evaluation and an affective state. We consider e-empowerment as defined by Amichai-Hamburger (2008) as the process by which enabling technology empowers individuals to do things that they previously found to be difficult. As well as considering e-empowerment to be related to Table 2: Development of empowerment measurement items Empowerment aspect Measurement item Illustrative quote from Focus Groups Information access I have access to more information on my pension. I am better informed about pensions in general. “I have got the information there. And I feel empowered if you like” Improved understanding I have a better understanding of how my own pension works. I know how much my pension is worth. I am taking more of an interest in my own pension. I feel more confused about pensions. (reverse coded) “One of the reasons I feel empowered with the internet, it is very useful all these search engines, these comparative ones that compare prices … if one searches through several then you feel this greater knowledge and you are better equipped as a consumer” Autonomous decision-making I feel more confident about making my own pension decisions. I feel more confident in my ability to make enquiries about my pension I feel less of a need to rely on the advice of financial experts/advisors I have more control over my own pension. I have more control than I want (reverse coded) “I think it is about having enough information to be able to make those decisions for yourself” “I think control’s a key … it is more than acquisition of greater knowledge” “I think it cuts out the middleman … now we can get the information whilst searching around on Google … so you don’t need a financial advisor, you can do it all yourself, if you have got the ability and the time. To me that is empowerment”
pension is) rated according to the following scale: 1 = poor, 2 = less than average, 3 = average, 4 = better than average, 5 = good. Subjective knowledge arguably provides a better understanding of a decision makers’ systematic bias and heuristics than objective knowledge (Park & Lessig, 1981) and their self-efficacy in using information (Bandura, 1977). Perceived understanding and ability has been shown to be particularly relevant in the context of financial services decisions (Harrison, 1994; Beckett, Hewer & Howcroft, 2000). A taxonomy of co-production tasks Websites offer a range of self-service/co-production functionality that enables users to perform tasks, such as accessing information, communicating and performing transactions. The tasks available on the website were categorised into a taxonomic framework informed by the work of Zwass (2010) (see Table 3). Building on the authors’ previous work (Waite & Harrison, 2007) into website task, we analyse and categorise website functionality as characterised by Zwass (2010) in terms of its: structural complexity (the number of sub-tasks and their interrelationships); intellective demands (the knowledge, skill and creativity demanded); effort intensity (the focus and resources the individual needs to utilise to complete the task); and time frame (for task completion which can range from indefinite to immediate). Table 3: Taxonomy of website functionality and task performance Functionality Task Task Characteristic Information seeking Find out about the company that administers the pension Find out about how my pension works Find information about contribution history Find out about fund and investment choice Find out about Additional Voluntary Contributions Low structural complexity Low-Medium intellective demands Low-Medium effort intensity Low-Medium time frame To Contact Pension Plan Administrators Access links to other relevant information/websites Medium structural complexity