Project Report on Consumer Behavior

Submitted to: Madam Shaheera
Submitted by: MBA 4th
Morning
Group Members:
Saira Sharif: MBA-12-15
Sehar Shahid: MBA-12-06
Raba Khalid: MBA-12-11
Bashiran Raffique: MBA-12-14
Ayesha Shamim: MBA-12-16
Iqra Khadim: MBA-12-18
Saliha Mukhtar: MBA-12-30
INFLUENCE OF FAMILY ON YOUNGSTERS
BUYING BEHAVIOR TOWARDS MOBILE
PHONE BRANDS

MBA 4th Morning CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
[2]
In the name of Allah
The creator of every creation
The pity the beneficent
The merciful the wise
The lord of
The world
The first & last
The sender of the
Holy prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
Where there is no doubt
The owner of the Day of Judgment
To whom everyone will be
Brought back

[3]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are very thankful to Madam Shaheera Amin who gave us valuable information. We pay
gratitude to her for giving us valuable guideline.
We are also very thankful to all the participants who helped us a lot by giving up to date
information.
We are very proud of our respectable madam whose help and instructions enable us to bind
papers into report manner. We are very thankful to her.

[4]
EXECUTUIVE SUMMARY
This research was a result of a research project by given our professor Madam Shaheera
Amin and it is done by the students of MBA 4th morning.
Our topic is “influence of family on youngsters’ buying behaviour towards mobile phone
brands.
Youngsters buying behaviour is the emerging topic nowadays and the present study was
conducted to evaluate the influence of parents in this context. This study is focused on the
youth sector in different areas of Sahiwal. It covers the core concepts that are involved in the
production and implementation of this project. This report guides about the business attribute,
boosting its phrases to penetrate through target market identification and segmentation to
different location. A random sampling was taken to conduct the field survey. Furthermore,
we have collected data through questionnaires that have been developed on 5 point likert
scale to check the responses of youngsters i.e. both males and females. We interpret the data
through SPSS and evaluate that independent variable (mobile phone brands) and moderating
variable (influence of parents) positively affect the youngsters buying behaviour. At the last,
conclusion, suggestions and recommendations are given for future study.

[5]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page no.
Executive summary…………………………………………………………………..3
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..5
Literature Review………………………………………………………………….....8
Methodology………………………………………………………………………...18
Data Collection……………………………………………………………………....22
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………...24
Findings and Discussion……………………………………………………………..36
Limitation of Research……………………………………………………………….38
Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………………...38
Appendix……………………………………………………………………………..41
References……………………………………………………………………………56

[6]
1
IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

[7]
INTRODUCTION:
Today, a cell phone is not just a rich man’s fashion accessory in Pakistan. It’s transforming the way millions of
people do business in a country where even landlines were a luxury barely a decade ago. Across the country
people with low incomes are now adopting cellular phones as tools for enhancing their business.
According to Oxford English Dictionary one of the earliest uses of word ‘mobile’ was in association with the
Latin phrase ‘mobile vulgus’ i.e. excitable crowd. Today’s mobile phones live up to these origins. Cell phone
technology introduces new senses of speed and connectivity to social life.
If the fixed line telephone has brought communication links into the work place and homes, the ‘mobile’ puts
them straight into the hands of unprecedented number and variety of individuals.
Global Landscape:
All round the world cell phone sales have exceeded the expectations. In fact for mature markets, including the
United States, Western Europe and Japan, replacement sales were the strongest driver of growth in 2003. Colour
screens and camera phones were high on consumers’ shopping lists, but there was also a high level of demand
for inexpensive voice centric handsets. In emerging markets like China, India, Russia, and Brazil, the sale was
due to availability of low-priced handsets and aggressive strategies by service providers to win subscribers.
On the basis of early positive indicators during the first quarter of 2004 in the global mobile handset market,
Gartner, the research firm, forecast mobile phone sales to 560 million for year 2004. In 2003 worldwide mobile
phone sales totalled to 520 million units, an increase of 20.5% over the previous year.
Table: Cellular standings
In 2003, Nokia accounted for more than one-third of handset shipments worldwide.
Focus on Youth Market:
As it has been shown by a mass of empirical evidence from all world regions, youngsters were most eager to
embrace the new communication technologies among all demographic groups. Today's youngsters can be
considered to be the real "'digital natives' for whom the Internet and new forms of digital communication are
second nature, in contrast to the older 'Digital Immigrants' who may have adapted to new technologies and tools,
but don't have the same familiarity, commitment, or comfort level."
It has often been found that youngsters are also highly susceptible to fashions, trends and styles: making them
open for adopting any new technological devices and behavioural patterns when these are considered to be "hip"
and "cool". Youngsters have a strong inclination for "conspicuous consumption", by using various material
objects as status symbols or as indicators of group belongingness. Thus, they assimilate the mobile as an object
of style: profiled by trendy forms and colours, ring tones and accessories that express the special self-identity of
each respective user. As a consequence, ownership as well as usage of mobile phones cannot be reduced to
Company Units (millions) Market Share (%)
Nokia 180.7 34.7
Motorola 75.2 14.5
Samsung 54.5 10.5
Siemens 43.8 8.4
Sony Ericsson 26.7 5.1

