Thesis – Final version
Based on insides how people search for Insurance propositions this thesis shows if there is still a need for intermediaries.
What influences people to choose for an intermediary as the preferred information source in a purchase process?
Institution: University of Amsterdam Faculty: Economics & Business
Study: MSc Business Administration – Marketing Track Thesis Supervisor: Prof. dr. E. Peelen
Student: Florentijn van der Mersch Student Number: 10872248
1 STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Florentijn August Paulus van der Mersch who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
2
Acknowledgements
This master thesis represents the final chapter of my student-life. It has been an intense journey but I have enjoyed every step of it. Besides two years of acquired knowledge after I finished my HBO-study, being a student brought me so many things. Many interesting courses, an internship and meeting new people brought me so far and enabled me to develop myself into the person I am now.
First of all I would like to thank my family who have always supported and provided me with the motivation and determination to reach the final point of this (long) journey. A special thanks to my friends, fellow students, respondents and intermediaries who gave me information, feedback and were with me in the process of writing this thesis and whom I have shared my moments of enjoyment.
Finally, I would like to thank my supervisor, prof. dr. Ed Peelen, for all his help, enthusiasm and guidance that he has given me during the writing of this thesis. Your clear feedback and patience enabled me to accomplish my thesis within the time required.
3 Table of contents
Abstract ... 5
Introduction ... 6
Problem statement and research question ... 8
Sub questions ... 10
2. Literature review ... 12
2.1 Intermediation ... 12
2.2 Dutch Intermediary Insurance industry ... 13
2.2.1 Developments in the Dutch Insurance intermediary industry ... 14
2.2.2 Distribution channels Dutch Insurance ... 16
2.3 Information search and its costs and benefits ... 19
2.3.1 Different information sources ... 23
2.4 Conceptual framework ... 26
2.4.1 Factors ... 28
2.4.2 Determinants ... 28
2.4.3 Demographics ... 31
3. Data & method ... 33
3.1 Design ... 33 3.2 Sample ... 34 4. Results ... 36 4.1 Preliminary analysis ... 36 4.1.1 Respondents ... 36 4.1.2 Reliability check ... 37 4.2 Hypotheses testing ... 38 4.2.1 Product complexity ... 38 4.2.2 Information accessibility ... 39
4.2.3 Larger number of alternatives ... 42
4.2.4 Time pressure ... 42
4.2.5 Financial sacrifice ... 43
4.2.6 Perceived risk ... 43
4.2.7 Differences Life and Damage Insurance ... 44
4.2.8 Benefits and intermediary use... 45
4.2.9 Internet use and general thoughts of DIY ... 46
4.2.10 Direct and indirect influences on intention to use an intermediary ... 47
4.3 Overview of the hypotheses ... 49
4
6. Conclusion ... 54
6.1 Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 56
References ... 58
Appendix 1 Survey ... 61
Appendix 1 Survey – Used Variables ... 68
Appendix 2 Independent samples t-test ... 70
Appendix 3 One-way ANOVA Benefits Intermediary – Intermediary times used ... 71
5 Abstract
The world is changing, today’s consumers are overloaded with information. Before the upcoming Self-service technologies (SSts) people went to an Intermediary to get information. Besides the available information on Internet, the legislation around intermediary services are changed in 2013. Do people still need an intermediary if they can found information by themselves (on the Internet)? On the basis of signaling theory about people’s information search behavior and the costs and benefits of it, this research investigates which Determinants and Factors influences people to choose for the service of an intermediary. Based on the insides how people search for Insurance propositions this thesis shows that there is still a need for intermediaries as preferred information source in the (pre)purchase process. Hypotheses were tested by randomly assigning 169 respondents. Results indicated that there is still a need for the intermediaries as preferred information source in the (pre)purchase process of an Insurance. Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Keywords: intermediary service, disintermediation, information search, Dutch Insurance, preferred information source
6 Introduction
The world is changing, people are more and more searching for information by themselves. Today’s consumers are overloaded with information and can find whatever they want on the Internet. 9 out of 10 Dutch people uses the Internet on daily basis (CBS 2015). In the years before the rise of Internet people get most of their information via an intermediary. But if you can find so much information by yourself is there still need for an intermediary? Besides the available information on Internet, the legislation has changed in 2013, there came a partial ban of commissions on financial products. The ban on commission for complex products in combination with a generic duty can lead to a total prohibition on commissions for all financial products (De Jong, 2010). Most intermediaries are largely dependent on their commission for Insurance. The consequence is that you have to pay for the advice, although it is less than before and more transparent where you pay for. This research is focused on intermediaries in the Dutch Insurance industry.
In the meantime the landscape is changing and more Self-service technologies (SSts) are coming in (Meuter, Ostrom, Roundtree & Bitner, 2000; Shamdasani, Avinandan Mukherjee & Neeru Malhotra, 2008). Meuter et al. (2000) define Self-service technologies (SSTs) as technological interfaces that enable consumers to produce a service independent of direct service employee involvement. The strategic importance of SSTs is obvious from the radical changes in service delivery that it has brought to many industries such as airline, banking, travel, hotel, financial, and retailing (Meuter et al., 2000). This radical progression from traditional interpersonal service encounters to SSTs, which replaces human-to-human contact with human–machine interaction, is regarded by Parasuraman (1996) as a fundamental shift in the nature of services.
In this context, it is not surprising to see a trend that more and more Insurance-intermediaries in the Netherlands disappear. In 2008 there were 9,000 financial intermediary
7 and at the beginning of 2016 there were 6,800 left (CBS 2015). The question arises, do customers still need intermediaries instead of all the information they can find nowadays by themselves? This phenomenon is called “disintermediation”.
Are consumers glad to find out things by themselves and to feel satisfied as described by Norton, Monchon and Ariely (2012)? Or are the perceived benefits purely based on the assumption that they will find the cheapest price, so on cost benefits? Some consumers may feel that they do not know what direction to go anymore. All the available information could be simply too much, an information overload (Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd, 2010). In complex situations and non-routine decisions it is still hard for people to make (the right) decisions (Heerkens, 2003), people feel very insecure in some circumstances. Why would some people only use the information find by themselves, what are their perceived benefits? And why would other people still use the services of intermediary, what are the benefits of this information source?
