Dominant Mean Percentage Score Factors Of The Consumer Purchase Behaviour Of Passenger Cars

Globalization and liberalization, with the entry of many prominent foreign manufacturers, changed the automobile scenario in India, since early 1990’s. World Leaders in automobile manufacturing such as Ford, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, Suzuki, Hyundai, Renault, Mitsubishi, Benz, BMW, Volkswagen and Nissan set up their manufacturing units in India in joint venture with their Indian counterpart companies, by making use of the Foreign Direct Investment policy of the Government of India, These manufacturers started capturing the hearts of Indian car customers with their choice of technological and innovative product features, with quality and reliability. With the multiplicity of choices available to the Indian passenger car buyers, it drastically changed the way the car purchase scenario in India and particularly in the State of Kerala. This transformed the automobile scene from a sellers’ market to buyers’ market. Car customers started developing their own personal preferences and purchasing patterns, which were hitherto unknown in the Indian automobile segment. The main purpose of this paper is to come up with the identification of possible parameters and a framework development, that influence the consumer purchase behaviour patterns of passenger car owners in the State of Kerala, so that further research could be done, based on the framework and the identified parameters.

Heterogeneity and the formation of risk - sharing coalitions

We offer a new explanation of partial risk sharing based on coalition formation and segmentation of society in a risky environment, without assuming limited commitment and imperfect information. Heterogenous individuals in a society freely choose with whom they will share risk. A partition belonging to the core of the membership game obtains. Perfect risk sharing does not necessarily arise. Focusing on mutual insurance rule and assuming that individuals only differ with respect to risk, we show that the core partition is homophily-based. The distribution of risk affects the number and size of these coalitions. Individuals may pay a lower risk premium in riskier societies. A higher heterogeneity in risk leads to a lower degree of risk sharing. We discuss how the endogenous partition of society into risk-sharing coalitions may shed light on empirical evidence on partial risk sharing. The case of heterogenous risk aversion leads to similar results.

Relationship between drug use and psychopathological variables of risk in university students

Resumen tomado de la publicación

Explicative factors of face-to-face harassment and cyberbullying in a sample of primary students

Resumen tomado de la publicaci??n

Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information

Two experiments investigated effects of active processing of risk information on participants' understanding and judgments. It was hypothesized that more active processing would lead to better understanding and differences in affective judgments (e.g. increased satisfaction and reduced perceived risk to health). In both experiments participants were given a written scenario about their being prescribed a fictitious medication. This medication was said to cause side effects in 2% of people who took it. Before answering a series of written questions, participants in the active conditions of both experiments were asked to carry out a reflective task (portraying the size of risk on a bar chart in Experiment 1 and answering a reflective question in Experiment 2). The results showed that active participants rated the likelihood of experiencing possible side effects significantly lower than passive participants (Experiment 1), and that active participants were significantly more satisfied with the information and judged perceived risk to health from taking the medication significantly lower than passive participants (Experiment 2). In both experiments, active participants were significantly more correct in their probability and frequency estimates. The studies demonstrate that active processing of risk information leads to improved understanding of the information given. This has important implications for risk communication. In the context of health, better understanding should lead to improved decision-making and health outcomes. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Patients' understanding of risk associated with medication use: impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales

Patients want and need comprehensive and accurate information about their medicines so that they can participate in decisions about their healthcare: In particular, they require information about the likely risks and benefits that are associated with the different treatment options. However, to provide this information in a form that people can readily understand and use is a considerable challenge to healthcare professionals. One recent attempt to standardise the Language of risk has been to produce sets of verbal descriptors that correspond to specific probability ranges, such as those outlined in the European Commission (EC) Pharmaceutical Committee guidelines in 1998 for describing the incidence of adverse effects. This paper provides an overview of a number of studies involving members of the general public, patients, and hospital doctors, that evaluated the utility of the EC guideline descriptors (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). In all studies it was found that people significantly over-estimated the likelihood of adverse effects occurring, given specific verbal descriptors. This in turn resulted in significantly higher ratings of their perceived risks to health and significantly lower ratings of their likelihood of taking the medicine. Such problems of interpretation are not restricted to the EC guideline descriptors. Similar levels of misinterpretation have also been demonstrated with two other recently advocated risk scales (Caiman's verbal descriptor scale and Barclay, Costigan and Davies' lottery scale). In conclusion, the challenge for risk communicators and for future research will be to produce a language of risk that is sufficiently flexible to take into account different perspectives, as well as changing circumstances and contexts of illness and its treatments. In the meantime, we urge the EC and other legislative bodies to stop recommending the use of specific verbal labels or phrases until there is a stronger evidence base to support their use.