[8]
personal needs (instrumental or socio-emotional), because they are additionally fuelled by such symbolic
considerations.
Youngsters love to be identified with their mobile phones. The impact of such identity is first felt at the family
level. Mobile phones have engulfed the earlier phase of a youngster that, in turn, is bringing about a change in
the family life of the youngster. The aspiration for freedomin all phases of youngsters, is loosening the concept
of control and slowly diminishing away the holding centre of the family (the push and pull perceptions of one
over the other). The dilution of control is experienced by parents/caregivers through youngsters’ mobile phones
because connection through a mobile phone is ‘direct’ and no more a ‘via’. Thus, the notion of personal space
through mobile phones is addressing the necessity for autonomy and paving way for a diluted state of face-to-
face communication within a family setting. In some situations, mobile phones take over to strengthen family
bonds where the family members are scattered geographically. And also when parents have tight control on
youngsters towards buying and use of mobile phone.
Families play an important role in the buying behaviour of young people in terms of the attitudes and values
they transmit, the role models they provide, and their direct involvement, when youngsters purchase mobile
phones.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
In this step it is focused to quote the management dilemma, its background, its consequences, and the resulting
management questions are captured. The importance of answering the management question should be
emphasized here. There should be question in the mind of the manager are as follows:
Management dilemma: Youngsters are taking interest in purchasing mobile phone brands.
Management question: How family can influence and control youngsters’ buying towards mobile phone
brands.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
Our research objectives are as under:
1. To conduct a literature review in the relevant area of study of influence of family on youngsters’
buying behavior.
2. To analyze the impact of independent and moderating variables in youth sector of Pakistan.
3. To study the relationship between that variables and youngsters in youth sectors of Pakistan.

[9]
2
LLIITTEERRAATTUURREE RREEVVIIEEWW

[10]
LITERATURE REVIEW
Children are becoming patrons at younger and younger age, and a variety of influences and experiences shapes
their consumer habits (Keaak & Pelletier, 1998). Youngsters today grow up in a world saturated with the mass
media and are adopting norms for their behaviour based on what they see and hear. They are easier targets,
because they have grown up in a culture of pure consumerism. That's why, they are way more tuned into media
because there is so much more media to be tuned into (Bush, et al., 2004). As a result, marketers are targeting
their ads primarily at youngsters, in order to persuading them differently. Much of work in the social sciences
has been devoted to determine consumer behaviours and what variables or factors influence consumers.
Famous models of human being learning are cognitive-psychological and the social learning, have been used
extensively to explain how consumers make consumption-related decisions (Moschis & Churchill, 1978). In
communication and advertising research, the social learning model has often been a popular choice for
explaining youngsters’ buying behaviour (Moschis & Smith, 1985).The social learning process is the more
specific acquisition of consumption-related behaviours. Through exposure to social models, youngsters acquire
the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to make purchase decisions (Ward, 1974).Supporters of social
learning theory suggest that youngsters develop consumption-related attitudes and behaviours through learning
experiences. These experiences can occur in a variety of ways as youngsters are exposed to a huge no of effects
and exploration, and are of great important in shaping their buying behaviour (King & Multon, 1996).
Forces that influence youngsters’ purchasing attitudes design are now becoming an essential of consumer
research. Within social learning theory, it is proposed that individuals develop general behaviours and attitudes
by modelling the behaviour of others (Bandura, 1986). An individual’s brain development is not complete.
Often the last part of the brain to develop is the frontal cortex, or the section of the brain that aids in decision -
making and impulse control. This may lead many youngsters to make choices quickly or impulsively without a
lot of critical thought (Reyna & Farley 2006). According to Ritson & Elliot (1999) as children become
youngsters, advertising serves as a basis for social interaction, providing a topic of conversations with peers,
means of belonging and group membership, and a way of conveying meaning in their daily lives.
INTERGENERATIONAL INFLUENCES (IGI):
Heckler (1989) observed that intergenerational influence is higher among those adults who are not married but
after the marriage it starts weakening. IGI on brand preference is more powerful for only selective brand, not for
all brands (Moore, Wikie, &Lutz, 2002).
Young adult female livings with the parents have stronger intergenerational but after the marriage as she lives
independently, the intergenerational influence diminishes (Perez, Padgett, & Burgers, 2011). They also found
that the role of culture is very important in defining intergenerational influence such as the intergenerational
influence is stronger in the collectivist society and less in the individualistic society. Hofstede (2001) also
pointed out the same kind of cultural relationship in his research. All consumption domains tested, mother –
daughter brand association significance is greater than zero which s hows that intergenerational influence is
greater among mothers and daughters (Mandriket, 2004).
There has been various studies and research analysis on the consumption level of consumers and understanding
the characteristics of the consumers to produce and target the brands right. This research has gone into great
detail to answer one sample of population i.e. the Youth, which is essential for the manufacturing companies

