Experimental dataset resulting from a modified Howell and Shepperd (2013) questionnaire which was originally designed to prompt contemplation of diabetes and applied it to debt-related issues. This was followed by the choice to view (or not) their risk for debt through a debt avoidance task. This allowed us to answer a key empirical question identified by Howell and Shepperd (2013): “we do not know whether contemplation can reduce information avoidance in non-health domains”. This tested the general hypothesis that prompting participants to contemplate the cons of avoiding and pros of not avoiding debt-related information would decrease the likelihood that they would avoid debt-related information.Despite personal debt being an ever increasing problem within our society the psychological understanding of debt and interventions to the problem remain elusive. The present project provides a novel solution by using insights from those with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, who are known to excessively monitor (eg, "Did I turn the oven off?"), and apply this to those who don’t monitor their finances. The research will examine which cognitive factors explain why debtors fail to adequately monitor their debt. Then examine debtors’ attentional biases with debt-related stimuli and how this relates to how they monitor their finances. This information will be used to modify how debtors interact with debt-related stimuli, and quantify its influence on financial behaviours. Finally, this will be applied to the design of a Manage Your Debt Application System (MYDAS) mobile phone intervention which aims to improve how debtors monitor their debt. This research will have the following implications: Science: By providing an empirical understanding of the thought process of debtors and an intervention to change those thought processes key to debt. Society: By providing new tools to identify problem debtors and interventions (MYDAS) the research will benefit debtors (reduce debt), creditors (repayment) and debt agencies.

A computer presented questionnaire shows items specific to each condition (contemplation or control) to participants. The Psychopy open source software package was used to design and present these items. A single factor, with two levels (contemplation vs. control) design was employed to compare the effect of contemplating debt-related issues vs. not contemplating or avoidance of debt-related information. Participants were randomly assigned to either the debt contemplation (experimental) or no contemplation (control) condition. The dependent variable was the choice between viewing (non-avoidance) and not viewing (avoidance) their risk of debt in the future. Participants sat in front of a computer screen. The first screen provided instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. Participants in the debt contemplation condition completed 18 questions on the cons of avoiding and pros of not avoiding debt-related information. We modified these questions from those originally used by Howell and Shepperd (2013) who asked participants to contemplate their risk of diabetes. For example, we modified the question “Learning that I am at high risk for diabetes would upset me” to “Learning that I am at high risk for debt would upset me”. Participants then showed their degree of agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). After this, participants completed a debt-risk calculator in which their responses would be used “to calculate your chances of having debt problems in the next 5 years.” Participants completed 12 questions on topics such as gender, severity of debt and declarations of bankruptcy. They were then told their responses were used to calculate their future risk of debt, and that they had the choice to view this risk if they wished. We chose this task and dependent measure for two reasons. Firstly, it ensured a degree of consistency as we modified a task (i.e., “diabetes risk calculator” to “debt-risk calculator”) and dependent measure (i.e., “choice to view risk of diabetes” to “choice to view risk of debt”) that had been successfully employed by Howell and Shepperd (2013). Secondly, the evidence suggests that between 75 and 83% of people will avoid dealing with the debt(s). Thus, we used a financial stimulus which was analogous to what people tend to avoid in the “real world”. In other words, this task mimicked a threatening debt-related situation, which allowed us to quantify the effect of contemplation on avoidance (or not) of debt-related information. Participants in the control condition were not exposed to any intervention prior to the dependent variable.