• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Magggieee
 

Magggieee

on

  • 509 views

maggie

maggie

Statistics

Views

Total Views
509
Views on SlideShare
509
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Magggieee Magggieee Document Transcript

    • Journal of Business & Policy Research Volume 5. Number 1. July 2010 Pp. 123 - 157 Consumers’ Shopping Behaviour Pattern on Selected Consumer Goods: Empirical Evidence on Malaysian Consumers Oriah Akir* and Md. Nor Othman** In the consumer behaviour literature, several perspectives on consumer decision making have been considered, including consumer degree of involvement, degree of information search, the number of alternatives available/attributes importance, demographic variables and interpersonal influence that affect consumer buying decision and shopping pattern on certain consumer goods, both high and low involvement products. A cross-sectional survey was conducted and 1000 consumers were interviewed through mall intercept of which only 500 were useable for the analysis of the findings. In this paper, a framework which integrates several dimensions affecting consumer decision making (demographic variables, attributes importance, interpersonal influence) and repurchase intention as well as the possible relationship among variables is developed. The framework is tested by the use of standardized multiple regression analysis to determine the linear relationship among all these variables. The results of this research support the complexity of consumer buying behaviour. Consumers’ preference differs on which attributes they emphasize more as compared to the others, and the issue of how significantly others influence their buying decisions. The findings revealed that purchasing high involvement products was regarded as a very important decision in comparison to purchasing low involvement products. Second, quality, brand name, informational influence and product information had significant direct relationship on repurchase intention for high involvement products. While for low involvement products, price and brand name significantly predict consumers’ repurchase intention. Finally, the influence of significant others/interpersonal influence (spouses, siblings, family members, friends, and the like) did not significantly affect repurchase intention regardless of whether the products are low involvement products or high involvement products. In conclusion, the implications of this research: 1) contributes to the body of knowledge and exploratory model building on consumer purchase behaviour; and 2) the research model will provide an important input to the marketing decision-making process and management decision, such as marketers, product managers and/or brand managers to streamline their marketing plan and strategies.Field of Research: consumer behaviour and marketing1. IntroductionConsumer behaviour theorists generally believe that consumer behaviourtheories can be applied globally but consumer preferences and tastes areinfluenced by their cultural background (Schutte and Ciarlante, 1998). Therefore,marketers and business practitioners have to recognize that consumers‟ attitudesand beliefs, preferences, needs and tastes towards certain products or servicesare greatly influenced by their culture and the society they belong to. Forinstance, consumers in other parts of the globe may consider price as the mostimportant determinant in their decision to buy food items, whereas, in others, theymay consider quality as the most important factor that may affect their choices.Other factors that may surface could also be the influence of significant others,____________________________________* Lecturer of University Technology MARA, Malaysia, oriah@sarawak.uitm.edu.my** Professor of University Malaya, Malaysia, mohdnor@um.edu.my
    • Akir & Othmansuch as spouse, siblings, family members, friends, salespersons, relatives orneighbours (on consumers‟ purchase decisions and/or repurchase intentions),and even the marketing stimuli triggered by the marketers. Despite all theseuncertainties, marketers or businesses still invest a lot of money in theirmarketing plans to indulge consumers to buy their products or services. This isan on-going process that they have to deal with in order to meet consumers‟specific needs and preferences. It is not enough to offer a variety of products, butthe true gain in business platform is how to sustain profit and survive in themarketplace by satisfying consumers‟ needs and wants relative to the value ofthe offerings. Hence, this paper empirically investigate the consumers‟ shoppingbehaviour pattern on selected consumer goods and address the issues on whatthey buy, why they buy, when they buy, where they buy, how much and howoften do they buy, the factors that influence their buying decisions, and thedeterminants that influence consumers‟ purchase/repurchase intention. Forexample, in the case of Malaysia, it was reported that, around 70 percent ofMalaysian consumers across all segments plan what they buy. Nevertheless themajority will still buy additional items (AC Nielsen, 2006).Specific research questions addressed by the research:a) What are the general shopping behaviour patterns of consumers when they decide to buy selected consumer goods (high and low involvement products)?b) Is there any relationship between products‟ attributes importance, selected consumers‟ demographic variables, interpersonal influence and consumers‟ repurchase intention?Specific objectives of the research:a) To determine consumers‟ general shopping behaviour patterns when they decide to buy selected consumer goods (high and low involvement products).b) To examine the relationship between product attributes‟ importance, selected consumers‟ demographic variables, interpersonal influence and repurchase intention.2. Literature ReviewThis section reviews past studies on various factors, such as price, quality, brand,product information, demographic variables and interpersonal influence thatmight influence consumers‟ purchase decision and how these factors in turnaffect their repurchase intention.2.1 IntroductionUnderstanding consumer behaviour is paramount for both marketers andbusiness alike. Two factors critical to understanding consumer behaviour are:firstly, the degree of differentiation that a consumer perceives in the product orservice; and secondly, the fundamental determinant of consumer behaviour istheir degree of involvement in the purchase (Blackwell, Miniard, and Engel, 2001; 124
    • Akir & OthmanKotler, 1998; Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel, 2000; Business World, 2001).Conceptually, all consumer buying decisions generally fall along the continuum ofthree broad categories: routine response behaviour or habitual decision making;limited-decision making; and extensive decision-making (Lamb, Hair, andMcDaniel, 2001, Kotler, 2003). The common notion is, consumer tends to behighly involved when they purchase expensive items, and less involved whenthey purchase low involvement products that they purchase frequently and theprice is less expensive (Blackwell, Miniard, and Engel, 2001, Business World,2001).Prior to choice decision or repurchase intention, consumers place a number ofattributes in his or her choice sets, in order of importance and relevance. Amongthese attributes are price and quality, and consumers tend to use price as a proxyto quality (Lichtenstein, Bloch, and Black, 1988; Bloch and Black, 1988; Dodds,Monroe, and Grewal, 1991; Ofir, 2004). However, studies also reveal that,besides price and quality, other cues that are also considered as more importantto assess the product‟s worth, are attributes such as brand, store name, pastexperience, attitude and product information (Cury and Riesz, 1988; Stafford andEnis, 1969; Erikson and Johansson, 1985; Zeithaml, 1985; Tellis and Geath,1990, Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal, 1991). Brand name, for example, oftensignals as a cue or as a surrogate of product quality use by consumers in theirevaluation of goods or services before they decide to purchase. Someresearchers argue that the effect of price tends to be stronger when it ispresented alone as compared when it is combined together with brand name(Dodds and Monroe, 1989; Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal, 1991). On the otherhand, Bristow, Schneider, and Schuler (2002), suggest that if consumersbelieved that there are differences among brands, then the brand name becomesthe center piece of information in the purchase decision or repurchase intentionand the dependence on the usage of brand name in the search information willlikely increase. Another branch of consumer behaviour research related to brand,is that, consumers use brands to create or communicate their self-image orstatus (Encalas and Betman, 2003; O‟ Cass, and Frost, 2002). Consumers,sometimes, associate themselves to a given brand when they make brandchoice, and also make their brand choice based on associations withmanufacturer‟s brand name (Aaker, 1997; Fugale, 1986). Besides, brand namescontribute value to the consumer‟s image, as well as the economic success of thebusinesses, and it also can affect preference, purchase intention andconsequently, sales (Alreck and Settle, 1999; Ataman and Ulengin, 2003).An economic theory of information was first proposed by George Stigler in 1961.Accordingly, this theory assumes that the markets are characterized by pricedispersions and both seller and buyer has little information about this dispersionof prices. As such, consumer has to engage in search activity in order to obtaininformation about the products and price at cost. According to Avery (1996)rational consumers are assumed to search for product information/priceinformation to a point where the marginal benefits of search are equal to themarginal costs of search. The search for product information varies inaccordance to price and quality perception on products or services to bepurchased. If consumers perceived that there is a high level of price and higher 125
    • Akir & Othmanquality variability in the market then they should be more willing to engage insearch activities for price and quality information (Avery, 1996).Consumers purchase/repurchase intention or purchase decision for a productand/or service is driven by various reasons, which can be triggered by rational oremotional arousal (Schffmann and Kanuk, 2004). For example, consumers usebrands to communicate their self-image or status, and the brand images chosenmust be congruent to their own and match to groups they aspire to establish anassociation with (Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975; Bearden, Netemeyer, andTeele, 1989; Encalas and Bettmann, 2003; O‟ Cass and Frost, 2002). Similarly,consumers will seek for others who are significant to them for information or wishto associate or bond with, that is, the group social norms with whom consumersaspire to establish a psychological association or bonding, such as friends,neighbours, and the like (Bunkrant and Consineau, 1975; Park and Lessig, 1977;Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teele, 1989; Mourali, Laroche, and Pons, 2005; Kropp,Lavack, and Holden, 2005; Kropp, Lavack and Silvera, 2005). Besides, otherfactors, such as price, income, education, and other attributes also contribute topurchase decision/repurchase intention (Andaleeb and Conway, 2006; Al-Hawariand Ward, 2006; Jamal and Naser, 2002).2.2 Research Conceptual Framework and HypothesesAs previously discussed, past and recent studies provide empirical evidence, thatsuggest the existence of a relationship between demographic variables, productattributes and purchase or repurchase intention. Nonetheless, within the domainof service marketing studies pertaining to the determinants that influenceconsumers‟ repurchase intention and satisfaction were widely investigated andresearched in comparison to tangible products. These determinants includeservice quality determinants such as reliability, access, courtesy, competence,responsiveness, tangibles, credibility, communication, customization,understanding customers‟ needs, and security. Other determinants mentioned inpast studies also included past experience, prior knowledge or familiarity, culture,demographic variables such as income, education, household size, children andso forth. Likewise, the studies on consumer susceptibility to interpersonalinfluence were also well researched but the study directly investigating therelationship between interpersonal influence and customer‟s repurchase intentionis still fuzzy. Furthermore, in the literature, past studies that integrated anddirectly linked product attributes importance, demographic variables andinterpersonal influence in explaining repurchase intention was also unclear.Therefore, in view of this argument and to fill in the gap in the literature and addto the body of knowledge in consumer behaviour model and conception, thisresearch attempts to explore specifically amongst others, the relationship amongall these variables (product attributes importance, demographic variables,interpersonal influence and repurchase intention) pertaining to consumersdecisions to purchase or repurchase selected tangible consumer goods (high andlow involvement products). For the purpose of this research the followingconceptual framework was developed as depicted in Figure 1 below.The framework of this research was developed based on stochastic models ofbrand choice and purchase incidence as modified by Jones and Zufryden (1980).Jones and Zufryden‟s model used demographic variables (household income and 126