[11]
and the marketing people to handle their product, planning and its strategies accordingly. The precise spending
pattern of the youth of Pakistan has changed than before and this has been assessed and analyzed.
Demographic changes happen frequently and according to such changes, the composition of the specific
product/service has to be tailored accordingly to effect the product/service price, placement and production
assessments. Population has been increasing in certain age-groups, which is also a point for the marketers to
work on with their marketing tools and strategies.
The Baby Boom has been an important era for the marketers and has taught them a lot about the youth market.
In short, it gave the manufacturers new way to envisage product development for the new identified markets.
Different households have different way of living and similarly different spending patterns. In the western
culture, the young individual are more independent at the age of 18 and start their earning and living separate
than their parents home and this is known as the transitional nature of the young individual (Jones & Martin,
1997).
Other research studies have indicated the age and compulsive buying are strongly related to each otherin respect
to the younger consumers. It is also seen that when there is impulse and compulsive buying situation then the
younger consumers are the answer (Subhani, Hasan, Osman & Nayaz, 2011). With the passage of time, the
percentage of younger consumers has increased in compulsive buying and overall buying behaviour (O’ Guinn
& Faber, 1989). This certain behaviour is due to their impulsive tendency towards unrestrained ability towards
the advertising and marketing activities they are surrounded by. They have not much of self-control on their
actions. One can see less compulsive buying/spending pattern in the collectivist cultures th an individualist
cultures (Kacen & Lee, 2002).The amount that is the budget of the young individual was ascertained by
segregating the variables, which are basically the factors on which the young individual is spending his/her
money. The most significant factors out of the lot were income, satisfaction, friends’ information,
advertisements information, entertainment and age of respondents (Subhani, Hasan & Osman, 2011).
FAMILY INFLUENCES:
In the study of youngsters’ purchasing behaviour the family is considered a crucial decision making unit as the
interaction and influence between family members are likely to be greater and more significant than those
within other smaller groups, such as friends or colleagues. A family is defined as “a group of two or more
persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, and residing together as a household” (Lawson et al., 1996).
Influence has been defined as something that “is inferred when one person acts in such a way as to change the
behaviour of another in some intended manner” (Cartwright 1959). Thus influence involves actions by family
members that make a difference during the decision process (Beatty and Talpade 1994). It is important to
distinguish the difference between direct and indirect influence. Direct influence represents an “active role based
directly on the decision maker’s own needs, and indirect influence represents a passive role in which the
decision maker takes another family member’s needs indirectly into account” (Rossiter, 1978).
Many factors interplay to affect youngster’s decision-making that can directly influence their purchase
behaviour and family has been identified as one of the most influential factors affecting children’s related
decisions and behaviour, operating at the levels of parent modelling and parent-child interaction.
FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS:
Followings are some family characteristics that may also influence the youngsters’ buying behaviour:

