Exploring Advice Seeking Behavior: Findings from the 2011 Taiwan - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Exploring Advice Seeking Behavior: Findings from the 2011 Taiwan Survey of Justiciable Problems

Kong‐Pin Chen Kuo‐Chang Huang Ya‐Ling Huang Hung‐pin Lai Chang‐Ching Lin

2

Outline:

• 1. Overview
• 2. Three Strategies for Resolving Troubles
• 3. Determinants of Resolution Strategies
• 4. Outcomes of Resolution Strategies
• 5. Patterns in the Use of Advisers

3

• 1. Overview

*All problems reported: 3240, being damaged: 2917, excluding score<=10 the number of observations used in this analysis= 2250. (Numbers are all weighted counts)

4

• 2. Three Strategies for Resolving Troubles

N % Japan England and Wales Netherlands

Lumpersa 151 6.7% 16.3% 5.0% 9.6% Self‐helpersb 1372 61.0% 55.0% 35.0% 46.3% Advice‐seekersc 726 32.3% 28.6% 60.0% 44.1% Total 2250 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: the definition of each strategy can be found in Appendix 2.1.

Main Findings Strategy distribution is similar to that in Japan. More Self‐helpers than the other countries. 96.3% of self‐helpers asked friends, colleagues or other acquaintances for advice 46.0% of self‐helpers read books or searched online for solutions. 30.2% of self‐helpers only asked friends, colleagues or other acquaintances for advice. 3.1% of self‐helpers only read book or searched online.

5

Table 2A Cross‐country comparison (Lumper)

Main Finding: Taiwanese seem to have difficulty on handling neighbor problems (also see Table A2‐C in Appendix). Only 25% of respondents will ask the third party for advice or help when their neighbors make noise at night.

Lumper

Taiwan Japan Netherlands England and Wales Socio‐Econ Family Income(‐) Family Income(‐) Family Income: inv U‐shape Male(+) Demographic Rural(‐) Married(‐) White(+) Background Education(‐,ns) Employed(+) Problem Type Neighbors(+) Neighbors(‐) Accident(‐) Accident(‐) Accident(+)

Rent/Lease (‐) Rent/Lease (‐)

Employment(+)

Loan/Credit (‐)

Money(‐) Family(‐) Land/House(‐) Mental Health(+)*

Insurance (‐)

IT(+)* Police Treatment(+)* Government(+) Hospital(+)* Clinical Negligence(+)*

* Not included in our problem types; (+)/(‐): significantly positive (negative) effects on the probability to be a lumper, at 5% level.

6

Table 2B Cross‐country comparison (Advice‐Seeker)

Main Finding: (also see Table A2‐C in Appendix) (1) Respondents encountered with family and accident problems tend to seek for advice. (2) It is very likely to ask escrow administrators (24.1% of the respondents who seek for advice for land/house problems)/ lawyers (19.0%) to deal with land/house –related problems. Advice‐Seeker

Taiwan Japan Netherlands England and Wales Socio‐Econ Age (+) Family Income: U‐shape Demographic Unemployed (+) Married(+) Employed (‐) Background Urbanization(‐) Education(‐) Problem Type

Land/House (+) Land/House (‐) Land/House (+)

Family(+) Family(+) Family(+) Accident(+) Accident(+) Accident(+) Faulty Goods or Services(‐) Faulty Goods or Services(‐) Loan/Credit(‐) Employment(‐) Government(‐) Hospital(‐)* IT(‐)*

* Not included in our problem types; (+)/(‐): significantly positive (negative) effects on the probability to be an advice‐seeker, at 5% level.

7

• 3. Determinants of Resolution Strategies

Method: Multinomial logistic regression. Base Strategies: Self‐helpers (vs Lumpers / Advice‐seekers). Dependent Variables: Socio‐economic and demographic background, problem type, score for seriousness, monetary value of loss, and opponent type.

Main Findings and Discussion: (see Table A3‐A(2) in Appendix)

(1) Respondents with higher family income are less likely to be lumpers. (2) Respondents who live in underdeveloped and rural areas are less likely to be lumpers. But those who live in new developing cities are less likely to be advice‐seekers. (b/c less advice providers in these areas than in downtowns). (3) Respondents are less likely to be advice‐seekers when they face employment, loan/credit, good/service and insurance problems, perhaps due to standard processes for these issues.

8

Determinants of Resolution Strategies (Page2)

Main Findings and Discussion: (Continued, also see Table A3‐A(2) in Appendix)

(4) More interestingly, respondents with neighbor problems are more likely to be lumpers or advice‐seekers (Good or Service as Reference). To deal with such long‐term relationships with neighbors, Taiwanese tend to take no action until problems become very serious. (5)‐(6) Robustness: level of legal knowledge (see Table A4‐C2 in Appendix) (5) Respondents with higher level of legal knowledge are less likely to be lumpers. (6) Respondents with lower level of legal knowledge are more likely to seek for advice. However, those without legal knowledge may not be aware of their legal rights and, therefore, less likely to be advice seekers.