    • Akir & Othmanthe number of children in a household) and marketing mix (price dimension) asexplanatory variables to predict brand choice or purchase (criterion variable).Jones and Zufryden‟s model was tested using logit model estimation. Theexplanatory variables were categorical data and the criterion variable was metricdata. Jones and Zufryden‟s (1980) modified model was adapted due to itsflexibility. It was suggested by the authors who developed the model that, “interms of its use, the model involves relatively straightforward parameterestimation procedure and one that is adaptable to exploratory model building”(Jones and Zufryden, 1980, p. 332). In other words, the intention of Jones andZufryden (1980) was to develop a general model which can be used to aid inmarketing decision process. Hence, it was also suggested that the model is veryflexible in which the explanatory variables can be added and dropped as requiredby the researchers who wish to replicate or adapt the model. However, in thecurrent research framework, besides household income, number of children andprice, additional explanatory variables of product attributes importance such asquality, brand name, product information and interpersonal influence variableswere added to the model. In contrast to Jones and Zufryden„s model, the currentresearch framework was tested using standardized multiple regressionprocedures to determine the linear relationship among all sets of variables usedin the research. This was because the data used in the research were metric forboth the explanatory/independent variables and the criterion/dependent variable. Explanatory Variables Criterion Variable The Determinants that Influence Consumer‟s Purchase Behaviour Attributes Importance Consumer‟s Purchase  Quality Behaviour  Price  Brand Name Repurchase Intention  Product Information [Low and High Interpersonal Influence Involvement Products]  Normative Influence  Informational Influence Demographic Variables  No. of Children  Household Income Figure 1: The Research FrameworkBased on the above argument and discussions in the literature, the followinggeneral hypotheses and specific hypotheses were developed:General hypotheses:H1: There is a relationship between products‟ attributes importance, demographic variables, interpersonal influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.Specific hypotheses:H1a: There is a relationship between quality attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention. 127
    • Akir & OthmanH1b: There is a relationship between price attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.H1c: There is a relationship between brand name attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.H1d: There is a relationship between product information attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.H1e: There is a relationship between normative influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.H1f: There is a relationship between informational influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.H1g: There is a relationship between a household income and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.H1h: There is a relationship between the number of children in a household and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.3. Research MethodologyThis section briefly describes the research design, population and sample size,data collection procedure as well as data analysis procedure.3.1 Research Design and Sampling ProcedureA cross-sectional survey was conducted. A non-probability sampling approachwas employed and a quota sampling technique was applied to draw the sample.This approach was employed because the sample frame was not easily availableand difficult to draw from and the target population cannot be reached andidentified effectively and efficiently by other means of sampling (Clarke, 2006).Kinnear and Taylor (1996) reported that about 86 percent of businesses usedquota sampling in business research practice. Further, Kress (1988) contendedthat samples, if properly selected, are sufficiently accurate in most cases andeven when the data has considerable heterogeneity, large samples provide dataof sufficient precision to make most decisions (Zikmund, 2000). The targetsample for this study was 1000 consumers residing in one of the cities in one ofthe states in Malaysia.3.2 Target Population and Sample SizeThe target population for the research comprised consumers residing in one ofthe city in East Malaysia. The total population of the city is 422,240, consisting210,034 male and 212, 205 female (Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 2004, p.34). Approximately 1000 consumers were targeted and divided proportionately bygender, that is, about 50 percent male and 50 percent female. This compositionclosely exhibited the population parameter of the chosen city based on statisticalreport drawn from Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2004). The sample sizewas considered as adequate, since the minimum sample to determine samplesize from a given population is 384 (Krejcie and Morgan, 1970) for every onemillion population. 128
    • Akir & Othman3.3 Data Collection ProcedureA total of 1000 questionnaires were distributed using mall intercept at six selectedretail outlets located at one of the cities in East Malaysia. The retail outletsincluded supermarkets, small retail stores, departmental stores, specialty stores,hypermarkets, and malls. The selected units of analysis were interviewedpersonally. If the sample units were unable to complete the questionnaires, theywere requested to send them by mail using a paid stamped-self-address envelopprovided by the researcher or to return them personally the following day to theinterviewers stationed at the selected retail outlets. The interviews wereconducted daily from 10.30 a.m to 9.30 p.m for three months from September2008 to November 2008. The personal interviews took place within these threemonths and only ended when the minimum targeted size of 500 respondents whofully completed the questionnaires were achieved with at least 50 percent maleand 50 percent female composition as had been determined by the researcher inorder to meet the quota targeted. The data collected must meet the desiredcharacteristics that had been determined by the researcher.3.4 InstrumentBefore the full scale research was carried out, pre-testing was performed toensure there were no design errors in the questionnaire. Therefore any mistakesand changes could be corrected and improved. The pre-test was administeredusing 30 consumers as respondents who characterized the intended consumersfor the main research. They consisted of part-time students who enrolled for theBachelor in Business Administration (Honours) (Marketing) (BBA) (M) andExecutive Master in Business (EMBA) programmes at one of the publicuniversities located at one of the cities of an East Malaysian state. Theserespondents were selected at the researcher‟s convenience and they weresimilar in makeup to the sample of the main research (Zikmund, 2000; Malhotra,2004). Feedback from the pre-test study indicated that the respondents werecomfortable with the questions asked. However, based on the pre-test feedback,a few changes were made to ensure the final respondents in the actual surveyunderstand the questions. At this pre-testing stage, the respondents were alsoasked to rank order which of the products category given to them that theyconsidered as high involvement products and low involvement products of the sixcategories chosen, namely: personal computer, fashion clothing, instant noodle,instant coffee and detergent.In order to address the research questions and objectives, a set of structuredquestionnaire was prepared consisting of four sections, namely section A, B, Cand D. Section A captured the consumers‟ general shopping behaviour patternwhich addressed questions related to the products category that the consumersbought, why did the consumers buy the products, what were the preferred brandnames bought by the consumers, did they prefer foreign brand or local brand,what were the reasons for choosing foreign and local brand, when did theyusually buy the products, where did they usually buy the products, how muchthey spent and how many times they bought the products for the last 12 months,how did they know about the products, which advertisements medium influencedthem the most, who influenced their purchasing decisions and what were the 129
    • Akir & Othmanproducts category that they ranked as the most important in their decision makingprocess. Section B which included questions on attributes importance andinterpersonal influence consists of 39 items using a 7-point Likert Like Scaleanchored with “1” as strongly disagree and “7” as strongly agree. These itemsincluded price (7 items), quality (7 items), brand (7 items), product information (6items) and interpersonal influence (12 items). The items used in section B wereadapted from various authors related to the research such as Aliman‟s (2005)product information scales, Lichtenstein, Ridgway and Netemeyer„s (1993) price -quality scales, Sproles and Kendall‟s (1986) consumer decision making stylesscales, Bearden, Netemeyer and Teele‟s (1989) 12-items ConsumerSusceptibility to Interpersonal Influence scales (CSI), and Blair and Innis‟s (2002)brand dependence scales. Section C captured the questions on the consumer‟srepurchase intention consisting of eight items adapted from Levesque andMcDougall„s (1996) repurchase intention scales using a 7-point Likert Like Scaleanchored with “1” as strongly disagree and “7” as strongly agree. Please refer toAppendix 1 for the detailed items used in the research.Finally, section D required the respondents to state their personal informationregarding their gender, age, income, education, family size, number of children ina household, household size, marital status, religion, employment sectors,occupation, religious orientation, involvement level and a presence of at least onechild in a household. Six types of product category selected for the research werepersonal computer, branded perfume, and fashion clothing which represented thehigh involvement product category, while detergent, instant noodle, and instantcoffee were low involvement products.3.5 Analysis ProcedureThe data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)version 12.0. Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation weregenerated to provide an overview of the data. Frequency distribution was used todescribe the characteristics of the consumers‟ general shopping behaviourpattern as well as to profile the respondents‟ personal information. Thestandardized multiple-regression analysis was used to examine the linearrelationship between the explanatory/dependent variables (quality, price, brandname, product information, normative influence, informational influence,household income, number of children) and the criterion/dependent variable(repurchase intention). Correlation coefficient test and significant levels wereconducted to check the strength of the linear relationships between pairs ofvariables. The determinant of correlation matrix was generated to provide theinformation on the multicollinearity. Kaiser‟s criterion (KMO) and Barlett‟s Test ofSphericity was performed as a check to substantiate the appropriateness ofconducting a factor analysis and also to examine the sampling adequacy.Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient was conducted to determine the items reliability andinternal consistency (Nunally, 1978; Malhotra, 2004). 130
