تبیین دوگانگی‌های شناختی، روانشناختی و اجتماعی رفتار خرید بیمه زندگی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت بازاریابی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 استاد مدیریت بازاریابی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار انسان شناسی، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

4 استادیار مدیریت بازرگانی گرایش بازاریابی بین الملل، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

10.29252/bar.2020.13039.3316

چکیده

از موانع توسعه بیمه‌زندگی، فقدان درک بیمه‌گران از دوگانگی‌هایی است که افراد در مواجهه با بیمه‌زندگی تجربه می‌کنند. با توجه به شکاف موجود در حوزه رفتار مصرف‌کننده در بیمه‌های زندگی، به­دنبال تبیین دوگانگی‌های بیمه‌گذار، به­منظور شناخت اثربخش­تر رفتار خرید بیمه‌های زندگی هستیم تا در تدوین و اجرای راهبردهای بازاریابی اثربخش شرکت­های بیمه مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. رویکرد پژوهش، کیفی و مبتنی بر استراتژی نظریه داده بنیاد کوربین و اشتراوس ویرایش چهارم است. داده­ها از طریق مصاحبه­های عمیق با 27 مشارکت‌کننده منتخب از طریق نمونه­گیری نظری، شامل بیمه‌گذاران، نمایندگان فروش و کارشناسان بیمه‌های زندگی جمع‌آوری گردید و تا رسیدن به اشباع نظری ادامه یافت. تحلیل داده­ها به­طور سیستماتیک با سازوکار کد‌گذاری باز، محوری و انتخابی، با فرآیند رفت و برگشتی مستمر بین داده، مفاهیم، مقولات و مدل انجام گرفت. در این فرآیند از راهبرد تحلیل پرسش و مقایسه و ابزار تحلیل، یادآور، طرح‌واره‌‌ها و پارادایم استفاده گردید. برون­داد پژوهش، علاوه بر شناسایی و تبیین 15 خواستگاه ایجاد دوگانگی در زمینه‌ای از شرایط بیرونی و درونی (فردی)، مدل رفتار خرید بیمه‌های زندگی با محوریت دوگانگی‌های شناختی، روانشناختی و اجتماعی ارائه گردید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Explanation of cognitive, psychological, and social ambivalences of life insurance buying behavior

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hosseinali Bakhtiar Nasrabadi 1
  • Tahmours Hasangholipour Yasouri 2
  • Abou Ali Vedadhir 3
  • Seyed Abolghasem Mira 4
1 PhD Candidate, Marketing Management, Business Management Department, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Marketing Management, Business Management Department, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social Science, University of Tehran
4 Assistant Professor, Business Management, Business Management Department, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

