Husband-Wife Decision Making in Purchasing and Renewing Auto Insurance Author(s): Terry L. Childers and O. C. Ferrell Source: The Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Sep., 1981), pp. 482-493 Published by: American Risk and Insurance Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/252725 Accessed: 29/01/2009 09:08 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ari. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org. American Risk and Insurance Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Risk and Insurance. http://www.jstor.org COMMUNICATIONS AND NOTES Husband-Wife Decision Making in Purchasing and Renewing Auto Insurance Terry L. Childersand 0. C. Ferrell ABSTRACT Intrafamilydecisionmakingrelativeto autoinsurance purchasing examined a was for U.S. sampleof 1,327 families. The husbandwas foundto be primarily responsiblefor makingtwo of the more important auto insurance decisions companyselectionand premium in payment.Thewife's involvement thesedecisionswasfoundto be contingent to on hercontribution thefamily'sfinancial resources.A highdegreeof consistencywas foundbetweenthe family membermakingthese two decisions. Consistencywas also observedbetween the attitudinal measuresof decision responsibilityand behavioral surrogates decisionmakinginvolvement.Consideration bothfamily membersin of of developingadvertising personal and in selling strategies the autoinsurance industryare suggestedand implicationsfor furtherresearchare discussed. Much of the literature on household purchasing behavior in insurance has sought to identify correlates of consumption or expenditures. This research has associated insurance purchasing behavior with various demographic and socioeconomic variables [ 1, 3, 10] . Household characteristics such as income, numberof children, age, and total assets were found to be significant explanatory variables when associated with insurance premium expenditures and the amount of insurance purchased. Comparatively less research has dealt with in- trahousehold interaction in the purchase of insurance. The differential influence of the husband and wife however, has been noted in several studies. In one insurance study, presence of the wife at the sales interview was associated with a considerably higher rate of sales . In another study, it was found that the family was less likely to purchase life insurance if the husband and wife discussed the insurance purchase without the agent present . While these studies dealt with household purchasing behavior for life insur- ance, only limited research has been conducted on husband-wife interaction in purchasingauto insurance [6, 17]. Auto insurance, however, has become a major household expenditure with a recent survey  showing that almost half of the insurance consumers pay in excess of $300 annually for auto insurance. During 1976, consumers paid almost $24 billion in auto insurance premiums. In addition, while life insurance is usually an optional purchase, auto insurance in a majority of states is one of the principal methods of satisfying state financial responsibility laws when operating a motor vehicle, while in several other states purchase of auto insurance is compulsory. These factors indicate the need to study the purchase of auto insurance and in particularthe involvement of family members during purchase and renewal. TerryL. Childersis in the Universityof Wisconsingraduate is school and0. C. Ferrell in the of Department Marketingand Management Illinois State University. of 482 Purchasing and Renewing Auto Insurance 483 The purpose of this study was to conduct research on the responsibilities possessed by the husband and wife in making decisions relative to premium payment and insurance company selection. Results should lend insight into understanding the role(s) each family member occupies in the family auto insurance decision making process which should enable the development of more effective advertising and personal selling insurance strategies. Husband-Wije Decision Process Most studies of the role(s) of each family member in decision making focus on marital dyad perceptions of decision making for selected products. How- ever, problems relating to the definition of the appropriate decisions and tasks, the relevant decision making unit, and different measurement tech- niques make it difficult to generalize results about family decision making to other products and services, such as auto insurance. One might hypothesize that the outcomes of many family decisions bear little consequence to the family's resources and thus are often partialled out on an autonomic decision making basis. However, for financial products such as auto insurance, the importance of the purchase decision is manifested by its effect on other family resources .1 Considering the amount and the recurrent nature of this premium, the financial importance of the purchase decision appears substantial. Regardless of the importance of the auto insur- ance decision; role differentiation, stage of the decision process, and in- trafamily power relationships could influence