Dimensión 3. Eficacia en los Resultados
2.6. Aspectos éticos
This section will analyse the role of five demographic factors (gender, age, income, education level, and occupation) in the moderation of the relationships already identified.
In order to systematically examine the effect of each factor, subsets of the data were created for each of the five factors, reflecting the relevant nominal variables in the dataset, with all relationships between variables being explored for each group. In all cases, the minimum requirements for the model were satisfied and bootstrapping was successful, however many of the fit statistics were only marginally adequate, implying that each factor may have a model with a closer fit. Details of each factor are now presented together with model fit, details of coefficients, and critical ratios for each factor, together with a brief summary of the results for that moderating factor.
5.16.1 Gender
The model fit summary shown in Table 5.29 indicates that the male group fits the model better than the female group, with the R2 values shown in Table 5.30 indicating that higher levels of variance associated with structural assurance, situational normality, and intention to purchase were explained within the male group, whilst a higher level of variance
associated with trusting beliefs and intentions was explained within the female group.
Grouping n χ2 df χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA
Male 156 2719.124 1845 1.474 0.917 0.924 0.055
Female 146 3206.107 1847 1.736 0.860 0.872 0.071
Table 5.29: Model Summary Moderator Analysis: Gender
Male Female
SA 0.63 0.61
SN 0.26 0.16
TBEI 0.46 0.50
INPU 0.86 0.62
Variable R2
Table 5.30: R2 Values: Gender
166
Table 5.31 indicates that, whilst several relationships were significant for both males and females, the relationship between brand and situational normality was significant for females but not males. The results also show a marked difference between males and females for the relationship between size of organisation and trusting beliefs and intentions.
Table 5.32 shows the significant results from a series of independent t-tests, carried out on composite variables, comprised of the mean of all items for each variable examining the effects of gender (full results of the t-tests can be found in Appendix Eleven). Homogeneity of variance was achieved in the majority of cases (Levene’s test >0.5) but, where this was not the case, results from the unequal variance method provided by SPSS are shown. These results show that, in all but one case where there is a significant difference, with regard to their knowledge of financial advice, females had a higher mean than males. H7e (KNFS) is therefore rejected, against expectation, whilst support is found for H7a (SA), H7b (CP and DP), H7c (MP), H7d (BRX), H7h (other predictors of SA), H7i (SN), H7j (TBEI), H7k (INPU), in line with expectation. H7f relating to KA and H7g relating to EXFS are also rejected against expectation, as no significant differences were found relating to these variables between the genders. Overall, these results indicate that gender does have an impact upon environmental trust in the context of this study.
Estimate Critical Ratio
(t-value) Estimate Critical Ratio (t-value) Structural Assurance → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.67 9.59*** 0.66 9.37***
Consumer Protection → Structural Assurance 0.12 0.59 0.10 0.49
Data Protection → Structural Assurance 0.40 2.85** 0.41 2.95**
Membership of a Professional Assoc → Structural Assurance 0.50 4.03*** 0.58 4.19***
Redress, Guarantees and Warranties → Structural Assurance -0.49 -3.44*** -0.54 -3.75***
Communication by Regulator → Structural Assurance 0.01 0.15 -0.01 -0.06
Experience of Financial Services→ Structural Assurance 0.28 4.29*** 0.28 4.33***
Brand → Structural Assurance 0.02 0.36 0.02 0.20
Size of Organisation → Structural Assurance -0.08 -1.43 -0.09 -1.08
Situational Normality → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.05 0.50 0.03 0.25 Adviser Dress & Attire Expectation → Situational Normality 0.12 1.63 0.10 1.41
Business Premises → Situational Normality -0.06 -0.67 -0.07 -0.74
Confidentiality, Privacy & Data Security → Situational Normality 0.11 0.82 0.07 0.58 Knowledge of Financial Advice → Situational Normality 0.15 2.98** 0.15 2.98**
Provision of Testimonials → Situational Normality -0.03 -0.43 -0.03 -0.40
Brand → Situational Normality -0.03 -0.55 0.18 2.16**
Size of Organisation → Situational Normality 0.05 0.97 -0.07 -0.90
Brand → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.02 0.37 0.07 0.64
Size of Organisation → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions -0.19 -3.29*** -0.23 -2.59**
Trusting Beliefs and Intentions → Intention to Purchase 0.97 11.23*** 0.97 11.26***
Note: *** Significant at p <.001; ** Significant at p <.05 Hypothesised relationship
Table 5.31: Moderating Effects of Gender
Male (n=156) Female (n=146)
167 5.16.2 Age
The model fit summary shown in Table 5.33 indicates that the 46-60 age group most closely fits the model, followed by the 26-45 age group. The R2 values shown in Table 5.34 indicate that the highest levels of variance associated with situational normality, trusting beliefs and intentions, and intention to purchase were explained within the 26-45 age group, whilst the highest level of variance associated with structural assurance was explained within the 46-60 age group.
