Iri machine international roughness index of asphalte surface
Eric and bright
1. UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS
A STUDY ON FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE CHOICE OF
BRANDS OF MOBILE PHONE
(A CASE STUDY IN KUMASI METROPOLIS)
BY
AIDOO ERIC
NYAMEDOR BRIGHT
APRIL, 2008
2. UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS
A STUDY ON FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE CHOICE OF
BRANDS OF MOBILE PHONE
(A CASE STUDY IN KUMASI METROPOLIS)
BY
AIDOO, ERIC
NYAMEDOR, BRIGHT
STA499 (PROJECT WORK)
A dissertation submitted to the Department of Mathematics and Statistics,
University of Cape Coast in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
award of Bachelor of Science Degree in Statistics.
APRIL, 2008
i
3. DECLARATION
We do hereby declare that project entitled “FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE
CHOICE OF BRANDS OF MOBILE PHONE” was done entirely by us under the
supervision of Mr. B. K. Nkansah.
ii
5. ABSTRACT
The whole world has now become a global village where people can now reach
others in different parts of the world within a short period with the advent of mobile
phones. As a result of its importance numerous factors need to be considered when
choosing mobile phone. It is against these challenges that the topic “factors that determine
the choice of brands of mobile phone” was chosen for study.
The main objective of this paper is to determine the factors that determine choice of
brand of mobile phone among residents of Kumasi metropolis. To identify these factors, a
questionnaire survey was carried out among the people of Kumasi. Three hundred
respondents were sampled for the study.
The chi-square and factor analysis, were the main statistical tools used for the
analysis. Also, a combination of statistical software (SPSS and Minitab) was used for the
analysis.
From the primary analysis, it was found that 76% of the respondents owned mobile
phone and also most people do not use mobile phone because of its high cost. The analysis
also reveals that the most used mobile phone is Nokia and the affordable mobile phone
price ranges from GH¢50 – GH¢100. From the test of hypothesis, it was also revealed that
brand of mobile phone used by the consumer is associated with educational level
attainment and occupational status of the consumer.
In further analysis, two factors were obtained as being the number of factors
underlying choice of brand of mobile phone. The first most important factor is reliable
quality of the mobile phone brand and the other factor is user-friendliness of the brand of
the mobile phone.
iv
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Mr. B.K. Nkansah our supervisor deserves a special word of appreciation. Who despite his
heavy schedule has rendered us immeasurable supports by reviewed the manuscript. His
comments and suggestions immensely enriched the content of this work.
We are also grateful to the lectures and entire staffs of Department of Mathematics and
Statistics, University of Cape Coast.
Finally we want to thanks the 2008 year group of Statistics Students of Department
Mathematics and Statistics.
v
7. TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION............................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION..................................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOLEDGEMENT.................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... vi-vii
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix
1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objectives of the study.............................................................................................. 3
1.4 Hypothesis................................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 4
1.6 Data Collection.......................................................................................................4-6
1.7 Literature Review...................................................................................................... 6
1.7.1 Definition of Mobile Phone/Cellular Phone ....................................................6-7
1.7.2 Generations of Mobile Phones.........................................................................7-8
1.7.3 Consumer Choice Behavior...........................................................................8-10
1.7.4 Mobile Phone Choice ..................................................................................10-11
1.7.5 Brand Preference and Product Attribute........................................................... 11
2 REVIEW OF METHODS ........................................................................................... 12
2.1 Factor Analysis ..................................................................................................12-14
2.2 Chi-Square Analysis ..........................................................................................14-16
3 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 17
3.1 Mobile Phone Distribution by Gender .................................................................... 17
3.2 Brand of Mobile phone Distribution....................................................................... 18
3.3 Reasons by Respondents who do not use Mobile Phone ...................................18-19
3.4 Reasons by Respondents who use More Than One Mobile Phone....................19-20
3.5 Mobile Phone Cost.................................................................................................. 20
vi
8. 3.6 Test of Hypothesis – 1 ............................................................................................ 21
3.7 Test of Hypothesis – 2 ............................................................................................ 22
3.8 Test of Hypothesis – 3 .......................................................................................23-24
4 FURTHER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 25
4.1 Correlation Analysis...........................................................................................25-26
4.2 Total Variance Explained...................................................................................26-27
4.3 The Component Matrix and Interpretation of Extracted Factors .......................27-29
5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................. 30
5.1 Summary ................................................................................................................. 30
5.2 Discussion ..........................................................................................................30-31
5.3 Conclusion .........................................................................................................31-32
5.4 Recommendation..................................................................................................... 32
REFERENCE .............................................................................................................33-34
APPENDIX A: Specimen of the Questionnaire.......................................................35-38
APPENDIX B: The Chi-square Probability Tables..................................................... 39
vii
9. LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: A r × c Contingency Table ............................................................................. 15
Table 3.1: Distribution of Mobile phone Ownership by Gender ..................................... 17
Table 3.2: Distribution of Mobile phone Cost ................................................................. 20
Table 3.3: Cross-tabulation of level of education against the owned of mobile phone ... 21
Table 3.4: Cross-tabulation of occupational status against mobile phone usage ............. 22
Table 3.5: Cross-tabulation of Mobile phone brands against Gender .............................. 23
Table 4.1: Correlation Matrix........................................................................................... 25
Table 4.2: Results of KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Significance....................................... 26
Table 4.3: Total Variance Explain ................................................................................... 26
Table 4.4: Component Matrix .......................................................................................... 26
viii
10. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Distribution of Brands of Mobile phone ....................................................... 18
Figure 3.2: Reasons by Respondents for not using Mobile phone................................... 18
Figure 3.3: Reasons why respondents use more than one Mobile phone ........................ 19
Figure 4.2: Scree Plot of Eigenvalue against Number of components ............................ 27
ix
11. CHARPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The whole world has now become a global village where people can now reach
others in different parts of the world within a short period. This global village was brought
by the introduction of information and communication technology (ICT) tools. These tools
include mobile phones. Mobile phones have become a fundamental part of personal
communication across the globe during the past ten years. This great technology has
brought in its wake a lot of challenges.
Two decades ago, the telecommunications market in Ghana was dominated and
monopolize by Ghana Telecom (GT). GT formally known as Ghana Post &
telecommunication (GP&T) was incorporated in 1994. The enactment of the statutory
corporation in June 1995, transformed what had been a telecommunication device into
Ghana Telecom Company, with the Ghana government being the majority shareholder.
Until 1992, cross-border and internal corporation between Ghana post and
telecommunication, and telecommunication providers elsewhere was all but none
existence. Typically, regulations prohibited foreign firms from entering the country’s
telecommunication market to compete with the domestic provider. Most of the traffic
carried by GP&T was voice traffic, almost all of it was carried over wires, and customers
were charged a hefty premium to make long distance and international calls. Besides, the
few telephone lines available were all centered in the regional capital and metropolitan
areas. Only the government ministries, universities, hospitals and few other important
government and private institutions had that opportunity of enjoying this facility. The
facility was also accessible to the privileged in the society who could afford to pay for
services.