[12]
 The family life cycle
The family life cycle describes the changes that occur in family and household structures as they change over
time. The assumption is made that families pass through an orderly progression of stages, each with its own
characteristics, financial situations and purchasing patterns. Thus it is a useful tool to identify household
segments with similar demographic and family structure that share similar needs with respect to household
related problems and purchases.
At each stage of the family life cycle the number of family members, age and working and income status are
different. Families at different life cycle stages may have different interaction patterns with other family
members and use different communication strategies. Foxman et al. (1989) suggest that “families in greater
agreement had older fathers, a concept-oriented family communication style, fewer youngsters, and another who
worked fewer hours outside the home”.
The postponement of marriage and rising divorce rates has given rise to a new family structure. These new
structures include smaller family sizes (the nuclear family) and single-parent families (Lawson et al., 1996).
However, it is not clear what difference these new family structures may have on the influence of youngsters.
 Social class
Participation in the family decision making process and its influence on youngsters’ buying behavior not only
varies with the degree to which the family member or members are involved in the direct usage of the product, it
also varies by social class (Granbois, 1963, 1971; Komarvoski, 1961; Slama and Taschian, 1985). The results of
past studies indicate less joint decision making in upper and lower socioeconomic groups (Granbois, 1963;
Komarvoski, 1961). Granbois (1971), however, found the lower the family income and the greater the cost of
the product or service being considered, the greater the tendency for two of more family members to be involved
in the decision making process and results in influences on youngsters’ buying behavior.
 Culture
There is a limited number of cross-cultural studies on family decision making, but the few which exist suggest
that there are differences in influence patterns between cultures (e.g. Hampel, 1974; Lee, Brown and Wong,
1997; Pervan and Lee, 1998). For example, while Chinese parents allow their youngsters to voice their opinions
in decisions regarding schooling and restaurants meals, they tend to control how a decision should be made
(Lee, Brown and Wong, 1997; Pervan and Lee, 1998). However, Hempel’s (1974, 1975) study on housing
decisions, found little differences in the decision making process between cultures. The author suggests the
differences between roles were greater within cultures (in terms of family size, attitudes towards previous
residence, stage of the family life cycle and socioeconomic factors) than between cultures.
 Sex-Role Orientation
Sex-role orientation (SRO) is a theoretical construct that is used to identify different types of families, based on
their family ideology (Qualls, 1987), as being either contemporary (modern) or conservative (traditional). This
is a reflection of a family’s attitude toward roles played by husbands and wives. A family with a contemporary
SRO usually has a more democratic influence structure, and display a more positive interaction during their
decision making process (Brinberg and Schwenk, 1981). In the more traditional families, however, the roles
played are more gender specific, with a clear distinction between feminine and masculine type roles.

[13]
PARENTAL INFLUENCES:
Parents act as primary source to convey belief and reinforce behavior of youngsters (Weiss and Fretwell, 2005).
In addition, parents play the important role in formatting, structuring and conditioning of an individual’s attitude
and behavior by acting as an agent of values (Feltman, 1998). Parents can influence one’s behavior directly or
indirectly in numerous ways by providing rules, perspectives and principals through interaction or
communications (Gunter and Furnham, 1998).
Consumer behavior is one of the important subset of a youngster’s learning under his parent’s supervision. He
starts learning shopping behavior from their parents. The process is carried out through interactions and
observed behavior occurring between both parties and the transmission of attribute, attitudes and products’
knowledge to the youngsters (Feltman, 1998).
This learning has proven to have a profound effect on youngsters store selection, choices of brand and even the
style of shopping (Gunter and Furnham, 1998). Past research affirms that the experience and attribute gained
from parents in childhood reflect later shopping preferences (McIlveen).
Parents sometimes deliberately try to introduce their own consumer skills and values in youngsters, by talking to
them about how to search for products, find the right price, bargain with salespeople, and so on. They also
determine to some extent, the degree of youngsters’ exposure to other sources of information such as television
(Solomon, et al., 2002). One study revealed the relationship between familial characteristics and purchase
behavior outcome pattern among young urban Pakistani consumers (Sidin, et al., 2008). Youngsters act and
react on the basis of their perceptions, not on the basis of objective reality. So it is important fo r marketers to
understand it (Schiffman & Kanuk, 1991).
Research evidence suggests that parents have little intentional training of youngsters in their role as consumers
and they seem to expect their offspring to learn from observation and imitation (Blackwell, et al., 2001). So they
may influence on shaping the attitude and behavior of youngsters.
Past research has found that parents’ involvement in youngsters buying decision-making varies with product
type, decision stages, and product sub-decision (Belch, et al., 1985). Grown in dual income or single parent
households, youngsters are influenced by family. Youngsters are increasingly given the task of buying products
for the family. Because they not only have more spare time but also enjoy shopping more than their parents
(Taylor & Cosenza, 2002). Products promotions based on the typical youth themes of rebellion, individuality,
freedom, confidence, sexiness and even Americanisms, may communicate very little to youngsters whose values
are still shaped by traditional mores and where the influence of parents is still strong (Wee, 1999). The concept
oriented communication has also been found to increase purchase influence of youngsters (Rose, et al., 2002).
Bush et al. (1999) analyzed how parents influence the consumption attitudes of youngsters. In other words,
parents that can possibly influence or impact the buying attitudes or decisions of a youngster can be considered
a consumption role model. Parents are probably the more influential in teaching young people, based on reason
they try to teach them the aspects of consumption such as understanding of price-quality relationships,
managing money sensibly, and obtaining appropriate information before making purchases (McNeal, 1979).
 Investment Theory:
The investment theory dominates economics (Becker 1981, Becker and Tomes 1986). In this theory the
relationship between parents’ and youngsters’ economic success is the result of biological and other
endowments that parents pass on them, combined with what parents invest on them. Endowments include both

