hi family decision making
DESCRIPTION
Research paper on Family decision making in Health InsuranceTRANSCRIPT
Topic
Family Decision Making Pattern and Framework for Health
Insurance
Authors
Mr. Sujit Kumar Patra Ms. Chunku Pani
Asst. Professor Asst. Professor
Institute of management & Information Institute of management & Information
Science (IMIS) Science (IMIS)
Email Id- [email protected] Email Id- [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
Mobile No. – 9583312434 Mobile No.- 9937022278
Mailing Address- Swagat Vihar Mailing Address- Swagat Vihar
Bankuala Bankuala
Bhubaneswar-751002 Bhubaneswar-751002
Family Decision Making Pattern and Framework for Health Insurance
Sujit Kumar Patra1 Chunku Pani2
Abstract
Families constitute an important economic and social unit that affects consumption decisions
of individual family members. Of all the reference groups, family has one of the strongest,
immediate, and most pervasive effects on consumer's psyche.
The family’s decision-making process has been studied by researchers for years. Although
the knowledge has increased substantially on this topic, research has generally focused on
goods. Since services continue to dominate Indian GDP and Insurance plays a very dominant
role in increasing the GDP, understanding the behavior of the family while buying health
insurance becomes critical.
Family decision-making research has frequently examined role relationship between husband
and wife across stages and sub-decisions. In this study it is being tried to find out, the role
played by parents and children other than husband and wife in family decision-making
process and how does a family decide on a financial product such as a Health Insurance
Product.
Keywords: Family decision making, Health Insurance, Family Role, Decision making,
Consumer Behavior
2
Introduction
The family has been identified as the most essential decision making and consumption unit
(Assael, 1998). Therefore the realm has attracted the interest of marketers and marketing
academicians over the years (e.g., Kim and Lee, 1997; Moore et al., 2002; Shoham &
Dalakas, 2005). For many consumer purchase decisions, it is the family rather than the
individual that is the critical decision making and consumption unit. This idea has been
recognized by researchers for some time: joint decision-making has been reported in the
areas of home purchasing (Cunningham and Green 1974; Davis and Rigaux 1974;
Munsinger, Weber, and Hasen 1975), automobile purchasing, and home furnishings (Davis
1970;Green and Cunningham 1975).
“Decision-making” describes the process by which families make choices, judgments, and
ultimately come to conclusions that guide behaviors. Family decision-making entails that
more than one member’s input and accord is involved (Scanzoni & Polonko 1980).
The decision-making process is centered on core communication processes involved in
creating shared meaning. In the decision-making process, families can accept the differences
among members and confer their needs for imminence and independence (Baxter &
Montgomery 1996). Davis has identified various stages in the decision-making process and
the relative amount of influence each of the family members has in these stages (Davis 1970,
1971; Davis and Rigaux 1974). Others have also considered the differences in perceived
influence of the husband and wife (Ferber and Lee 1974; Filatrault and Ritchie 1980). Haley,
Overholser, and Associates (1975) measured both the direct and indirect (taking the
husband’s wife’s preference into consideration) influence of the husband and wife in the
purchase of 87 packaged products. Other studies have begun to consider the determinants of
role structure, such as empathy and involvement (Burns 1977; Bums and Granbois 1977).
According to Shets (1974), joint decision making is more likely in the following situations: 1)
when the level of perceived risk in buying is high, 2) when the purchasing decision is more
important to the family, 3) when there are few time pressures, and 4) for certain demographic
3
groups (e.g. upper and lower socio economic groups, younger families, those with no
children, and those with only one of the parents working).
Decisions within families can be classified into types such as: instrumental, affective, Socio-
economic, and technical. Instrumental decisions are those that focus on issues of money,
health, shelter, and food for the family members (Epstein et al. 1982).
Family members play a variety of roles in decision-making. There are five roles that could be
played by the members of the family. In any given situation, the same member may take on
several or even all five roles (Assael 1992): The information gatherer (gatekeeper), the
influencer, the decision maker, the purchasing agent, and the end consumer.