A little more than a decade ago (since 1992) the landscape of telephone system in
Ghana has changed. New competitors have emerged to take on the dominant provider,
Ghana -Telecom. The state-owned monopoly has been privatized. New wireless and
cellular technologies have facilitated the emergence of competitors such as TiGo, MTN,
Westel and Kasapa, which now compete head to head with the former state monopoly,
1
12. Ghana Telecom. Much of the voice traffic by these telecommunication providers is being
transmitted over digital networks that utilize fiber optics, digital switches and protons to
send the voice around at the speed of light.
The first cellular phone service was initiated in 1992 by Millicom Ghana limited-
mobitel (now TiGo). Scancom Ghana Limited –Spacefon (now MTN) joined Mobitel in
1994 in the provision of mobile telephone services. One-Touch (Ghana Telecom) mobile
telephone operator was the next competitor in the cellular phone market in the year 2000.
A local cellular phone operator, Kasapa, followed. It is worthy of note that in 1992 about
19,000 Ghanaians owned mobile phones. In 1998 the number of mobile phone users in the
country increased to 43,000 and by the middle of 1999 the number increased to 68,000.
The usage rose from 22,000 to 130,000 subscribers between 1999 and 2000. From the year
2000 up to date, the subscribers’ base has increased to about 3,500,000. Between 1992 and
the year 2001, mobile phone usage seemed limited to some categories of people in the
country. These include businessmen, managers in reputed companies, government
officials, diplomatic corps, wealthy individuals and some very important personalities.
These may be attributed to the fact that cellular phone usage was new and their coverage
was limited to the country’s main cities. Now, due to the nation-wide coverage of the
mobile phone service providers, every category of people owned mobile phone. It has
helped bring about a source of employment to a section of the populace. It has also become
fashionable to own a mobile phone. The need for the acquisition of mobile phone by all
has brought about some challenges. This is because people go to all extent to acquire them.
In recent times, the acquisition of the phone alone is not the issue. The issue now is the
type of phone one possesses. It is the latest fashion to see persons of all age groups and
professions boasting about the features their mobile phones possess. The need for
fashionable phones has also caught up with the mobile phone manufactures as they also
manufacture new and fashionable mobile phones within short interval of time. In a way,
there seems to be a competition among the mobile phone manufacture as they must
provide latest and fashionable mobile phones to satisfy their customers.
In Ghana, there is substantial population of mobile phone users. Mobile services in
Ghana have advanced to the stage where, in addition to traditional service such as voice
call and SMS, most users can freely enjoy the latest mobile technologies such as mobile
2
13. Internet, e-mailing, e-learning, e-banking and video-conferencing. Consumer research has
devoted little specific attention to factors underlying the mobile phone buying decision
process. There are numerous factors that need to be taken into account when exploring
mobile phone buying decision process. These factors may include conditions that affect the
evolution of mobile phone market in general and individual consumer’s motives in
particular.
The study seeks to know the factors that underlying a person’s decision in choosing
brand of mobile phone(s) to use. At the end of this study, we will be able to know the most
common brand of mobile phone in use among the study population. Also, we will be able
to determine among other things if there are certain consumer-based indicators
(educational status, occupational status and gender) have influence in the purchasing of
mobile phone.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The use of mobile phones has become a fundamental part of personal
communication across the globe during the past ten years. In Ghana mobile phone usage
has become common, but there are numerous factors that need to be taken into account
when choosing a brand of mobile phone. Consumer research has devoted little specific
attention to factors that determine choice of brand of mobile phones. Conversely, only a
few published academic researches were focused on comparative studies. It is against this
background that the topic “factors that determine the choice of brands of mobile phone”
was chosen for study.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study has been categorize into two: main objective and specific
objectives.
The main objective of this study is to examine the important factors that determine choice
of brand of mobile phone.
The specific objectives of the study are as follows.
1. To determine the most used mobile phone brand.
2. To determine the reasons why some people don’t use mobile phone.
3
14. 3. To determine whether there is a relationship between mobile phone usage and
educational level
4. To determine whether there is a relationship between mobile phone usage and
occupational status.
5. To determine whether there is a relationship between mobile phone usage and
gender.
6. To determine the reasons why some consumers choose to use more than one mobile
phone.
1.4 Hypotheses
The null hypotheses formulated for the study were as follows:
1. There is no relationship between mobile phone usage and educational level
2. There is no relationship between mobile phone usage and occupational status.
3. There is no association between gender and the brand of mobile phone used.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is to extend previous studies conducted in different
parts of the world. It is hope that the findings will not only inform factors that determine
choice of brand of mobile phone, it will also bring to light the brand of mobile phone that
is mostly used by consumers in Ghana. An awareness of factors that determine choice of
brand of mobile phone might ultimately guide or influence manufacturers in the kind of
mobile phones to produce. Conversely, it will also guide mobile phone importers in Ghana
to know the kind of mobile phones to import into the country.
1.6 Data Collection
The target population for the project comprised the total population of Kumasi, a
capital city of Ashanti Region. A sample of size 300 was drawn from the study area for
this research.
4
15. Kumasi is Ghana’s second city and it is about 300 km from the national capital,
Accra. It centrally located in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. It has an approximate area of
254 square kilometers and it is the second largest metropolis after Accra in Ghana. Being
strategically located on the cross roads of the northern parts of the country, Kumasi is also
the capital of ancient Asante Kingdom and presently Ashanti Region. Politically Kumasi is
divided into four (4) sub-metropolitan areas namely; Manhyia, Asokwa, Bantama and
Subin.
In terms of population, it has been estimated in 2000 population census to be
1,170,270 out of which 587,012 are males representing 50.16% and 583,258 were females
representing 49.84% of the entire population of the metropolis. As a cosmopolitan city, it
contains members of most ethnic groups from West Africa although the indigenous
Ashanti people dominate life in general. Although these migrants’ communities maintain
their language and cultural identity, Ashanti Twi is universally spoken and understood.
The people in the metropolitan are mostly businessmen and women. A sizeable
percentage of the populations engage in vocational trade such as fitting, carpentry etc. with
Adum, Central market, Suame Magazine and Anloga as the major areas where these
activities takes place. Others are in the Government establishment such as education,
health, financial institutions and so on. The road network in the metropolitan is first class
(tarred with bitumen) and almost all of them have streetlights.
The economic of the Kumasi metropolis comprises the agriculture, industrial and services
sectors. Like any urban economy the agricultural sector is very small, accounting for only
about ten (10) percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The services sector is the
largest and the most important sector which contributes about 60 percent of the metropolis
GDP follow by industrial sector accounting for about 30 percent of the GDP.
The contribution of Agriculture to the metropolitan economy is moderate and it is mostly
practiced in the peripheral areas like Appiadu, Deduako, Kokoben, Ohwin and Sokoban
etc. Most of the crops grown are stables and include maize, cassava, plantains, cocoyam
and vegetables.