Table 5.35 indicates that many of the paths associated with structural assurance were most salient to the 46-60 age group, whilst the paths associated with situational normality were most salient to the over 60 age group. Two marked differences shown between the age groups relate to the paths between brand and situational normality and between consumer protection and structural assurance, which were both significant at the p<.001 level for the 60 plus age group but were not significant for the other age groups. Conversely, the path between membership of a professional association was not significant for the over 60 age group but was significant at the p<.05 level for the 26-45 age group and at the p<.001 level for the 46-60 age group.
Variable Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Levene's sig t -value df p- value
SA 5.26 1.26 5.55 1.15 0.54 -2.10 300.00 0.04
CP 5.18 1.13 5.53 0.92 0.19 -2.96 300.00 0.00
DP 5.21 1.27 5.48 1.07 0.18 -2.02 300.00 0.04
MP 4.95 1.23 5.21 1.05 0.16 1.97 300.00 0.05
COMR 4.61 1.42 4.97 1.16 0.01 -2.44 294.80 0.02
CPDE 5.98 0.93 6.24 0.66 0.01 -2.88 280.74 0.00
KNFS 5.01 1.14 4.62 1.22 0.19 2.83 300.00 0.01
BR 4.85 1.48 5.18 1.23 0.02 -2.05 295.96 0.04
SO 3.60 1.60 3.94 1.46 0.08 -1.95 300.00 0.05
Male Female
Table 5.32: t -test Results for Gender
Grouping n χ2 df χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA
26-45 98 3169.108 1847 1.716 0.804 0.821 0.086
46-60 114 3011.378 1847 1.630 0.859 0.871 0.075
60 plus 90 3292.254 1847 1.782 0.799 0.815 0.094
Table 5.33: Model Summary Moderator Analysis: Age
26-45 46-60 60 plus
SA 0.61 0.73 0.63
SN 0.28 0.24 0.27
TBEI 0.67 0.37 0.44
INPU 0.72 0.71 0.69
Variable R2
Table 5.34: R2 Values: Age
168
One-way ANOVA tests were carried out to examine the differences between the different age groups for composite variables comprising of the mean of items for each variable. No significant differences between the different age groups were found. No support was therefore found for H8a, H8b, H8c, or H8d, indicating that age has little effect upon environmental trust in the context of this study.
5.16.3 Level of Education
Due to small sample sizes for the professional diploma (n=47) and post graduate (n=49) groups, the education variable was recoded as dichotomous, in order to examine the moderating effect of education level with those having secondary school/college or a professional diploma as their highest level of education being categorised as ‘non-university’, whilst those with either a graduate or post-graduate education were categorised as ‘university’.
The model fit summary shown in Table 5.36 indicates that the non-university group fits the model better than the university group, with the R2 values shown in Table 5.37 indicating that higher levels of variance associated with structural assurance and trusting beliefs and intentions were explained within the non-university group, whilst higher levels of variance associated with situational normality and intention to purchase were explained in the university group.
Estimate Critical Ratio
(t-value) Estimate Critical Ratio
(t-value) Estimate Critical Ratio (t-value) Structural Assurance → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.98 8.95*** 0.40 6.17*** 0.46 6.15***
Consumer Protection → Structural Assurance 0.21 1.26 0.46 1.54 0.65 3.46***
Data Protection → Structural Assurance 0.15 0.95 0.26 2.14** 0.10 0.57
Membership of a Professional Assoc → Structural Assurance 0.37 2.71** 0.74 4.00*** 0.03 0.19 Redress, Guarantees and Warranties → Structural Assurance -0.24 -1.73 -0.89 -3.26** -0.27 -1.95
Communication by Regulator → Structural Assurance 0.05 0.49 -0.01 -0.04 0.08 0.78
Experience of Financial Services→ Structural Assurance 0.22 3.66*** 0.27 3.32*** 0.33 3.94***
Brand → Structural Assurance 0.13 1.17 0.16 1.43 0.15 1.44
Size of Organisation → Structural Assurance -0.17 -1.85 -0.20 -1.56 -0.04 -0.46
Situational Normality → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.15 1.24 0.12 1.10 0.19 1.45
Adviser Dress & Attire Expectation → Situational Normality 0.17 1.85 0.12 1.64 0.13 1.24
Business Premises → Situational Normality -0.16 -1.29 -0.18 -2.10** 0.04 0.53
Confidentiality, Privacy & Data Secuirty → Situational Normality 0.27 1.93 0.19 1.74 0.02 0.18
Knowledge of Financial Advice → Situational Normality 0.02 0.32 0.15 2.96** 0.02 0.25
Provision of Testimonials → Situational Normality -0.09 -0.82 0.08 1.49 0.07 1.03
Brand → Situational Normality 0.10 0.79 0.16 1.90 0.31 3.32***
Size of Organisation → Situational Normality 0.15 1.45 -0.17 -1.81 -0.18 -2.28**
Brand → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.34 0.11 1.00
Size of Organisation → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions -0.22 -2.15** -0.12 -1.14 -0.21 -2.37**