These studies have been very important in developing a basic understanding of family buying
patterns. However, as suggested by Davis (1976), most past studies have focused only on the
outcomes of the decision-making process, rather than on the process itself. The result is that
very little is known about how families reach decisions.
Influence of children
Research on family decision making has been largely confined to spouses, who have been
considered as the relevant decision making unit in a family. However, the role of third party
influences, such as children, on decision making strategies and negotiations is essential to
taking a broader view of the relevant unit of analysis. Conventionally, women were seen to
be the purchasing agents for the family. Nevertheless, increasing participation of women in
the workforce has prompted a shift in this role as children are increasingly the “buyers” for
the entire family. Even in families where women do not work, children are observed to share
this role with their mothers. Children enjoy greater prudence not only in making everyday
consumption decisions for the family but also in influencing their parents to buy other
products desired by them. The temperament and disposition of each child can greatly vary
within the same family. Foxman et al. (1989) concluded that children tend to have more
“say” in the purchase of products that are less expensive and for their own use.
Contemporary researchers express that children constitute a major consumer market, with
direct purchasing power for snacks and sweets, and indirect purchase influence while
shopping for big-ticket items (Halan, 2002; Singh, 1998). Consequently, the relationship
between parents and different siblings is dynamic and unique, with each individual
responding to and modifying the behavior of the other (e.g., Pecchioni et al. 2005). Geuens et
al. (2002) observed that the relative influence of children varies by the extent to which the
parents are busy.
4
Indian children have recently attracted substantial attention from marketers because the
market for children’s products offers fabulous potential (pegged at Rs. 5000 crore/$1110mn)
and is rapidly growing. According to available industry data, 54% of India is estimated to be
under the age of 25 (Bansal, 2004).
Family Decision Making in India
According to Webster (2000), “India is an interesting culture in which to explore the
antecedents of marital power because its social and intellectual grains operate in ways vastly
different from those the West takes for granted. For instance, unlike western culture, where
the nuclear and neo local families are both the ideological and factual norm, the joint family
has been and continues to be an important element of Indian culture.”
Family Decision Stages
Just as there are different purchase roles, there are also a number of different steps in the
decision to buy a product or service. And the amount of influence exerted by the husband,
wife and children will vary, depending on the stage of the decision process.
Following is the five-stage decision-making model which includes:
1. Problem recognition
2. Search for information
3. Evaluation of alternatives
4. Final decision
5. Purchase
The role of husband, wife and children will differ across the stages. There can thus be shifts
in the husband-wife decision-making from stage one of problem recognition, to stage two of
search for information and finally, to the decision. Marketers should therefore examine
husband-wife decision-making in terms of specific purchase factors.
Health Insurance Family Decision Making
Jennifer Schultz, Roger Feldman & Jon Christianson et al. (2002) has evaluated the health
insurance choices of families enrolled in a direct contracting model developed by an
employer purchasing alliance.
5
Families are often uniquely qualified in terms of understanding patient attitudes and decision
making strategies and can therefore assist as an important resource in helping the patient to
make better decisions about their care (Blustein 1998).
Families make decisions about health issues using information from a variety of sources,
including insurance provider lists, internet research, recommendations from primary care
physicians and specialists, interpersonal communication with friends and family members,
and mediated messages (see Pecchioni & Sparks 2007).
The decisions made by families involve large amounts of money and, it is necessary to
understand as much as possible about this consumption unit. In this section we will examine
how families make their purchase decision. How many members are involved in each
decision? How are they involved? How does this influence work on the outcome? What is the
best way to reach them?
As in other small groups, there is a well defined role structure in families as well, as you
would find if you apply this concept to your own family. Thus, there is the Instrumental role,
usually taken by the head of the family for the achievement of specific goals. In addition,
there is the expressive role undertaken by the wife and other family members to provide
emotional support to the functioning of the family group. In addition to this goal-oriented
behavior there is also a set of purchase roles undertaken by family members.