The Kumasi metropolis is endowed with many varied industrial activities. This is
mainly due to its linkage to all parts of the country. The industrial activities in the
metropolis may be classified into the three scale industries. The medium and large-scale
5
16. industrial activities include pharmaceutical and medical accessories, mechanical and
electrical engineering works, logging and saw milling. The small-scale industrial activities
include footwear, cosmetics, soap making, carpentry and joinery, foam and plastics,
printing and stationery and metal works. The central of industrial activities are Kaase,
Ahinsa, Asokwa, Anloga and Suame Magazine areas. An important innovation in the
metropolis economy in recent times is a wide variety of predominantly informal economy
enterprises and home-base industries which are springing up with most of their operations
in the residential areas. This may be partly due to the shrinking public and formal sector
and the recent encouragement of the private sector as an engine of growth of the country’s
economy.
In this research, seven variables were considered to measure the factors that
determine the choice of brand of mobile phone(s). These variables are as follows:
X1 – Affordability
X2 – Fashionable
X3 – More features in the mobile phone
X4 – Reliability of the reception
X5 – High quality
X6 – Popularity
X7 – Portability
The main instrument of data collection was questionnaire. The questionnaire was in
three sections consisting of sixteen items in all. The first section of the questionnaire
contains items which enabled us to group the respondents. The second and third section of
the questionnaire also enabled us to measure the variables of interest.
To ensure accuracy of responses, the research instrument was self-administered by
the researchers to the subjects of the study. During the administration of the research
instrument, convenient sampling was introduced in the selection of the research objects.
The analysis of the data gathered from this research was in two parts. The first part,
which is the preliminary analysis made use of descriptive statistics tools such as bar chart,
pie chart and frequency tables. The second part, which is the further analysis made use of
inferential statistics tools such as chi-square analysis and factor analysis.
6
17. Also, a combination of statistical software (SPSS and Minitab) and others software
were used during data processing, and others.
1.7 Literature Review
1.7.1 Definition of Mobile/Cellular Phone
The Cellular telephone (commonly “mobile phone” or “cell phone” or “hand
phone”) is a long-range, portable electronic device used for mobile communication
(www.wikipewdia.com definition of mobile phone). In addition to the standard voice call
of a telephone, current mobile phones can support many additional services such as SMS
(Short Message Service) for text messaging, email, packet switching for access to the
Internet, and MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service) for sending and receiving photos and
video in a single messaging. Cellular telephone is also defined as a type of short-wave
analog or digital telecommunication in which a subscriber has a wireless connection from a
mobile telephone to a relatively nearby transmitter. The transmitter’s span of coverage is
called a cell. Generally, cellular telephone service is available in urban areas and along
major highways. As the cellular telephone user moves from one cell or area of coverage to
another, the telephone is effectively passed on to the local cell transmitter.
1.7.2 Generations of Mobile Phones
The evolution in mobile phone and advancement technology started from the first
generation phones (1G). We are currently experiencing a shift from the second generation
(2G) to the third generation (3G) mobile phones, which is expected to change the way
people use their mobile phones. The rise of the 3G network and its consumer acceptance is
said to be one of the toughest marketing challenges in recent history (Benady, 2002). In
general terms, the success of 3G depends primarily on how the real benefits of the
technology are marketed to consumers on one hand and on pricing policy of the services
on the other hand (Benady, 2002). If we look beyond the hype around 3G it is obvious that
we are not experiencing a revolution in mobile phone markets, rather an evolution where
consumers are able to do the same things they could with 2G and 2.5G examples are the
GPRS (General Pocket for Radio Services) and EDGE (Enhance Data rate for Global
Evolution) technology, but only better and faster in terms of download times (Drucker,
7
18. 2004; Sehovic, 2004). The mobile phone industry is currently using many standards among
are the Japanese PDC (Personal Division Code), European GSM (Global System for Mobil
Telecommunication) and American CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access), which has
made it difficult for users traveling to utilize their phones extensively. The evolution of 3G
is expected to simplify this as only two standards are competing, the WCDMA (Wide-
Code Division Multiple Access) that will become the European UMTS (Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System), CDMA2000 (Code Division Multiple Access), and the
Chinese TD-SCDMA (Time Division-Synchronous Code Division Multiple Access). The
WCDMA standard is said to dominate the global market for the next five years (Sehovic,
2003). Consumer shift from 2G to 3G means that in order to be able to use the services
offered by the faster network consumers need to acquire new mobile handsets equipped
with Internet access like GPRS (General Pocket for Radio Services), WAP (Wireless
Application Protocol) and new features such as possibility to receive and send multimedia
messages. Although recent news indicates a strong demand for new mobile phones
equipped with color displays and built-in camera, there still is plenty of skepticism in the
media, as well as in the market itself, towards the technological development. The
development of mobile phones is leading the market into a situation where the basic need,
communication, is actually broadened to new means.
1.7.3 Consumer Choice Behaviour
Consumers engage in information search before making choice. Consumer decision
making process is usually guided by already formed preferences for a particular
alternative. In close relation to information search, evaluation of alternatives has also
gained a momentum in recent research (Laroche et al 2003). Their study on consumer’s
use of five heuristics (conjunctive, disjunctive, lexicographic, linear additive, and
geometric compensatory) in the consideration set formation found that conjunctive
heuristics is the most often used decision model in the consideration set formation for two
product classes in the study (beer brands and fast food outlets). Conjunctive heuristics
means that a consumer selects a brand only if it meets acceptable standards, the so-called
cutoff point on each key attribute consumer regards as important. In this non-compensatory
method of evaluation, a consumer would eliminate a brand that does not fulfill the
8
19. standards on one or two of the most important attributes, even if it is positive on all other
attributes.
It is widely accepted that the traditional problem solving approach involving rational
decision making to the study of consumer choice may not be suitable for all situations, or
is at least incomplete to understand choice behavior.
Quite similarly, consumer choice can also be approached from the perspective of
conscious and nonconscious choice (Fitzsimons et al., 2002). Quite many choice situations
occur outside of conscious awareness and with limited information search (Kivetz and
Simonson, 2000) and it can be stated that many choices have both conscious and
nonconscious motives. Fitzsimons et al. (2002) found that in many cases, nonconscious
influences affect choice much more than is traditionally believed by researchers.
The acquisition of a new mobile phone follows this traditional view of buying
process, but is in many situations also affected by symbolic values related to brands. With
the advent of globalization and high tech production methods, a large variety of mobile
phones has almost overwhelmed the mobile market. This has changed the visual standards
of many consumers over the world. For instance, according to a China Business Weekly
Yan Xianpu (2004), mobile phone production and sales in China in 2003 reached 158
million and 151million with growth rates of 48% and 49% respectively. With references to
the Yan Xianpu report for example, Chinese consumers are always chasing after new
mobile phones with more functions, and more reliable quality. According to the report,
different age groups have different preferences for mobile phone brands. The report further
stated that generally, with the increase of age, Motorola is more widely accepted than
Samsung, Nokia is more popular in the youth range from 16 to 24 years. Nokia and
Motorola are popular among middle-aged consumers (45 to 60 years). The report further
established that men and women also have different tastes when purchasing mobile
phones. Men prefer Motorola and Bird whilst women prefer flip phones. Nokia and
Samsung are roughly the same for both sexes. Yan Xianpu also revealed that Nokia,
Motorola and Samsung are in the top three. Samsung has emerged later and become
popular among the youth, surpassing Nokia and Motorola in several areas, including
ranking first in future purchase potential.