The present study covers an important gap in the literature. At this moment there is research on Self-service and Internet technologies, but there is (outdated) research on why people use certain information sources in the Dutch Insurance industry (with the advent of the Self-service technologies in the purchase process). There is no study which investigates why Dutch people search online for information (to close for example Insurance) and why people would people use an (offline) intermediaries as their preferred information source. There has been research that predicts how the Internet would affect the amount of physical stores, but not on (intermediary) services. This research investigates why people still choose for an offline intermediary despite of all the information they could find by themselves on the Internet. Most of the investigations are about the fast way Internet drives people, and that this is still growing and growing. It may be that there is still a niche market for offline intermediaries, but where can they make a difference compared to the consumers self search?
8 Based on the insides found in this study about how consumers search information about Insurance propositions, intermediaries, middle men and brokers can, as experts, realize consumer preference for their intermediary services compared to online Self-service.
And in general this study contributes to the role intermediaries in other industries can fulfill in a landscape where the SSts (on Internet) seems to gain ground more and more. If intermediaries know what influences people to choose for one or another information source, intermediaries can change their strategy in the way they do their marketing or even get more niche-focused.
Problem statement and research question
There has been a long tradition in empirical research on consumers' information-search behavior, especially in marketing. Search behavior of consumers begins when a consumer feels the need to know more about a product or store to make a purchase (Nederstigt & Poiesz, 2003). Many of these studies are about the purchasing behavior of products, fewer studies examine purchasing behavior of intangible goods and services, like an Insurance. The knowledge of how consumers seek information has always been considered for the consumers’ buying behavior (Newman & Staelin, 1972). Many of these studies are indicating that investigation on consumer behavior research how they search is still an actual subject.
According to Bettman and Park (1980) the consumer will use external search behavior when there is not enough internal knowledge in their own memory. Consumers can collect additional external information as information about brands, attributes and benefits (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2010). But what if you do not have any reference material, in case of an Insurance policy? What kind of information is important to make a choice? It could be that people find or feel that they are missing some information to make a good decision (in the consumers ‘eyes). So the information is not enough satisfying and the benefits of self search may be lower than perceived benefits from an intermediary. How does a consumer handles
9 this? Can you, based on external founded information an informed choice or is more help needed in the shape of an intermediary?
There has research been done into considerations and variables that are present by people who have to take out an Car-Insurance (Elliott, Fu, & Speck, 2012). Research indicates that people have different reasons for information search Moorthy, Ratchford, and Talukdar (1997). Schmidt and Spreng (1996) investigate that these reasons determine external search behavior, namely: perceived ability to search, perceived motivation to search, perceived benefits of search and perceived costs of external search. According to Schmidt and Spreng (1996) the motivation for external information search activity are influenced by the perceived benefits and costs perception. But for example when did it reaches the point for the customer that benefits are too low or the costs are too high to search for it by yourself (do it yourself)?
Types of sources that are used by consumers differ during the pre-purchase phase. The study of Hoyer and MacInnis (2010) shows that interpersonal and independent sources are the most reliable and objective ones. You would expect that people also choose this sources, but perhaps price advantages are playing a role in this consideration.
So, there is already a lot of knowledge about how people make choices on (online) sources. But why people exactly choose for the intermediary service to find information about an Insurance (or not), or whether and why people will search information by themselves, is still unclear. Therefore, this study fills a gap. On the one hand people want more personalized and customized information, services and products, and on the other hand they want the cheapest option. But it looks like that there are still types of persons that simply remain by information from an intermediary.
Gaps in literature show that additional research is suggested on disintermediation and the way people search for information to make non-routine decisions. There is little research how people take decisions for information sources on Insurance propositions (Elliott et al.,
10 2012). In the near future there are over 17 million inhabitants in the Netherlands and a great part of these people is participating for an Insurance. People are getting older, so there is a need to find out how people search for information. Especially for intermediaries, but also for Insurance companies it is necessary why people are searching for information for an Insurance proposition by themselves or via an intermediary. With this knowledge they know exactly when they can add value. What is the real value in the eye of the consumer? There is not many information and search why people still choose for an (offline) intermediary. The associated research question states:
What influences people to choose for an intermediary as the preferred information source in a purchase process?
Sub questions
Deriving from the above stated research question and to answer this question a set of sub questions is proposed.
1. Which determinants influences people (directly and/or indirectly) to have the intention to make use of an Intermediary as preferred information source?
2. Which costs and benefits influences people to search for information by themselves (DIY) or to use an Intermediary as preferred information source?
3. What are the differences in people according to multiple demographics (e.g. Education, weekly InternetUse, IntermediaryUse, and Life/Damage Insurance)?
In order to reach a comprehensive conclusion the remainder of this study is structured as follows. First, the theoretical background for the model is explained and leads to the formulation of the hypotheses. Here after the data collection and the methodology are discussed. In the results section the details of the findings can be found, followed by the
11 discussion that elaborates on the theoretical contributions of the study. Finally, the practical implications, limitations and opportunities for future research can be found.
12 2. Literature review
Before specifically going into the conceptual model of this research and why people will choose for an intermediary as their preferred information source for their Insurance or do it by themselves, a general definition of an intermediary, the Dutch Insurance industry and the perceived costs and benefits for information search are given. This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the literature about the key concepts in this study, in order to analyze what has already been studied about intermediaries, disintermediation, the Dutch insurance industry, and why people search.
2.1 Intermediation
As studied by Biglaiser (1993), intermediaries are usually experts with superior information about market conditions and product characteristics. Hence, they may enhance market efficiency by providing consulting services for market participants. An intermediary is by Cummins and Doherty (2006) defined as: “an individual or business firm, with some degree of independence from the insurer, which stands between the buyer and seller of Insurance.” There are different types of intermediaries, but the focus in this thesis is primarily on independent intermediaries, who deal directly with personal Insurance buyers.
Intermediaries play an important role in markets with significant imperfections, as pointed out by Yavas (1994), there are two different types of intermediaries that facilitate market transactions. Market makers, on the one hand, such as stock market specialists, act on their own account by buying a certain good from a seller at a bid price and reselling it to buyers at an ask price. On the other hand, matchmakers, such as real estate brokers, simply match sellers and buyers without being an active trading party.
