Ciberhippies o la ciberdelia de Mondo 2000:

We will present our findings in respect of this research question according to our main metrics of interest, i.e., the respondents’ indicated usage of information sources as well as their assessment of the different sources’

accessibility, trust, effectivity, inefficiency and comprehensibility.

Usage of information sources. The most popular information sources used by the survey participants are media (used by 99.3% of the respondents), professional Internet sources (96.5%) and personal environment (92.3%), whereas the usage of other sources is comparably lower, specifically for advisory services (see Table 6-7).

Looking at the frequency of usage (Figure 6-13), we find significant differences between the information sources (Friedman test, χ²(6) = 80.926, p < .001). Professional Internet sources are used most and significantly more often than any other information source – its frequency of usage is significantly different from media (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test, Z = -3.0349, p = .002, r = -.26) with a medium effect size and also significantly different from advisory services in banks (Z = -7.1146, p <

.001, r = -.68) and independent FSPs (Z = -6.0009, p < .001, r = -.74) with large effect sizes.

Table 6-7: Usage of information sources as indicated by respondents

Information source % of users

media 99.3

professional Internet 96.5

personal environment 92.3

bank advice 79.6

guidebooks 77.5

informal Internet 76.1

independent FSP advice 48.6

Figure 6-13: Frequency of information source usage

Media, which is used by the majority of respondents, was used very frequently by our respondents, followed by personal environment (used by most respondents), informal Internet sources and guidebooks. The frequency of using informal Internet resources was very diverse, with some respondents indicating a very high and others a very low frequency of use;

there is, however, a notable difference to professional Internet sources (Z = -7.1893, p < .001, r = -.70) with a large effect size. Both advice provided by banks and independent FSPs are not used very frequently, whereby independent FSP advice was used by less than 50% of the respondents and shows the lowest frequency of usage. Consequently, the differences between advisory services of banks and independent FSPs were significant (Z = -3.2195, p = .001, r = -.39) with a medium effect size. A comprehensive list of all information source pairs and their differences regarding frequency of usage is provided in Table 6-13 in Appendix A2.

The participants of our focus groups showed a very similar pattern of most frequently using media, professional Internet and personal environment and using advisory services only rarely. While some participants used advisory services to get already “filtered” and therefore most relevant information, others stated to not use such services because their lack of credibility (see also results discussed above, RQ1.1). Furthermore, some found them inefficient regarding their overall duration.

Despite their high usage frequency, media like newspapers were not appreciated by all participants; some found them to be too facts-oriented or

lacking timeliness. Professional Internet sources were commonly used by focus group participants to get up-to-date information like exchange rates but also for comparison of FSP services and products; some participants mentioned that they use informal Internet sources (e.g., message boards and blogs) to investigate other investors’ experiences.

According to the number of ranked information sources (from RQ2.2 below), the average respondent consults 5.7 information sources before making investment decisions, whereby more than 85% of the respondents use more than four information sources (Table 6-8) – this mirrors our focus group participants’ conclusion that it was important to not rely on a single source and to not purchase the “first available offer”. The survey respondent using only one information source relied on guidebooks. The usage profile of the respondents using three or more sources was very similar, with professional Internet sources, media and personal environment assigned to the top three positions, followed by informal Internet sources and advisory services in banks. However, as the number of information sources utilized increases, the assigned ranking of advisory services increases as well.

Therefore, in terms of the corresponding order of use, both advisory provided by banks and independent FSPs consistently ranked amongst the last used information sources.

Table 6-8: Number of used information sources for decision making No. of used sources No. of respondents % of all respondents Cumulative %

1 1 0.7 0.7

3 8 5.6 6.3

4 12 8.5 14.8

5 36 25.4 40.1

6 39 27.5 67.6

7 46 32.4 100.0

Total 142 100.0

Accessibility. The perceived accessibility shows a pattern similar to the frequency of usage, with professional Internet sources, media and personal environment having the highest average agreement on being accessible (Figure 6-14).The differences between the sources are highly significant (Friedman test, χ²(6) = 266.634, p < .001). Professional Internet sources were rated as being significantly more accessible than all other sources, with a small effect difference to the media (Z = -2.3317, p = .03, r = -.20), which are perceived the second most accessible source. Bank advice is also

considered significantly less accessible than personal environment (Z = 5.0163, p < .001, r = .43) and informal Internet (Z = 2.7830, p = .008, r = -.25).

Advice provided by banks exhibits similar accessibility as guidebooks (no significant difference), which is also true for the frequency of usage. At the far end of the scale, we find independent FSP advice, which is also most infrequently used. It is perceived as significantly less accessible than any other information source, with large effect differences as compared to guidebooks (Z = -6.0509, p < .001, r = -.54), which rank the second least accessible source, as well as bank advice (Z = - 6.7980, p < .001, r = -.60).