Emerging health insurance market
Health insurance in a narrow sense would be ‘an individual or group purchasing health care
coverage in advance by paying a fee called premium.’ In its broader sense, it would be any
arrangement that helps to defer, delay, reduce or altogether avoid payment for health care
incurred by individuals and households. Given the appropriateness of this definition in the
Indian context, this is the definition, we would adopt. The health insurance market in
India is very limited covering about 10% of the total population. The existing schemes can be
categorized as:
(1) Voluntary health insurance schemes or private-for-profit schemes;
(2) Employer-based schemes;
(3) Insurance offered by NGOs / community based health insurance, and
(4) Mandatory health insurance schemes or government run schemes (namely ESIS, CGHS).
6
In recent years, there has been a liberalization of the Indian healthcare sector to allow for a
much-needed private insurance market to emerge. Due to liberalization and a growing middle
class with increased spending power, there has been an increase in the number of insurance
policies issued in the country. In 2001-02, 7.5 million policies were sold. By 2003-04, the
number of policies issued had increased by 37%, to 10.3 million.
Still, it is quite disheartening to find that Insurance is limited to only a small proportion of
people in the organized sector covering less than 10% of the total population. Currently, there
is no mechanism or infrastructure for collecting mandatory premium among the large
informal sector. Even in terms of the existing schemes, there is insufficient and inadequate
information about the various schemes. Data gaps also prevail. Much of the focus of the
existing schemes is on hospital expenses. There continues to be lack of awareness among
people about health insurance. Hence, this study was made to find out how a family as a
buying unit behaves while purchasing a Health Insurance product.
Importance of the study:
Families are more complex to understand as compared to individual consumers for specific
roles played by family members undergo dynamic and continuous changes because of
psychographic and attitudinal metamorphosis. Some families remain essentially traditional in
their life styles following the traditional role patterns and relationships, while others adopt
more materialistic orientations; wherein the individual family member becomes of prime
importance because of his individuality. In such families, the choice of each individual needs
to be considered independently and every individual priority owes due consideration before
the final decision outcome. Still, some other families are left in between-trying to adopt the
modern life style and at the same time confining to the traditional norms and values. The
roles and relationships in such families follow an entirely different pattern. These shifts are
also being increasingly caused by participation of women in the labor force. The dual-career
families, within a social stratum, have relatively greater discretionary income to buy products
that are otherwise sometimes out of reach, for single-earner families. Not only are the buying
structures different, but also the persons involved in the purchase and use of these products
differ due to various factors playing in the family, one of which is the time pressure
experienced by women in such families.
7
Such a study is important for the marketers, as in the current business scenario, the choice of
which health insurance to purchase has become crucial in the Indian economy, especially
since today it is a service driven one.
Objectives of the study:
The authors had the following objectives for this study:
To understand the family’s decision making process.
To identify the factors those contribute to the family’s decision making process
while buying health insurance.
To attempt to provide a framework of buying behavior among Indian families
while purchasing health insurance.
In order to fulfill their first objectives, the authors have framed 3 Hypothesis for their study.
Hypothesis
H01: There is an association between family and health Insurance purchase Initiation
H11: There is no association between family and health Insurance purchase Initiation
H02: Family has a role in evaluation of alternatives
H12: Family does not have a role in evaluation of alternatives
H03: An association exists between HI purchase and the final decision made by the Family
H13: An association exists between HI purchase and the final decision made by the Family
Methodologies:
The following methodologies were adopted for this study:
Type and Design of the Study:
This study is exploratory in nature and attempt was taken to explore the roles
adopted by various members of the family.
Sample Criteria:
The scope of this research encompassed the family’s decision-making process
while buying health insurance in India. The sampling technique used was
convenient sampling. Due to scarcity of resources equal representation in each
8
of the resources category could not be reached. A total of 80 samples were
collected for this study.
Sample Selection:
The sample is restricted to Indian families residing in metros and Tier-II cities.
Data Collection:
Data were collected from both primary and secondary sources. The secondary
source includes internet, brochures, pamphlets, published and unpublished
reports etc, where as the primary sources include, interactions, structured and
unstructured interviews, administration of questionnaire, directive brain
storming etc.