Bateson (1985) explores the choice between a self-service option and an interpersonal service delivery system. Bateson examines the attractiveness of self-service options when the usual monetary or time-saving incentives are controlled and found that a significant group of
13 people choose to use a self-service option even without monetary or time-saving benefits. One issue to be noted from these early studies is that Langeard, Bateson, Lovelock, and Eiglier (1981) and Bateson (1985) both make no distinction between technology-based self-service scenarios and more labor-intensive self-service situations.
On the one hand there is more information available on the Internet and on the other hand the raising Self-services leads to more disintermediation. Disintermediation, technologically induced disintermediation, due to the emergence of the Internet was first discussed by Stan Davis (1987). Gilder (1994) claimed that intermediaries would disappear as a result of the ‘computer network revolution’.
Kotler (1999) stipulates that, as a result of electronic commerce, intermediaries will disappear, who claim more as a reward than they add. He expects 'disintermediation' at first especially will affect car dealers, Insurance agents and agencies. Intermediaries in the banking savings and investments are as well threatened in their existence. In addition, Kotler (1999) highlights the opportunities for ‘metamediaries’. He expects a growing demand by consumers for intermediaries that collect information from different manufacturers at a reduced fee and evaluate this information for them.
2.2 Dutch Intermediary Insurance industry
According to Cummins and Doherty (2006) is an Insurance “a complex product representing a promise to compensate the insured or a third party according to specified terms and conditions should some well-defined contingent event occur.” Simply to describe this obligation requires complex language. In the past most Insurance transactions, there is an intermediary, usually an Insurance agent or broker, between the buyer and the insurer.
The Dutch Insurance market is divided into two different Insurance: Damage and Life Insurance. Damage & Life Insurance are both a collective name. The Damage Insurance is about Insurance policies that cover financial risks or damage, for example a car, house
14 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 2006 2010 2012 2014 2015 2016
Intermediaries in the Netherlands
period 2006-2016 (private sector)
Financial intermediaries
etcetera. A Life Insurance is a collective name for Insurance to cover yourself: pension Insurance, Life Insurance or a funeral Insurance. There are intermediaries for mortgages, and this market shows a rising trend, but these intermediaries will not be considered in this research. This research will be focused on intermediaries in Damage and Life Insurance in the private sector .
As can be seen in Figure 1, the last few years there is a trend of a decreasing number of intermediaries in de Dutch Insurance-market in the private sector. With the introduction of the licensing and registration by the “Autoriteit Financiële Markten” (AFM), the barriers to entry are increased. Besides the license-commitment the intermediary has to meet the conditions for accession and legal competency requirements.
Figure 1. Source: SER and AFM
2.2.1 Developments in the Dutch Insurance intermediary industry
Until 2002 an intermediary could only receive a commission as a reward for his services. In 2002, this commission command was released and intermediaries could be rewarded in other ways for their services. For example through certain fees or for working hour declarations by
15 their clients. Finally, on October 12, 2010 (Parliamentary No. 31086. 25 session year 2010-2011), De Jager (Dutch politician) announced its intention to proceed partial ban of commissions in 2013. Partly because prohibition only applies to complex and impactful financial products. The commission ban does not yet apply to Life Insurance and business income Insurance. General Insurance is relatively easy to qualify where no mis-selling was found that would justify a ban on commission. A completely pure market model is therefore not been realized provisionally.
With this commission ban it is contemplated that intermediaries can focus purely on the interests of the client. AFM believes that the current regulations in this field do not go far enough and this calls for a generic duty of care provision. The introduction of the generic duty opens the debate about Insurance and business income Insurance. The ban on commission for complex products in combination with a generic duty can lead to a total prohibition on commissions for all financial products. That would have a huge impact for many intermediaries. Most intermediaries are largely dependent on their commission for Insurance. Specifically commission on personal and commercial Insurance (De Jong , 2010).
The number of intermediaries has dropped sharply in recent years. The impact of the macro-economic developments is shown in the figures on the financial performance of independent intermediaries. Based on CBS figures and reports in 2010, there is a decrease in the number of Insurance intermediaries by 21% compared to 2006. According to De Jong (2010) there is a decrease of at least 25% in recent years based on the AFM register. Bureau D&O (2012) reported 11% revenue decline in the average intermediary in 2011 compared to 2010. There is a significant reorganization among the self-employed intermediary, more and more Insurance-intermediaries in the Netherlands are disappearing, between 2008 and 2014 there was a decrease of 16% (CBS 2015). The number of companies that the services cease due to changing legislation is high. In the first quarter of 2016 there were more than 5,200
16 Insurance intermediaries according to the CBS. The introduction of the commission ban has been reason for many intermediaries to stop.
2.2.2 Distribution channels Dutch Insurance
Insurance in the Netherlands are distributed through a variety of distribution channels. There are multiple distribution channels which are used in the Insurance-market in the Netherlands. There are direct writers, intermediaries and authorized agents. In Figure 2 the distribution channels are represented schematically.
Direct writer
The Direct writer is the way where the insurer takes out an Insurance policy directly by the policyholder. In that case, the insurer will directly and without the intervention from another party to enter a contract with its customer. The insurer is called a 'direct writer'1 and covers the risk of the policyholder and receives a premium in return. The relationship itself is very transparent, since no other links are present, except the provider and the customer itself. In this case the consumer did the information search all by him or herself.
Authorized agent
The second way to distribute Insurance policies is by making use of the authorized agent. Again there is a client (policyholder) and the insurer as terminal, but now the authorized agent takes a place in between those two. Together with an insurer the agent is a company proxy, they have signed an agreement under which the authorized agent may accept an Insurance policy in the name of the insurer and thereby may perform work ahead. An authorized agent can have multiple principals.23
An Insurance contract which is established by direct contact between the policyholder and an authorized agent is rarely. Usually this channel is combined with the an intermediary. In that case, the policyholder goes to his or her intermediary. The intermediary
1
Wery & Mendel 2010, p. 12.
2 C.J. de Jong 2011, p. 210. 3 AFM.
17 takes the order and connects on behalf of the policyholder an Insurance - correspond agreement with an authorized agent who gets the risk through the proxy channel with the insurer whom he has a power of attorney agreement.
Intermediary
Next to the direct channel and the authorized agent there is the intermediary the third way to distribute Insurance policies. Practice shows that most Life Insurance contracts, do not come through the direct writers’ channel, but via an intermediary4
. Damage Insurance policies are nowadays (March 2016) mostly completed via the Direct Writer-distribution channel.