Trusting Beliefs and Intentions → Intention to Purchase 0.92 10.37*** 1.18 9.32*** 1.21 10.50***
Note: *** Significant at p <.001; ** Significant at p <.05
Table 5.35: Moderating Effects of Age Hypothesised relationship
26-45 (n=98) 46-60 (n=114) 60 Plus (n=90)
Grouping n χ2 df χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA
Non-University 175 2893.596 1845 1.568 0.906 0.914 0.057
Univesity 127 3062.361 1847 1.658 0.868 0.879 0.072
Table 5.36: Model Summary Moderator Analysis: Education
169
Table 5.38 indicates that the paths associated with situational normality were generally more salient to the university group, whilst those associated with structural assurance were more salient to the non-university group. The results show that there are marked differences between the groups relating to the relationships between both structural assurance and situational normality and trusting beliefs and intentions, and also to the paths relating to the predictors of structural assurance and situational normality. For example, the results show that paths associated with consumer protection and redress, guarantees, and warranties were significant at the p<.001 level for the non-university group but not significant for the university group.
One-way ANOVA tests were carried out to examine the differences between the different educational attainment groups for composite variables comprising of the mean of items for each variable. Significant differences between the different educational attainment groups were only found for the business premises composite variable. H9a, H9b, H9c, and H9d are therefore rejected against expectation indicating that educational attainment does not have an impact upon levels of environmental trust in the context of this study.
Non
Table 5.37: R2 Values: Education
Estimate Critical Ratio
(t-value) Estimate Critical Ratio (t-value) Structural Assurance → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.62 11.19*** 0.44 5.72***
Consumer Protection → Structural Assurance 0.61 4.29*** -0.04 -0.17
Data Protection → Structural Assurance 0.08 0.69 0.35 2.64**
Membership of a Professional Assoc → Structural Assurance 0.37 3.14** 0.39 2.90**
Redress, Guarantees and Warranties → Structural Assurance -0.46 -3.86*** -0.15 -0.89
Communication by Regulator → Structural Assurance 0.01 0.11 0.08 0.77
Experience of Financial Services→ Structural Assurance 0.30 5.41*** 0.21 2.92**
Brand → Structural Assurance 0.13 1.59 0.10 1.03
Size of Organisation → Structural Assurance -0.12 -1.43 -0.13 -1.59
Situational Normality → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.09 1.10 0.27 2.06**
Adviser Dress & Attire Expectation → Situational Normality 0.16 1.94 0.07 1.04
Business Premises → Situational Normality -0.05 -0.70 -0.22 -2.66**
Confidentiality, Privacy and Data Security → Situational Normality 0.05 0.55 0.29 3.12**
Knowledge of Financial Advice → Situational Normality 0.09 2.02** 0.09 1.57
Provision of Testimonials → Situational Normality 0.06 1.06 0.03 0.50
Brand → Situational Normality 0.08 0.87 0.32 4.38***
Size of Organisation → Situational Normality -0.02 -0.19 -0.13 -2.17**
Brand → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.09 1.14 0.09 1.28
Size of Organisation → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions -0.25 -3.22** -0.19 -2.39**
Trusting Beliefs and Intentions → Intention to Purchase 1.04 12.33*** 1.17 12.20***
Note: *** Significant at p <.001; ** Significant at p <.05 Hypothesised relationship
Table 5.38: Moderating Effects of Education
Non-University (n=175) University (n=127)
170 5.16.4 Income
Due to small sample sizes for the under £20,000 per annum (n=48) and over £100,000 per annum (n=14) groups, the income variable was recoded as dichotomous in order to
examine the moderating effect of income level into two groups: ‘Up to £40,000 per annum’
and ‘over £40,001 per annum.’
The model fit summary shown in Table 5.39 indicates that the up to £40,000 per annum group fits the model slightly better than the over £40,001 per annum group, with the R2 values shown in Table 5.40 indicating that higher levels of variance associated with
structural assurance, situational normality, trusting beliefs and intentions, and intention to purchase were explained within the over £40,001 per annum group.
Table 5.41 indicates mixed results for the paths associated with both situational normality and structural assurance. Several paths, such as those between situational normality and trusting beliefs and intentions, and adviser expectation and situational normality, are only significant for the up to £40,000 per annum group, whilst several, such as those between privacy, confidentiality and data security expectation and situational normality, and data protection and structural assurance, are only significant for the £40,001 per annum and above group.