    • Akir & Othman4. Findings and Discussions4.1 Respondents’ ProfileOut of 1000 respondents interviewed through mall intercept, only 500 sets of thequestionnaires were fully completed and useable in the analysis which yielded aresponse rate of 50 percent. The research findings revealed that 259 (51.8%) ofthe respondents were female and 241 (48.1%) were male. The research alsoindicated that 172 (34.4%) of the respondents were aged between 25 to 29 yearsold, followed by 107 (21.4%) aged between 20 to 24 years old, 87 (17.4%) of therespondents were within the age range of 30 to 34 years old, 51 (10.2%) of themwere aged between 35 to 39 years old, 34 (6.8%) were aged between 40 to 44years old, 22 (4.4%) of them aged below 20 years old, while 13 (2.6%) of themwere aged between 45 to 49 years and the other 14 (2.6%) of them were 50years old and above. In terms of household income, the research indicated thatthe household monthly income of the respondents were mostly within the rangeof RM2000 to RM4999 (197 or 39.4%), followed by 129 (24%) between RM5000to RM6999, 81 (16.2%) below RM1000, 52 (10.4%) between RM7000 toRM8999, 24 (4.8%) between RM9000 to RM9999, and only 26 (5.2%) earnedabove RM10 000. Most of the respondents, that is, 169 (33.8%) of them hadcollege diploma level of education, followed by a university degree, that is, 143(28.6%) of them, 108 (21.6%) of them had secondary level of education, five(1%) of them had primary level education, and 18 (3.6%) had other educationallevel.Essentially, the majority of the respondents, that is, 246 (49.2%) were single, 167(33.4%) of them were married with children, 80 (16%) of them were marriedwithout children, and seven (1.4%) of them were divorced/widowed or single-parents. The majority of the respondents were Christians (248 or 49.6%), 168(33.6%) of them were Muslims, 67 (13.4%) were Buddhist/Taoist, 11 (2.2%) ofthem were Hindu and six (0.2%) of them were from other beliefs. Most of therespondents had 3 to 4 children in their household (223 or 44.6%), 145 (29%)had 5 to 6 children, 82 (16.4%) of them had between 1 to 2 children, and 50(10%) of them had 7 or more children. On average most of the respondents werereligious people, that is, 411 (82.2%) of them stating that their strength ofreligious orientation were between average and strong. While the other 63(12.6%) of them and another 26 (5.2%) of them stated that their strength ofreligious orientation were between very strong and very weak, respectively.Please refer to Appendix 2 for the detailed breakdown of the respondents‟characteristics.4.2 Respondents’ Shopping Behaviour PatternIn terms of buying decision, the research indicated that a majority of therespondents ranked buying fashion clothing as their most important purchasedecision, followed by personal computer, branded perfume, instant noodle,instant coffee, and stated buying detergent as the least important purchasedecision. This finding seems to be consistent with past studies that contendedany purchase which is used publicly such as fashion clothing (rank 1, mean -1.72) is considered as an important decision by consumers (Clerk and Belk, 131
    • Akir & Othman1979). Buying personal computer (Rank 2, mean - 1.88) was also considered asan important decision. This could be due to its expensive price which requires theconsumers to search for information and opinion from others. The next importantpurchase decision is buying branded perfume (rank 3, mean - 2.43), but its usageis invisible to the public as compared to fashion clothing. However, in general,buying low involvement products such as instant noodle, instant coffee anddetergent were not considered as an important decision by consumers becausethese products are bought frequently and do not require considerable effort forinformation search in the consumer‟s decision making process.In conclusion, the results of the findings were consistently in line with the notionthat consumers tend to be more involved when they decide to purchaseexpensive items and the products that they purchase display social visibility incomparison to purchasing inexpensive, frequently purchased items and if theusage of the product is not publicly visible (Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel, 2001,Kotler, 2003; Blackwell, Miniard, and Engel, 2001; Business World, 2001; Asseal,1987; Clarke and Belk, 1979). Examples of such products include instant noodle,instant coffee and detergent, which are considered as low involvement productsand perfume which is used by consumers but not publicly visible. In relation tobrand preference, a majority of the respondents mentioned Acer as the mostpreferred brand for personal computer/laptop, followed by Dell and Compact.While fashion clothing (designer label) most preferred was Levi‟s followed byNike, Adidas and Nicole. Calvin Klein was considered as the most preferredbrand for branded perfume, followed by Avon, Silky, and Body Shop. Next,Breeze was the most preferred brand for detergent, followed by Daia and Fab.For instant noodle, Maggie was the most preferred brand, followed by Indomee,and Mee Sedap. While for instant coffee, Nescafe was the most preferred brand,followed by Kapal Api and Indocafe. Table 1: Most Important Purchase Decision Ranked According to Products‟ Category No. Products‟ Category Mean Score Rank 1. Fashion Clothing 1.72 1 2. Personal Computer / Laptop 1.88 2 3. Branded Perfume 2.43 3 4. Instant Noodle 4.84 4 5. Instant Coffee 5.03 5 6. Detergent 5.11 6 Note: Most important given rank “1” and least important rank “6”In terms of place, a majority of the respondents stated that they purchased theirpersonal computer at departmental stores, followed by specialty stores, malls,small retail shops and other shops in that order. Most respondents went todepartmental stores and malls to purchase their fashion clothing and only a fewpreferred to go to small retail shops. Similarly, most of the respondents preferredto shop at departmental stores, supermarkets and malls to buy their brandedperfume, and only a few of them went to small retailers and other shops.However, for low involvement products such as detergent, instant noodle andinstant coffee, most of the respondents stated that they preferred to go tosupermarkets to purchase them. 132
    • Akir & OthmanFor most high involvement products such as personal computer, fashion clothing,and branded perfume, a majority of the respondents preferred to purchase themduring special occasion, for example, during sales or promotion periodsthroughout the year. For low involvement products such as detergent, instantnoodle and instant coffee, the respondents preferred to buy them either weekly ormonthly. The majority of the respondents, who purchased high involvementproducts such as personal computer/laptop, fashion clothing, and brandedperfume, stated that they preferred foreign brand manufactured in foreigncountries. In contrast, for low involvement products such as instant noodle,instant coffee and detergent, a majority of the respondents mentioned that theypreferred to buy local brands manufactured domestically. The reason for buyingforeign brands for high involvement products like personal computer, fashionclothing and branded perfume is mainly because they believed that foreignbrands were of high quality as compared to local brands. In addition theseproducts carry established brand names and are reasonably priced. In contrast,for low involvement products like instant noodle, instant coffee and detergent,most of the respondents stated that they preferred local brands because the pricewas cheap as compared to foreign brands. On average most of the respondentsspent between RM1000 to RM3000 to purchase a personal computer/laptop. Thisexplains the popularity of Acer brand among the respondents because the marketprice for most Acer brand is around RM2000 to RM3000. For fashion clothing andbranded perfume, the majority of the respondents stated that they spent betweenRM100 to RM200 to buy them. In contrast, for low involvement products such asinstant noodle, instant coffee and detergent, most of the respondents spent onaverage between RM10 to RM21 to purchase them. For high involvementproducts such as personal computer/laptop and branded perfume, most of therespondents stated that they purchased them only once in the past 12 months.However, for fashion clothing, they purchased them between one to six times inthe past 12 months. In contrast, most of the respondents buy instant noodle,instant coffee and detergent more than six times in the past 12 months.The majority of the respondents stated that they bought both category of products(high and low involvement products) mainly for their own use, and only a few ofthem mentioned that they bought the products as „gift giving‟ and for otherpurposes. Most of the respondents mentioned that they frequently sawadvertisements on personal computer/laptop, fashion clothing, and brandedperfume in magazines, brochures/catalogs, TV ads, and newspapers. Whileadvertisements for detergent, instant noodle, and instant coffee were frequentlyadvertised on TV, radio, newspapers, and a few in magazines. The respondents‟decisions to purchase or not to purchase a personal computer/laptop wereinfluenced by ads found in brochures/catalogs, magazines and newspapers ascompared to other medium of advertisements. For fashion clothing and brandedperfume, most of the respondents stated that their decisions were influenced byads found in magazines and brochures/catalogs, and also influenced by TV ads,such as Silky brand for perfume. For most low involvement products, such asinstant noodle, instant coffee, and detergent, their decisions were influenced byTV ads as compared to other medium of advertisements. The opinion ofsignificant others (such as family members, friends, spouses, siblings, children,salespersons and the like) that influenced on the decisions of the respondents topurchase or not to purchase a personal computer/laptop were influenced by 133