Often a middle man or a broker is an additional player in the relationship between the insurer and the policyholder. In this case the insurer still functions as the risk-taker of the client. It may be clear that this does not happen through an Insurance application directly to the insurer, but the intermediary link. This intermediary is the contractor of the policyholder and will look for an insurer to spend there the risk to be insured. The insurer is obviously a terminal and undertakes as the policyholder.
The activities of an intermediary consists of searching for information and giving advice, mediation or aftercare or a combination of one of these.5 The intermediary may thus occur at contracting Insurances, but also as premium collection, injury registration and settlement in the case of the damage. The relationship between the intermediary and the insurer and the rules that have to be complied with each other and to each other are laid down in terms of cooperation which often unilaterally drawn up by the insurer.
From the start of the Insurance regulations around players in the Insurance market has always been in motion. Various laws and amendments brought new players in the market
4Verbond van Verzekeraars & Verzekerd van Cijfers, 2015. 5 C.J. de Jong 2011, p. 47.
18 or put players right side. Today there are several types of agents who fall into several categories.6
Bound intermediary & independent intermediary
Bound agents are contractually bounded to hold one (or more) Insurance companies and therefore offer only the products that come from those insurers. The bound intermediary therefore does not examine or other insurers better represents the interests of the policyholder. An affiliated broker does not, they work without their own authorization name and on behalf of the insurer and only doing business with that insurer or - if it is not about competing products - multi insurers. An independent intermediary however, is not used or connected to one or more certain insurers and provides advice on all Insurance products from all insurers.7
The insurer who sells its product through the direct writer channel focuses on a different type than the intermediary.8 The policyholder chooses itself to agree to a more limited range of products if he or she acts with a direct writer. If the policyholder wants an extensive range, he or she can contact the independent intermediary.
In addition to the extensive range of ‘products’, the policyholder can find active support from the intermediary before, during and after the conclusion of the Insurance. Policyholders with little knowledge of Insurance or complex risks can be supported by the independent intermediary. An independent agent can choose the most suitable product for the customer, not like the insurer to be tied to just one own product. Through these services, this channel is more expensive than the direct channel, but the idea is that the extra efforts to ensure a more appropriate product and ultimately lower costs.
Bateson (1985), Schmidt & Spreng (1996) and Nordin, Brozovic and Holmlund (2013) investigate the challenges of disintermediation and show that people will not buy and search always by themselves. When products are too complex, there are too many
6
C.J. de Jong, 2011, p. 92-93.
7 Mulder, 1995, p. 76. 8 Dijkhuis, 2014, p. 26.
19 alternatives, too much risk, when there is not much (online and/or offline) information available or the financial sacrifice is high people are not that sure about their findings and are likely to make use of the service of an intermediary in that case.
Figure 2. Distribution channels Dutch Insurance
2.3 Information search and its costs and benefits
There has been a long tradition in empirical research on consumers ‘information-search behavior, especially in marketing. Engels, Blackwell and Miniard (1995) defined the consumers’ information search behavior as the motivated activity to search for information stored in memory (internal search) or acquisition of decision-relevant information from the environment (external search). This process starts when an individual recognizes a need for a problem (Crotts, 1999). The information search is possible through multiple sources. Beatty and Smith (1987) showed that search effort is positively related to purchase involvement, time availability and attitude towards shopping.
20 But why do people search? Most of the literature is about information search for the benefits in costs (Ratchford, 1982; Punj and Staelin, 1983; Chorus, Molin, and Wee, 2006). On the other side there is literature that states that people search for the difference between the expected utility of the current situation and the expected utility of the anticipated choice situation (Raiffa & Schlaifer, 1961; Gutman, 1982; Ackerberg, 2003).
Beatty and Smith (1987) showed that search effort is positively related to purchase involvement, time availability and attitude towards shopping. Beatty and Smith (1987) found seven categories in their literature review, that affect search. Six of these variables were proposed by Moore and Lehmann (1980), which are based on Newmann (1972) and Bettman (1979). The seven categories listed by Beatty and Smith (1987) are market environment, situational variables, potential payoff, knowledge and experience, individual differences, conflict and conflict resolution, and cost of search.
The prior behavior before consumers purchase, the so called, “pre-purchase information search”, is a widely reported term in the literature (DeSarbo & Choi, 1999). Search behavior of consumers begins when a consumer feels the need to know more about a product or store to make a purchase (Nederstigt & Poiesz, 2003).
Consumers are often uncertain and insecure about the outcome of a choice between alternatives and afraid of making the wrong choice. People try to reduce this risk and uncertainties, and search for information. This information may come from various sources, such as information from friends, flyers, shops, Internet etc. The literature distinguishes between two phases of search behavior, internal and external search behavior (Srinivasan and Ratchford, 1991; DeSarbo & Choi,1999; Hoyer & MacInnis, 2010).
Internal search behavior is the first phase of information search, consumers get product information back from their own memory (DeSarbo & Choi, 1999, Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). Consumers will generate a set of preferred alternatives. The degree of
21 internal search behavior can consist of information about brands, attitudes, evaluations, experiences and perceived risk (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2010). The more relevant experience, the less additional external information is needed. Decisions made only on internal based search information is mostly based on loyalty or sentiment. Time pressure and distractions may limit the process of internal search behavior (Nederstigt & Poiesz, 2003).
The consumer will use external search behavior (Bettman & Park, 1980), when there is not enough internal knowledge in their own memory. Consumers can collect additional external information as information about brands, attributes and benefits (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2010).
In reality, external search behavior precedes internal search behavior. A consumer is looking from its own needs. The results from the external search can be stored in memory of the consumer, so in subsequent search it is used as an internal source. These two types of search behavior are constantly repeated (Bettman, 1979, Bettman & Park, 1980). This research examines the influence of external information, online (and offline) sources. In answering the research, the emphasis is on external search behavior of consumers.
The extent to which consumers collect external information, depends on three characteristics (Claxton, Fry, and Portis, 1974). A distinction can be made in low and high involvement search behavior. According to Claxton et al. (1974) the amount of external search behavior depends on personal, situational and product-related characteristics. Personal characteristics are income, education, and engagement the consumer has with the purchase. These factors seem to be positively correlated with the degree of external search behavior. Situational characteristics are economic barriers (correlates negative), and the necessity of purchase (correlates positive). A consumer with economic barriers is probably less involved, but highly involved when it is necessary. Product-related characteristics which could play a role on high involvement external search behavior are the costs and function of a product.