9
20. In wider perspective, the Daily Graphic (December 2004) reported that the number
of mobile phone subscribers around the world totaled nearly 1.5 billion by the middle of
2004. The report also pointed out that in Ghana, industry experts put the figure around 1.5
million subscribers, representing about 7% of the population, compared to 1% in the year
2002.
According to British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) report (June 2005), in their
different ways, user demand and market forces, in different countries and regions, are
leading to the spread of mobile phones, at a rate which is almost certainly greater than any
other invention in history. In the report the mobile is said to be one of the most democratic
inventions in history, because it is accessible to all parts of the population ultimately in all
countries.
For example, there are major problems in making cars, personal computers or even
fixed line phones available to everyone in the world. But there are no insurmountable
barriers; technical or commercial, in the way of everyone on the planet having a mobile
phone of his preference.
1.7.4 Mobile Phone Choice
Previous literature on mobile phone choice is meager. Couple of academic articles
have dealt with mobile phone usage and grasped the consumer decision making process.
To begin with, a survey conducted by E-Belarus.org (2001-2006) revealed that out of 400
respondents, 33% said they used Nokia, 25% used Samsung, 8% Siemens, 13% Motorola
whiles 5% used Sony-Ericsson.
According to a survey conducted by British Broadcasting Corporation in 2004,
Nokia is the most popular handset in Europe. In another survey, Brandstock (2004),
Samsung is the most popular in Korea. The results of a survey carried out by TV3, a
television station in Ghana, in 2005, also indicate that Nokia is the most popular brand in
Ghana. One of the reasons being the different brand power: in terms of durability, coverage
and reception, and battery capacity in these countries.
Further research by the Nokia Company also reveals that user interface styles are
regarded as a competitive asset in the race for market dominance (Lindholin et al 2003).
However, all the different mobile handset manufactured have its own user interface and
10
21. conventions. It can therefore be argued that different mobile brands are popular in different
countries, each with its own user interface. In the same sense, it is anticipated that different
mobile brands will be popular among different groups and individuals.
In addition, it seems that size and brand play to some extent an important role in
decision making. Liu (2002) for instance, surveyed Asian mobile phone users and found
that the size of the phone had no impact on mobile phone choice, but this finding might be
due to the fact that all competing brands have quite similar sized phones that are small
enough. Liu continues that the trend will actually be not towards smaller phones but
towards phones with better capability and larger screens. While companies are advertising
new models and services that do not yet exist, it according to the paper signals to the
market that the company is at the cutting edge of technology and shows what will be
available in the very near future. The sales of new phones will then be driven by
replacement rather than adoption. Price of the phone has been identified as a critical factor
in the choice of the mobile phone brand, especially among younger people (Karjaluoto et
al., 2003a; Karjaluoto et al., 2003b). By the use of a survey involving a sample size of 397,
they found that besides new technological advances, price was the most influential factor
affecting the choice of a new mobile phone model.
1.7.5 Brand Preference and Product Attribute
Attributes are the characteristic or features that an object may or may not have and
includes both intrinsic and extrinsic. Benefits are the positive outcomes that come from the
attributes. People seek products that have attributes that will solve their problems and
fulfills their needs. Understanding a consumer choose a product based upon its attributes
helps marketers to understand why some consumers have preferences for certain brands.
The Lancaster model of consumer demand (1966, 1979), also referred to as the product
attributes model, was used to evaluate brand positioning. This model assumes that
consumer choice is based on the characteristics (or attributes) of a brand. Each product is a
bundle of attributes and that choice is based on maximizing utility/satisfaction from the
attributes subject to budget constraints. Both tangible and intangible attributes of a product
are equally important in choosing a product or brand.
11
22. CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF METHODS
Various statistical analysis tools have been used during the analysis of the data. Some of
the statistical tools were used in preliminary analysis as well as in further analysis. The
main statistical tools used are the chi-square analysis and factor analysis.
2.1 Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis is a statistical tool used to reduce the number of factors needed to explain
the variability in data. The major aim of factor analysis is the orderly simplification of a
large number of intercorrelated measures to a few representative constructs or factors
which can then be used for subsequent analysis. In other words, the latent factors
determine the values of the observed variables. Each observed variable (y) can be
expressed as a weighted composite of a set of latent variables (f's) such that
Yi = a i1 f 1 + a i 2 f 2 + ... + aik f k + ei (2.1)
Where
y i - the i th observed variable on the factors
a ij - the loadings of the variables
f j - the factors
ei the residual of y i on the factors.
Given the assumption that the residuals are uncorrelated across the observed variables, the
correlations among the observed variables are accounted for by the factors. Factor analysis
is based on the assumption that all variables are correlated to some degree. Those variables
that share similar underlying dimensions should be highly correlated, and those variables
that measure dissimilar dimensions should yield low correlations. Analysis of variables
that share the same underlying dimensions should yield high correlation coefficient,
whereas test of different dimension should yield low correlation coefficient. These high
and low correlation coefficients will become apparent in the correlation matrix because
12
23. they form clusters indicating which variables “hang” together. The primary function of
factor analysis is to identify these clusters of high intercorrelations as independent factors.
As factor analysis is based on correlations between measured variables, a
correlation matrix containing the intercorrelation coefficients for the variables must be
computed.
Determining the Number of Factors to be Extracted
There are two conventional criteria for determining the number of initial unrotated factors
to be extracted. These are the Eigenvalues greater than one criterion and the Scree test
criterion.
Eigenvalues: Only factors with eigenvalues of 1 or greater are considered to be
significant; all factors with eigenvalues less than 1 are disregarded. An eigenvalue is a
ratio between the common (shared) variance and the specific (unique) variance explained
by a specific factor extracted. The rationale for using the eigenvalue criterion is that the
amount of common variance explained by an extracted factor should be at least equal to
the variance explained by a single variable (unique variance) if that factor is to be retained
for interpretation. An eigenvalue greater than 1 indicates that more common variance than
unique variance is explained by that factor.
Scree Test: This test is used to identify the optimum number of factors that can be
extracted before the amount of unique variance begins to dominate the common variance
structure. The Scree test is derived by plotting the eigenvalues (on the Y axis) against the
number of factors in their order of extraction (on the X axis). The initial factors extracted
are large factors (with high eigenvalues), followed by smaller factors. Graphically, the plot
will show a steep slope between the large factors and the gradual trailing off of the rest of
the factors. The point at which the curve first begins to straighten out is considered to
indicate the maximum number of factors to extract. That is, those factors above this point
of inflection are deemed meaningful, and those below are not. As a general rule, the scree
test results in at least one and sometimes two or three more factors being considered
significant than does the eigenvalue criterion.