    • Akir & Othmanfriends, followed by family members and salespersons. Decisions on fashionclothing and branded perfume were influenced by friends, spouses, familymembers and salespersons. In contrast, for low involvement products such asinstant noodle, instant coffee, and detergent, their decisions were influenced bytheir spouses, followed by family members and lastly, friends. Please refer toAppendix 3 for the summary of the respondents‟ shopping behaviour pattern.4.3 Descriptive Statistics, Correlation Coefficients and Significance LevelA number of statistical tests were conducted to determine the basic informationon mean, standard deviation, and N, which are useful to identify the presence ofoutliers and the adequacy of sample size. The univariate descriptive statistic wasconducted and the results revealed that there was non-existence of outliers withstandard deviation for all the sets of variables lay within +3 and -3 range(Zikmund, 2000; Malhotra, 2004). The correlation coefficients and significancelevel were tested to determine the strength of linear relationships between thepairs of variables. The results showed that all the sets of variables correlated welland the results yielded correlation coefficient between 0.30 and below 0.70among variables (Pallant, 2007), and had positive significant relationship at 0.01level (sig.- 1-tailed). This information is important to determine whether variablesthat are not correlated should be excluded for factor analysis. The determinant ofthe correlation matrix provided the information on multicollinearity. The presenceof highly correlated variables will lead to a problem of multicollinearity. However,a check on Tolerance (TOL) indicates a value of more than 0.10 and theVariance Inflation Factor (VIF) is less than 10 for all the independent variables,which confirms that the possibility of multicollinearity is not detected (Pallant,2007) - see Table 2 and Table 3 below.4.4 Standardized Multiple Regression Analysis – Testing the Relationship between Explanatory/Dependent Variables and Criterion/Dependent variableTo determine which of the explanatory/dependent variables (quality, price, brandname, product information, household income, number of children andinterpersonal influence) included in the model contributed to the prediction of thecriterion/dependent variable (repurchase intention), a standardized multipleregression analysis using enter method was conducted for the different productscategories used in the research. The detailed results of the tested model areexplained and provided in Table 2 and Table 3. Column (i) depicts the productcategory used in the research and column (ii) shows the sets of explanatoryvariables/independent variables. Column (iii) shows the beta value whichindicates the importance of each explanatory variable in terms of the contributionof each variable in predicting the criterion variable, when the variance explainedby all other variables in the model is controlled for. Column (v) shows thesignificant value of the relationship between the explanatory variables and thecriterion variable. This column shows whether or not each of the explanatoryvariable, is making a statistically significant unique contribution to the equation.Column R-squared shows how much of the variance in the dependent variable is 134
    • Akir & Othmanexplained by the model. This R-squared is multiplied by 100 and will yield thepercentage of the variance. The resulted standardized multiple regression as shown in Table 2, for fashionclothing, beta values in the model showed that quality contributed 0.192, pricecontributed 0.096, brand name contributed – 0.280, product informationcontributed 0.208 and household income contributed – 0.082 in explaining theconsumers‟ repurchase intention, indicating that these variables made a uniquecontribution to explaining the dependent variable, when the variance explained byall other variables in the model is controlled for. The other variables, that is,normative influence (beta value -0.048; p-value = -0.933), informational influence(beta value -0.067; p-value = 0.155) and number of children (beta value -0.017;p-value = 0.635) and the relationship between these variables and repurchaseintention was not significant, indicating that these variables made lesscontribution in explaining the repurchase intention. As depicted in the same table(Table 2), the relationship between quality, price, brand name, productinformation, household income and repurchase intention was significant (p-valuefor quality = 0.000, p-value for price = 0.001, p-value for brand name = 0.000, p-value for product information = 0.000 and household income p-value = 0.027),indicating that these variables made a unique, statistically significant contributionto the prediction of repurchase intention. The R-squared shows that 59.9% of thevariance in the dependent variable is explained by the model.Meanwhile for personal computer, as shown in Table 2, beta values revealed thatquality contributed – 0.235, brand name contributed – 0.239, product informationcontributed – 0.238 and informational influence contributed – 0.239 in explainingrepurchase intention and the relationship was significant (quality p-value = 0.000,brand name p-value = 0.000, product information p-value = 0.000 andinformational p-value = 0.000), indicating that quality, brand name, productinformation and informational influence made a unique, and statisticallysignificant contribution to the prediction of repurchase intention. The othervariables such as price, normative influence, household income, and number ofchildren made less contribution and did not contribute significantly in explainingrepurchase intention. The R-squared shows that 64.1% of the variance isexplained by the model. On the other hand, as depicted in Table 2, for brandedperfume, beta values showed that brand name contributed 0.301, pricecontributed 0.153, quality contributed 0.120, and product information contributed0.119 in explaining repurchase intention. The result also revealed that there wasa significant relationship between the independent variables and dependentvariable (brand name p-value = 0.000, price p-value = 0.001, quality p-value =0.004 and product information p-value = 0.027), indicating that these variablesmade a unique, statistically significant contribution to the prediction of repurchaseintention. The other variables such as informational influence, household incomeand number of children made less contribution and did not statistically have asignificant contribution in explaining repurchase intention. The R-squared showsthat 55.3% of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the model.Hence, for high involvement products, the hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H1fand H1g below were supported for the types of product category as specified inthe brackets. 135
    • Akir & OthmanH1a: There is a relationship between quality attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing, personal computer and branded perfume).H1b: There is a relationship between price attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing and branded perfume).H1c: There is a relationship between brand name attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing, personal computer and branded perfume).H1d: There is a relationship between product information attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing, personal computer and branded perfume).H1f: There is a relationship between informational influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (personal computer).H1g: There is a relationship between a household income and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing).However, it was also indicated that the relationship between normative influence,number of children in a household, informational influence, household incomeand repurchase intention was not significant, indicating that the hypothesesbelow were not supported for the types of product category being investigated inthe research as specified in the brackets.H1e: There is a relationship between normative influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing, personal computer and branded perfume).H1h: There is a relationship between a number of children in a household and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing, personal computer and branded perfume).H1f: There is a relationship between informational influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (Fashion clothing and branded perfume)As depicted in Table 2, it can be concluded that when a consumer decides torepurchase a high involvement product, they would consider the quality of theproduct, the price of the product, the brand name of the product, productinformation and as well as seeking information from others who are significant tothem especially when they purchase expensive items, in this case, purchasing apersonal computer. The other attributes such as normative influence, income andnumber of children do not dominantly influence their decision to repurchase. Interms of low involvement products, as depicted in Table 3, beta values showedthat quality (beta value –0.165, p-value = 0.002), price (beta value – 0.183, p-value = 0.006), brand name (beta value – 0.293, p-value = 0.000), and number ofchildren (beta vale – 0.096, p-value = 0.011) made a unique, statisticallysignificant contribution to explaining the dependent variable, when the varianceexplained by all other variables in the model is controlled for. This is particularlytrue for instant noodle but for instant coffee and detergent only price (beta value –0.222, 0.272; p-value = 0.001, 0.000) and brand name (beta value – 0.172,0.340; p-value = 0.001, 0.000) made a unique, statistically significant contributionto the prediction of repurchase intention. The other variables made lesscontribution and did not statistically significantly contribute to the prediction ofrepurchase intention. The R-squared showed that 56.5% (instant noodle), 53.6% 136
    • Akir & Othman(instant coffee) and 49.9% (detergent) of the variance were explained by themodel. In contrast, for low involvement products, the following hypotheses weresupported particularly for instant coffee and detergent except for instant noodlewhich showed hypotheses H1a and H1h were also supported. The otherhypotheses (H1a, H1d, H1e, H1f, H1g and H1h) were not supported (instantcoffee and detergent).H1b: There is a relationship between price attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (instant coffee and detergent).H1c: There is a relationship between brand name attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (instant coffee and detergent).As shown in Table 3, it can be concluded that when a consumer decides torepurchase a low involvement product the most important factors that influencehis or her decision are price and brand name, besides quality. In this specificcase, other factors such as product information, interpersonal influence, incomeand number of children did not significantly influence a consumer‟s purchasedecision. This finding is found to be inconsistent with Jones and Zufryden (1980)in which demographic variables were reported to significantly contribute to theprediction of brand choice or purchase. This could be due to the limited numberof explanatory variables entered in their model equation. 137
    • Akir & Othman Table 2: Standardized Regression Coefficients ModelProducts Variables Standardized Collinearity StatisticsCategory Coefficients Beta t-value Sig. Tolerance VIF p-value(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) Quality 0.192 4.319 0.000** 0.659 1.517Fashion Price 0.096 2.170 0.031* 0.670 1.493clothing Brand Name 0.280 4.873 0.000** 0.396 2.528 Product Information 0.208 4.873 0.000** 0.522 1.918 Normative Influence -0.046 -2.933 -0.933 0.546 1.831 Informative Influence -0.067 -1.421 0.156 0.580 1.724 Household Income 0.082 2.225 0.027* 0.959 1.042 Number of Children 0.017 0.474 0.635 0.989 1.011 R-squared = 0.599 (59.9%) F-value=34.372Products Variables Standardized Collinearity StatisticsCategory Coefficients Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF p-valuePersonal Quality 0.235 5.126 0.000** 0.569 1.758Computer Price 0.033 0.712 0.477 0.561 1.784 Brand name 0.239 4.488 0.000** 0.423 2.364 Product Information 0.238 4.680 0.000** 0.463 2.160 Normative Influence 0.056 1.267 0.206 0.635 1.574 Informative Influence 0.239 5.464 0.000** 0.629 1.591 Household Income 0.048 1.381 0.168 0.974 1.027 Number of Children 0.000 0.002 0.999 0.981 1.019 R-squared = 0.641 (64.1%) F-value=42.908Products Variables Standardized Collinearity StatisticsCategory Coefficients Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF p-value Quality 0.120 2.879 0.004* 0.812 1.231Branded Price 0.153 3.439 0.001* 0.710 1.483Perfume Brand Name 0.301 5.443 0.000* 0.462 2.166 Product Information 0.119 2.222 0.027* 0.531 1.885 Normative Influence 0.059 1.135 0257 0.552 1.812 Informative Influence 0.056 1.110 0.268 0.678 1.474 Household Income 0.059 1.289 0.198 0.968 1.033 Number of Children 0.043 1.119 0.264 0.958 1.043 R-squared = 0.553 (55.3%) F-value=27.097 *Dependent variable - repurchase intention; ** Significant at <0.01; * Significant at <0.05 138