9

Main Findings and Discussion (continued.)

(7)‐(9) Robustness: controlling for the gravity of problem (see Table A3‐A(1) and (2) in Appendix) (7) Score for seriousness and amount at skates have positive effects on the probability of advice‐seeking. Also, the likelihood of being a lumper decreases when the loss amount increases. (8) Adding the measures of gravity of problem into regression can increase the explanatory power; However, it does not change the main results. From a structure model, score of seriousness appears exogenous to the strategy decision. (9) Differences between the results from the regressions with and without controlling for the gravity of problem: Respondents with family problems are less likely to be lumpers (at 10% significance level). Respondents with work‐related issues are more likely to be advise‐seekers (at 5% significance level) Together with the results in Table A3‐A(2) in Appendix, our results imply that serious family (employment) problems will lead to action‐taking (advice‐seeking).

10

• 4. Outcomes of Resolution Strategies

149 Lumpers (6.7% of total cases), by definition, do not achieve any results. There are 708 cases (32.0%) in which respondents involved do take some actions but not settled yet; and 646 cases (29.2%) in which respondents involved do take some actions but without leading to any results. 708 cases (32.0%) in which respondents involved do take some actions and lead to some results. ‐‐‐ In 602 out of 708 cases, a form of agreement was reached between parties. ‐‐‐ 106 out of 708 cases were processed through litigation. Main Finding: Advice‐seekers are more likely to reach agreement or to resolve problems through litigation, but self‐helpers have more chance to “put up with it”. (Netherlands: Self‐helpers are more likely to reach agreement.)

(%)* Reach agreement Through litigation Not settle yet Put up with it Do nothing Total (N)** Pending put up with it Lumper 47.35 52.65 149 Self‐helper 24.63‐ 1.72‐ 36.47+ 37.18+ 1353 Advice‐seeker 37.99+ 11.7+ 30.2‐ 20.11‐ 709 Total 27.26 4.80 32.01 29.21 3.18 3.54 2210

* +/‐ indicates that the relevant percentage at the 5% level is significantly higher/lower than the average of the two groups. ** 40 observations did not answer a definable resolution are excluded here

11

4.1 Outcomes by Problem Types

Main Findings: (see Table 4A)

Outcomes are significantly related to problem types. 32.01% of “the latest problems” are not settled yet. The “long‐run” problems, such as Family, Neighbor, and Loan/Credit, seem less likely to be settled. 27.26% of the cases reach agreements. In the problems related to accidents (government), agreement with counter party is reached relatively often (rare). Only 4.80% of the cases are adjudicated by official proceedings. Some problem types, including Land/House, Family, and Accident are relatively often. In contrast, problems with neighbors, or related to the purchases of faulty goods and services are not pursued relatively

• ften.

29.2% of the cases are finalized, but without leading to any results. The following problem

types are most likely to lead to no result: Employment—41.7%, Goods/Services – 47.0%, Government—50.2%, Private Insurance –52.4%.

12

Table 4A: Outcomes by Problem Types

• (%)

Reach agreement Through litigation Not settled yet Put up with it Do nothing Total (N)** and pending and put up with it Goods/Services 29.1 1.3‐ 15.3‐ 47+ 0.9‐ 6.5+ 332 Land/House 26.5 16.1+ 29.0 26.9 0.0 1.5 70 Rent/Lease 33.0 4.9 18.6‐ 40.4 1.1 2.1 83 Family/Relative 13.7‐ 16.6+ 55.5+ 13.6‐ 0.0 0.7 99 Employment 17.9‐ 2.5 33.1 41.7+ 2.1 2.8 247 Accident 59+ 6.9+ 11.8‐ 16.4‐ 1‐ 5.0 502 Neighbor 13.2‐ 2.4‐ 54+ 19.9‐ 9.3+ 1.2‐ 473 Loan/Credit 17.6‐ 3.0 64.8+ 11.2‐ 2.1 1.4 119 Private Insurance 10.3‐ 5.2 32.1 52.4+ 0.0 0.0 38 Government 6.5‐ 2.2 30.9 50.2+ 4.5 5.6 203 Others 13.1‐ 18.7+ 39.7 20.8 1.5 6.2 44 Total 27.3 4.8 32.0 29.2 3.2 3.5 2210

* +/‐ indicates that the percentage is significantly higher or lower than the average of the column. According to the Chi‐square test there is at the 5% level a significant correlation between the way in which the problem ended and the problem type. **40 observations did not answer a definable resolution are excluded here

13

4.2 Regression Result: (see Table A4‐B(1) and (2) in Appendix)

To investigate the determinants of the final outcomes, we further regress outcome on "whether to be a self‐helper" and other covariates. Method: Logistic Regression (Put up with it =0, Agreement or through Litigation =1). Sample: Self‐helpers and advice‐seekers (N=1301). Main Findings: Self‐helpers (‐) less likely to reach agreement or to resolve problems through litigation. Degree of Urbanization (+), Female (‐), Unemployed (‐), Problem Type: Family (+), Employment (+), Accidence (+), Loan/Credit (+) Insurance (‐), Government (‐). (+)/ (‐): significantly positive (negative) effects at the 10% level.