auto insurance decisions. Davis and Rigaux  found that insurance purchases are typically husband-dominant. Hempel [1 1], Ferber and Lee , Sheth , and Wood- side  provide additional insight on family buying roles for other products. These studies relate demographics, psychographics, and social networks to intrafamily decision processes. Still, as noted by Davis  in a recent critique of the literature, research studies have just begun to examine the impact of the household on consumer behavior. Consumers are still too often viewed as individual decision makers despite common sense observations that the fam- ily is the relevant decision making unit. Those household studies that have been conducted on comparable products, such as auto insurance, suffer from a piecemeal approach due to diverse and often incomparable sets of in- trahousehold measures and concepts. Therefore, it is difficult to use these findings on family decision making in strategic planning. 'Bonham [ 15] proposedthatthe importanceof a family decision could be determined using the relationship: Importance = Cost of Decision Available Resources The amount of family resources (wealth) and whether there is an adequate substitutefor a particularproductbothgreatlyinfluence importance.Withthe substantial annualpremiumpaid by most families and the limited alternativesavailable for spreadingrisk, the inelasticityand thus the importanceof the purchase decision would appearsubstantial. 484 The Joturnal of Risk and Insurance Research Design Sample During January 1977, 1,327 families across the United States were mailed a four page questionnaireand 1,154 or 87% returnedusable questionnaires. Of the respondents, 97% indicated owning auto insurance. For this study, only married respondents (95% of the sample) were included in the analysis for obvious reasons. Recipients of the questionnaire were selected from consumer panels maintained by National Family Opinion, Inc. (NFO). NFO is a research firm which recruits and maintains about 180,000 families for consumer research purposes. Families are maintained in panels of 1,000, with each panel balanced to match national family distribution in total and within each of the nine U.S. Census Bureau geographic divisions according to population density, age of wife, annual family income, and family size. Quotas used for these demographic controls are developed from the Census Bureau and projected to reflect the population as of 1977. NFO does not include unmarried males in its sample. Unmarried females are possible, but they are divorced or widowed. Therefore, obtaining a sample of 95% married couples living together was possible. NFO families have consented to partici- pate in research activities, such as returning mail questionnaires without pay. Nonmonetary incentives are provided, however, for participation in indi- vidual mail surveys. Topics on the questionnaire included general family events such as car purchasing and residential changes as well as insurance related interests, and insurance conversations in addition to questions regarding family decision- making influence. The questionnaires were targeted at the husband or male head of the household with 73% of the respondents being the husband and 27% the wife. Hypotheses Much research has explored decision making responsibility as the family progressed through the stages of the purchase process. Davis and Rigaux  and Granbois , for instance, investigated responsibilities during problem recognition, determination of alternatives via search, and selection among recognized alternatives. Little research, however, has attempted to explore the continuation of purchase responsibility to the postpurchase stage, which may be manifested for auto insurance in the decision to pay the premium. The person or family members that come in contact with the premium notice first, may stimulate a reevaluation of the policy and its coverage. Thus, the person(s) that pay(s) the premium may play an important role in determining alternatives to renewing the existing policy. Even if the person(s) that pay(s) the premium is only an initiator or influencer and not the final decider, it seems that the person(s) that pay the premium probably play(s) an active rather than a passive role in post purchase evaluative behavior. Kotler [ 12, p. 237] notes that participants can play up to five different roles in the buying process: Purchasing and Renewing Auto Insurance 485 1. Initiator. The initiator is the person who first suggests or thinks of the idea of buying the particular product or service. 2. Influencer. The influencer is a person(s) whose views or advice carries some weight in making the final decision. 3. Decider. The decider is a person or person(s) who ultimately determines any part of or the entire buying decision: whether to buy, what to buy, how to buy, when to buy, or where to buy. 4. Buyer. The buyer is the person who makes the actual purchase. 