American Journal of Scientific Research ISSN 1450-223X Issue 24(2011), pp.30-37 EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2011 http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.

htm

Risk Perception and Consumer Stress: An Empirical Research in Banking Sector

Tulin Durukan Department of Business Administration, Krkkale University Yahihan, Krkkale, Turkey E-mail:t.durukan@kku.edu.tr Tel: +905324471968 Ibrahim Bozaci Department of Business Administration, Krkkale University Yahihan, Krkkale, Turkey E-mail:iborganizer@gmail.com.tr Tel: +905065082652 Abstract Risk perception and consumer stress are two important factors that firms have to take into consideration since they are important parts of consumer behavior. Although risk perception concept has been analyzed in various studies, consumer stress and relationships between risk perception and consumer stress have not been researched in marketing literature. To illuminate the issue, present study scrutinizes consumer risk perception, stress and relationships between these two terms. To reach this target, initial data were collected by survey forms which are designed to measure risk perception and stress level of banking consumers in Krkkale. Moreover collected data were analyzed by statistical methods namely correlation analysis and t-tests. As a result, time risk perception, physical risk perception and psychological risk perception determined as factors which increase consumer stress meaningfully in banking sector.

Keywords: Stress, Risk Perception, Consumer Stress, Banking Consumer Stress.

1. Consumer Risk Perceptions

Perception is defined as the process of which people select, organize and interpret information to form a meaningful picture of the world. (Kotler and Armstrong, 2001). Risk concept refers to possibility of occurring loss, damage or other unwanted situations. In other words it can be defined as effect of uncertainty on goals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk). Many risk definitions are encountered in different fields of social sciences. From consumer point of view, perceived risk is an important issue which creates attention in marketing literature. Perceived risk is defined as effect of uncertainty which is related with consuming event. And it can be explained as unfavorable effect of difference in perceived and expected financial, psychological and other performances of purchased product on consumer. (Ruth and Morris, 2006). Perceived risk originated from unfavorable consequences which resulted from unexpected or uncertain situations (Dholakia, 2001).

Risk Perception and Consumer Stress: An Empirical Research in Banking Sector

31

Perceived risk concept is taken into consideration from two main viewpoints in literature; risk creating factors and elimination of risk perceptions. Under this framework studies were conducted to clarify factors which create risk perception about brand (Peter and Ryan, 1976), food (Knox, 2000; Fischer and Frewer, 2009), electronic trade (Forsythe and Shi, 2003), internet banking (Littler and Melanthiou, 2006), financial service etc. (Vlaev and Chater, 2009). On the other side, the role of company activities to overcome risk perceptions like warranty applications etc. (Alain and Guevrement, 2008) are researched. Stone and Mason (1998) examines risk types on six main title which are called as performance, financial, psychological, physical, social and conformity risks about purchased goods and services. Social risk is possibility of occurring unfavorable evaluations by neighbors which deteriorate social status. Time risk is perceived pressures and restrictions on time which a purchase causes. Financial risk perceptions are thoughts about purchasing can cause unnecessary expenses and expected return of payment for good will not be obtained. Moreover physical risk perception is resulted from probability of occurring unwanted consequences in human health like illness, discomfort. Furthermore perceptions about not obtaining expected values, lack of performance and reliability are called as performance risk. And psychological risk is expressed as possibility of feeling uncomfortable and experiencing excitement, disappointment etc. Although there are many studies which investigate consumer behavior in terms of risk perceptions, stress concept has not been taken attention by the same level. Since perceptions influence human feelings, thoughts and behaviors and consumer behavior consists of many risk perceptions, consumption event can cause stress in consumer. But the relationship between risk perception and consumer stress has not been researched. Since consumer faces many risk perception creating factors, this study investigates whether these factors are related with consumer stress or not. Under this framework the stress which occurs in consumption is called as consumer stress.