Similar to their frequency of usage, the two different kinds of Internet sources show a significant difference regarding their perceived accessibility with a large effect size (Z = -6.4210, p < .001, r = - .57). Table 6-13 in Appendix A2 provides a comprehensive list of all significant differences of accessibility ratings. Focus group participants showed a very similar rating of information source accessibility, with professional Internet, media and personal environment found to be most accessible because of their

“availability” and approachability.

Figure 6-14: Perceived accessibility of information sources

Trust. Similar to other characteristics discussed thus far, the information sources with the highest perceived trust are professional Internet sources, media and personal environment (Figure 6-15). Again, the respondents provided significantly different ratings for the information sources (χ²(6) = 117.634, p < .001). Respondents trust significantly more in professional

Internet sources than in media (Z = -3.6404, p < .001, r = -.31), whereas ratings of media and personal environment show no significant differences.

At the other end of the spectrum, bank advice attracts the lowest degree of trust. It is significantly less trusted than other information sources, except for informal Internet and independent FSP advice. Independent FSP advice shows a similar picture, being significantly less trusted than the most trusted sources of professional Internet, media, personal environment and guidebooks (see Table 6-14 in Appendix A2). Informal Internet sources are trusted significantly less than professional Internet sources with a large effect size (Z = -7.9458, p < .001, r = -.68).

Figure 6-15: Trust in information sources

Again, the focus group participants similarly rated the different information sources, putting highest trust in professional Internet, media and personal environment. However, not all participants found these sources reliable – some participants especially questioned the utility and trustworthiness of personal environment (the third most frequently used information source), with one investor posing the following rhetorical question: “Why would family members and friends be more knowledgeable regarding investments?”. Another investor, however, heavily relied on his retired father’s recommendations – stating that his father had more time to gather relevant information than himself.

Effectivity. The respondents ratings of information sources in respect of effectivity were significantly different (χ²(6) = 85.262, p < .001). The highest

perceived effectivity is attributed to professional Internet sources (see Figure 6-16), which are rated significantly higher than the second-ranked media (Z

= -3.1351, p = .003, r = -.26) with small to medium effect size. Effectivity of bank advice and independent FSP advice were rated equally low with no significant differences. Both were considered significantly less effective than the best rated professional Internet sources with large effect sizes (bank advice: Z = -5.8728, p < .001, r = -.51, independent FSP advice: Z = -5.9420, p < .001, r = -.55). Again, the perception of professional and informal Internet sources shows large effect differences (Z = 7.8796, p < .001, r = -.68). Similar ratings were provided by our focus group participants.

Advisory services as well as informal Internet sources were not considered to support investors in making good investment decisions mainly because their lack of credibility and trust (see similar results for RQ1.1).

Figure 6-16: Perceived effectivity of information sources

Inefficiency. Regarding the perceived inefficiency of the information sources used (Figure 6-17), ratings again are significantly different (χ²(6) = 186.975, p < .001). The three best-rated (i.e., with lowest agreement) sources again were personal environment, professional Internet sources and media, which so far have shown the highest frequency of use and accessibility (see above).

Figure 6-17: Perceived inefficiency of information sources

Differences between personal environment and professional Internet were highly significant with medium effect size (Z = -3.6090, p < .001, r = -.31).

Independent FSP advice as well as bank advice show the highest average rating of inefficiency with a small but significant difference (Z = -2.7728, p

= .008, r = -.25). The inefficiency of informal Internet sources is rated significantly lower than for guidebooks (Z = -3.1308, p = .003, r = -.29) as well as the subsequent sources (see Table 6-15 in Appendix A2).

Responses of focus group participants largely conform to those of the online survey. While they also generally found professional Internet sources to be very efficient, however, some found them tedious for finding useful information because of missing functionality to filter relevant information.

Comprehensibility. The different information sources are perceived as significantly different regarding their comprehensibility (χ²(6) = 40.685, p <

.001). Highest rated information sources are professional Internet, personal environment and media with no significant different ratings between them.

Media is considered significantly more comprehensible than guidebooks (Z

= -3.5072, p < .001, r = -.32) and all following information sources (see Table 6-14 in Appendix A2), including bank advice and independent FSP advice, which are not rated significantly different. Ratings of informal and professional Internet, however, show significant differences with large effect size (Z = -5.2688, p < .001, r = -.47).

Figure 6-18: Perceived comprehensibility of information sources

In our focus group discussions, many participants found advisory services to be particularly lacking comprehensibility in respect of the advisor’s not sufficiently explaining their activities and actions and overly using technical terms.

6.4.4 RQ2.2 What are the Clients’ Information Search Processes and What