13
24. Interpreting Factors
In interpreting factors, the size of the factor loadings will help in the interpretation. As a
general rule, variables with large loadings indicate that they are set of indicators of the
factor, while small loadings suggest that they are not. In deciding what is large or small, a
cutoff point must be set such that a factor loadings greater than the cutoff point are
considered to meet the minimal level of practical significance. The grouping of variables
with high factor loadings should suggest what the underlying dimension is for that factor.
2.2 Chi–Square Analysis
The chi-squared test which is denoted by the Greek symbol χ 2 , is probably the most
commonly used test of statistical significance. It is a non-parametric test, since for the chi-
squared test there are no underlying assumptions that must be made about a normally
distributed population before the test can be considered to be appropriate.
Assumptions of Chi-square Analysis
One underlying assumption the chi-square has is that, observations are randomly
selected from some large population. If the observations are not randomly selected, then a
researcher must be very cautious about generalizing from the data set’s results back to the
larger population. A second assumption is that the number of expected observations within
a given category should be reasonably large, and more importantly, for a better
Chi – square approximation, no more than 20% of the expected frequencies should be less
than 5. The distribution depends on a number of degrees of freedom denoted by ν. It has a
mean v and variance 2v.
Tests for Independence/Association/Relationship
This application of the chi-squared test in testing of independence between two variables in
which one of the variable is classified into r classes and the other into c classes, gives a
r × c contingency table. A r × c contingency table format is a test of association between
mutually exclusive categories of one variable (given in the rows of the table) and mutually
exclusive categories of another variable (given in the columns of the table). It is a table of
frequencies showing how the total frequency is distributed among the r × c cells in the
14
25. ( Ri × C i )
table. The expected frequency for the cell in the ith row and jth column is . The
N
χ statistic is the sum of all
2 (O − E )2 values for all the r × c cells.
E
The table below is an example of r × c contingency table with the number of degrees of
freedom DF = (r − 1)(c − 1)
TABLE 2.1: A r × c Contingency Table
The hypothesis which is tested is
H0: No relationship or association exists between the two variable classifications.
against
H1: Relationship or association exists between the two variable classifications.
The test statistic is given by
r c (O − Eij )
2
χ =ΣΣ
2 ij
(2.2)
i =1 j =1 Eij
Where
Oij is the observed cell frequency for the (ij) th cell.
E ij is the expected cell frequency for the (ij) th cell.
15
26. The statistic under the null hypothesis has an approximately chi-square distribution with
the degrees of freedom given by (r − 1)(c − 1) . The critical region for the test at α 0 0
significance level is therefore, χ 2 ≥ χ α [(r − 1)(c − 1)] .
2
Table 1 in Appendix B gives the critical region for a particular α level and the various
corresponding degrees of freedom.
To chose between H0 and H1 we determine the critical region of the test. The critical region
is the set of values of the test statistic that will enable us to reject H0. The region is
determined using a pre-set level of significance. The level of significance, denoted by α , is
the probability of committing Type I error (that is, the probability of rejecting H0 when in
fact, it is true. Also, from computer output, the decision to reject or fail to reject H0 is
based on the p − value of the test. The p − value is the probability of observing a value of
the test statistic at least as extreme as that observed under the null hypothesis. Generally,
we reject H0 at level of significance α , if p − value less than α and fail to reject H0 if
p − value greater than α .
16
27. CHAPTER THREE
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
This chapter of the report presents how tables and graphs were used to analyze the data of
this research. The chapter also describes how the stated hypotheses in this research were
tested.
3.1 Mobile Phone Distribution by Gender
The table below displays the distribution of mobile phone used in terms of gender.
Table 3.1 Distribution of Mobile phone Ownership by Gender
GENDER
Mobile Phone Ownership Male Female Total Percentage
Yes 130 98 228 76
No 38 35 73 24
TOTAL 168 132 300 100
It is shown in table 4.1 that, there is wide variation in the distribution of owned of mobile
phone. Out of the 300 respondents surveyed, 228 of them representing 76% owned mobile
phone, while 72 of the respondents representing 24% don’t own mobile phone.
The table also indicates that out of the 300 interviewed, 168 and 132 are males and
females respectively. Out of the 228 respondent who owned mobile phone, 130 of them
were males and 98 were females.
17
28. 3.2 Brand of Mobile phone Distribution
The figure below displays the distribution of mobile phone users among the various mobile
phone brands.
Figure 3.1: Distribution of Brands of Mobile phone
From Figure 3.1 above, the most used mobile phone among the respondents is Nokia
which represent 39.2% of all brands of mobile phone used by respondents. Motorola is the
next most used mobile phone which represents 16.7%. Also from the figure, the least
mobile phone used is LG with a percentage of 2.3.
The common mobile phone brands which were specified by the respondents who use none
of the listed brands of mobile phones are NEC and Alcatel.
3.3 Reasons by Respondents who do not use Mobile Phone
The figure below displays the most common reasons given by respondents who do not use
mobile phone.
45
N ME O R S O S S(%)
40
U B R F EP NE
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Reason 1 Reason 2 Reason 3 Reason 4
REAS O NS FO R NO T US ING MO B ILE PHO NE
Figure 3.2: Reasons by Respondents for not using Mobile phone
18
29. Reason 1 – High cost of purchasing mobile phone
Reason 2 – High cost of recharging units
Reason 3 – No need
Reason 4: Others
From Figure 3.2, it is shown that the most of the reasons why some of the respondents
don’t use mobile phone were “high cost of purchasing mobile phone” and “No need”.
These two reasons form a percentage of 38.6 and 35.6 respectively. Thus, many people do
not use mobile phone because of its high cost. Some also find it not necessary/important
for them to use mobile phone. The common reasons specified by the respondents include
unemployed and low income.
3.4 Reasons by Respondents who use More Than One Mobile Phone
The figure below displays the most common reasons given by respondents who use more
than one mobile phone.
40
35
NSES
30 12
BER O RESPO
17
25
20
F
35
15
NUM
23
10
18
5
0 0
Reas on 1 Reas on 2 Reas on 3
REASONS FOR USING MORE THAN ONE MOBILE PHONE
Ticked Not Ticked
Figure 3.3 Reasons why respondents use more than one Mobile phone
Reason 1 – To be in touch always
Reason 2 – To have access to different mobile phone network
Reason 3 – Others
19
30. It can be seen from Figure 3.3 that, out of the 35 respondents who use more than one
mobile phone, 23 of them use more than one mobile phone just because they want to be in
touch always. Also out of the 35 respondents who use more than one mobile phone 18 of
them use more than one mobile phone just because they want to have access to different
mobile phone networks. None of the respondents specified any other reasons why they
use more than one mobile phone.