14

4.3 Endogeneity: ( see Table A4‐B (3) in Appendix)

However, there might be some unobserved factors simultaneously affecting the decision of advice‐seeking and outcomes. (For example, the solution to their problem calls for drastic action and seek out for appropriate supports)

• To control for the potential endogeneity caused by the above effects, we consider a structure

model to simultaneously describe the strategies and outcomes. Main Findings: The correlation between the errors in outcome and strategy equations is significantly positive, indicating some unobserved factors affect outcomes and strategies simultaneously. Self‐helpers (more negative) less likely to reach agreement or to resolve problems through litigation. Score for Seriousness (‐). Female (‐), Unemployed (‐) . Problem Type: Neighbor (‐), Employment (‐), Accidence (+), Loan/Credit (+) ,Insurance (‐), Government (‐). (+)/ (‐): significantly positive (negative) effects at the 10% level.

15

• 5. Patterns in the Use of Advisers

We cluster 18 third‐party professional advice providers into 9 groups (see Table A5‐A).

In all, 1,010 professional advice providers have been approached for the 611 problems. 380 respondents (=611‐231, 62.2% of 611 problems) went to just one advice provider. The other 231 visited two or more expert advisers. The average number of advisers approached per problem is 1.65. Relatively often used providers: (see Table 5A) As 1st approached providers: Police (23.7%), Legal professions (19.5%, including lawyer 10.1%), Political and neighbor providers (18.2%), and Administrative agency (15.1%). As 2nd approached providers: Legal professions (24.2%, including lawyer 12.6%), Political and neighbor providers (24.2%), Police (15.6%), and Administrative agency (15.2%). Overall, Legal professions (22.5%, including lawyer 11.9%), Political and neighbor providers (19.8%), Police (19.4%), and Administrative agency (15.5%) are relatively often used providers.

16

5.1 Experts approached for different problem types

(see Figure 1 or Table A5‐B in Appendix):

Specializations emerge in some problem types:

Governmental agency: Employment (46.9%), Government (28.7%) vs. Japan: Employment (53.2%), Gov (40.0%) Police: Accident (43.7%), Neighbor (26.2%, ranked 2nd) vs. Japan: Accident (53.2%), Neighbor (29.8%, 1st) Legal services: Family/Relative (28.8%) vs. Japan: (21.1%, 2nd). Lawyer: Loan/Credit (28.7%), vs. Japan: (7.1%). Political and Neighbor Providers (38.4%), Government (27.8%). Non‐governmental Organizations: Goods and services (31.1%) and Private insurance (21.9%). Insurance companies: Private insurance (27.3%).

17

Table 5A: Experts or organization approached for advice or help

• Approached as

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th,ff* Total (01) Litigation counseling section of the court (02) Legal consultation services provided by government agencies (09) Legal consultation services provided by professional organizations (11) Lawyer (lawyer only) 119 19.5% 56 24.2% 28 31.8% 16 40.0% 8 20.0% 227 22.5%

(62) (10.1%) (29) (12.6%) (19) (21.6%) (8) (20.0%) (2) (5.0%) (120) (11.9%)

(03) Administrative agency (besides legal consultation services) 92 15.1% 35 15.2% 19 21.6% 5 12.5% 6 15.0% 157 15.5% (04) Police 145 23.7% 36 15.6% 4 4.5% 4 10.0% 7 17.5% 196 19.4% (05) Neighborhood magistrate (06) Voter services provided by political parties or politicians (besides neighborhood magistrate) 111 18.2% 56 24.2% 19 21.6% 6 15.0% 8 20.0% 200 19.8% (07) Union, farmers' association, fishermen's associations, or irrigation association (08) Religious group (including temples, church, etc.) (10) Consumer rights protection groups 34 5.6% 11 4.8% 6 6.8% 2 5.0% 1 2.5% 54 5.3% (12) Escrow (13) Accountant, accounting clerk (16) Scholars, Professors and other Specialists 37 6.1% 15 6.5% 6 6.8% 4 10.0% 4 10.0% 66 6.5% (14) Insurance company 30 4.9% 16 6.9% 3 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 49 4.9% (17) Pressure through Media Disclosure (18) Other 43 7.0% 6 2.6% 3 3.4% 3 7.5% 6 15.0% 61 6.0% Total number approached 611 231 88 40 40 1010 * 25 respondents indicated that they had approached even more persons/organizations after their 5th address. In all, they had approached 40 address as "5th or later"

18

Figure 1: Type of Problems for Selected Advice Providers

• 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Goods/Services Land/House Rent/Lease Family/Relative Employment Accident Neighbor Loan/Credit Private Insurance Government Others

1st Approached Experts

Legal Service Lawyer Governmental Agencies Police Political and Neighbor Providers Non‐governmental Organizations Other Professions Insurance Company Others