5. User. The user is the person(s) who consumes or uses the product or service. In considering family member involvement, the decision to continue pay- ing the insurance premium is a surrogate for the renewal decision, which is the basis for continued or repeat purchasing of the auto insurance policy from the current insurer. Should the family decide to reevaluate its current insurance this person(s) may initiate the behavior, especially if the reevaluation is premium based. For example, the person or persons that pay the premium are the first to be aware of premium increases and therefore may take action to initiate a change in companies or they may not renew the policy if there is not enough money to pay the premium. Note that the decision to pay could be joint if both the husband and wife are involved in this decision. For example, they may share responsibility for paying the bills and also make payment decisions together. Based upon the results of studies discussed earlier, and in particular those reported by Davis and Rigaux  the following hypothesis is generated: Hypothesis 1: The husband is most likely to be the family member primar- ily responsible for deciding to pay the auto insurance pre- mium and for choosing the company from which to pur- chase auto insurance. Insurance, compared to frequently purchased nondurable consumer goods, is a complex product and requires considerable time and effort on the part of the consumer to properly understand in order to evaluate competitive offer- ings. The consumer's desire to be able to understand the provisions of the insurance policy perhaps underlies recent efforts by many states such as Wisconsin and Illinois to implement or consider implementing a "readable" auto insurance policy. It is thus conceivable, that faced with a complex decision situation requiring technical expertise that the family would try to consolidate the decision making role relative to the person responsible for considering premium issues and actually selecting an insurance company. As a result, the following is hypothesized: Hypothesis 2: There will be a high level of intrafamily consistency be- tween the member responsible for paying and reviewing premiums and the responsibility for company selection. Hempel  found that the wife's education, occupational prestige, and employment status were all inversely related to husband dominance of hous- ing decisions. Davis  also refers to the comparative level of resources possessed by each spouse and its effect on decision making responsibility. For 486 The Journal of Risk and Insurance example, if the wife controls resources such as a college education or high occupational status, the husband's right to govern is likely to be attenuated. Based on these findings, wives that are employed and have higher incomes may be more responsible for auto insurance decisions. Hypothesis 3: The greater the wife's contribution to total family income the more likely she will have responsibility for premium payment and company selection. In insurance, important communication patterns arise when a consumer consults an agent regarding coverage or premium related questions. These insurance conversations relate to actual discussions with representatives of the insurance company concerning the policy, including payment, or some aspect of the insurance buyers' needs. In prior research on spousal decision making, both Mukherjee  and Downs  found that communication patterns were important considerations in family planning decision making. Thus, it would seem logical to postulate that conversations (interviews) with auto insurance sales representatives will occur with the marital member(s) that has responsibility for reviewing and paying premiums. One would also expect that the person that would make the decision on the company from which to purchase auto insurance would also be more involved in conversa- tions regarding the purchase of additional policies, since both involve a search for information leading to a purchase. This area of investigation is important since it establishes a behavioral consistency with the two facets of decision making, thereby strengthening the validity of the results associated with the previous hypotheses. Hypothesis 4: The person responsible for deciding to pay the auto insur- ance premium will most often be involved in conversations with auto insurance company personnel about premiums. Hypothesis 5: The person most responsible for deciding which company to purchase auto insurance from will also be more involved in conversations with insurance company representatives where the subject is new policy information. Findings Familv MenmberResponsibility Hypothesis I was supported, the husband was most likely to be the family member primarily responsible for deciding to pay the auto insurance premium and for choosing the company from which to purchase auto insurance. As shown in Table 1, the husband had primary responsibility for selecting the company in 53% of the families and for deciding to pay the premium in 42% of the families. The wife had relatively little independent responsibility, possessing responsibility for selecting the company for only 8% of the families. About one of five wives were responsible for deciding