3.5 Mobile Phone Cost
The table below displays the distribution of cost of mobile phone
Table 3.2: Distribution of Mobile phone Cost
Mobile phone cost (GH¢) Frequency
Below 50 36
50 – 100 111
110 – 150 49
160 – 200 16
210 – 250 11
260 and above 5
Total 228
From Table 3.2, it can be seen that, the modal class of mobile phone cost is “GH¢50 to
100” with a frequency of 111. Thus, the affordable mobile phone price ranges from GH¢50
to GH¢100.
Also, only few people purchased mobile phones that are expensive. This clearly
shows that, most people purchase mobile phone that is affordable.
20
31. 3.6 Test of Hypothesis – 1
Statement of Hypothesis
H0: There is no relationship between mobile phone usage and educational level
H1: There is a relationship between mobile phone usage and educational level.
The contingency table below indicates the observed and expected frequencies for the
categories. Within each cell, the expected frequency is placed under the observed
frequency.
Table 3.3: Cross-tabulation of level of education against the owned of mobile phone.
Do you own Mobile phone
Level of Education Yes No Total
No School 9 18 67
20.52 6.48
First Cycle 48 20 68
51.68 16.32
Second Cycle 50 26 76
57.76 18.24
Third Cycle 121 8 129
98.04 30.96
Total 228 72 300
Chi-Square = 54.787 DF = 3 p − value = 0.000
Decision and Conclusion
At 5% level of significance we reject the null hypothesis, since the p − value of
0.000 is less than α − value of 0.05. We therefore conclude that, there is a relationship
between mobile phone usage and educational level. Thus, either a person use or does not
use mobile phone depends on his/her level of education.
21
32. 3.7 Test of Hypothesis – 2
Statement of Hypothesis
H0: There is no relationship between mobile phone usage and occupational status.
H1: There is relationship between mobile phone usage and occupational status.
The contingency table below indicates the observed and expected frequencies for the
categories. Within each cell, the expected frequency is placed under the observed
frequency.
Table 3.4: Cross-tabulation of occupational status against mobile phone usage
Do you own Mobile phone
Occupation Status Yes No Total
Student 90 19 109
82.84 26.16
Self-employed 48 14 62
47.12 14.88
Employee 85 23 108
82.08 25.92
Unemployed 5 16 21
15.96 5.04
Total 228 72 300
Chi-Square = 34.440, DF = 3, p − value = 0.000
Decision and Conclusion
At 5% level of significance we reject the null hypothesis, since the p − value of 0.000 is
less than α − value of 0.05. We therefore conclude that, there is a relationship between
mobile phone usage and occupational status. Thus, either a person use or does not use
mobile phone depends on his/her occupational status.
22
33. 3.8 Test of Hypothesis – 3
Statement of Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between gender and brand of mobile phone used.
H1: There is association between gender and brand of mobile phone used.
The contingency table below indicates the observed and expected frequencies for the
categories. Within each cell, the expected frequency is placed under the observed
frequency.
Table 3.5: Cross-tabulation of Mobile phone brands against Gender
BRANDS OF MOBILE PHONE
GENDER Nokia Motorola Sony Samsung Siemens LG Others Total
Erickson
Male 67 23 12 15 15 2 19 153
59.92 25.60 12.22 18.62 13.38 3.49 19.78
Female 36 21 9 17 8 4 15 110
43.08 18.40 8.78 13.38 9.62 2.51 14.22
Total 103 44 21 32 23 6 34 263
Chi-Sq = 6.382, DF = 6, p − value = 0.382
Decision and Conclusion
At 5% level of significance we fail to reject the null hypothesis, since the p − value of
0.382 is greater than α − value of 0.05. We therefore conclude that, there exist no
association between gender and the brand of mobile phone used by consumers. Thus,
either a person is male or female has nothing to do with the brand of mobile phone used.
23
34. Summary of Preliminary Analysis
The preliminary analysis of the data reveals that out the 300 respondents surveyed, 76% of
them owned mobile phone and also most people do not use mobile phone because of its
high cost. Others also finds the use of mobile phone not need/important.
The analysis also reveals that the most used mobile phone is Nokia and the affordable
mobile phone price ranges from GH¢50 to GH¢100. Most of the consumers use more than
one mobile phone just because they want to have access to different mobile phone
networks.
The hypothesis testing under this chapter revealed the following:
1. Gender of the consumer may not be an indicator of a factor that influences choice
of mobile phone brand.
2. Employment status may be an indicator of the factor that influences the use of
mobile phone.
3. Educational level attainment may be an indicator of a factor that influences the use
of mobile phone.
24
35. CHARPTER FOUR
FURTHER ANALYSIS
In this chapter we perform Factor Analysis to determine the major factors that influence
the choice of brand of mobile phone. The analysis under this chapter has been grouped in
various sub headings such as correlation analysis, total variance explained etc.
4.1 Correlation Analysis
The table below displays the correlation between the seven variables written to measure
the reasons for the choice of mobile phone brand.
Table 4.1: Correlation Matrix
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7
X1 1.000 .350 0.121 0.127 0.079 0.137 0.154
X2 0.350 1.000 0.041 0.082 -0.047 0.149 0.041
X3 0.121 0.041 1.000 0.189 0.139 0.052 0.233
X4 0.127 0.082 0.189 1.000 0.260 0.120 0.394
X5 0.079 -0.047 0.139 0.260 1.000 0.040 0.377
X6 0.137 0.149 0.052 0.120 0.040 1.000 0.039
X7 0.154 0.041 0.233 0.394 0.377 0.039 1.000
From the introduction, the variables were defined as follows:
X1 – Affordability
X2 – Fashionable
X3 –More features in the mobile phone
X4 – Reliability of the reception
X5 – High quality
X6 – Popularity
X7 – Portability
25
36. In considering a correlation coefficient of 0.2 or greater as being high, then we can see
from the matrix above that, there is a high correlation between the variables X1 and X2,
thus, as mobile phone becomes affordable, it also tend to be fashionable. Similarly,
variables X4, X5 and X7 has a high intercorrelation coefficient.
Table 4.2: Results of KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Significance
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square df Sig.
0.650 140.720 21 0.000
From table 4.2, the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity yield a value 140.720 and an associated
level of significance ( p − value ) of 0.000 which is smaller than alpha (α) value of 0.05.
Thus, the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix is rejected, that is, the
correlation matrix has significant correlation among at least some of the variables and thus
supports the use of factor analysis.
4.2 Total Variance Explained
Although seven factors have been computed as shown in Table 4.3, it is obvious that not
all the seven factors will be useful in representing the list of all seven variables.
Table 4.3: Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Cumulative
Variance % Variance % %
1 1.953 27.902 27.902 1.834 26.205 26.205 1.834
2 1.346 19.223 47.126 1.464 20.921 47.126 1.464
3 0.920 13.143 60.269
4 0.871 12.440 72.709
5 0.734 10.480 83.188
6 0.620 8.850 92.038
7 0.557 7.962 100.000
26
37. Using the criterion of retaining only factors with eigenvalues of 1 or greater, the first two
factors will be retained for interpretation. These two factors accounted for 27.90% and
19.22% of the total variance, respectively. That is, 47.13% of the total variance is
attributable to these two factors. The remaining five factors together accounted for 52.87%
of the total variance.