Analysis:
The data analysis has been done using frequency and Chi square tests to find
out the implications as set in the objectives.
Questionnaire description
The interviewees to whom the questionnaire was administered were assured of
anonymity. The survey was conducted online with the help of googledocs. The
questionnaire was mostly of close ended type except for one question which
required short open ended answers. The questionnaire for this study is shown
in Annexure 1.
9
Result Analysis and Discussion
The Authors consolidated the information received through both primary and secondary
research material and the following analysis was done.
The demographic analysis showed that out of the 80 respondents, 18 belonged to the age
group of 26-30 and 15 belonged to the age group of 31-35. This constituted 42% of the
respondents. The age group 26-30 and 31-35 seems to be more sensitive towards purchasing
Health Insurance. If we go by theory, the first stage is primarily the bachelor and new married
stage without children. Out of the 18 respondents belonging to the age group of 26-30, 9 are
single and 9 are married with no children. It is interesting to note that all the people belonging
to these two groups already have a Health Insurance, barring 9. The gender distribution is as
follows. 13 of the respondents are women and 67 are men. Out of the 3 female respondents, 4
are single (either divorced /widow or spinster).
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 18-25 9 11.2 11.2 11.2
26-30 18 22.5 22.5 33.8
31-35 15 18.8 18.8 52.5
36-40 12 15.0 15.0 67.5
41-50 12 15.0 15.0 82.5
51-60 8 10.0 10.0 92.5
>60 6 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid male 67 83.8 83.8 83.8
2 13 16.2 16.2 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
Marital Status
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
10
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 18-25 9 11.2 11.2 11.2
26-30 18 22.5 22.5 33.8
31-35 15 18.8 18.8 52.5
36-40 12 15.0 15.0 67.5
41-50 12 15.0 15.0 82.5
51-60 8 10.0 10.0 92.5
>60 6 7.5 7.5 100.0
Valid married 51 63.8 63.8 63.8
single 29 36.2 36.2 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
Table 1-Demography
72% of the respondents said they have Health Insurance.
HaveHI
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid yes 58 72.5 72.5 72.5
no 22 27.5 27.5 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
Table 2- Percentage of respondents having Health Insurance
Stages of HI Decision making
The following set of analysis took care of the first objective ie to understand the
family’s decision making process. As per the literature on Consumer Behavior and
Decision making, it is seen that decision making has 5 stages-initiations being the first
stage. The following frequency analysis table gives a snapshot of the initiative stage
of decision making.
11
Initiative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid you 55 68.8 70.5 70.5
spouse 7 8.8 9.0 79.5
Parents 7 8.8 9.0 88.5
Children 9 11.2 11.5 100.0
Total 78 97.5 100.0
Missing System 2 2.5
Total 80 100.0
Table 3- Initiative for HI purchase
In 69% of the cases, the respondent himself took the initiative to purchase HI. Spouse
influence was only 9%. Out of these 55 respondents who are the initiators themselves, 8 are
female. Out of the 47 male respondents who themselves took the initiative to buy HI, 32 were
married. And even after that the spouse initiative is on a lower side. Out of these 32 married
respondents, 11 of the respondents’ wives are working ladies. If we go buy the recent
research on spouse influence, it can be said that working wives’ influence in initializing a
buying decision is reducing.
In all the 7 cases, where the Parents played the initiator’s role, the respondent is single
barring one. So, it can be said that a small percentage of single bachelors are still not the
initiators as far as buying HI is concerned. 9 respondents said that their children took the
initiative. When we look at the demography of these 9 respondents, we find that all are in
between 50-60 barring 2. Hence, it is evident that people beyond 50 and dependant on their
children are not the initiators.
Information search
12
InfoSearch
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid You 55 68.8 72.4 72.4
Spouse 7 8.8 9.2 81.6
Parents 6 7.5 7.9 89.5
Children 8 10.0 10.5 100.0
Total 76 95.0 100.0
Missing System 4 5.0
Total 80 100.0
Table 4- Information search for HI purchase
Information sourcing, an important stage in buying process, too shows a similar kind of
nature. Spouse influence is same as compared to Initiation.