to pay the insurance premium, however, about one-third of the respondents indicated the husband and wife held joint responsibility when making the two insurance decisions. Purchasing atid Renewing Auto Insurance 487 Table 1 Premium Payment and Company Selection Responsibility Family Member Premium Selecting Primarily Responsible Payment Company (n=1085) (n=1074) Husband 42% 53% Wife 23 8 Both 35 39 100% 100% Hypothesis 2 is supported by the data presented in Table 2. Generally, if a family member (or both) was responsible for company selection, that family member was also responsible for premium payment and vice versa. The greatest consistency existed for wives, 92% of the wives that were responsible for selecting the company were also responsible for premium payment, while for husbands the comparable figues was 77%. The contingency coefficient [Siegel, 19, p. 196] between premium payment and company selection responsibility was .45 significant at p < .001. The upper limit for the contingency coefficient is dependent upon the number of categories in each variable. In this instance, the maximum contingency coefficient would be .82. Table 2 Premium Payment Responsibility as Related to Company Selection Responsibility Responsibility f or Responsibility for Selection Company Reviewing Premiums Wife Husband Both Wife 92%a 8% 20% Husband 2 77 7 Both 6 14 73 aStatistically significant x at p < .001. 488 The Jolurnal of Risk and Insurance (l Financia Contribiutioni Wives that possessed company selection responsibility, made on the aver- age a greater financial contribution to the family's income. This finding partially supports Hypothesis 3. In families where wives were considered responsible for company selection, they contributed about 42 percent of the family's annual income, while in families where husbands held this responsi- bility, wives contributed 32 percent of the annual income (F=4.26, signifi- cant at p < .05). When "both'" family members were considered responsible for company selection, wives contributed 34 percent of the family's annual income. (These three categories add to 100% of all families). A slightly larger proportion of wives (28%) were employed full time in families where they had company selection responsibility compared to families in which the husband held this responsibility in which 23% were employed full time, although the difference is not statistically significant. In families where wives were considered responsible for premium pay- ment, they contributed 37 percent of the family's annual income while in families where husbands held this responsibility, wives contributed 33 per- cent of the families annual income. In addition, in families where both husband and wife held responsibility for premium payment, wives contrib- uted 33 percent of the families annual income. (These three categories again add to 100%). This difference was not statistically significant therefore, hypothesis three is only partially supported. That is, the greater the wife's contribution to total family income the more likely she will have responsibil- ity for company selection but not premium payment. Is urance( Cot wersations With Company Representatives C To test Hypotheses 4 and 5, respondents were questioned about the types of insurance conversations they had with insurance company representatives (agent, claims adjuster, etc.) during 1976.2 The family member primarily responsible for deciding pay the premium was generally the person involved in conversations where premium payments were reported as the subject of the conversation. This finding supports Hypothesis 4 (contingency coefficient = .52, significant at p < .001). In families where "both" members had indicated they had premium responsibility, the husband and wife were equally involved (41 % versus 43 %, respectively - Table 3). However, wives that had premium responsibility were not more involved in conversations regard- ing premium payments than they were in conversations regarding all the insurance subjects (also true for husbands). 2 Approximately40% of the respondentsindicatedthey had not hada conversation with their insuranceagent during 1976. This resultedin the reductionin the numberof familiesthatwere analyzed in Tables 3 and 4. Analysis of the demographiccharacteristics policyholdersnot of having conversationsshowed that this group was primarilycomposed of older, unemployed (mostly retired), low income families with a relatively small insurableinterest. One would expect that families of this naturewould exhibit much more stable purchasingbehaviorthan their younger counterparts, and thus would be less involved in reviewing and changing insurance companies. Purchasing aCndRenewing Auto Insurance 489 Table 3 Premium Payment Responsibility and Conversations Regarding Premium Payments Person Involved Person Responsible for in Conversation Reviewing and Paying Premiums Where Subject Was Premium Wife Husband Both Payments (n = 27) (n=138) (n=57) (n=264) (n=51) (n=236) Wife 78% (65 %)b 7% (12%) 43% (37%) Husband 11 (18 ) 86 (80 ) 41 (41 Both 11 (17) 7 (8) 16 (22) 100% (100%) 