基于框架效应及双通道心理账户理论,该研究探讨了年金宣传类型与目标框架对商业养老年金保险购买意愿的影响及内在机制。结果发现：相比于投资型年金,消费者对消费型年金的购买意愿更高。双通道心理账户的消费快乐和支付痛苦在年金宣传类型与购买意愿之间起中介作用,即消费型年金比投资型年金引发了更高的消费快乐、更低的支付痛苦,从而导致了更高的购买意愿。同时目标框架在其中起到调节作用,具体言之,在消极目标框架下,相较于投资型年金,消费型年金引发的消费快乐更高,购买意愿明显也更高;但在积极目标框架下则两种差异不显著。该研究结论不仅丰富了商业年金的理论研究,同时也为制定商业年金的助推策略提供了一定的参考依据。
Abstract
A commercial annuity is a financial product in which individuals protect themselves by purchasing insurance from private insurance companies at a young age, and choose between a lump sum payment and regular monthly installments. In return, they receive fixed regular payments until death. As China grapples with the pressing challenges of an aging population and an increasing social welfare burden, numerous studies have demonstrated the potential of commercial pension annuities as a viable solution for the government to mitigate longevity risk. However, despite the proven benefits of private pension annuities, their uptake by consumers remains limited. The current body of academic marketing research has not provided sufficient guidance on how best to stimulate consumer willingness to purchase commercial pension annuities. Therefore, further research is warranted to address this gap and provide insights for enhancing the uptake of commercial pension annuities.
The primary objective of this study is to address the research gap and determine an effective strategy to motivate individuals to purchase commercial pension annuities. Additionally, it aims to investigate the psychological mechanisms of consumers and the factors that influence the purchase of commercial pension annuities. To achieve these objectives, the study employs a moderated mediation model that combines double-entry mental accounting theory and the framing effect to examine the impact of commercial pension annuity on purchasing decisions. The study aims to investigate whether individuals prefer consumption annuity over investment alternatives. It also explores the underlying mechanism of this preference through two channels of double-entry mental accounting. The first channel captures the positive utility derived from consumption after payment, referred to as "the pleasure of consumption." The second channel records the disutility of paying for gains, known as "the pain of paying." Additionally, this study investigates the moderating effect of goal framing on this relationship.
The study was conducted using a situational experiment with 492 participants, using a 2 (annuity advertisement: consumption vs. investment) x 2 (goal framing: positive vs. negative) between-subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups and instructed to imagine purchasing a commercial pension annuity before completing scales. The collected data were then analyzed, and the primary findings were as follows. First, consumption annuity plans were found to be more effective in enhancing consumers' willingness to purchase commercial pension annuities. This is primarily due to consumers' tendency to avoid investment pension plans owing to uncertainty and concerns about potential financial losses. Second, the pleasure of consumption and the pain of payment were found to have a mediating effect. In other words, consumption annuities were found to increase consumers' enjoyment of consumption and thus positively influence their purchase intention. Lastly, a significant interaction effect was observed between the goal framing and the type of annuity advertisement on individuals' inclination to purchase. Specifically, under negative goal framing conditions, investment annuities were associated with lower consumption pleasure and a lower tendency to choose pension annuities.
In summary, this study provides valuable insights into the psychological mechanisms of "investment aversion" in consumer purchasing behavior toward commercial annuities. The findings highlight consumers' preference for consumption annuities and demonstrate the mediating role of double-entry mental accounting, as well as the moderating effect of negative goal framing in decision making. Moreover, the observed interaction between commercial pension annuity type and goal framing underscores the theoretical and practical implications of leveraging information framing in the private pension annuity insurance sector. Overall, these conclusions contribute to the existing literature on annuity consumption and have important marketing implications for enterprises operating in this sector. By enhancing our understanding of consumer psychology in pension planning, this research provides valuable guidance for developing more effective marketing strategies and product designs, potentially increasing the adoption of these crucial financial instruments among consumers.
关键词
年金宣传类型 /
框架效应 /
双通道心理账户 /
商业年金 /
目标框架
Key words
annuity puzzle /
framing effect /
double-entry mental accounting /
commercial pension annuity /
goal framing
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 陈东升. (2020). 长寿时代的理论与对策. 管理世界, 36(4), 66-85.
[2] 戴鑫, 周文容, 曾一帆. (2015). 广告信息框架与信息目标对受众亲社会行为的影响研究. 管理学报, 12(6), 880-887.
[3] 李爱梅, 郝玫, 李理, 凌文辁. (2012). 消费者决策分析的新视角: 双通道心理账户理论. 心理科学进展, 20(11), 1709-1717.
[4] 李爱梅, 李斌, 许华, 李伏岭, 张耀辉, 梁竹苑. (2014). 心理账户的认知标签与情绪标签对消费决策行为的影响. 心理学报, 46(7), 976-986.
[5] 李爱梅, 凌文辁. (2007). 心理账户: 理论与应用启示. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 727-734.
[6] 李爱梅, 凌文辁, 方俐洛, 肖胜. (2007). 中国人心理账户的内隐结构. 心理学报, 39(4), 706-714.
[7] 刘红艳, 李爱梅, 王海忠, 卫海英. (2012). 不同促销方式对产品购买决策的影响——基于解释水平理论视角的研究. 心理学报, 44(8), 1100-1113.