22 As can be seen in Figure 3. Schmidt & Spreng (1996) investigate that these characteristics determine external search behavior. However Schmidt and Spreng (1996) divide these in four constructs: perceived ability to search, perceived motivation to search, perceived benefits of search and perceived costs of external search. When consumers have a greater perceived ability to search, it increases external information search activity. According to Schmidt and Spreng (1996) the motivation for external information search activity is influenced by the perceived benefits and costs perception. For as long as the perceived costs are lower than the perceived benefits, the consumer is likely motivated to external information search (Bettman & Luce, 1998).
Figure 3. External information search activity (Schmidt & Spreng, 1996)
The expected benefits of the search can be seen as the additional value provided by the search for information in the consumer perception. The consumer interprets this benefits as lower when one is already highly satisfied with the previous purchase. Because of the subjective knowledge consumers perceive this (external) information as less valuable and thus the benefits as lower. Consumers consider benefits for external information searching higher when the perceived risk and situational involvement with the purchase are high. A lot of
23 options increases the perceived benefits by external search. Defined by Bettman (1979) the costs of searching for information can be defined as: consumers’ subjective judgment of economic cost, time, physical activity, psychological effort to seek information. The expected costs are reduced when consumers have subjective knowledge about the purchase. The expected costs are perceived as lower when information is easily available. In contrast the expected costs can be perceived as high, when there are many different option and people have time pressure and the products is complex (Schmidt & Spreng, 1996).
According to the literature above, it can be assumed that the consumer proceeds external search behavior before making a purchase when its motivation to search, on the basis of need recognition, costs and benefits, is sufficiently high, only if its ability to search information is high. But at what point of the costs and benefits or why will people choose for an intermediary?
2.3.1 Different information sources
The external information can come from different sources. Interpersonal and independent sources are the most reliable and objective sources in the perception of the consumer (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2010). Online information leads to an increase in accessibility and availability, time savings, money and energy savings in the perception of the consumers. These savings on search costs seem to have positive impact on the motivation to seek (Punj & Staelin, 1983). In this thesis the focus will be on the external information sources: intermediary and the search for information by yourself (‘do it yourself’).
There is a lot of (marketing) literature about the complex searching and shopping behavior from consumers in the multichannel environment. This literature includes the Internet and the traditional retailing as well. A major discussed subject in research is channel choice. Verhoef, Neslin and Vroonen (2007) stated that the emphasis stems from the attention on the stages of consumer’s decision process where customers use different channels. Besides
24 that there is an increasing number of customers that search information via multiple channels (offline and online).
The Insurance-market has to deal with offline (for example intermediaries) and online channels as information source. Schoenbachler and Gordon (2002) summarize the multichannel customer as follow: “The multichannel consumer is not a coherent beast using any or all of the channels in a consistent way. Some will choose to browse the Web so as to gather the information then toddle on down to the store to negotiate a purchase face-to-face with the seller. Others go the whole hog online – searching, choosing, negotiating and buying using this medium. In between lie all the others who use the different channels according to preferences, perceived convenience and availability.”
According to Elliott et al. (2012) the channel selection phenomenon can be explored from the economic perspective of substitutability. They stated that the value of a using one channel for information search is increased when its utility (e.g., informativeness, accuracy, enjoyment, etc.) increases or when the costs of using another channel (e.g., time, cognitive effort) is increased. Elliot et al. (2012) did a research about Car-Insurance and this study offers six potential segments of customers for two distinct stages in the consumer decision-making process: search and purchase. Channel selection for information search phase can utilize either single (e.g., online or offline) or multiple (online and offline) channels.
In their research, Elliot et al. (2012) found out that pure “offliners” and dual-search “offliners” tend to have similar belief patterns. These segments believe that buying from agents (directly) saves money, is more entertaining, and informative. They also think that agents provide good service and that it is saver. Dual-search “offliners” and cross-channel “offliners” have similar beliefs on two dimensions: the accuracy and credibility of agents. But when they look at the pure “onliners” they found out that sales websites are better on all
25 dimensions, but not on the ease of use. Time savings is the belief that best discriminates among the multichannel search segments. They did their research on the variables: saves time, saves money, entertaining, easy to use, informative, accurate, credible, safe way to buy, and good service.
26 2.4 Conceptual framework
However, previous literature lacks in research about how (Dutch) people search and consider information search. When do people choose for an intermediary or when do they choose to search information by themselves? What influences perceived costs and benefits to find information about an insurance proposition by themselves or via an intermediary? And what makes the difference to choose in the end for ‘do it yourself’ as the preferred information source or to choose for an intermediary? And is there for example a switch point where the costs for ‘do it yourself’ are perceived as higher than costs to hire an intermediary as information source?
In previous paragraphs, where relevant literature on intermediaries, the Dutch insurance industry and the information search and sources has been discussed, have laid have laid the theoretical foundation required to approach the research part of this paper. This study aims to examine what influences people to choose for their preferred information source (by closing an Insurance). What do people see as the perceived costs and benefits for the information search by themselves? And what do people see as the perceived costs and benefits? And what if there are both costs and benefits for the “do it yourself” and the intermediary source? And when are perceived costs too high and will people choose the other option? This study focuses on variables that may influence the costs en benefits people perceive for 1 option or the other. Furthermore, this study will examine when and why people in the end choose for the “do it yourself” or an intermediary as the preferred information source.
Altogether, this paragraph elaborates on existing literature about why people are searching for external information for an insurance proposition. To give a good overview of the hypotheses, this paragraph provides a conceptual model that gives an overview of the relationships between the variables.
27
Figure 4. Conceptual model
The conceptual model of this thesis is showed in Figure 4. As searched by Schmidt & Spreng (1996), there are several determinants that motivates people to search for external information (by themselves). The conceptual model used in this research is based up on the model of Schmidt & Spreng (1996). In this conceptual model there are less determinants, and besides the Perceived Benefits of the searching by yourself (BenefitsDIY) and the Perceived Costs of the searching by yourself (CostsDIY), there are added two more factors. These factors are the Benefits of (hiring) an Intermediary (BenefitsINT) and de Costs of (hiring) an Intermediary as information source (CostsINT).