2. Consumer Stress
Selye defines stress as uncertain responses of human body to any change (http://www.stress.org/Definition_of_stress.htm). In other words, stress can be defined as physical, psychological and chemical responses of human body to scary, threatening, breathtaking, complex, boring, annoying, stimulant or danger events (Stem and Zemke, 1992). Measuring the level of stress is an important issue which has taken attention of scientists; the concept is accepted as important factor in human life. Under this framework perceived stress scale is an important tool that was developed to measure ones evaluation about his/her life as stressful (Cohen, Kamarcik and Mermelstein, 1983). The scale is aimed to evaluate uncontrollable, unpredictable and compelling evaluations of people (Roberti, Harrington and Storch, 2006) which have four, ten and fourteen item types. In psychometric studies ten-item questionnaire is used mostly (Sharp et al., 2007). Studies about stress concept in the marketing science are too limited in terms of subject and sector. Moorman (2002) argues that attributes of some products can be thought as stress leading factors in consumer like purchasing a house or dental treatment since they affect human welfare directly. Moreover Argabright (2002) put forward trust and negative attitudes/thoughts toward technology as two main factors that lead technological stress. Bricker (2005) scrutinizes air travel stress which is a service that deteriorates emotional balance of consumer in general. According to this study possible adverse air travel events, angry reactions to other passengers and lack of trust are pointed out as components of air travel stress. Besides Moschis (2007) exhibits stress creating factors as; importance and desirability of consuming event and controllability and possibility of occurring unwanted situations. Fogel and Solomon (2009) scrutinizes effect of perceived stress in using internet communication channels in health services which shows men have more self confidence and use internet communication tools. Furthermore Northern, William and Goetz (2010) researches factors create financial stress on undergraduate students. And uncertainty of job, difficulty of meeting education costs, absence of emergency money, lack of economic power to meet unexpected expenses,

32

Tulin Durukan and Ibrahim Bozaci

low credit score, high debts, high interest rates and tax payments are specified as main factors of financial stress of undergraduate students. To summarize, although there are some studies which illustrates consumer stress, this study argues consumer stress occurs in consumption inevitable on the base of consumer risk perception issue.

3. An Empirical Research about Risk Perceptions and Consumer Stress in Banking Sector
3.1. Target and Method of the Research Recent changes and improvements in the world have made firms obliged to be consumer oriented which is explained as giving importance to consumer and struggling to understand consumer wishes and expectancies to prevent unfavorable consumer experiences. This study scrutinizes consumer risk perceptions, consumer stress and relationships between these variables which are not researched in marketing literature in the same framework. Moreover it is aimed to help companies to decrease adverse perceptions and feelings of consumers by illuminating them. To reach these goals, initial data were gathered by survey and statistical analyzes were conducted.
Figure 1: Research Model

Social Risk Perception Time Risk Perception Financial Risk Perception Physical Risk Perception Performance Risk Perception Psychological Risk Perception
Research hypothesis are defined as follows; H1: There is a positive relationship between social risk perception and consumer stress. H2: There is a positive relationship between time risk perception and consumer stress. H3: There is a positive relationship between financial risk perception and consumer stress. H4: There is a positive relationship between physical risk perception and consumer stress. H5: There is a positive relationship between performance risk perception and consumer stress. H6: There is a positive relationship between psychological risk perception and consumer stress. 3.2. The Population and Sample of the Research The population of the research is specified as banking sector consumers in Krkkale who are over age of 19 and consist of 188.800 people in total. (http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/adnksdagitapp/adnks.zul). Necessary sample quantity for this population with % 5 significant level is 384. Under this circumstance data collected from 957 randomly selected consumers.

Banking Consumer Stress

Risk Perception and Consumer Stress: An Empirical Research in Banking Sector

Table 1: Required Sample Numbers

33

Population/Significance Level %5 %3 %2 %1 500 217 340 414 475 1000 278 516 706 906 2000 322 696 1091 1655 5000 357 879 1622 3288 100 000 383 1056 2345 8762 1 000 000 384 1066 2395 9513 Source: Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill, Research Methods for Business Students, Prentice Hall, 3. Edition, 2003.