[14]
genetic endowments such as youngsters’ sex and race, as well as “cultural” endowments such as the value
parents place on their youngsters’ education. Parents invest both time and money in their young youngsters’
“human capital”, especially by investing in their education, but also by purchasing health, good neighbours, and
other “inputs” that improve their future well-being.
How much parents invest in youngsters is determined by their ability to finance investments (which is
influenced by their income and their access to capital). The return on investments may depend on youngster's
biological endowments, so these may also influence the amount parents are willing to invest. Parents’ own
values and norms may also influence their willingness to invest in their youngsters. Thus one might expect some
variation in how much families with the same income spend on their youngsters. Unfortunately, we have little
empirical evidence on the point.
Youngsters whose basic material needs are not met have a hard time acquiring the skills that help themsucceed,
and youngsters whose parents cannot buy themthe “extras” are at a competitive disadvantage.
 “Good Parent” Theory:
In contrast to the investment theory, “good parent” theories hold that low income hurts youngsters not because
poor families have less money to invest in youngsters, but because low income reduces parents’ ability to be
“good” parents. There are at least two versions of the “good parent” theory: the parental stress version and the
role model version.
1. The parental stress version
The “parental stress” version, which dominates psychology, holds that poverty is stressful and that stress
diminishes parents’ ability to be supportive, consistent, and involved with youngsters. Poor parenting, in turn,
hurts the social and emotional development of youngsters, which limits their educational and social
opportunities.
The “transactional” theory of youngster’s development is an elaboration of the stress theory. Transactional
theories hold those youngsters’ characteristics – such as their cognitive ability, temperament, and health – shape
their responses to the environment, and that these responses in turn transform the environment (Parker et al.
1988). Poverty affects parents’ interactions with their youngsters, which in turn affect the youngsters’ responses
to the parents and others. The youngsters’ responses then further affect the parents’ responses. Psychologists
often use the example of children born prematurely to a poor single mother to describe the transactional theory.
The premature birth and the prospect of rearing children alone with little money depress the mother. Because of
their immaturity, he or she is often passive. Their passivity makes the mother feel inadequate, which deepens
her depression. Because she is depressed, the mother is unresponsive to them. They get little stimulation from
the environment, and eventually quit seeking it. This further deepens the mother’s feelings of inadequacy. By
the time the child is two or three years old, she or he is behind in language and cognitive development (Parker et
al. 1988). But no one factor in this scenario is the sole “cause” of the developmental delay. The child’s
prematurity, the mother’s depression, and the family’s poverty all play a role.
The notion that several “risk factors” togetheraffect youngsters’ outcomes has become popular partly as a result
of the transactional theory. Thus many studies count poverty as one risk factor among others. In almost all of his
research, the risk factors are postulated as operating in an additive way, even though the transactional theory
implies a recursive model in which the youngsters’ family background and environment influence the
youngsters’ development, which in turn affects the family and environment.