28 2.4.1 Factors
In this conceptual model are four factors which predict if people in the final stage of their pre-purchase stage will choose for the ‘Do it yourself’-search as the preferred information source or the intermediary as preferred information source. These four factors are the perceived costs en benefits of the self search and the perceived costs and the benefits of the use of an intermediary.
The perceived benefits of search are defined as outcomes that increase someone’s utility or provide value by facilitating achievement of higher level goals or values (Gutman, 1982). These benefits are linked to the higher levels values (from the means-end-chain) and would involve outcomes such as getting the product with the lowest price or the highest quality, or increased satisfaction with the decision or product (Bettman, 1979).
The perceived costs of information search is defined by (Bettman, 1979) as followed: the consumer’s subjective assessment of the monetary expenditure (e.g., gas, purchasing informational materials), time sacrifice (e.g., the ability to do something else), physical effort (e.g., going to stores, frustration), that he or she expends searching for information. Increased perceived search costs lead to decreased motivation to search. But is it a plus when an intermediary is searching for you?
2.4.2 Determinants
In this conceptual model are six determinants which (could) have influence on the perceived costs and benefits of the ‘Do it yourself’-search and the perceived costs and benefits of an intermediary as information source.
Product complexity
More complex products have more attributes to examine or determine which are the most important. As the consumer makes the decision regarding the extent of the information search that will be conducted for a given product, the more complex the product, the more it will cost
29 to gain a particular level of understanding through searching and processing information. Gatignon, Huberg, and Robertson (1991) found that the complexity of the product reduces the diffusion rate because it is more difficult for the consumer to learn about the product and to search for information or to consult information sources. The perceived complexity of an Insurance leads to the following hypotheses:
H1a: Higher perceived product complexity positively correlates with CostsDIY H1b: Higher perceived product complexity positively correlates with BenefitsINT Information accessibility
Information accessibility deals with the extent to which information is available and accessible to the consumer in a format that the consumer can use (Bettman, 1979). The more accessible the information is in the environment, the lower the cost will be to search and process the information (Bettman, Johnson, and Payne,1991). Olshavsky and Wymer (1995) argued that consumers form intentions for collecting information and that the ease of collecting this information influences whether or not these intentions are fulfilled. It is proposed that when consumers can easily access information, their use of this information will increase because the cost of searching for information is reduced. Information accessibility will be higher when consumers are aware of the availability of information and it is in a format that is easy to understand. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H2a: Higher perceived information accessibility has a positive relationship with CostsDIY
H2b: Higher perceived information accessibility has a negative relationship BenefitsINT Larger number of alternatives
When the number of alternatives increases, consumers tend to use phased strategies in which some alternatives are eliminated, followed by more effortful processing of the remaining alternatives (e.g., Olshavsky, 1979; Payne, 1976). Larger evoked set sizes imply greater
30 cognitive costs in evaluating alternatives and greater time costs in this processing, which leads to the following hypotheses:
H3a: A larger perceived number of alternatives correlates positively with CostsDIY H3b: A larger perceived number of alternatives correlates negatively with CostsINT H3c: A larger perceived number of alternatives correlates negatively with BenefitsDIY H3d: A larger perceived number of alternatives correlates positively with BenefitsINT Time pressure
Time pressure reflects the consumer’s perception of the availability of time and is expected to increase one’s perception of time sacrifice (e.g. ability to do something else). In a study of consumer electronic appliances, Beatty and Smith (1987) found that information search by yourself increases with greater time availability. Consumers, spend more time searching for products (and evaluating information) when their current product is still in operating order. The notion that constraints on one’s time lead to less information search has been found across numerous studies (e.g., Moore and Lehman, 1980; Newman and Stealin, 1971, 1972; Payne, Bettman, and Johnson, 1988; Wilkie and Dickson, 1985). This information leads to the following hypotheses:
H4a: Time pressure increases the perceived CostsDIY H4b: Time pressure increases the perceived BenefitsINT Perceived financial sacrifice
One benefit from searching (either by DIY and INT) is to get the lowest price for a given level of quality. Past research has shown that consumers undertake more search activity when the cost of a product is high than they do when the price is low. Udell (1966) found that consumers visit more stores when making purchases from more expensive product categories. When the Insurance costs are higher you would expect that people would make more use of an intermediary and that the costs of DIY are higher.
31 H5a: Higher perceived financial sacrifice correlates positively with CostsDIY
H5b: Higher perceived financial sacrifice correlates positively with BenefitsINT Perceived risk
Perceived risk has been suggested to increase information search because one way of reducing risk is to obtain more information. One aspect of risk is performance risk, which is the concern over whether the product will perform as desired. Physical risk is a concern for the safety of the consumer and others. Past research has indicated that consumers search more when purchasing products that are more risky (Beatty and Smith, 1987; Capon and Burke, 1977,1980; Cunningham, 1967; Moore and Lehman, 1980; Srinivasan; 1987). So, it could be expected that when the risk of an Insurance is perceived as higher, it will influence the Costs of self-search and it positively influences the Benefits of an intermediary:
H6a: Higher perceived risk correlates positively with CostsDIY H6b: Higher perceived risk correlates positively with BenefitsINT
2.4.3 Demographics
Several demographic variables including education, and age, have been shown to be related to access and adoption of Internet technology as information source (Ratchford, Lee, & Talukdar, 2003). Intensity of search effort has been variously defined as time spent gathering information Ratchford et al., 2003). Levin, Levin and Weller (2005) have considered consumer preference for online or offline sources. The demographics used in the survey are age, gender, highest level of education and internet use in hours per week. The hypotheses followed by the Demographics are:
H7: Type of Insurance (Life or Damage) has no influence on people’s perception of the different Determinants (6).
32 H8: The amount of times people already used an intermediary has no influence on the perceived benefits of an intermediary.
33 3. Data & method
This chapter outlines the empirical part of this study. The purpose of the research is to examine what influences people to choose for an intermediary as their preferred information source in a pre-purchase process. Which determinants influence the costs and the benefits of self-search (DIY) or through an intermediary (INT)? When do people have the intention to choose for an intermediary as preferred information sources and what influences their intention? A survey strategy was conducted to answer the research question. First, the design and sample of the research are presented. Then the variables are described. Finally, a brief description of the data analyses approach is provided to test the hypotheses. The complete survey can be found in Appendix A.