3.3. Survey Form Survey form of the study is constructed by examining previous studies in the field. In the perceived risk scale, each item was measured on a 5-point likert scale which designed as strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. The questions in the risk perception scale, were constructed by scrutinizing Stone and Mason (1995)s study which contains questions about risk perceptions. The questions are harmonized to banking services as seen in the following table;
Table 2: Risk Perceptions Scale

1. The thought of my banking preference causes me concern because some friends would respond negatively. 2. Taking unwanted responses from neighbors because of bank preference disturbs me. Social Risk Perception, = 0,86 1. Purchasing a banking service makes me concerned that I would have spend too much time. 2. Banking services creates time pressure on me. 3. Banking services lead to an inefficient use of my time. Time Risk Perception, = 0,87 1. My banking preferences would be a bad way to invest my savings. 2. I would be concerned that my banking preference would not be a wise investment choice. Financial Risk Perception, = 0,74 1. I think purchasing a banking service is physically tiring. 2. I think banking services creates unfavorable influences in my body. ( Headache, foot pain etc) Physical Risk Perception, = 0,73 1. I would be concerned whether my bank will really perform as well as it is supposed to. 2. I become concerned that my bank transactions will not provide the level of targeted benefits. Performance Risk Perception, = 0,80 1. The thought of purchasing a banking service makes me feel psychologically uncomfortable. 2. The thought of realization of a banking transaction gives me unwanted feelings. 3. The thought of purchasing a banking service causes me to experience unnecessary tension. Psychological Risk Perception, = 0,78 Overall = 72,17

Moreover to measure the consumer stress in banking services, 10 item perceived stress scale was benefited which measures the overwhelming, unpredictable and uncontrollable evaluations of individual (Cohen, Kamarcik and Mermelstein, 1983). In this context negative stress items were evaluated toward the aim of the study. And questions were adapted in consumers term. Participants were asked to indicate the degree of participation to the questions, which are about frequency of experiencing stress feeling while taking banking services in the last six months. The questions are designed as seen in the following table;
Table 3: Perceived Banking Services Stress

1. I am upset unexpectedly. 2. I experience uncontrollable feelings. 3. I feel stressed.

34
Table 3: Perceived Banking Services Stress - continued

Tulin Durukan and Ibrahim Bozaci

4. I can not cope with bureaucracy in banking services 5. I think I can not overcome the irritating banking processes easily. 6. I am getting stressful about uncontrollable banking services. 7. I feel bank related difficulties can not be handled. = 0,85

3.4. Findings and Analysis of the Research 3.4.1. Demographic and General Findings Demographic findings of the study indicate that more than % 85 of the attendants is less than 33 years old. And women have majority with a ratio of % 61,4 in terms of gender allocation. Besides average monthly incomes of % 70,5 of participants are less than 1500 TL and % 15,8 of participants between 1501 and 2250 TL which may be called as lower and middle incomers.
Table 4: Demographic Findings
Frequency Age 18-25 26-33 34-41 42-49 50 and over Total Gender Female Male Total Monthly Revenue 0-1500 1501-2250 2251-3000 3001-3750 More than 3750 TL Total 672 143 85 33 24 957 588 369 957 675 151 88 20 23 957 70,2 14,9 8,9 3,4 2,5 100,0 61,4 38,6 100,0 70,5 15,8 9,2 2,1 2,4 100,0 Percent

Banking consumer stress level determined as 2,89 which means consumers experience stress around sometimes in the scale which were designed as 1; Never, 2; Seldom, 3 ; Sometimes, 4;Often, 5; Always. Moreover risk perception averages in banking services are 2,63 for social risk perception, 3,13 for time risk perception, 3,01 for financial risk perception, 3,36 for physical risk perception, 3,04 for performance risk perception, 2,87 for psychological risk perception. The general averages of the variables are seen in the following table;
Table 5: General Averages
Consumer Stress 2,89 957 Social Risk 2,63 Time Risk 3,13 Financial Risk 3,01 Physical Risk 3,36 Performance Risk 3,04 Psychologic al Risk 2,87