The figure below show the scree plot of the eigenvalues of the seven variables against the
number of factors
Figure 4.1: Scree Plot of Eigenvalue against Number of components.
From the scree plot shown by Figure 4.1 above, the plot however, suggests a model with
three factors since the elbow of scree is on the third factor. But in considering the rule of
parsimony, we decided to use two factors instead of three factors.
27
38. 4.3 The Component Matrix and Interpretation of Extracted Factors
The Component Matrix below represents the unrotated component analysis factor matrix,
and presents the correlations that relate the seven variables under study to the extracted
factors. In the table below, the coefficients, called factor loadings, indicate how closely the
variables are related to each factor. The correlation coefficients of 0.4 or greater are
considered to be high and otherwise low.
Table 4.4 Component Matrix
COMPONENT
VARIABLE 1 2 3
X7 0.729 -0.297 -0.739
X4 0.679 -0.163 0.145
X5 0.581 -0.405 0.0813
X3 0.485 -0.097 -0.263
X2 0.298 0.741 -0.206
X1 0.468 0.590 -0.291
X6 0.281 0.401 0.831
In Table 4.4 above, factor 1 contains four items (portability, more features in the mobile
phone, high quality and reliability of the reception) that has coefficient more than 0.4. This
clearly reflects a motive of reliable quality. Factor 2 also contains three items
(affordability, popularity and fashionable) that has coefficient more than 0.4. This clearly
reflects a motive of user-friendliness.
Thus, we can say that two factors determine customer choice of brand of mobile phone.
Although variable X6 has a higher factor loading of 0.831 under the third factor, but since
variable X6 has already been captured under factor two, consideration of the third factor is
not necessary.
28
39. Summary of Further Analysis
Based on the criterion of eigenvalues of 1 or greater, the decision of two factors model
from the list of seven variables was made.
Based on the component matrix in Table 4.4, conclusion on the factors that determine the
choice of brand of mobile phone(s) was made. This conclusion is that, consumer’s choice
on mobile phone brand is determine by
1. Reliable quality of the mobile phone brand
2. User-friendliness of the mobile phone brand
29
40. CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECCOMMENDATION
This chapter presents a general discussion on the results on the analysis of the preceding
two chapters. The chapter also assesses how far the objectives of the research have been
achieved. Comparison and contrasting of the findings in relation to the previous findings
are also presented.
5.1 Summary
The preliminary analysis of the data reveals that out the 300 respondents surveyed,
76% of them owned mobile phone and also most people do not use mobile phone because
of its high cost. Others also find the use of mobile phone is not a need. The analysis also
reveals that the most used mobile phone is Nokia and the affordable mobile phone price
ranges from GH¢50 to GH¢100. Most of the consumers use more than one mobile phone
just because they want to have access to different mobile phone networks. It was also
observed that gender of the consumer may not be an indicator of a factor that influences
choice of mobile phone brand. But employment status and educational level attainment
may be indicators of a factor that influence the use of mobile phone.
Finally, based on the results obtained from further analysis, consumers purchase
mobile phone based on two factors. That is reliable quality and user-friendliness of the
brand of mobile phone.
5.2 Discussion
The most predominant mobile phone brand used by the populace in Kumasi is
Nokia. The result is in agreement with the survey carried out by a television station in
Ghana (TV3 Network) in the year 2005, which indicated that Nokia is the most popular
brand in Ghana, also with Yan Xianpu (2004) report.
Contrary to the perception that different sex groups have interest in some mobile
phone brand, it was found out that, that perception is not entirely true since the test for
association could not confirm this. In fact, it was found out that males and females do not
differ in mobile phone preference. This is in sharp contrast to the report by the Chinese
30
41. Weekly, Yan Xianpu (2004) that when it comes to choice of brand of mobile phones, men
and women have different tastes.
From the results in the further analysis, the first factor (reliable quality) was also in
agreement with the study carried out by Laroche et al 2003. Thus, consumer selects a
brand which meets acceptable standards.
The results from both preliminary analysis and further analysis were also in line on
the basis of consumer based indicator. The preliminary analysis revealed that education
attainment and occupational status influence the choice of brand of mobile phone, while
the further analysis also reveals that user-friendliness (affordability, popularity and
fashionable) is a factor that determines the choice of brand of mobile phone.
In relation to the second factor, we can also say that mobile phone brands which are
affordable are more popular. The preliminary analysis which reveals that affordable mobile
phone price is between GH¢50 and GH¢100 suggest that for a mobile phone to be popular
within the public, price must also be affordable.
Although variable X6 has a higher factor loading of 0.831 under the third factor, but
since variable X6 has already been captured under factor two, then consideration of the
third factor is not necessary. So the suggestion made by the scree plot on the addition of
the third factor was rejected.
5.3 Conclusion
The objective of this research was to investigate the underlying factors that
determine the choice of brand of mobile phone. The study found that two factors influence
consumer’s choice of mobile phone brand. The first most important factor is reliable
quality of the mobile phone brand and the other factor is user-friendliness of the brand of
the mobile phone.
The theoretical part of the study outlined two hypotheses that were supported by
the empirical studies. Hypothesis 2 argued that occupational status has an influence on the
choice of brand of mobile phone. This was verified in the preliminary analysis in which we
showed that specifically occupation are significant variables affecting choice.
Hypothesis 3 claimed that educational level attainment influences consumer choice of the
mobile phone model. This hypothesis got strong support in the studies.
31
42. From a theoretical viewpoint, this study contributed to the buying decision making
process for mobile phones by looking at consumer motives and examining the importance
of different attributes affecting the actual choice.
5.4 Recommendation
We therefore recommend that, as manufacturers of different mobile brands are improving
on the quality of the brand, they should also consider the price of selling it so as to make it
affordable to all persons.
Also, the most remarkable implication for mobile phone manufactures, sellers and other
value chain members is that advertising of the new mobile phone brands should go beyond
highlighting its properties to assured the quality and the user-friendliness of the mobile
phone.
32
43. REFRENCES
Assael, H. (1995). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. 5th ed. Cincinnati, Ohio:
ITP, South-Western College Publishing.
Benady, D. (2002). As simple as one-two-3G. Marketing Week, 26-29.
Drucker, E. (2004). Perceived speed key to 3G success. 3G’s commercial success depends
on carriers’ ability to deliver coverage and account for channel loading.
Dorsch, M.J., Grove, S.J. and Darden, W.R. (2000). Consumer intentions to use a service
category. Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (2), 92-117.
Fitzsimons, G.J., Hutchinson, J.W., Williams, P., Alba, J.W., Chartrand, T.L., Huber, J.,
Kardes, F.R., Menon, G., Raghubir, P., Russo, J.E., Shiv, B. and Tavassoli, N.T. (2002).