3.1 Design
The hypotheses in this study were tested by using the Independent t-test to test the differences between the Life and Damage Insurance groups. One-way ANOVA-tests were done to measure the differences in means between the use of an intermediary (0,1, or more than 1 time use), to measure the differences in means of age (3 groups), and the internet use (0-5 hours, 5-10, or more than 10 hours a week online). Correlation analysis was done to measure the one on one relationships between the scale-variables (e.g., BenefitsDIY, CostsINT, Complexity, Info Accessibility, etc.) and the regression analysis was done to measure the causality between the variables.
A quantitative research method is most appropriate for this research since the of this method is on building and testing theory (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). Furthermore, quantitative data methods allow to compare data more easily and to conduct a statistical analysis on the data (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).
In order to test the relationships, as proposed in the hypotheses in chapter 2.4, a self-administered questionnaire is conducted. A self-administrated questionnaire provides a
34 relatively straightforward and uncomplicated approach to research attitudes, like factors that influences people in this study (Robson, 2011). For the main study online data collection method “Qualtrics” was used. Qualtrics provides a cheap option to easily design and distribute an online survey. A self-administered survey reduces interviewer bias and is able to provide anonymity towards the respondents. The data analyses of this research was done using the statistical computer program “SPSS”, which allows searching for statistical correlations and is helpful in formulating research conclusions.
3.2 Sample
As before mentioned, research is conducted using a self-administered survey. Since the thesis research is focused on the Dutch Insurance industry the setting for the research is the Netherlands. Data was collected from Dutch people who are 18 years of age and over, who are legally obliged to have an health-Insurance. These respondents already have a Life or Damage Insurance or are expected to close one in the near future. The survey has been online for a period of 7 days, from August 7 until August 13. Almost all questions in the survey were measured on a 5-point Likert-scale (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree).
Before sending the “official” survey, there was a pre-test that was done by 21 respondents. This pre-test was done to test the reliability and the underlying constructs of the data set. Almost all the questions were related to the different variables and showed homogeneity, almost all Cronbach’s Alpha were at least .70. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is considered to be appropriate when at least 0.70 and necessary to ensure that the internal consistency of the items on a scale is high (Field, 2009). Even though a value of .70 for the Cronbach’s Alpha is generally accepted, it is important to note that the value of α depends on the number of items on the scale (Field, 2009). To make all scales that are used to measure the variables were higher than .70 and reach internal consistency two questions were deleted. One question from BenefitsDIY was deleted (“Ik vond/vind familie en vrienden een
35 betrouwbare informatiebron voor deze verzekering.”) and one question from the intention to use an intermediary as the preferred information source (IntentionINT ) was deleted (“De hoogte van de advieskosten zijn bepalend of ik gebruik maak van een tussenpersoon.”).
After this pre-test the potential respondents were contacted through e-mail and social media from which they received the link from the self-administered survey. In total 275 potential respondents received the anonymous link via e-mail and an unknown number of potential respondents received the link via social media. Therefore, it was not possible to determine an accurate response rate because the number of how many people responded to the link via social media is unknown. Regardless of the way through which potential respondents were contacted in total 205 respondents opened the link. This resulted in a sample size of this study of a total of 205 respondents (N=205).
36 4. Results
This chapter gives an overview of the results of the hypotheses presented in Chapter 2.4. The first paragraph of this section presents the preliminary data analyses. The second paragraph presents an overview of the hypotheses testing. Closing this chapter, paragraph three shows the additional analyses that were conducted.
4.1 Preliminary analysis
Prior to the data analysis of the hypotheses, it is necessary to prepare the data for analyses. For this reason the data set is firstly checked for missing data. The survey had set a timer when the page was submitted of which the respondents were not aware. This timer measured the time it took a respondent to read and fill in the survey. As a result, respondents who spent less than three minutes (180 seconds) or more than thirty minutes (1800 seconds) after submitting the page, were excluded from the analyses. From the 205 respondents who opened the link, 174 respondents completed the survey in the given time.
Some of these 174 respondents had more than two open answers, so these respondents were excluded from the analyses as well. 5 people finished the survey in time, but they had more than two open answers. For this reason these respondents are eliminated from the data set resulting in a data set from 169 respondents. After cleaning the data set from missing values, descriptive analyses were conducted, such as frequency analysis, in order to outline the demographics of the respondents included in this study and to measure the reliability of the collected data.
4.1.1 Respondents
Of all the responses that were useful for the analyses (n=169), 49.1% was female and 50.9% was male. The majority of the respondents, 43.5%, belong to the age group 18 – 35 years old, 35,1% of the respondents belong to the age group 36 – 55 years old, 21,4% was older than 55. The frequency analysis of educational level showed that most respondents have a bachelor
37 degree (36.9%), followed by a large proportion having a university degree (29.8%) and the rest of the respondents having a lower educational degree (33.3%).
Most of the respondents (43.8%) are more than 10 hours online, followed by a large group (40.8%) who are online between 5 and 10 hours a week, the smallest part (15.4%) only makes use of the internet for less than 5 hours per week. With regard to the kind of Insurance, 43.5% of the respondents have answered the questions thinking about a Life Insurance and 56.5% thought about Damage Insurance. Most of the respondents has used an intermediary more than once (53.9%), 23.4% used the service of an intermediary only once and 22.8% did not used an intermediary at all.
4.1.2 Reliability check
In order to test the reliability and the underlying constructs of the data set, a reliability test using Cronbach’s Alpha was conducted. Before running the Cronbach’s Alpha on scale items, some code items that are negatively worded are reverse coded. Results from the reliability tests showed that all scales used to measure the variables were higher than .70 and therefore internal consistent. Table 1. represents an overview of the Cronbach’s Alpha and the number of items on the scale.
Scale
Number ofitems
Cronbach's Alpha coefficient
General thoughts about an Intermediary 8 α .886
General thoughts about DIY 8 α .804
Benefits DIY 4 α .744
Costs DIY 5 α .816
Benefits INT 5 α .826
Costs DIY 4 α .786
Intention to use an Intermediary as preferred information source 9 α .816
38 After measuring the Cronbach’s Alpha per scale, an additional test was conducted to measure whether deleting an item on the scale would improve the reliability of the scale. Outcomes showed that the Cronbach’s Alpha would not improve significantly from deleting an item and therefore no adjustments were made to the scales.