Mean Number

Furthermore when the averages are compared in terms of gender, there were found a meaningful difference in consumer stress. At this point females face more perceived stress level in banking services. And social risk perception also represents dissimilarity in term of gender since

Risk Perception and Consumer Stress: An Empirical Research in Banking Sector

35

average of female risk perception is significantly higher than males. On the other hand; time, financial, physical, performance, psychological risk perceptions are not represent significant dissimilarity in terms of gender.
Table 6: Gender Differences
Mean 2,9723 2,7349 2,7313 2,4889 3,1003 3,1694 3,0034 3,0069 3,3810 3,3264 3,0060 3,0861 2,6088 3,2704

Consumer Stress Sig. 0,000 Social Risk Perception Sig. 0,002 Time Risk Perception Sig. 0,377 Financial Risk Perception Sig. 0,961 Physical Risk Perception Sig. 0,452 Performance Risk Perception Sig. 0,320 Psychological Risk Perception Sig. 0,09

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

3.4.4. Correlations and Hypotheses Toward testing the research hypotheses, correlation analysis were conducted which shows relationships between variables. As correlation tests evaluated, it is seen that time, physical and psychological risk perceptions are significantly and positively related with the consumer stress. And second, fourth and sixth hypotheses are accepted which are constructed as There is a positive relationship between time risk perception and consumer stress, There is a positive relationship between physical risk perception and consumer stress and There is a positive relationship between psychological risk perception and consumer stress. On the other hand, social risk perception and financial risk perception are negatively correlated with the consumer stress. So first hypothesis is rejected which is There is a positive relationship between social risk perception and consumer stress. And third hypothesis is rejected also which is mentioned as There is a positive relationship between financial risk perception and consumer stress. Hypothesis of There is a positive relationship between performance risk perception and consumer stress is rejected, since correlation coefficients depicts a negative relationship. The reason of negative relationship between social risk perception and consumer stress may be resulted from a tendency of making appropriate bank preference to refrain these risks and to prevent stress. Moreover the reason of negative relationship among financial risk perception, performance risk perception and consumer stress may be explained as; the financial and performance risk perceptions can cause consumers taking precautions for these perceptions like selecting more reliable and less volatile investments. As a conclusion since social, financial and performance risk perceptions can be handled by consumers easily, they are negatively related with consumer stress. On the other hand the positive relationship among time, physical, psychological risk perception and consumer stress may be explained due to the fact that these risk perceptions are seen in all banks and can not be cured by consumers.

36
Table 7: Correlation Analyses

Tulin Durukan and Ibrahim Bozaci

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Time Risk Perception Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Financial Risk Perception Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Physical Risk Perception Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Performance Risk Perception Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Psychological Risk Perception Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Social Risk Perception

Banking Consumer Stress -,374** ,000 957 ,568*** ,000 957 -,315** ,000 957 ,463** ,000 957 -,209** ,000 957 ,394** ,000 957

4. Conclusions, Limitations and Suggestions

This study concentrates on consumer stress, risk perceptions and relationship between risk perception and consumer stress. Consumer stress and important factors affect this feeling are tried to be illuminated, which have not researched in marketing literature. To reach the goal of clarifying these terms and relationships, theoretical studies were reviewed and an empirical research was conducted. Findings of the study can not be generalized to all people and sectors since it was conducted in only one sector and region. As a conclusion, time risk perception, physical risk perception and psychological risk perception are determined as important factors which increase consumer stress meaningfully in banking sector. These findings indicate that firms have to take into consideration consumers expectancies about time, physical and psychological conditions to prevent risk perceptions and consumer stress in banking sector. Improving physical conditions of branches and automatic telling machines, decreasing waiting lines, hiring enough and quality staff, ensuring psychological comfort of consumers, training staff for good and fair consumer relations are proposed applications to prevent risk perceptions and consumer stress and to gain competitive advantage. At this point future studies, which investigate factors that affect consumer stress and results of consumer stress in terms of firms, are thought to be beneficial for a better understanding of consumer behaviors.