Grouping n χ2 df χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA
Up to £40,000 172 3051.186 2997.062 1.653 0.894 0.903 0.062
£40,001 plus 130 1846 1847 1.623 0.875 0.885 0.069
Table 5.39: Model Summary Moderator Analysis: Income
Up to £40k £40,001 plus
SA 0.60 0.64
SN 0.21 0.23
TBEI 0.45 0.50
INPU 0.71 0.79
Variable
R2
Table 5.40: R2 Values: Income
171
One-way ANOVA tests were carried out to examine the differences between the different income groups for composite variables comprising of the mean of items for each variable.
Significant differences between the different income groups were found for the prior knowledge of the financial advice industry and intentions to purchase composite variables only. H10a, H10b, and H10c are therefore rejected against expectation, whilst H10d, relating to INPU, was supported as expected. These results indicate that levels of income have little effect upon environmental trust in the context of this study.
5.16.5 Occupation
Due to small sample sizes in all but the professional occupational group, the other values in the occupation variable were recoded. Those in the self-employed (n=29),
clerical/secretarial (n=38), technical (n=22), and other (n=27) groups were categorised as
‘other occupations’, whilst those in the retired (n=73) and housewife/husband (n=18) group were categorised as ‘retired and housewife/husband’.
The model fit summary, shown in Table 5.42, indicates that the other occupations group most closely fits the model, followed by the professional group. The R2 values shown in Table 5.43 indicate that the highest levels of variance associated with structural assurance, situational normality, trusting beliefs and intentions, and intention to purchase were explained within the professional group. The lowest levels of variance associated with structural assurance and intention to purchase were explained in the retired and
housewife/husband group, whilst the lowest levels of variance associated with situational normality and trusting beliefs and intentions were explained in the other occupations group.
Estimate Critical Ratio
(t-value) Estimate Critical Ratio (t-value) Structural Assurance → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.51 8.57*** 0.59 8.22**
Consumer Protection → Structural Assurance 0.43 2.67** 0.45 1.96**
Data Protection → Structural Assurance 0.12 0.80 0.27 2.63**
Membership of a Professional Assoc → Structural Assurance 0.30 2.75** 0.38 2.68**
Redress, Guarantees and Warranties → Structural Assurance -0.39 -2.96** -0.30 -2.36**
Communication by Regulator → Structural Assurance 0.11 1.30 -0.08 -0.76
Experience of Financial Services→ Structural Assurance 0.32 5.30*** 0.18 2.62**
Brand → Structural Assurance 0.11 1.25 0.08 0.88
Size of Organisation → Structural Assurance -0.09 -1.03 -0.07 -0.86
Situational Normality → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.26 2.64** 0.05 0.45 Adviser Dress & Attire Expectation → Situational Normality 0.17 2.34** 0.07 1.02
Business Premises → Situational Normality -0.09 -1.28 -0.12 -1.62
Confidentiality, Privacy & Data Security → Situational Normality 0.10 1.04 0.21 2.09**
Knowledge of Financial Advice → Situational Normality 0.09 1.96** 0.06 1.07
Provision of Testimonials → Situational Normality 0.07 1.17 0.03 0.50
Brand → Situational Normality 0.21 2.56** 0.15 2.01**
Size of Organisation → Situational Normality -0.16 -2.09** 0.02 0.21
Brand → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions 0.08 0.89 0.08 0.95
Size of Organisation → Trusting Beliefs and Intentions -0.21 -2.51** -0.22 -2.81**
Trusting Beliefs and Intentions → Intention to Purchase 1.11 14.05*** 1.11 10.94***
Note: *** Significant at p <.001; ** Significant at p <.05
Table 5.41: Moderating Effects of Income
Up to £40,000 pa (n=172) £40,001 pa and above (n=130) Hypothesised relationship
Grouping n χ2 df χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA
Professional 95 3101.183 1847 1.679 0.819 0.835 0.085
Other Occupations 116 3217.093 1847 1.742 0.834 0.848 0.080
Retired & Hosuewife/husband 91 3216.176 1847 1.741 0.804 0.820 0.091 Table 5.42: Model Summary Moderator Analysis: Occupation
172
Table 5.44 presents mixed results for the hypothesised paths. However, the paths were generally more salient to the other occupations group, with several of the predictors being demonstrably significant to that group, such as adviser expectation and membership of a professional association.
One-way ANOVA tests were carried out to examine variations between the different occupation groups for composite variables comprising of the mean of items for each variable. Significant differences between the occupation groups were found for the prior knowledge of the financial advice industry and self-regulation composite variables only.