4.2 Hypotheses testing 4.2.1 Product complexity
For the first two hypotheses it is assumed that higher perceived complexity positively correlates with both CostsDIY and BenefitsINT. To test hypotheses 1a and 1b, correlation and regression analyses are conducted. Firstly, the relationship between the independent (Product complexity) and the two dependent variables are visualized in scatter plots (see Figure 5. and Figure 6.).
Figure 5. Scatterplot CostsDIY Figure 6. Scatterplot BenefitsINT
Table 2 represents the numeric results that go along with the outcomes of the scatterplots. According to Evans (1996) these outcomes (yellow marked) show that the level of Product complexity correlates moderate positively (r = .557**) with the CostsDIY (yellow), and Product complexity correlates strong positively (r=.610**) with the
39 BenefitsINT. As can be seen the correlations are both significant at the .01 level (p<0.01) the correlation is very significant, the risk of an accident is near low. The closer the value is to 1 or -1, the stronger the linear correlation is.
For further interpretation of these relationships, linear regression analyses were conducted for both relations. As can been seen in table 3 the needed values are marked in yellow (regression Product complexity and CoststDIY and regression Product Complexity and BenefitsINT). Hypothesis 1a can be supported. The value of ß is .375** (p<.01), so there is a positive relationship between the perceived Product complexity and the CostsDIY. The more complex the product is, the higher the costs of searching information about an Insurance by themselves. In this sample the Product complexity is most important predictor, because it has the largest impact on CostsDIY.
Furthermore in Table 3 can be seen that the yellow marked value (regression Product complexity and BenefitsINT) has ß .312** (p<.01), so there is a significant positive relationship between the Product complexity and BenefitsINT. Hypothesis 1b can also be supported.
4.2.2 Information accessibility
While the first two hypotheses analyzed the relationship between de Product complexity and the Costs of DIY and the benefits of an intermediary, the next two hypotheses are about the influence of Information accessibility on Costs and Benefits. To test these hypotheses, correlation and regression analyses were conducted.
40 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 IntPrefINT 3.62 .68 2 BenefitsDIY 3.19 .90 -.482** 3 CostsDIY 3.66 .80 .632** -.612** 4 BenefitsINT 3.66 .80 .778** -.480** .755** 5 CostsINT 2.62 .89 -.567** .365** -.520** -.687** 6 Complexity 3.81 1.19 .489** -.154* .557** .610** -.452** 7 Information accessibility 3.74 .94 -.122 .164* -.105 -.115 -.056 -.034
8 Larger number of alternatives 4.02 .82 .135 .135 .005 .043 -.128 .169* .246**
9 Time pressure 3.44 1.25 .245** -.010 .193* .282** -.198** .430** .099 .284**
10 Financial sacrifice 3.88 1.12 .335** -.045 .304** .435** -.382** .634** -.042 .209** .415**
11 Perceived risk 3.45 1.30 .436** -.141 .436** .539** -.406** .685** -.113 .107 .425** .670**
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Table 2. Correlation Matrix 5 Factors and 6 Determinants
41 Table 3. Regression Matrix 6 Determinants and 4 Factors
Table 2 represents the numeric results of the correlation analysis. According to Evans (1996) the outcome (green marked) shows that the level of Information accessibility has a very weak negatively correlation (r=-.105) with CostsDIY. Whereas p>.05, there can be concluded that there is in this research no linear correlation between Information accessibility and CostsDIY. This is affirmed in Table 3 (ß=-.048). When there is more information accessible the respondents do not feel that the CostsDIY are higher in this research. Hypothesis 2a is not supported.
The outcomes in Table 2 (r=-.115) and Table 3 (ß=-.055) show that there is a very week negatively correlation between Information accessibility and BenefitsINT. Because p>.05, the relationship is not significant, this means that Hypothesis 2b is not supported.
BenefitsDIY CostsDIY BenefitsINT CostsINT
Product complexity -.136 .375** .312** -.220**
(.084) (.064) (.060) (.075)
Information accessibility .115 -.048 -.055 -.081
(.076) (.057) (.054) (.068)
Larger number of alternatives .129 -.053 -.043 -.037
(.089) (.068) (.063) (.080) Time pressure .013 -.024 .007 .044 (.064) (.048) (.045) (.057) Financial sacrifice .085 -.091 -.001 -.085 (.088) (.066) (.062) (.078) Perceived risk -.066 .097 .132* -.112 .081 (.061) (.057) (.072) Adjusted R² .037 .311 .385 .210 * p < .05 ** p < .01
42 4.2.3 Larger number of alternatives
To test the four hypotheses according to a larger number of alternatives, also a correlation and regression analyses were conducted. As can been seen in Table 2, according to the red marked values of BenefitsDIY (r=.135, p>.05), CostsDIY (r=.005, p>.05) and BenefitsINT (r=.043, p>.05), there can be concluded that there is a not significant very weak positive correlation between those 3 Factors and the Larger number of alternatives. Hypotheses 3a, 3c, 3d are not supported.
For Hypothesis 3b, there can be seen in Table 2 that there is a not significant very weak negative correlation (r=-.128, p>.05) between a Larger number of alternatives and the CostsINT. Because the correlation is not significant the Hypothesis (3b) is not supported.
4.2.4 Time pressure
To test the two hypotheses about Time pressure and the increasing perceived CostsDIY and the hypothesis that states that time pressure increases perceived BenefitsINT the findings of the correlation analysis can be found in Table 2. According to the light blue marked value of CostsDIY (r=.193*, p<.05), there can be concluded that there is a significant weak positive correlation found between Time pressure and the CostsDIY. Comparing these findings to the values in Table 3 (also light blue marked) there is a different result (ß=-.024, p>.05). There is no causal relationship found in the regression analysis. This means that H4a is not supported, but an effect is found.
The strength of correlation between Time pressure and BenefitsINT is, according to Table 2 (r=.282*, p<.05) and Evans (1996) positively weak. Table 3 shows the results of the regression analysis (ß=-.007, p>.05), which means that there is no causal relationship found in this research between Time pressure and BenefitsINT. H4b is not supported, but an effect is found.