    • Akir & Othman Table 3: Standardized Regression Coefficients Model Products Variables Standardized Collinearity Statistics Category Coefficients Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF p-value (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Quality 0.165 3.115 0.002* 0.495 2.022 Instant Noodle Price 0.183 2.740 0.006* 0.311 3.216 Brand Name 0.293 4.906 0.000** 0.388 2.578 Product Information -0.014 -0.261 0.794 0.489 2.045 Normative Influence -0.081 -1.287 0.199 0.353 2.835 Informative Influence 0.077 1.179 0.239 0.326 3.072 Household Income 0.051 1.359 0.175 0.970 1.031 Number of Children 0.96 2.554 0.011* 0.982 1.018 R-squared = 0.565 (56.5%) F-Value=28.854 Products Variables Standardized Collinearity Statistics Category Coefficients Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF p-value Quality 0.066 1.168 0.243 0.458 2.183 Price 0.222 3.321 0.001** 0.325 3.076 Instant Coffee Brand Name 0.272 4.334 0.000** 0.368 2.720 Product Information 0.040 0.732 0.465 0.487 2.054 Normative Influence -0.099 -1.462 0.145 0.316 3.168 Informative Influence 0.082 1.232 0.218 0.329 3.041 Household Income 0.041 1.074 0.283 0.981 1.019 Number of Children 0.050 1.304 0.193 0.988 1.013 R-squared = 0.536 (53.6%) F-value=24.699 Products Variables Standardized Collinearity Statistics Category Coefficients Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF p-value Quality 0.076 1.751 0.081 0.804 1.243 Price 0.172 3.749 0.000** 0.730 1.371 Detergent Brand Name 0.340 6.461 0.000** 0.552 1.810 Product Information 0.019 0.390 0.697 0.638 1.567 Normative Influence -0.084 -1.541 0.24 0.517 1.934 Informative Influence -0.010 -1.176 0.860 0.465 2.151 Household Income 0.008 0.194 0.846 0.969 1.031 Number of Children 0.012 0.300 0.765 0.967 1.034 R-squared = 0.499 (49.9%) F-value=20.383 *Dependent variable - repurchase intention; ** Significant at <0.01; * Significant at <0.05In conclusion, since F-values are well above 1 and at least one of theindependent variables is significantly related to dependent variables, hence themodel can be considered as valid (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1995;Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham, 2006; Pallant, 2007). In addition, inter-item consistency reliability test (Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient) was performed toidentify the consistency of the respondents‟ answers to all the research items.The result reveals high reliability scores among all factors with Cronbach‟s alphacoefficient well above the recommended threshold of 0.70 and 0.80 (Nunally,1978; Malhotra, 2004) - Please refer to Appendix 4. Principal component factoranalysis was conducted and the overall measure of sampling adequacy for theset variables included in the analysis for each product category met the Kaiser‟scriterion (KMO) and all the sets of variables exceeded the minimum requirementof 0.50 and significant Barlett‟s Test of Sphericity was revealed (see Appendix 5).5. Summary and ConclusionsEssentially, the research indicated that the majority of the consumers whopatronize the departmental stores, supermarkets, malls and hypermarkets wereyoung executives, single people with an income between RM2000 to RM4999. 139
    • Akir & OthmanThe findings of the research also suggested that consumers were consistentlybrand conscious and preferred to buy established brands especially forexpensive products, for example, personal computer and branded perfume andalso if the product that they bought was highly visible and displayed statusconnotation such as fashion clothing (Asseal, 1987; Sheth and Mittal, 2004).Similarly, besides price, consumers also considered brand name as one of thedriving forces in their decision to purchase or repurchase a product even if theproducts that they purchased were inexpensive items such as instant noodle,instant coffee and detergent. Interestingly, when the consumers decided torepurchase certain products, regardless of whether those products werecategorized as low or high involvement products, normative and informationalinfluence did not greatly influence their repurchase decision except for personalcomputer in which informational influence strongly influenced the consumersrepurchase decision. This scenario could be due to the consumer‟s prior productknowledge or past experiences with the products and these two factors were notconsidered in the objective of this research.It was also indicated that consumers emphasized more on product informationand acquired information from others for high involvement products particularlypersonal computer as well as perfume which they thought might containsubstances that are prohibited by their religious beliefs. This could be due to thefact that the consumers in the research were generally religious people,especially Muslims who are very sensitive to the issue of “halal” products and assuch they would like to know the contents of the products either through their ownexperiences or by getting the information from others whom they admire or trust.The findings of this research supported the notion that consumer behaviouraltheories may be applicable globally but consumers‟ tastes, preferences andpurchase decisions could be regionally or locally oriented and further influencedby their cultural background and norms (Schutte and Ciarlante, 1998).In addition, consumers tend to be quality conscious specifically for highinvolvement products and price sensitive when it concerns low involvementproducts. They would prefer to buy low involvement products which are locallymanufactured. In contrast, they would prefer foreign products when they decidedto buy high involvement products because they believed that products such aspersonal computer, fashion clothing and branded perfume, besides establishedbrand names, are also of high quality as compared to locally made products. Theresults of this research suggested that the forces that motivate consumers‟intention to repurchase were driven by established brand names, quality, productinformation and informational influence from significant others such as friends,spouses, and family members, particularly for high involvement products(personal computer). For low involvement products (such as instant noodle andinstant coffee) consumer repurchase intention were mainly driven by the qualityand the price of the products, besides conforming to spouses‟ choices. It wasalso noted that consumers tend to purchase high involvement products mostlyduring sales promotion and their purchase decision was partly influenced byadvertisements in magazines, catalogs and brochures. On the other hand, theconsumers‟ decision to purchase low involvement products was mainlyinfluenced by TV advertisements. 140
    • Akir & OthmanThe findings of this research implied that, regardless of whether the productsthat the consumers purchase are low involvement products or high involvementproducts, prior concerns of the businesses and managers or marketers are: (1)consumers‟ involvement in the purchase process; (2) the importance that theyplace on certain product attributes; and (3) how significantly others influence theirdecision making process prior to the purchase, after the purchase is completedand the post-purchase behaviour. Hence, this research is beneficial to managersand marketers to streamline their marketing plans and strategies, in order tocapture the mind and heart of the consumers at large. As such, it is imperative formarketers and managers to understand consumer behaviour beyond themarketing stimuli but at the same time should also consider the consumers‟cultural diversity, customs and norms. Nonetheless, there is an indication that thisresearch supports the general conception that consumers pay less attention toprice if: (1) other alternatives such as brand names, quality and other moreinfluential attributes are available (Dodds and Monroe, 1989; Dodds, Monroe, andGrewal, 1991); and (2) they consider the importance of seeking others‟ opinion intheir choice decision.In conclusion, the findings of this research has potential input to managementand marketing decision process as well as contribute to the body of knowledge interms of exploratory model building, methodology application, consumerbehaviour and marketing management fields.ReferencesAaker, J.L 1997, „Dimensions of brand personality‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 (3), pp. 347-356.Aggarwal, P 2003, „The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer research‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 (1), pp. 87-101.Assael, H 1987, Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, Third Edition, Kent Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts.Al-Hawari, M and Ward, T 2006, „The effect of automated service quality on Australian bank‟s financial performance and the mediating role of customer satisfaction‟, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 (2), pp. 127-147, Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-4503.Aliman, K 2005, Consumer brand choice, Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Faculty of Business and Accountancy, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.Alreck, PL and Settle, RB 1999, „Strategies for building consumer brand Preference‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 (2), pp. 130- 144.Andaleeb, SS and Conway, C 2006, „Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an examination of the transaction-specific model‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 (1), pp. 3-11, Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN 0857-6045.Attaman, B and Ulengin, B 2003, „A note on the effect of brand image on sales‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 (4), pp. 237-250.Avery, RJ 1996, „Determinants of search for non-durables goods: an empirical assessment of the economics of information theory‟, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 30 (2), pp. 390-420.Baker, W, Hutchinson, JW, Moore, D and Nedungadi, P 2004, „Brand 141
    • Akir & Othman familiarity and advertising: effects on the evoked set and brand preference‟, Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global, August 8, 2004.Banks, S 1950, „The relationships between preference and purchase of brands‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 15, pp. 145-157.Beatty, SE and Smith, SM 1987, „External search effort: an investigation across several product categories‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 83-95.Bearden, WO, Netemeyer, RG and Teele, JE 1989, „Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 473-481.Bearden, WO, and Etzel, MJ 1982, „Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 (2), pp. 183-197.Beharrel, B and Dension, TJ 1995, „Involvement in routine food shopping context‟, British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 24-29. MCB University Press Limited, 0007070X.Belk, KH 1979, „The effects of positive and negative arousal upon attitude, belief acceptance, behavioral intention, and behavior‟, Journal of Social Psychology, pp. 239-251.Belk, RW and Clarke, K 1979, „The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort‟, Journal of Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6 (1), pp. 313-317.Bistow, DN and Asquith, JAL 1999, „What‟s in a name? An intra-cultural investigation of Hispanic and Anglo consumer preferences and the importance of brand name‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 (3), pp. 185-203.Biswas, A and Sherrell, LD 1993, „The influence of product knowledge and brand name on internal price standards and confidence‟, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 31-46.Blackwell, RD, Miniard, PW and Engel, JF 2004, Consumer Behavior, Ninth Edition, South-Western Thomson Learning, Ohio, USA.Blair, ME and Innis, ED 1996, „The effects of product knowledge on evaluation of warranted brands‟, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 13 (5), pp. 445-456. John Wiley and Sons Inc.Bloch, PH and Bruce, GD 1980, „Product involvement as leisure behavior‟, Louisiana University, California State University-Fullerton, USA. Retrieved August 8, 2004, from EBSCOHOST/Business Source Premier database.Bloch, PH 1981, „An exploration into the scaling of consumers‟ involvement with a product class‟, Portland State University, in K. Monroe (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 61-65.Bloch, PH 1986, „Product Enthusiasm: many questions, a few answers‟, Journal of Advances in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 13 (1), pp. 539-542.Bloch, P, Sherrel, D and Ridgeway, N 1986, „Consumer search: an extended Framework‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 119-126.Brady, MK and Heskel, J 2005, „The importance of brand cues in tangible services industries: an application to investment services. Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 (6), pp. 401-410.Bristow, DN, Schneider, KC and Schuler, DK 2002, „The brand dependence 142