Non-conscious influences on consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 13 (3), 269-279.
Gordor B.K., Innocent G.A., Howard N.K. (2006). A Guide to Questionnaire Surveys.
Ghana Mathematics Group. Accra, Ghana.
Gordor B.K., Innocent G.A., Howard N.K. (2006). Introduction to Statistical Methods.
Ghana Mathematics Group. Accra, Ghana.
Graham U., Ian C. (2004). Oxford Dictionary of Statistics. Oxford University Press Inc.,
New York.
Heikki K., Jari K., Manne K., Timo K., Marjukka M., Jukka P., Annu R. (2005). Factors
Affecting Consumer Choice of Mobile Phones. The Haworth Press, Inc.
Hianchi, W. (2004). Mobile Usage in Korea. Brandstock.
Hansen, L. (2003). Service layer essential for future success. Ericsson Mobility World,
General article, (June), available at:
http://www.ericsson.com/mobilityworld/sub/articles/other_articles/nl03jun05.
Karjaluoto, H., Karvonen, J., Pakola, J., Pietilä, M., Salo, J. and Svento, R. (2003a).
Exploring consumer motives in mobile phone industry: An investigation of Finnish mobile
phone users. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Business Economics,
Management, and Marketing (Athens, Greece), 3, 335-342.
Karjaluoto, H., Pakola, J., Pietilä, M. and Svento, R. (2003b). An exploratory study on
antecedents and consequences of mobile phone usage in Finland. Proceedings of the AMA
Summer Marketing Educators’ Conference (Chicago, USA), 14, 170-178.
Lindholin et al (2003). The Mobile Technology: www.mobile.tech.com
33
44. Loehlin, J.C. (1992) Latent Variable Models. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ.
Marcus G. (2002).Global Mobile Phone usage. www.norkia.com.
Matilda, A. (2004). Mobile Phone Subscription in Ghana. Daily Graphic.136754, pp13.
Nagel, A. (2003). Beyond Knut Holt’s Fusion model, balancing market pull and
technology push. International Journal of Technology Management, 25 (6-7), 614-622.
Nokia (2004). Nokia closes 2003 with excellent fourth quarter. Press Release 2004,
(January), available at: http://press.nokia.com/PR/200401/931562_5.html
Philip, J. (2006). Mobile Phone Preferences in Belarus. E – Belarus.org
Sehovic, A. (2003). The whole world in 3G: The right choice ... GSMBOX, Ltd., Mobile
News, Third Generation, available at http://uk.gsmbox.com/news/mobile_news/all/
95639.gsmbox.
Sehovic, A. (2004). The end of the beginning? GSMBOX, Ltd., Mobile News, Third
Generation, available at: http://uk.gsmbox.com/news/mobile_news/all// 97957.gsmbox
Solomon, M.R. (2001). Consumer Behavior. Buying, Having, and Being. 5th ed. NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50 (August),
364-371.
Vaananen–Vinu–Mattila and Ruuska. (1999). Mobile Phone user Interface Development.
www.samsung.com.
Wireless Week, (February), available at: http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA381643.
Yan Xianpu (2004). Mobile Phone Production and Sales in China. China Business Weekly
34
45. APPENDIX A
SPECIMEN OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS
QUESTIONNAIRE ON:
FACTORS THAT DETERMINE CHOICE OF BRANDS OF MOBILE
PHONE(S)
The questionnaire is being used to find out factors that determine choice of brand of
mobile phone(s).Your responses will be used purely for academic purpose; hence
confidentiality and anonymity are assured.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Please read the following questions carefully – Tick [√] appropriate answer(s) in the
boxes provided and specified where necessary. Thank you
SECTION A
1. Gender
Male [ ]
Female [ ]
2. Age
Under 18 years [ ]
18 – 30 years [ ]
31 – 40 years [ ]
41 – 50 years [ ]
Over 50 years [ ]
3. Level of education
No school [ ]
First cycle [ ]
Second cycle [ ]
Third cycle [ ]
35
46. 4. Occupational status
Student [ ]
Self-employed [ ]
Employee [ ]
Unemployed [ ]
5. What is your income level on the average?
Below GH¢100 [ ]
GH¢100 – GH¢199 [ ]
GH¢200 – GH¢299 [ ]
GH¢300 – GH¢399 [ ]
GH¢400 – GH¢499 [ ]
GH¢500and above [ ]
6. Do you own a mobile phone?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
If No, please go to section C
SECTION B
Mobile phone users only
7. Which brand of mobile phone do you use? Tick as many as apply.
Nokia [ ]
Motorola [ ]
Sony Erickson [ ]
Samsung [ ]
Siemens [ ]
LG [ ]
Other (specify)…………………………………………..……………….
If you use only one mobile phone, please don’t answer question 8.
8. What is or are the reason(s) for using two or more mobile phone? Tick as many as
apply.
To be in touch always [ ]
To have access to different mobile network [ ]
Others (specify)……………………………………………….……….
36
47. 9. What is or are the reason(s) for your chose in question 7 above? Tick as many as
apply.
Affordability [ ]
Fashionable [ ]
More features in the mobile phone [ ]
Reliability of the reception [ ]
High quality [ ]
Popularity [ ]
Portability [ ]
Others (specify)……………………………………………………………
10. How much does your mobile phone cost?
Below GH¢50 [ ]
GH¢50 – GH¢100 [ ]
GH¢110 – GH¢150 [ ]
GH¢160 – GH¢200 [ ]
GH¢210 – GH¢250 [ ]
GH¢260 and above [ ]
11. Do you have any intention of changing your brand of mobile phone?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
If No, please don’t answer question 12 and question 13.
12. What is or are the weakness(s) of your present mobile phone used that necessitates
a change to another mobile phone brand? Tick as many as apply.
Few features [ ]
Low quality [ ]
Outmoded [ ]
Unreliability of reception [ ]
Not portable [ ]
Not popular [ ]
Others (specify)……………………….…………………………………
13. Which mobile phone brand do you wish to change to?
Nokia [ ]
Motorola [ ]
Sony Erickson [ ]
Samsung [ ]
Siemens [ ]
LG [ ]
Other (specify)…………………………..………………………………..
37
48. SECTION C
Non users of mobile phone only
14. What is or are the reason(s) for not using a mobile phone? Tick as many as apply.
High cost of purchasing mobile phone [ ]
High cost of recharging units [ ]
No need [ ]
Others (specify)……………………………………………….……….
15. If you decide to own a mobile phone today, which brand of mobile phone will you
purchase?
Nokia [ ]
Motorola [ ]
Sony Erickson [ ]
Samsung [ ]
Siemens [ ]
LG [ ]
Other (specify)…………………………………….…………………..
16. What is or are the reason(s) for your chose in question 15 above? Tick as many as
apply.
Affordability [ ]
More features in the mobile phone [ ]
Fashionable [ ]
Reliability of the reception [ ]
High quality [ ]
Portability [ ]
Popularity [ ]
Others (specify)…………………………………………………………….
38