100% (100%) 100% (100%) Percentages in parentheses ( ) pertain to the distribution of the person involved in the most recent conversation across all conversation subjects. A statistically significant X at p < .0001, contingency coefficient = .52. As noted previously, it might be expected that the person responsiblefor selecting the insurancecompany might also be more involved in conversa- tions where the subject was new policy information since both involve gatheringnew purchasinginformation.As shown in Table 4, Hypothesis5 is supportedsince the person that possessed company selection responsibility was halso the person most involved in the conversationsabout new policy information(contingencycoefficient = .53, significantat p < .0001). How- ever, their involvement in new policy conversations did not exceed their involvement in conversationsabout the other insurancesubjects. For exam- ple, when the wife was responsiblefor company selection, she was involved in 88% of the conversations on new policy information,but she was also involved in 82% of the conversations across all subjects which was not a statisticallysignificant difference at the .05 level of significance. The same relationship occurred for husband involvement in new policy information conversations. Conclusions The data reported in this study generally support the five hypotheses associated with husband-wifedecision making in purchasingauto insurance. Hypothesis 3 is only partiallysupported.The findings arepartiallyconsistent 490 The Journal of Risk and Insurance Table 4 Company Selection Responsibility and Conversations Regarding New Policy Information Person Involved Person Responsible For in Conversation Selecting Insurance Company Where Subject Was New Policy Wife Husband Both Information (n=24) (n=73) (n=92) (n=333) (n=71) (n=230) Wife 88%a (82%)b 9% (15%) 44% (42%) Husband 0 ( 6 ) 74 (75 ) 34 (35) Both 12 (12 ) 10 (10 ) 22 (23) 100% (100%) 100% (100%) 100% (100%) aPercentages in parentheses ( ) pertain to the distribution of the person involved in the most recent conversation across all conversation subjects. A statistically significant X at p < .0001, contingency coefficient = .52. with the husband-wife decision making research reported by Davis and Rigaux  and Hempel [ 1I1. Husband dominance characterizedthe family's premium payment and company selection auto insurance decisions. Husbandswere primarilyre- sponsibile for deciding to pay the premiumin 42 percentof the families and for company selection in 53 percent of the families. Results, however, also point out thatthese insurancedecisions are not made in isolationfromspousal influences. Although wives seldom possessed primarydecision making au- thority, slightly over half of the auto insurancedecisions (premiumpayment and company selection) involved wives. While the husbandmay ultimately determinewhetherto buy, what to buy and where to buy, the wife's views or advice carries some weight in making the final decision in over half the respondingfamilies. In addition,the initiatoror influencerroles in the buying process, which are evidenced by involvement in the renewal process and in informationgatheringand search for alternativecompaniesor policies, may be just as importantto understanding family memberpurchasingbehavioras knowledge of who occupies the decider role. There appearsto be a greatdeal of consistency between husband-wifeauto insurancedecision dominance (or joint decisions) of premiumpaymentand company selection decisions. This is perhapscontraryto the behaviorhouse- holds exhibit for other consumer productsand services. For example, Davis Purchasing and Renewing Auto Insurance 491  found that when purchasingan automobile, certaindecisions (when and where to buy and how much to spend) were husbanddominatedwhile other automobilepurchasedecisions (model and color) were made on a joint basis. Wives' contribution to annual family income was found to be inversely related to husband dominance of these decisions. It would appearthat as wives bring more resourcesinto the family they are more likely to requirein return,increasedinfluencein the family's affairs,particularly a fiscal role. in The implicationof these findings should be significantto companiesthat desire to understand auto insurancebuying process. While most advertis- the ing and much personal selling in the auto insuranceindustryis aimed at the husband, these findings suggest that wife dominantor joint decision making could be a considerationin the marketingstrategy. There may be a market for opportunity the firm thatdevelops a promotional to program reachthe wife that is an influenceror initiatorin the buying process. We suggest, however, thatan insurancecompanyshould conduct its own marketingresearchbefore launchingsuch a promotionalprogram.These findings shouldbe viewed with a reminder that 73 % of the respondents were husbands. Therefore, it is possible that husband dominance could have been overstated ratherthan understated.However, in a subsample of 138 of these respondentfamilies, 65% of the husbands and wives independently agreed on