[8] 刘楠, 安薪如, 李爱梅, 刘培, 孙海龙. (2022). 现在避害, 未来趋利: 目标框架和时间距离交互影响疫苗说服有效性. 心理学报, 54(12), 1532-1547.
[9] 刘培, 冯一丹, 李爱梅, 刘伟, 谢健飞. (2019). 揭秘经济管理中的行为异象: 心理账户理论的应用启示. 心理科学进展, 27(3), 405-416.
[10] 秦云, 郑伟. (2017). 年金谜题的成因及对策研究评述. 经济学动态, 5, 133-141.
[11] 万晴瑶, 卓志, 成德义. (2014). 中国城镇居民养老金年金化需求行为的影响因素分析. 保险研究, 10, 108-123.
[12] 王晓军, 路倩. (2019). 高龄人口死亡率预测模型的比较与选择. 保险研究, 3, 82-102.
[13] 郑秉文, 董克用, 赵耀辉, 房连泉, 朱俊生, 张冰子, 贾珅. (2021). 养老金改革的前景、挑战与对策. 国际经济评论, 4, 9-31.
[14] Agnew J. R., Anderson L. R., Gerlach J. R., & Szykman L. R. (2008). Who chooses annuities? An experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing, and defaults. American Economic Review, 98(2), 418-422.
[15] Baumeister R. F., Bratslavsky E., Finkenauer C., & Vohs K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
[16] Benartzi S., Previtero A., & Thaler R. H. (2011). Annuitization puzzles. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 143-164.
[17] Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192-203.
[18] Brown J. R., Kling J. R., Mullainathan S., & Wrobel M. V. (2008). Why don' t people insure late-life consumption? A framing explanation of the under-annuitization puzzle. American Economic Review, 98(2), 304-309.
[19] Chapman, G. B. (1996). Temporal discounting and utility for health and money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 771-791.
[20] Cristea, M., & Thalassinos, E. (2016). Private pension plans: An important component of the financial market. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 4(1), 110-115.
[21] Dodds W. B., Monroe K. B., & Grewal D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319.
[22] Eberhardt W., Brüggen E., Post T., & Hoet C. (2021). Engagement behavior and financial well-being: The effect of message framing in online pension communication. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38(2), 448-471.
[23] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
[24] Goedde-Menke M., Lehmensiek-Starke M., & Nolte S. (2014). An empirical test of competing hypotheses for the annuity puzzle. Journal of Economic Psychology, 43, 75-91.
[25] Hayes A. F.(2017). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
[26] Hu, W. Y., & Scott, J. S. (2007). Behavioral obstacles in the annuity market. Financial Analysts Journal, 63(6), 71-82.
[27] Inkmann J., Lopes P., & Michaelides A. (2011). How deep is the annuity market participation puzzle? The Review of Financial Studies, 24(1), 279-319.
[28] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
[29] Krieglmeyer R., De Houwer J., & Deutsch R. (2013). On the nature of automatically triggered approach-avoidance behavior. Emotion Review, 5(3), 280-284.
[30] Levin I. P., Schneider S. L., & Gaeth G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
[31] Oettingen, G., & Mayer, D. (2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future: Expectations versus fantasies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1198-1212.
[32] Pashchenko, S. (2013). Accounting for non-annuitization. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 53-67.
[33] Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: Mental accounting of savings and debt. Marketing Science, 17(1), 4-28.
[34] Rick S. I., Cryder C. E., & Loewenstein G. (2008). Tightwads and spendthrifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 767-782.
[35] Rodd, J. M. (2024). Moving experimental psychology online: How to obtain high quality data when we can' t see our participants. Journal of Memory and Language, 134, Article 104472.
[36] Rothman A. J., Bartels R. D., Wlaschin J., & Salovey P. (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56(1), S202-S220.
[37] Sassenberg, K., & Ditrich, L. (2019). Research in social psychology changed between 2011 and 2016: Larger sample sizes, more self-report measures, and more online studies. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 107-114.
[38] Shafir, E., & Thaler, R. H. (2006). Invest now, drink later, spend never: On the mental accounting of delayed consumption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(5), 694-712.
[39] Tanford S., Choi C., & Joe S. J. (2019). The influence of pricing strategies on willingness to pay for accommodations: Anchoring, framing, and metric compatibility. Journal of Travel Research, 58(6), 932-944.
[40] Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-214.
[41] Thaler, R. H. (1990). Anomalies: Saving, fungibility, and mental accounts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(1), 193-205.
[42] Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183-206.
[43] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
[44] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
[45] Wang, F., & Zheng, H. T. (2021). Do public pensions improve mental wellbeing? Evidence from the new rural society pension insurance program. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), Article 2391.
[46] Wen T., Leung X. Y., Li B., & Hu L. Y. (2021). Examining framing effect in travel package purchase: An application of double-entry mental accounting theory. Annals of Tourism Research, 90, Article 103265.
[47] Yarri, M. E. (1965). Uncertain lifetime, life insurance, and the theory of the consumer. The Review of Economic Studies, 32(2), 137-150.
基金
*本研究得到教育部人文社科研究青年基金项目（22YJCZH074）、广东省社科规划基金一般项目（GD22CGL05）、中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金（23JNQMX11）、国家自然科学基金项目（71601084,71971099）、广州品牌创新发展研究基地研究项目（2022JNZS72）和暨南大学企业发展研究所民营企业项目（2021MYZD01）的资助
PDF(754 KB)