Evaluation of alternatives
AlternativeEval
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Single 45 56.2 56.2 56.2
Joint 35 43.8 43.8 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0
Table 5- Evaluation of Alternatives for HI purchase
It is interesting to note that evaluation of alternatives is a joint effort in the family. This
shows that Indian families together evaluate the alternatives available to them as far as HI
family decision making process is concerned. Since HI is a financial product, the entire
family’s role becomes prominant.
Final decision
Finaldecesion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid You 47 58.8 58.8 62.7
Spouse 16 20.0 20.0 78.8
Parents 7 8.8 8.8 87.6
Children 10 12.4 12.4 100.00
13
Finaldecesion
Total 80 100 100
Table 6- Final Decisionmaker on HI purchase in the family
Here comes an interesting point to note. The married respondents depend on their spouses to
make the final decision.
Final buyer
Buyer
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid You 55 68.8 72.4 72.4
Spouse 7 8.8 9.2 81.6
Parents 6 7.5 7.9 89.5
Children 8 10.0 10.5 100.0
Total 76 95.0 100.0
Missing System 4 5.0
Total 80 100.0
Table 7- Final HI buyer in the family
The final purchaser in 69% of the cases is the respondent himself.
Source of Information
Friends and Peers 43 57%
Internet 40 53%
Company Website 34 45%
Company Representative 36 47%
Social Networking Websites 7 9%
Newspaper 4 5%
Business/News Channel review 6 8%
Other 0 0%
Table 8- Source of Information
Friends and peers seem to be the best source of information. It shows that Indian customers
still rely on traditional means of information seeking. However, Internet scores and company
representatives are the second options.
14
The second objective that the authors had in their mind was to find out the factors affecting
Health Insurance purchase decision
Premium 51 67%
Product Features 69 91%
Company Brand and Image 38 50%
Service 66 87%
Network Hospitals 33 43%
OPD benefits 16 21%
Tax benefits 9 12%
Capping & Loading 1 1%
Portability benefits 2 3%
Table 8: factors affecting Health Insurance purchase decision
If we look at the factors which are important for a customer before deciding on a HI
purchase, Product features are the most important factor, followed by service. The authors
would take up further research using Factor analysis to find out the most important factor
having the highest loading.
Factor influence behind Health Insurance purchase
A touching Advertisement 1 1%
A family member's death/disability/health problem 25 31%
A friend's or peer's death/disability/health problem 13 16%
Doctor's Recommendation 8 10%
Forceful selling by Sales person 1 1%
Friends'/Peers/Relatives Recommendation 13 16%
Other 19 24%
Table 9: Factor influence behind Health Insurance purchase
It is interesting to note that the factor that influenced them to buy a Health Insurance product
is some mishap in their family. It could be death, disability or health problem. Another factor
is mishap in their friends’ or peers’ family. Thus it is evident that HI is felt to be important
only after there is some sort of mishappenings faced or seen by the respondents. It shows that
people are still reactive and not proactive as far as buying HI is concerned. However, further
15
research can help us to conclude which factor has the highest loading in terms of affecting the
purchase initiation.
Hypothesis Testing
The authors have come up with three hypotheses, the first one being
H01: There is an association between family and health Insurance purchase Initiation
The alternative Hypothesis is:
H11: There is no association between family and health Insurance purchase Initiation
The null Hypothesis was tested using Chi Square with 95% confidence level and the result
showed that the significance was 0.022 (P<0.05), thus rejecting null hypothesis. Hence we
can accept the alternate hypothesis and say that there is no significant association between HI
purchase and the initiation by the family.
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Initiative * HaveHI 78 97.5% 2 2.5% 80 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.659a 3 .022
Likelihood Ratio 13.915 3 .003
Linear-by-Linear Association 8.864 1 .003
N of Valid Cases 78
a. 3 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.97.