    • Akir & Othman scale: measuring consumers‟ use of brand name to differentiate among product alternatives‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 (6), pp. 343-356.Brown, WF 1950, „The determination of factors influence brand choice‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14, pp.699-706. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global, August 8, 2004.Brucks, M 1985, „The effects of product class knowledge on information search Behavior‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 1-16.Burnkrant, RE and Cousineau, A 1975, „Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 (3), pp. 206-211.Calder, BJ and Burnkrant, RE 1977, „Interpersonal influence on consumer behavior: an attribution theory approach‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 29-38.Catherine, C, Richard, E, Suzanne, R and Tracy, S. 1990, „The elaboration likelihood model (EML): replications, extensions and some conflicting findings‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 (1), pp. 231-236.Chen, TY, Chang, PL and Chang, HS 2005, „Price, brand cues, and banking customer value‟, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23 (3), pp. 273-291.Churchill, Jr GA 1979, „A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. xvi, pp. 64-73.Clarke, K and Belk, RW 1979, „The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6 (1), pp. 313-318.Clarke, P 2006, „Christmas gift giving involvement‟, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23/5, pp. 283-291. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0736-3761.Corfman, KP and Lehmann, DR 1987, „Models of cooperative group decision-making and relative influence: an experimental investigation of family purchase decisions‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 1- 13.Curry, DJ and Riesz, PC 1988, „Prices and price / quality relationships: a longitudinal analysis‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 36-51.Dahlen, M, Rasch, A and Rossengren, S 2003, „Love at first sight: A study of website effectiveness‟, Journal of Advertising Research, pp. 25-33.Dazed and confused, Businessworld, March 26, 2001. Retrieved from http://www.yahoo.com, August 28, 2004.Dean, DH 2004, „Evaluating potential brand associations through conjoint analysis and market simulation‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 (7), pp. 506-513.Dickson, PR and Sawyer, AG 1990, „The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 42-53.Dodds, WB and Monroe, KB 1985, „The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 85-90.Dodds, WB, Monroe, KB and Grewal, D 1991, „Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers‟ product evaluation‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28, pp. 307-319.Encalas, JE and Bettman, JR 2004, „Self-construal, reference groups, and 143
    • Akir & Othman brand meaning‟, Retrieved August 8, 2004, from EBSCOHOST/Business Source Premier database.Encalas, JE and Bettman, JR 2003, „You are what they eat: the influence of reference groups on consumer connections to brands‟, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 (3), pp. 339-348.Erdem, T, Swait, J and Louviere, J 2002, „The impact of brand credibility on consumer price sensitivity‟, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19, pp. 1-19. Elsevier Services.Erickson, GM and Johansson, JK 1985, „The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluation‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 195-199.Engel, F and Blackwell, RD 1982, Consumer Behavior, 4th ed., New York: The Dryden Press.Feltham, TS 1998, „Leaving home: brand purchase influences on young adults‟, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 (4), pp. 372-385.Foxall, GR and Pallister, JG 1998, „Measuring purchase decision involvement for financial services: comparison of the Zaichkowsky and Mittal scales‟, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16 (5), pp. 180-194.Fraizer, PA, Tix, AP and Baron, KE 2004, „Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research‟, Journal of Counseling, Vol. 51 (1), pp. 115-134.Fugate, DL 1986, „The effects of manufacturer disclosure on consumer perceptions of private brand grocery product attributes‟, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20 (1), pp. 118-130.Greenwald, AG and Leavitt, C 1984, „Audience involvement in advertising: four Levels‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp.581-592.Gensch, DH and Javalgi, RG 1987, „The influence of involvement on disaggregate attribute choice models (1987)‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 71- 82.Gordon, ME, McKeage, K and Fox, MA 1998, „Relationship marketing effectiveness: the role of involvement‟, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15 (5), pp. 443-459.John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Hair, JF, Anderson, RE, Tatham, RL and Black, WC 1995, Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall International Edition, Upper Saddle, New Jersey, USA.Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, Anderson, RE and Tatham, RL 2006, Multivariate Data Analysis, Sixth Edition, Pearson International Edition, Upper Saddle, New Jersey, USA.Hansen, T 2005, „Perspective on consumer decision making: an integrated Approach‟, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4, pp. 420-437.Hawkin, DI, Best, RJ and Coney, KA 2004, Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Hughes, D, Hutchins, R and Karathanassi, V 1998, „Purchase involvement methodology and product profiles: the case of cheese products in Greece, British Food Journal, Vol. 100 (7), 343-350.Hussey, M and Duncombe, N 1999, „Projecting the right image: using projective techniques to measure brand image‟, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 2 (1), pp. 22-30. 144
    • Akir & OthmanJamal, A and Naser, K 2002, „Customer satisfaction and retail banking: an assessment of some of the key antecedents of customer satisfaction in retail banking‟, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 (4), pp. 146-160, MCB University Press, ISSN 0265-2323.Johansson, K 2003, Global Marketing, Third Edition, McGraw Hill, USA.Johnson, E and Russo, JE 1984, „Product familiarity and learning new Information‟, Journal of Consumer research, Vol. 11, pp. 542-550.Jones, JM and Zufryden, FS 1980, „Adding explanatory variables to a consumer purchase behavior model: an exploratory study‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. xvii, pp. 323-334.Jones, JM and Zufryden, FS 1982, „An approach for assessing demographic and price influences on brand purchase behavior‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 36-46.Kapferer, JN and Laurent, JN 1985/1986, „Consumer involvement profiles: a new practical approach to consumer involvement‟, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 5 (6), pp. 48-56.Kassarjian, Harold, H 1981, „Low involvement: a second look‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 31-34.Kelman, HC 1958, „Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change‟, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2 (1), pp. 51-61.Kim, HS 2005, „Consumer profiles of apparel product involvement and values‟, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 9 (2), pp. 207-220.Kinard, BR and Capella, ML 2006, „Relationship marketing: the influence of consumer involvement on perceived service benefits‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20/6, pp. 359-368. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.45.Kinnear, T., and Taylor, J. (1996). Marketing Research: An Applied Research. Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, USA.Krejcie, RB and Morgan, DW 1970, „Determining sample size for research activities‟, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30, pp. 607- 610.Kress, G 1988, Marketing Research, Third edition, Prentice Hall International, USA.Kropp, F, Lavack, AM and Holden, SJS 1999, „Smokers and beer drinkers: values and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence‟, Journal of Consumer Marketing: Santa Barbara, Vol. 16 (6), pp. 536.Kropp, F, Lavack, AM and Silvera, DH 2005, „Values and collective self- esteem as predictors of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence among university students‟, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 7-33.Kotler, P and Armstrong, G 1996, Principles of Marketing, Seven Edition, International Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle, New Jersey, USA.Kotler, P 2003, Marketing Managemen, Eleventh Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.Krugman, HE 1965, „The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement‟, Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Fall), pp. 349-356.Kwak, H, Zinkhan, GM and French, WA 2001, „Moral orientation: its relation to product involvement and consumption‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28, pp. 431-436.Latin, JM and Bucklin, RE 1989, „Reference effects of price and promotion on 145
    • Akir & Othman brand choice behavior‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp. 299- 310.Latour, SA and Manraj, AK 1989, „Interactive impact of informational and normative influence on donations‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26 (3), pp. 327-335.Lamb, CW, Hair, JF and McDaniel, C 2000, Marketing, South-Western Thompson Learning, USA.Lastovicka, JL and Gadner, DM 1978, „Low involvement versus high involvement cognitive structures‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, pp. 87-92.Laurent, G., and Kapferer, J.N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 41-53.Leavitt, C, Greenwald, AG and Obermiller, C 1981, „What is low involvement low in?‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, ed. Kent Monroe, Arlington, Va: Association for Consumer Research.Levesque, T and McDougall, GHG 1996, „Determinants of customer satisfaction in retail banking‟, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 14 (7), pp. 12-20.Li, WK, Monroe, KB and Chan, DKS 1994, „The effects of country of origin, brand, and price information: a cognitive-affective model of buying intentions‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp. 449-456.Lichtenstein, DR, Bloch, PH and Black, WC 1988, „Correlates of price Acceptability‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 243-252.Lichtenstein, DR, Netemeyer, RG and Burton, S 1990, „Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 54-67.Lichtenstein, DR, Ridgway, NM and Netemeyer, RG 1993, „Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a field study‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 100, pp. 234-245.Lippa, RA 1990, Introduction to Social Psychology, Wadsworth Incorporation, California, USA.Malhotra, NK 2002, Basic Marketing Research: Application to Contemporary Issues, Prentice Hall, International Edition, Upper Saddle, New Jersey, USA.Malhotra, NK 2004, Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall, International Edition, Upper Saddle, New Jersey, USA.Mallalieu, L 1999, „An examination of influence in consumption and non- consumption domains‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 196-202.Martin, CL 1998, „Relationship marketing: a high-involvement product attribute approach‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 7 (1), pp. 6-26.Mittal, B 1994, „A study of the concept of effective choice mode for consumer decisions‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp. 256-263.Mittal, B and Lee, YS 1988, „Separating brand choice involvement from product involvement via consumer involvement profiles‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 43-49.Mittal, B 1989, „Measuring purchase decision involvement‟, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 147-162.Mitchell, A and Olsen, JC 1981, „Are products attributes beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude‟ Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 (3), pp. 318-332. 146