family member responsibility for company selection and 80% independentlyagreed on the family member(s) possessing premium payment responsibility. Also, as pointed out by Davis [5, p. 249], "if the purposeof a study (as it was here)is limited to describing the relative influence of husbandand wife in various decisions, it is sufficient to question only one spouse.'' The findings of this study should also be of interestto academicresearchers who are investigating husband-wifedecision making for selected products. Auto insurance is one of the few products where a decision to purchaseis desirable due to legal considerations. Therefore, conclusions about auto insurancedecisions might be generalizedto most husband-wifehouseholds. Based on this unique product and national sample of decision makers, the hypothesisthatthe wife plays an important role in financialdecisionscouldbe generated. Researchconducted by Ferberand Lee  has shown that wives possess considerable influence in family financial matters, acting as the family financial officer (FFO) in over one-thirdof the couples interviewed. It is suggested that future research should attemptto discover the impor- tance of auto insurancedecisions as they relate to total family resources. As competition increases for allocation of the family's financial resources, the importanceof these decisions may also increase, especially if auto insurance premiumsare considered by the family in conjunctionwith the total cost of their "personal insurancepackage." Also, intergenerational auto insurance ownership patternsas they may relate to husband-wifepurchasedecisions might be researched.One might investigate, for example, the conflictresolu- tion that may occur in the marital dyad as a result of each spouse having acquired auto insurance in their respective families. Additionally, further researchof otherlines, such as homeowners, health, andlife insurance should 492 The Journal of Risk and Insurance be concurrentlyconductedto determineif the family utilizes an "insurance specialist" for its purchasedecisions. REFERENCES 1. Anderson, Dan R., and Nevin, John R., "Determinents of Young Marrieds'Life InsurancePurchasingBehavior:An EmpiricalInvestiga- tion, " The Journal of Risk and Insurance, September 1975, Vol. 42, 3, 375-387. 2. Automobile InsuranceAffordability, Hartford,Connecticut,AetnaLife & Casualty, 1978. 3. Berekson, LeonardL., "Birth Order, Anxiety, Affiliation and the Pur- chase of Life Insurance," The Journal of Risk and Insurance, March 1972, Vol. 39, 1, 99-108. 4. Davis, H. L., "Dimensions of Marital Roles in Consumer Decision Making, Journal of Marketing Research, May 1970, 168-177. 5. ,"Decision Making Withinthe Household," Journalof Con- sumer Research, March 1976, 241-260. 6. Davis, H., and Rigaux, B., "Perceptionof MaritalRoles in Decision Processes,"' Journal of Consumer Research, June 1974, 51-62. 7. Downs, P., "IntrafamilyDecision Making in Family Planning," Jour- tial of Business Research, (Number 1, 1977), 63-74. 8. Ferber, R., and Lee, Lucy Chao, "Husband-WifeInfluence in Family Purchasing Behavior," Jouirnal of Consumer Research, June 1974, 43-50. 9. Granbois, D. H., "A Study of the Family Decision Making Process in the Purchaseof Major Durable Household Goods," Unpublisheddoc- toral dissertation, IndianaUniversity, 1963. 10. Hammond, J. D., Houston, David B., and Melander, Eugene, R., "Determinantsof HouseholdLife InsurancePremiumExpenditures: An Empirical Investigation, " The Journal of Risk and Insurance, September 1967, Vol. 34, 3, pp. 397-408. 11. Hempel, D., "Family Role Structureand Housing Decisions," in Ad- x'ances in Consumer Research, Volume 2, Proceedings of Association for Consumer Research, 1975, 71-80. 12. Kotler, Philip, Principles of Marketing (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-HallInc., 1980). 13. Life Insurance in Focus: Factors Related to Success in the Last Sales Interviewv, (Hartford:Life InsuranceAgency ManagementAssociation, 1962), p. 64. 14. Mukherjee,B., "The Role of Husband-WifeCommunication Family in Planning, " Jouirnal of Marriage and the Family, August 1975. 15. Price-Bonhan,S., "A Comparisonof Weighted and UnweightedDeci- sion Making Scores," Jouirnal of Marriage and the Family, November 1976. Purchasing and Renewing Auto Insurance 493 16. Prospects and Agents: An Opinion and Attitude Study, (Hartford: Life InsuranceAgency ManagementAssociation, 1967), p. 25. 17. PurchaseInfluence - Measuresof Husband/WifeInfluence on Buying Decisions, Haley, Overholser and Associate, Inc., January1975. 18. Sheth, H., "A Theory of Family Buying Decisions," in P. Pellemans (Ed.) Insights in Consumer and Market Behavior, Belgium: Namus University, 1971. 19. Siegel, Sidney, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956. 20. Woodside, A., "Effects of PriorDecision Making, Demographics,and Psychographicson MaritalRoles for PurchasingDurables," inAdvances in Consumer Research, Volume 2, Proceedings of Association for Con- sumer Research, 1975, 81-92.
Pages to are hidden for
"Purchasing Insurance (PDF)"Please download to view full document