16
Initiative * HaveHI Crosstabulation
HaveHI
Totalyes no
Initiative you Count 34 21 55
Expected Count 39.5 15.5 55.0
spouse Count 6 1 7
Expected Count 5.0 2.0 7.0
Parents Count 7 0 7
Expected Count 5.0 2.0 7.0
Children Count 9 0 9
Expected Count 6.5 2.5 9.0
Total Count 56 22 78
Expected Count 56.0 22.0 78.0
Table 10: Chi Square Test Summary for Association between Initiation and HI Purchase
The second Hypothesis was
H02: Family has a role in evaluation of alternatives
The Alternative Hypothesis was
H12: Family does not have a role in evaluation of alternatives
Through this hypothesis the authors wanted to test whether Evaluation of alternatives is a
joint decision or not. The resultant Chi Square summary shows that there is high significant
association between alternative evaluation and HI purchase. P value = 0.231(P>0.05). Hence
Null Hypothesis accepted.
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
AlternativeEval * HaveHI 80 100.0% 0 .0% 80 100.0%
17
AlternativeEval * HaveHI Crosstabulation
HaveHI
Totalyes no
AlternativeEval Single Count 35 10 45
Expected Count 32.6 12.4 45.0
Joint Count 23 12 35
Expected Count 25.4 9.6 35.0
Total Count 58 22 80
Expected Count 58.0 22.0 80.0
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.437a 1 .231
Continuity Correctionb.896 1 .344
Likelihood Ratio 1.430 1 .232
Fisher's Exact Test .313 .172
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.419 1 .234
N of Valid Casesb80
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.63.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Table 11: Chi Square Test Summary for Association between family role and evaluation of alternatives
The third Hypothesis that was tested was
H03: An association exists between HI purchase and the final decision made by the Family
H13: An association exists between HI purchase and the final decision made by the Family
The authors used Chi Square test to find the association. The result showed a significant
association between Final decision and HI purchase. P value = 0.251(P>0.05), thus accepting
the Null Hypothesis.
18
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Finaldecesion * HaveHI 75 93.8% 5 6.2% 80 100.0%
Finaldecesion * HaveHI Crosstabulation
HaveHI
Totalyes no
Finaldecesion You Count 32 15 47
Expected Count 33.2 13.8 47.0
Spouse Count 6 5 11
Expected Count 7.8 3.2 11.0
Parents Count 6 1 7
Expected Count 4.9 2.1 7.0
Children Count 9 1 10
Expected Count 7.1 2.9 10.0
Total Count 53 22 75
Expected Count 53.0 22.0 75.0
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.098a 3 .251
Likelihood Ratio 4.500 3 .212
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.019 1 .155
N of Valid Cases 75
a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 2.05.
Table 12: Chi Square Test Summary for Association between Final decision and HI Purchase
19
One of the important objectives that the authors had in this paper was to come up with a
framework for purchasing Health Insurance. Following Figure shows the Framework for
Health Insurance Buying pattern.
20
Figure 1. Framework on Health Insurance Buying Pattern
Post purchase Evaluation After Claim
Need to purchase Health Insurance
Information Search
Primary Sources- Relatives, Friends, PeersSecondary Sources- Internet, Company Website, IRDA, Insurance comparison portal
Identification/Evaluation of Alternatives
Premium, features, services
Purchase Decision Purchase
Product Influence
PremiumCashless FacilitiesCritical Illness BenefitAccidental ProtectionNo Claim BonusPre-existing DiseaseWaiting Period Clause No of diseases covered Portability
External InfluenceNegative word of mouth by friends/peers and relativesAttractive offer by the competitor
Financial Influence
Income
Service InfluenceNetwork HospitalsHassle-free ClaimAssistance by TPAProactiveness of
TPA/Co./Hospital
Rising Medical Expenses Change in Lifestyle Low healthcare expenses
(Public/Private)
Conclusion
This research was based on the widely accepted premise that it is the couple rather than
the individual that is the critical decision-making unit for many consumer purchase
decisions. The authors in this research tried to find out the decision making process of a
family while purchasing a financial product like Health Insurance.