    • Akir & OthmanMitchell, AA 1981, „The dimensions of advertising involvement‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 25-30.McDonald, WJ 1994, „Psychological associations with shopping: a moderator variable perspective‟, Psychological and Marketing, Vol. 11 (6), pp. 549- 568, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.McDougall, GHG and Levesque, T 2000, „Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into equation‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 (5), pp. 392-410, MCB University Press, 0887-6045.McColl-Kennedy, JR and Fetter Jr, RE 2001, „An empirical examination of the involvement to external search relationship in services marketing‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 (2), pp. 82-98. MCB University Press.McWilliam, G 1997, „Low involvement brands: is the brand manager to blame?‟, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 15 (2), pp. 60-70.Md. Sidin, S, Zawawi, D, Yee, WF and Hamzah, ZL 2004, „The effects of sex role orientation on family purchase decision making in Malaysia‟, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 (6), pp. 381-390. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0736-3761.Moore, WL and Lehmann, DR 1980, „Individual differences in search behavior for a nondurable‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 296-307.Mourali, M, Laroche, M and Pons, F 2005, „Individualistic orientation and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 (3), pp. 164-173.Mowen, JC and Minor, MS 2001, Consumer Behavior, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall Incorporation, New Jersey, USA.Mueller, W 1991, „Who reads the labels?‟, American Demographics, January, Vol. 13 (1), pp. 36-40.Mueller, RD and Broderick, AJ 1995, „East European retailing: a consumer Perspective‟, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 23 (1), pp. 32-40.Muncy, JA 1990, „Involvement and perceived brand similarities/differences: the need for process oriented models‟, Journal of Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 (1), pp. 144-147.Netemeyer, RG, Bearden, WO and Teele, JE 1992, „Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence and attributional sensitivity‟, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 9 (5), pp. 379-394.Nunally, J 1978, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.Obermiller, C and Wheatley, JJ 2001, „Price effects on choice and perceptions under varying conditions of experience, information, and beliefs in quality differences‟, Retrieved August 8, 2004, from EBSCOHOST/Business Source Premier database.Ofir, C 2004, „Reexamining latitude of price acceptability and price threshold: predicting basic consumer reaction to price‟, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., Vol. 30, pp. 612-621.Ogden, DT 2005, „Hispanic versus Anglo male dominance in purchase decision‟, Journal of Product and Brand Management Vol. 14 (4), pp. 98-105.Olsen, SO 2007, „Repurchase loyalty: the role of involvement and satisfaction‟, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24 (4), pp.315-341, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.O‟Cass, A and Frost, H 2002, „Status brands: examining the effects of non- 147
    • Akir & Othman product-related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 (2), pp. 67-88.Pallant, J 2007, SPSS: Survival Manual, Third edition, Allen and Unwin, NSW, Australia.Park, J, Ekinci, Y and Cobanoglu, C 2004, „An empirical analysis of internet users‟ intention to purchase vacations online‟, Retrieved from http://www.google.com.my/search, on August 8, 2004.Park, B and Lee, MS 1989, „A causal model of consumer involvement‟, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10, pp.363-389.Park, C W and Lessig, VP 1977, „Students and housewives: differences in susceptibility to reference group influence‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, (5), pp. 102-111.Park, WC and Mittal, B 1985, „A theory of involvement in consumer behaviour: problems and issues‟, in Sheth, J.N. (Ed.) Research in Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 201-232.Petty, RE and Cacioppo, JT 1980, „Effects of issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context‟, University of Missouri-Columbia, USA and University of Iowa, USA. Retrieved August 8, 2004, from EBSCOHOST/Business Source Premier database.Petty, RE, Cacioppo, JT and Schumann, D 1983, „Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 135-146.Putrevu, S and Lord, KR 1994, „Comparative and non-comparative advertising: attitudinal effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions‟, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 (2), pp. 77-90.Olorunniwo, F, Hsu, MK and Udo, GJ 2006, „Service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in the service factory‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 (1), pp. 59-72, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0887-6045.Olorunniwo, F and Hsu, MK 2006, „A typology analysis of service quality, customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in mass services‟, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 (2), pp. 106-123, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0960-4529.Quester, PG, Karunaratna, A and Lim, AL 2003, „The product involvement/brand loyalty link: an empirical examination‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, pp.1-8, Retrieved from http;//www.google.com, on August 8, 2004.Quester, PG and Smart, J 1998, „The influence of consumption situation and product involvement over consumers‟ use of product attribute‟, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 (3), pp. 220-238.Quester, P and Lim, AL 2003, „Product involvement/brand loyalty: is there a link? Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 (1), pp. 22-38.Ram, S and Jung, HS 1989, „The link between involvement, usage innovativeness and product usage‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 160-166.Rao, AR and Monroe, KB 1989, „The effect of price, brand name, and store 148
    • Akir & Othman name on buyers‟ perceptions of product quality: an integrative review‟, Marketing Science Institute [working paper series, report no. 89], Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.Ratchford, BT 1987, „New Insights about the FCB grid‟, Journal of Advertising Research, August/September Issue, pp. 24-38.Richins, ML and Bloch, PH 1986, „After the new wears off: the temporal context of product involvement‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 280-285.Rothschild, ML 1979, „Perspectives on involvement: current problems and future directions‟, University of Wisconsin, USA.Rosa-Diaz, IM 2004, „Price knowledge: effects of consumers‟ attitudes towards prices, demographics, and socio-cultural characteristics‟, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 13(6), pp. 406-428. Emerald Group Publishing limited.Sharma, S, Shimp, AT and Shin, J 1995, „Consumer ethnocentrism: a test of antecedents and moderators‟, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 (1).Schewe, CD 1973, „Selected social psychological models for analyzing buyers‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, pp. 31-39.Schiffmann, LG and Kanuk, LL 1998, Consumer Behavior, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall International Incorporation, New Jersey, USA.Shiffmann, LG and Kanuk, LL 2004, Consumer Behavior, Eight Edition, Prentice Hall Incorp. USA.Sherif, M and H. Cantril 1947, The Psychology of Ego-Involvement, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Sheth, JN and Mittal, B 2004, Consumer Behavior: A Managerial Perspective, South-Western Thomson Learning, Ohio, USA.Schutte, H and Ciarlante, D 1998, Consumer Behavior in Asia, Macmillan Press Ltd. London, UK.Solomon, MR 2004, Consumer Behavior, Buying, Having, Being, Sixth edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.Solomon, MR, Marshall, GW and Stuart, EW 2006, Marketing: Real People, Real Choices, Fourth Edition. Pearson Prentice hall, New Jersey, USA.Sproles, GB and Kendall, EL 1986, „A methodology for profiling consumers‟ decision-making styles‟, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20, pp. 267-279.Stafford, JE and Enis, BM 1969, „The price-quality relationship: an extension‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, pp. 456-458.Stigler, G D 1961, „The economic of information‟, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 69 (3), pp. 213-225.Stone, RN 1984, „The marketing characteristics of involvement‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, ed.Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 210-215. Retrieved August 8, 2004, from EBSCOHOST/Business Premier Source database.Tabachnick, BG and Fidell, LS 2007, Using Multivariate Statistics, Fifth Edition, Pearson International Edition, Boston, USA.Tarkiainen, A and Sundqvist, S 2005, „Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food‟, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 (11), pp. 808-822.Tellis, GJ and Geath, GJ 1990, „Best value, price-seeking, and price 149
    • Akir & Othman aversion: the impact of information and learning on consumer choices‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 34-45.Swinyard, WR 1993, „The effects of mood, involvement, and quality of store experience on shopping intentions‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 271-280.Urbany, JE and Dickson, PR 1991, „Consumer normal price estimation: market versus personal standards‟, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., Vol. 18, pp. 45-51.Urbany, JE, Dickson, PR and Kalapurakal, R 1996, „Price search in the retail grocery market‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 91-104.Warrington, P and Shim, S 2000, „An empirical investigation of the relationship between product involvement and brand commitment‟, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17 (9), pp. 761-782. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Webster, C and Faircloth, JB 1994, „The role of Hispanic ethnic identification on reference group influence‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp. 458-463.Wickliffe, VP and Pysarchik, DT 2001, „A look at product attributes as enhancers of group integration among US and Korean consumers‟, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 29 (2), pp. 99-108.William, FB 1950, „The determination of factors influencing brand choice‟, Journal of Marketing, April, 1950, Vol. 1, pp. 699-706.William, KC 1982, Behavioural Aspects of Marketing, Charted Institute of Marketing, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford, UK.William, T 2002, „Social class influences on purchase evaluation criteria, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 (3), pp.249-276.Winer, RS 1986, „A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased products‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 250- 256.Witt, RE 1969, „Informal social group influence on consumer brand choice‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, pp. 473-476.Vanhuele, M and Dreze, X 2002, „Measuring the price knowledge shoppers bring to the shop‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, pp.72-85.Verlegh, PWJ 1999, „In-groups, out-groups and stereotyping: consumer behavior and social identity theory‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 162-164.Vaughn, R 1980, „How advertising works: a planning model: putting it all together‟, Foote, Cone & Belding Inc. Vol. 20 (5), pp. 27-33.Zaickowwsky, JL 1985, „Measuring the involvement construct‟ Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 341-352.Zaichkowsky, JL 1987, „The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision and application to advertising‟, Discussion paper series, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Frazer University, B.C. Canada.Zaichkowsky, JL 1994, „The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision and application to advertising‟, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23, pp. 59-70.Zeithaml, VA 1983, „Issues in conceptualizing and measuring consumer response to price‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 612- 616. 150
