generation”, available at: www.unausa.org/news-publications/press- objective
releases-and-statements/article/una-usa-and-pwc-launch-new-curriculum-to-foster-financial-
literacy-for-a-global-generation (accessed June 29, 2016). financial
Visa (2016), “Powering financial inclusion”, available at: https://usa.visa.com/about-visa/financial- literacy
inclusion-literacy.html#3 (accessed June 28, 2016).
Vogt, K.M. (2012), Belief and Truth: A Skeptic Reading of Plato, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Weimann, G. (1994), The Influentials: People Who Influence People, State University of New York Press,
Albany, NY.
Wolff-Mann, E. (2016), “The average American is in credit card debt, no matter the economy”, available at:
http://time.com/money/4213757/average-american-credit-card-debt/ (accessed July 2, 2016).
Xiao, J.J., Tang, C., Serido, J. and Shim, S. (2011), “Antecedents and consequences of risky credit
behavior among college students: application and extension of the theory of planned behavior”,
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 239-245.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 00:19 06 June 2018 (PT)

Corresponding author
Mohammad G. Nejad can be contacted at: mnejad@fordham.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com