It is concluded from the research that the need for purchasing HI came only after the family
faced some unforeseen events related to rising medical expenses which lead to economic and
emotional imbalance of the family. However, the need is further strengthened by initiation of
friends/peers and relatives and substantiated by websites and other secondary sources.
Health Insurance is the prerogative of the male earning member of the family. However,
wife’s role cannot be ignored as she contributes more during the evaluation of alternatives.
Even though Health Insurance buying initiation, information search and final decision is a
single activity, evaluation of alternatives is a joint activity wherein even the children and
elderly parents play some roles. Actual evaluation is done by the male earning member of the
family based on numerous criteria like premium, product feature and service.
Ultimately, a choice set is created which is again affected by situational factors like financial
influence (Family Income) and service influence (Network Hospitals, assistance by Third
Party Administrator, hassle-free claim, proactiveness of co, TPA, Hospitals).
Post purchase feedback of customers depends upon the services rendered by the HI
Company, TPA and the network hospital. Services include hassle-free claim settlement,
quality of treatment, individual attention given to the customer etc. This feedback is very
important from the perspective of the company because it would generate more referrals,
positive word of mouth and ultimately more business.
References
Assael, H. (1998). Consumer behaviour and marketing action, Sixth edition, South-Western
College Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Atkin, C. 1978. “Observation of Parent–Child Interaction in Supermarket Decision-Making.”
Journal of Marketing, 42 (October), 41- 45.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York:
Guilford.
Beatty, Sharon E. and S. Talpade. 1994. “Adolescent Influence in Family Decision-Making:
A Replication with Extension.” Journal of Consumer Research, 21(September.), 332 – 341.
Belch, George E., Michael A. Belch, and Gayle Ceresino (1985), "Parental and Teenage
Child. Influences in Family Decision Making," Journal of Business Research, 13 (April),
163-176.
Berey, Lewis A. and R.W. Pollay. 1968, “The Influencing Role of Child in Family
DecisionMaking.” Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (February), 70-72.
Bismarck J. Manes Jr., M.A. (2006). A Market Analysis of Consumer Behavior for
Companies in a Self-Insurance Group [Electronic Version]. Western Michigan University.
Master Thesis.
Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J.F. (2002). Consumer Behavior. Ninth Edition.
(Russian Translation). PITER.
Belch, G., M.A. Belch, and G. Ceresino. 1985. “Parental and Teenage Influences in Family
Decision-Making.” Journal of Business Research, 13 (April), 163 – 176
Blustein, J. (1998). The family in medical decision making. In J. F. Monagle & D. C.
Thomasma,(eds.), Health care ethics: Critical issues for the 21st century. Gaithersburg, MD:
Aspen, pp. 81–91.
Bocker, F. 1973. “Advertising, Buying Pattern and Children,” Journal of Advertising
Research,
Burns, Alvin C . (1977), "Husband and Wife Purchase Decision- Making Roles: Agreed,
Presumed, Conceded and Disputed," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4 , e d .
William Perrault, J r . , Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Re- search, 50-55.
Corfman, Kim P. (1987), "Group Decision Making and Relative Influence when Preferences
Differ: A Conceptual Framework," in Jagdish N. Sheth ed., Research in Consumer Behavior,
vol. 2, JAI Press.
Cunningham, Isabella C.M. and Robert T. Green (1974), "Purchasing Roles in the U.S.
Family, 1955 and 1973," Journal of Marketing, 38 (October), 61-61.
Davis, Harry L. and Benny P. Rigaux (1974), "Perception of Marital Roles in Decision
Process," Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (June), 51-62.
Davis, Harry L. (1976), "Decision Making within the Household," Journal of Consumer
Research, 2 (March), 241-260.
Ekström, K.M. (2003). Revisiting the Family Tree: Historical and Future Consumer Behavior
Research. [Electronic Version]. Academy of Marketing Science Review
Volume 2003 – N: 1
Epstein, N. B., Bishop, D. S., & Baldwin, L. M. (1982). McMaster model of family
functioning. In F.Walsh (ed.), Normal family processes. New York: Guilford, pp. 115–141.
Ferber, R. and Lee L.C. (1974), "Husband-Wife Influence in Family Purchasing Behavior,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (June), 45-50.