References
[1] Alain dAstous and A. Guevremont, 2008. Effects of Retailer Post-Purchase Guarantee Policies on Consumer Perceptions with the Moderating Influence of Financial Risk and Product Complexity, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15, p.306. Argabright, G. C., 2002. An Investigation of the Relationship Between Technology Acceptance and Technological Stres on Consumer Behavior, University of Sarasota, Dissertation, Florida, p.22. Arnout R.H. Fischer and Lynn J. Frewer, 2009. Consumer Familiarity with Foods and Perception of Risks and Benefits, Food Quality and Preference 20, p. 576.

[2]

[3]

Risk Perception and Consumer Stress: An Empirical Research in Banking Sector [4] [5] [6] [7]

37

[8]

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

[19] [20] [21] [22]

[23] [24]

[25] [26]

Barbara K., 2000. Consumer Perception and Understanding of Risk from Food, British MedicalBulletin 56, p.97. Bricker, J.B., 2005. Development and Evaluation of the Air Travel Stress Scale, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52( 49), p.615. Cohen, S., T. Kamarck and R. Mermelstein, 1983. A Global Measure of Perceived Stress, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, p.385. Dale Littler and Demetris Melanthiou, 2006. Consumer Perceptions of Risk and Uncertainty and the Implications for Behavior towards Innovative Retail Services: The Case of Internet banking, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services13, p.431. Fogel J. and S. Israel, 2009. Consumer Attitudes Regarding Internet Health Information and Communication: Gender, Locus of Control and Stress Implications, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9(2), p. 275. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk, 08.03.2011. http://www.stress.org/Definition_of_stress.htm, 08.05.2011. http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/adnksdagitapp/adnks.zul, 10. 05.2011. http://www.tuik.gov.tr, 10. 05.2011 Ivo V. and N. Chater, 2009. Dimensionality of Risk Perception: Factors Affecting Consumer Understanding and Evaluation of Financial Risk, The Journal of Behavioral Finance 10, p.158. Paul J. P. and M. J. Ryan, 1976. An Investigation of Perceived Risk at the Brand Level, Journal of Marketing Research, 13(2), p.184. Saunders, M., P. Lewis and A. Thornhill, 2003. Research Methods for Business Students, Prentice Hall, 3. Edition, p.156. Moorman C., 2002. Consumer Health under the Scope, Journal of Consumer Research, 29. Moschis, G., P., 2007. Stress and Consumer Behavior, J.of the Acad. Mark. Sci., 35. Northern, J. J., W. H. OBrien, and P. W. Goetz, 2010. The Development, Evaluation and Validation of a Financial Stres Scale for Undergraduate Students, Journal of College Student Development, 51(1), p. 84. Kotler, P. and G. Armstrong, 2001, Principles of Marketing, 7. Edition, New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2001, p.156. Robert N. S. and J. B. Mason, 1995. Attitude and Risk: Exploring the Relationship, Psychology&Marketing 12(2), pp.135-153. Roberti, J. W., L. N. Harrington and E. A. Storch, 2006. Further Psychometric Support for the 10-Item Version of the Perceived Stress Scale, Journal of College Counseling,9, p.135. Ruth M. W: Yeung and Joe Morris, 2006. An empirical study of the impact of consumer perceived risk on purchase likelihood: a modeling approach, International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(3), p.295. Sandra M. F. and Bo Shi, 2003. Consumer Patronage and Risk Perceptions in Internet Shopping, Journal of Business Research, 56, p.867. Sharp, L. K., L. G. Kimmel, R. Kee, C. Saltoun and C. H. Chang, 2007. Assessing the Perceived Stress Scale for African American Adults with Asthma and Low Literacy, Journal of Asthma, 44, p.315. Stern, F. M. and R. Zemke, 1992. Stressiz Sat, stanbul: Rota, p.45. (translated by Cneyt Babu). Uptal M. D., 2001. A Motivational Process Model of Product Involvement and Consumer Risk Perception, European Journal of Marketing 35, p.1342.