    • Akir & OthmanZeithaml, VA 1988, „Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means- end model and synthesis of evidence‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 2- 22.Zikmund, WG 2000, Business Research Methods, Sixth Edition, South-Western Thomson Learning, USA.Zinkhan, GM and Martin, CR 1982, „The attitudinal implications of a new brand‟s name‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9 (1), pp. 467-471.Zinkhan, GM and French, WA 2001, „Moral orientation: its relation to product involvement and consumption‟, Journal Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28, pp. 431-436.Zong, CT and Wildt, RA 1994, „Price, product information, and purchase intention: an empirical study‟, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 16-27.Appendix Appendix 1: Items used in the ResearchQuality Dimension – 7 items 1. Getting very good quality is very important to me. 2. In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality. 3. I make special effort to choose the very best quality products. 4. My standards and expectations for the products I buy are very high. 5. I shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I find that seems good enough. 6. A product doesn‟t have to be perfect, or the best, to satisfy me.* 7. I really don‟t give my purchases much thought or care.*Price Dimension – 7 items 1. If other important factors remain the same, price is an important criterion for me. 2. Price is the most important factor on my decision to purchase or not to purchase. 3. The money saved by finding low prices is usually not worth the time and effort. * 4. I look carefully to find the best value for the money when selecting for a product/ brand. 5. The time it takes to find low prices is usually not worth the effort. * 6. It is important that I buy at sales prices. 7. The lower priced products/brands are usually my choice.Brand Name Dimension – 7 items 1. When it comes to buying a product, I rely on brand names to help me choose among the alternative products/brands. 2. I would be more likely to purchase a product that had a well-known brand name. 3. The brand name would play a significant role in my decision to purchase or not to purchase. 4. When faced with deciding among two or more brands of product, I will depend on the brand name of each product to help me make a choice. 5. If faced with choosing between two brands with similar features, I would select the better known brand name. 6. The brand of a product is important to me when deciding which product/brand to purchase. 7. Regardless of what features competing stores/shops may offer, I would buy the brand of that I trust most. 151
    • Akir & OthmanProduct Information dimension – 6 items 1. I will use the information provided by the shops when selecting for a product that I want to purchase. 2. I am not willing to purchase without knowing the detailed information related to the product that I buy. 3. The information regarding the products/brands that I buy usually helps me to make decision on which products/brands to choose. 4. I think the availability of information provided by the shops is important to me when purchasing a product/brand. 5. I often look at information about the products/brands that I buy before I purchase a product/brand. 6. I will not purchase a product/brand if the shops fail to show me the information about the product/brand.Normative Influence dimension – 8 items 1. I rarely purchase the latest products/fashion styles until I am sure my friends approve of them. 2. It is important that others like the products I buy. 3. When buying products/brands, I generally purchase those brands that I think others will approve of. 4. If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect me to buy. 5. I like to know what brands make good impressions on others. 6. I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same brands that others purchase. 7. If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the same brands that they buy. 8. I often identify with other people by purchasing the same brands they purchase.Informational Influence – 4 items 1. To make sure I buy the right product or brand, I often observe what others are buying and using. 2. If I have a little experience with a product or brand, I often ask my friends about the product/brand. 3. I often consult other people to help me choose the best alternative available from a product class. 4. I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy. Note: Measured using a 7-point Likert Like scales were used anchored with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree - adapted from Sproll and Kendall (1986), Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993), Bristow, Schneider, and Schuler (2002), Aliman (2005), Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teele (1989), Kropp, Lavack, and Silvera (2005)Repurchase intention – 8 items 1. I feel a commitment to continue buying this product/brand. 2. I feel loyalty to this product/brand. 3. I intend to buy this product again. 4. I plan to buy this product/brand in future. 5. This product/brand pleases me. 6. This product/brand satisfies me. 7. I am happy with this product/brand. 8. Buying this product/brand in the future would be a wise choice. Note: Measured using a 7-point Likert Like scales with 1 = strongly disagree, and 7 = strongly agree - adapted from Levesque and McDougall (1996). 152
    • Akir & Othman Appendix 2: Respondents‟ ProfileNo. Demographic Variables Frequency (N) Percent (%)1. Gender Male 241 48.10 Female 259 51.80 500 100.002. Race Malay 157 31.40 Chinese 127 25.40 Iban 92 18.40 Bidayuh 88 17.60 Indian 11 2.20 Others 25 5.00 500 100.003. Age Below 20 years old 22 4.40 Between 20 to 24 years old 107 21.40 Between 25 to 29 years old 172 34.40 Between 30 to 34 years old 87 17.40 Between 35 to 39 years old 51 10.20 Between 40 to 44 years old 34 6.80 Between 45 to 49 years old 13 2.60 50 years old and above 14 2.80 500 100.004. Occupation Clerical / supervisory 107 21.40 Managerial / Administrative 164 32.80 Professional 67 13.40 Academician 79 15.80 Self-employed / Entrepreneurs 53 10.60 Others 30 6.00 500 100.005. Employment Organizations Private sectors 171 34.20 Government / public sectors 254 50.80 Self-employment / Entrepreneur 63 12.60 Others 12 2.40 500 100.006. Income (self) Below RM1000 72 14.40 RM1000 to RM2999 254 50.80 RM3000 to RM3999 122 24.40 RM4000 to RM4999 33 6.60 RM5000 to RM5999 12 2.40 RM6000 to RM6999 3 0.60 RM7000 and above 4 0.80 500 100.007. Income (household) Below RM2000 81 16.20 RM2000 to RM4999 197 39.40 RM5000 to RM6999 120 24.00 RM7000 to RM8999 52 10.40 RM9000 to RM9999 24 4.80 RM10000 and above 26 5.20 500 100.008. Education level Primary 5 1.00 Secondary 108 21.60 HSC / STPM 57 11.40 153
    • Akir & Othman College Diploma 169 33.80 University Degree 143 28.60 (undergraduate/postgraduate) Others 18 3.60 500 100.009. Marital status Single 246 49.20 Married without children 80 16.00 Married with children 167 33.40 Divorced / widowed (single- 7 1.40 parents) 500 100.0010. Religion Muslim 168 33.60 Hindu 11 2.20 Budhist / Taoist 67 13.40 Christian 248 49.60 Others 6 1.20 500 100.0011. Number of Children in a Household 82 16.40 1 to 2 children 223 44.60 3 to 4 children 145 29.00 5 to 6 children 50 10.00 7 children and above 500 100.0012. Strength of religious orientation Very weak 5 1.00 Weak 21 4.20 Average 209 41.80 Strong 202 40.40 Very strong 63 12.60 500 100.00 154
    • Akir & Othman Appendix 3: Summary of Consumers‟ Shopping Behavior PatternProducts Preferred Where When COO Why Amount Reasons Ads SignificantCategory brand purchase purchase COO spent purchase influence others purchase influence decisions purchase most decisionsPersonal Acer Department Special Foreign Quality RM1000 Own use Brochures FriendsComputer Dell al occasion made Brand to and few Catalogs Family Compact stores sales name RM3000 for “gifts‟ Magazines members Specialty promotion Price giving Newspaper Salesperson stores MallsFashion Levi Departmental Special Foreign Quality RM100 Own use Magazines FriendsClothing Nike stores occasion made Brand to and few Brochures Spouse Adidas Malls sales name RM200 for „gifts‟ Catalogs Family Nicole promotion Price giving TV ads members salespersonBranded Calvin Departmental Special Foreign Quality RM100 Own use Magazines FriendsPerfume Klein stores occasion made Brand to and few Brochures Spouse Silky Malls sales name RM200 for „gifts‟ Catalogs Family Avon promotion Price giving TV ads members Body shop salespersonDetergent Breeze Supermarkets Weekly Local Price RM10 Own use TV ads Spouse Daia monthly made to RM21 Family Fab members FriendsInstant Maggie Supermarkets Weekly Local Price RM10 Own use TV ads SpouseNoodle Indomee monthly made to Family Mee RM21 members Sedap FriendsInstant Nescafe Supermarkets Weekly Local Price RM10 Own use TV ads SpouseCoffee Kapal Api monthly made to RM21 Family Indocafe members Friends 155
    • Akir & Othman Appendix 4: Reliability Statistics and Cronbach‟s Coefficients AlphaProducts Category Variables No. of items Cronbach‟s Alpha CoefficientPersonal Computer Price 7 0.67 Quality 7 0.61 Brand 7 0.86 Product information. 6 0.89 Normative influence 8 0.76 Informative influence 4 0.77 Total 39 0.89 Repurchase intension 8 0.93Fashion Clothing Price 7 0.68 Quality 7 0.68 Brand 7 0.88 Product information. 6 0.80 Normative influence 8 0.80 Informative influence 4 0.81 Total 39 0.91 Repurchase intension 8 0.89Branded Perfume Price 7 0.71 Quality 7 0.83 Brand 7 0.86 Product information. 6 0.81 Normative influence 8 0.85 Informative influence 4 0.81 Total 39 0.92 Repurchase intension 8 0.89Detergent Price 7 0.70 Quality 7 0.82 Brand 7 0.88 Product information. 6 0.75 Normative influence 8 0.90 Informative influence 4 0.90 Total 39 0.89 Repurchase intension 8 0.89Instant Noodle Price 7 0.66 Quality 7 0.77 Brand 7 0.92 Product information. 6 0.82 Normative influence 8 0.93 Informative influence 4 0.87 Total 39 0.89 Repurchase intension 8 0.89Instant Coffee Price 7 0.66 Quality 7 0.80 Brand 7 0.93 Product information. 6 0.80 Normative influence 8 0.94 Informative influence 4 0.89 Total 39 0.91 Repurchase intension 8 0.98 156
    • Akir & Othman Appendix 5: KMO and Barlett‟s Test of Sphericity Products Variables KMO (Measure of Barlett‟s Test of Category sampling adequacy Sphericity [MSA])Personal Quality 0.890 Sig. 0.000Computer Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influenceFashion Clothing Quality 0.877 Sig. 0.000 Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influenceBranded Perfume Quality 0.887 Sig. 0.000 Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influenceDetergent Quality 0.903 Sig. 0.000 Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influenceInstant Noodle Quality 0.929 Sig. 0.00 Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influenceInstant Coffee Quality 0.939 Sig. 0.000 Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influence 157