[15]
2. The role model version
The “role model” version of the “good parent” theory also emphasizes parents’interactions with youngsters,but
it does not necessarily imply that poor parents are stressed. Instead, it usually holds that low-income parents
develop values, norms, and behaviours that are “dysfunctional” for success in the dominant culture. This could
be because the parents are unusually stressed, because the deviant values help reduce stress, or for reasons that
have little to do with stress.
Role model theories raise a question about the extent to which the values, attitudes and behaviours of parents are
a response to poverty rather than a cause of poverty. Imagine that some parents fall on hard times because of bad
luck. As a response to unemployment and a poor living standard, they become alienated from middle-class
norms. The youngsters in turn adopt their parents’ dysfunctional behaviours. As a result, the youngsters’ own
chances of success decline. In this example the parents’ behavior is a response to their poverty rath er than a
cause of their poverty. If parents’ values, attitudes and behavior change fairly rapidly in response to higher
income, income transfers could change parent–youngsters interactions and hence youngsters outcomes.
On the other hand, poverty among parents could be caused by dysfunctional behaviours such as tardiness,
laziness, and sloth, with origins unrelated to their poverty. If youngsters model their behavior on their parents
they too will develop behaviours that are dysfunctional for escaping poverty. When parents’ income is a
reflection of behaviours not caused by poverty, increasing their income would be unlikely to change youngsters’
outcomes in the short run. Nor would providing parents with other means for investing in youngsters’ human
capital. Instead, parents’ values, attitudes, and behavior must change. This would pose a much greater challenge
for policy makers than changing the incomes of families.
In principle these theoretical perspectives about how parental income might influence youngsters’ outcomes are
empirically separable. The investment model suggests that as parental income rises, parents purchase more
youngsters-specific goods and services and that these in turn improve youngsters’ outcomes. These goods and
services might include mobile phones, computers, better schools, private lessons, travel, and higher quality
housing in better neighbourhoods. Research shows that as income increases, families live in larger homes that
are in better repair and are in better neighbourhoods. They spend more on food and on eating in restaurants.
They own more automobiles and other consumer durables (Mayer and Jencks 1993, Mayer 1997). But
improving living conditions does not appear to have a large effect on youngsters’ outcomes (Mayer 1997). The
role model hypothesis suggests that parents ‘values and expectations change as their income increases and that
these in turn improve youngsters’ outcomes.
YOUNGSTERS’ BUYING BEHAVIOR TOWARDS TECHNOLOGY ORIENTED
PRODUCTS:
Youth is perhaps the most difficult demographic group to communicate with. Not only do they have a short
attention span, they're also elusive in media consumption, fickle in brand preference, and simply challenging to
engage and entertain. The “rise of next generation” has been written about with unbridled optimism and
enthusiasm, based on the coming of age of liberalization youngsters. They are global in their worldwide view
and have been exposed to enormous information unlike their parents raised amidst a consumption -friendly and
consumption encouraging social discourse. They are expected to be at the forefront of creating a new, modern,
west-embracing consumer society, as well as yield the demographic dividend that will drive economic growth.

[16]
Marketers spend millions in research every year trying to predict, or anticipate, changing youth behaviours.
With the continually proliferating choices of digital devices, not only does this group embrace technology at an
early age, it quickly becomes the early adopters of all new trends and convergent platforms. One can argue that
whatever youth does today foreshadows what older demographic groups will adopt in the near future. All this
makes it extremely difficult to understand and target their behaviours.
To better understand the relationship between youth and technology, MTVand Nickelodeon, in association with
Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions, commissioned international research to study habits and behaviours of
18,000 young people from 16 countries, across 21 different media and devices, including TV, mobile, IM, and
the Internet.
CONSUMER DURABLES:
Consumer durables are items that provide a flow of services to a consumer over a period of time. Examples
include mobile phones, new cars, household appliances, audio-visual equipment, furniture etc. The real level of
spending on durables has surged in the last eight years.
YOUTH CHOICE CRITERIA FOR DURABLES:
The taste of youth is wide ranging and constantly changing (Elsasser, 2004). The correct prediction for
consumer durable decisions is difficult (Sonnenberg and Erasmus, 2005) while the final purchasing decision of
the youth will differ between decision styles and profiles cannot be directly applied to unique purchase
situations wherein the level of involvement of the youth varies (Du Preez, 2003).
The Personal factors and situational factors make it difficult to predict youth decisions beforehand (Sonnenberg
and Erasmus, 2005).The personal factors embrace self image, Lifestyle and sub cultural aspects shaping the
youngster’s beliefs and influencing the purchase attitude. Lifestyle is a psychographic variable of values/tastes
which manifest as needs/preferences and specific purchase behavior (Arnold etal. 2004; Sonnenberg and
Erasmus, 2005).The purchase decision made by the purchase attitude. Lifestyle is a psychographic variable of
values/tastes which manifest as needs/preferences and specific purchase behavior (Arnold etal, 2004;
Sonnenberg and Erasmus, 2005). Youngster`s attach symbolic meaning to durables in order to define
themselves through the attitude functions served. The youngster purchase decision is individualistic (Du Plessis
and Rousseau,2003);the complexity of the decision depends on the degree of information search ,the evaluation
of alternatives and choice of products(Du Preez,2003).Personal factors, Situational/marketing/environmental
factors and post purchase behavior factors simultaneously interact each other to influence the consumer’s
purchase decision (Brijball,2003;Du Preez and Visser,2003).Consumer purchases durables in respons e to a
recognized specific need (Solomon,2004).The purchasing behavior is also diverse in style as per the taste/values
of the consumer (Dittmar etal.,1996). Du Preez (2003) illustrated that the complexity of the purchase decision
depends on the extent of consumer’s information search, which as per Du Plessis and Rousseau (2003) depends
on the consumer’s personality rather than the consumer durable product.
YOUNGSTERS’ BUYING BEHAVIOR TOWARDS MOBILE PHONES:
Greig and Taylor (2007, p. 37) described youngsters as “subjective, contextual, self-determining and dynamic”.
Many research studies describe youngsters’ perceptions towards risk and purchasing mobile phones (see also
Bond, 2010, 2011) to examine how youngsters understand the relationship between risk and mobile phones in
their everyday lives. Beck (1992) and Giddens (1990, 1991) originally established the examination of risk at the
centre of contemporary debate (Culpitt, 1999), proposing that an atmosphere of uncertainty in society is