Filiatrault, Pierre and J . R . Brent Ritchie (1980), "Joint Purchasing Decisions: A
Comparison of Influences Structure in Family and Couple," Journal of Consumer
Research, 7 , 131-140.
Foxman, Ellen R., Patriya S. Tansuhaj, and Karin M. Ekstrom (1989), "Family Members’
Perceptions of Adolescents’ Influence in Family Decision Making," Journal of Consumer
Research, 15 (March), 482-491.
Haley, Overholser, and Associates, Inc. (1975), Purchase InJlu- ence: Measures of
HusbandlWife Influence on Buying Deci- sions, New Haven, CT: Haley, Overholser, and
Associates
Julie Ruth, Suraj R. Commuri (1998), "SHIFTING ROLES IN FAMILY DECISION
MAKING", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 25, eds. Joseph W. Alba & J.
Wesley Hutchinson, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 400-406.
Kacen, J.J., Lee, J.A. (2002). The Influence of Culture on Consumer Impulsive Buying
Behavior [Electronic Version]. Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 163–176.
Kaur, P., Singh, R. (2006). Children In Family Purchase Decision Making In India And The
West: A Review [Electronic Version]. Academy of Marketing Science Review
Volume 2006 – No: 8
Kim, C., Lee, H. & Hall, K. (1991). A study of adolescents’ power, influence strategy, and
influence on family purchase decisions, in 1991 AMA Winter Educators’ Proceedings, ed.
Terry L. Childers et al., Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp. 37-45.
Mick, David Glen and Michelle DeMoss (1990), "Self-Gifts: Phenomenological Insight from
Four Contexts," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (December), 322-332.
Park, C. Whan (1982), "Joint Decisions in Home Purchasing: A Muddling-Through Process,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 151-162.
Pecchioni, L., & Sparks, L. (2007). Health information sources of individuals with cancer and
their family members. Health Communication, 21, 1–9.
Pecchioni, L., Wright, K., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2005). Life-span communication. Mahwah,
NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Qualls, William J. (1987), "Household Decision Behavior: The Impact of Husbands’ and
Wives’ Sex Role Orientation," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (September), 264-279.
Roberts, Mary Lou and Lawrence H. Wortzel (1984), in Roberts, Mary Lou, and Lawrence
H. Wortzel ed. Marketing to the Changing Household, Harper & Row.
Scanzoni, J., & Polonko, K. (1980). A conceptual approach to explicit marital negotiation.
Journalof Marriage and the Family, 42, 31–44.
Sharp, Harry and Paul Mott (1956), "Consumer Decisions in the Metropolitan Family,"
Journal of Marketing, 22 (October), 149-156.
Sheth, Jagdish N. (1974), "A Theory of Family Buying Decisions," in Sheth, Jagdish N., ed.,
Models of Buyer Behavior: Conceptual, Quantitative and Empirical. New York: Harper &
Row.
Webster, Cynthia (1994), "Effects of Hispanic Ethnic Identification on Marital Roles in
Purchase Decision Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 319-331.
Wolfe, D. M. (1959), "Power and Authority in the Family," in D. Cartwright, Studies in
Social Power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
R.K. Srivastava, Beverlee B. Anderson, Gender roles and family decision making: a study of
Indian automobile purchases, International Journal of Services, Economics and Management
2010 - Vol. 2, No.2 pp. 109 – 120
Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., & Hogg, M. K. (2006). Consumer Behavior A
European Perspective. Third Edition. Prentice Hall.
Websites and URLs
http://surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
http://www.president.kg/docs/const_2006rv/
http://www.deik.org.tr
http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Kyrgyzstan.pdf
http://www.freenet.bishkek.su
University of Delaware, http://www.udel.edu/alex/chapt6.html
MBA Lectures, http://mba-lectures.com/marketing/principles-of-marketing/650/types-of-
buying-decision-behavior.html
Image: “Neuromarketing” by Balougador/Wikimedia Commons via CC-BY-SA-2.5-CA +
GFDL
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=9587