One of the major barriers to the development of life insurance in Iran is the insurers' lack of understanding regarding the ambivalences that people experience while engaging in life insurance buying process. Considering the existing gap in the context of life insurance consumer behavior, in this study we aimed to explain the policyholders' ambivalences to better understand the life insurance buying behavior which can be employed by insurance companies to formulate and implement effective marketing strategies. The research approach was a qualitative and based on the grounded theory of Corbin and Strauss (Fourth Edition). Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 27 selected participants including policyholders, insurance agents, and life insurance experts, through theoretical sampling which continued until theoretical saturation. Data analysis carried out systematically with open, axial, and selective coding mechanism, with a continuous iterative process between data, concepts, categories and the model. In this process, we employed questioning and comparison strategies as well as memos, diagrams and paradigm tools to analyze the data. As the research results, furthermore identifying and explaining 15 sources of ambivalence in the context of micro and macro environmental conditions and internal (individual) circumstances, a model of life insurance buying behavior developed to explanation of cognitive, psychological, and social ambivalences.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cognitive Ambivalence
  • Psycological ambivalence
  • Attitudinal Inconsistency
  • Life Insurance
  • buying behavior
Ahmadzadeh, A. (2018). Types of Life Insurance and its Development Challenges in Iran with Emphasis on Non-savings life Insurance, Insurance Research Institute InsuranceResearch Group. http://www.irc.ac.ir/gozareshtarh/index.php?id=140, [in Persian].
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Attitudinal Ambivalence: A Test of Three Key Hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1421–1432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263009
3. Baek, Y. M. (2010). An integrative model of ambivalence. The Social Science Journal, 47(3), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2010.02.003
4. Boccagni, P., & Baldassar, L. (2015). Emotions on the move: Mapping the emergent field of emotion and migration. Emotion, Space and Society, 16, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2015.06.009
5. Brady, M. K., Bourdeau, B. L., & Heskel, J. (2005). The importance of brand cues in intangible service industries. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6), 401–410.
6. Brighetti, G., Lucarelli, C., & Marinelli, N. (2014). Do emotions affect insurance.pdf. Review of Behavioral Finance, 6(2), 136–154. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-04-2014-0027
7. Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401
8. Chandrashekaran, M., Rotte, K., Tax, S. S., & Grewal, R. (2007). Satisfaction Strength and Customer Loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.2307/30162461
9. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Forth Edit). Thousand Oaks: CA: SAGE.
10. Costarelli, S., & Colloca, P. (2007). The moderation of ambivalence on attitude-intention relations as mediated by attitude importance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.403
11. Delis, M. D., & Mylonidis, N. (2015). Trust, happiness, and households’ financial decisions. Journal of Financial Stability, 20, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2015.08.002
12. Gaganis, C., Hasan, I., Papadimitri, P., & Tasiou, M. (2019). National culture and risk-taking: Evidence from the insurance industry. Journal of Business Research, 97, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2018.12.037
13. Grönroos, C. (2004). The relationship marketing process: communication, interaction, dialogue, value. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620410523981
14. He, D. (2011). Is there dynamic adverse selection in the life insurance market? Economics Letters, 112(1), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECONLET.2011.03.038
15. Hillcoat-Nallétamby, S., & Phillips, J. E. (2011). Sociological Ambivalence Revisited. Sociology, 45(2), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038510394018
16. Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2005). Meta-psychological versus operative measures of ambivalence: Differentiating the consequences of perceived intra-psychic conflict and real intra-psychic conflict. In Ambivalence and the Structure of Political Opinion (pp. 73–103). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403979094_5
17. Ifcher, J., & Zarghamee, H. (2011). Happiness and Time Preference: The Effect of Positive Affect in a Random-Assignment Experiment. American Economic Review, 101(7), 3109–3129. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.7.3109
18. Inglehart, Ronald.(2003). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Translated by Mayam Vetr. Tehran: Kavir. [In persian].
19. Irons, K., & Green, D. (1991). Insurance Marketing. London, England: The chartred Insurance Institute.
20. Jonas, K., Broemer, P., & Diehl, M. (2000). Attitudinal Ambivalence. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 35–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000125
21. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/article/ecmemetrp/v_3a47_3ay_3a1979_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a263-91.htm
22. Koufopoulos, K., & Kozhan, R. (2010). Optimal insurance under adverse selection and ambiguity aversion. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1732268
23. Mathew, B., & Sivaraman, S. (2017). Cointegration and causality between macroeconomic variables and life insurance demand in India. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 12(4), 727–741. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJoEM-01-2016-0019.
24. Mohseni T. A., Maidifar S., Golabi., F.(2011). A Study of Social Confidence with a Generational View of Society, Applied Sociology, Twenty-Second Year, 41(1), 41-70. [In persian].
25. Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501
26. Nam, Y., & Hanna, S. D. (2019). The effects of risk aversion on life insurance ownership of single-parent households. Applied Economics Letters, 26(15), 1285–1288. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2018.1546044
27. Palmberger, M. (2019). Relational ambivalence: Exploring the social and discursive dimensions of ambivalence-The case of Turkish aging labor migrants. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 60(2), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715219832918
28. Patton, M. Q., & Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books/about/Qualitative_Research_Evaluation_Methods.html?id=FjBw2oi8El4C
29. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2001). Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.19
30. Rieger, K. L. (2019) ‘Discriminating among grounded theory approaches’, Nursing Inquiry, 26(1). doi: 10.1111/nin.12261.
31. Reimann, M., & Bechara, A. (2010). The somatic marker framework as neurological theory of decision-making: review, conceptual comparisons, and future neuroeconomics research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(5), 767–776.
32. Remund, D. . (2010). Financial literacy explicated: the case for a clearer definition in an increasingly complex economy. Journal of Consumer Affairs, Special Issue: Financial Literacy, 44(2), 276–295.
33. Rick, S. (2011). Losses, gains, and brains: neuroeconomics can help to answer open questions about loss aversion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 453–463.
34. Shi, X., Wang, H.-J. J., & Xing, C. (2015). The role of life insurance in an emerging economy: Human capital protection, assets allocation and social interaction. Journal of Banking and Finance, 50, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.08.028
35. Sigma. (2018). World insurance in 2017 : solid , but mature life markets weigh on growth, (3).
36. Solomon, M. R., Russell-Bennett, R., & Previte, J. (2019). Consumer behaviour : buying, having, being (4th editio). Retrieved from https://www.worldcat.org/title/consumer-behaviour-buying-having-being/oclc/1086559917?referer=di&ht=edition
37. Stroe, M. A. (2014). Insurances and Consumer Perception in the Romanian Insurance Market. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15(14), 1717–1723. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00646-7
38. Taleban, R., Mobashari M., Mehrain, M.(2010). Investigating the Process of Value Transformation in Iran. Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, 1(3). [In persian].
39. Tuu, H. H., & Olsen, S. O. (2010). Ambivalence and involvement in the satisfaction-repurchase loyalty relationship. Australasian Marketing Journal, 18(3), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.03.002
40. Visser, P. S., Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (2006). Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength-related Attitude Attributes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38001-X
41. Zakaria, Z., Azmi, N. M., Hassan, N. F. H. N., Salleh, W. A., Tajuddin, M. T. H. M., Sallem, N. R. M., & Noor, J. M. M. (2016). The Intention to Purchase Life Insurance: A Case Study of Staff in Public Universities. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37(16), 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30137-X.