[17]
emerging – the ‘Risk Society’. The findings presented focus on reflexivity, responsibility and trust in relation to
youngsters’ perceptions of risk.
Livingstone et al. (2011) observe how Internet use is increasingly individualized and mobile with 33% of
youngsters going online via a mobile phone or handheld device. The mobile phone has become an everyday
technology, and Longhurst (2007) contends that the concept of everyday life is significant as there are complex
interactions between living spaces and media lives which require research and understanding. Risk anxiety is
central to the social construction of contemporary childhood (Scott, Jackson, & Backett-Milburn, 1998) and this
study set out to explore how youngsters understood and managed risk in relation to their mobile phones.
Previous researches on childhood and risk supports many aspects of Beck’s (1992) ‘risk society’ thesis as
parents and youngsters conceptualize risk within public and private spheres (Hood, Kelley, Mayall, Oakley, &
Morrell, 1996); youngsters are reflexive in their conceptualizations of risk (Harden, 2000) and through risk
management or risk-taking behaviours achieve identity as individuals and as members of cultural groups (Green,
1997a). The mobile phone has become embedded in youngsters’ social worlds in late modernity and young
people in relation to the social changes associated with the rapid development of mobile phone use in their
everyday lives.
Beck (1992) studied to examine specifically how youngsters themselves view the nature and relationship of
mobile phones and risk in their everyday lives and how they reflexively construct their own life biographies. He
examined three key themes – Risk and reflexivity; Risk and responsibility and Risk and trust – in order to
consider how youngsters reflexively construct their own individualized risk biographies and how they actively
manage both their behavior and mobile phone technologies in order to minimize risk in their everyday lives.
Youngsters’ use of technologies and media is diverse and they use and do not use themin many different ways
(Selwyn, 2003). Much recent research on a wide variety of media technologies highlights gender, age and
socioeconomic differences in youngsters’ access to, perceptions and use of technologies and these marked
divisions are giving rise to further concerns of technological inequalities and potential exclusion (Livingstone et
al., 2011; Livingstone, 2009; Ofcom, 2009).
Postman (1983, p. 45) draws on Elias’ (1969) civilizing process argument to claim that, as the concept of
childhood developed, society began to “collect a rich content of secrets to be kept fromthe young: secrets about
sexual relations, but also about money, about violence, about illness, about death, about social relations”. Such
concerns over unsuitable content influence parental behavior in order to protect youngsters’ innocence.
Livingstone and Bober (2004) note that parents employ methods to promote safe internet use such as locating
the computer in a public area of the house and attempt to monitor their youngsters’ use of the Internet. However,
Valentine and Holloway (2001) suggest adults and youngsters have very different perspectives. Adults are
concerned about the future, whereas youngsters are interested in the present and the social relationships within
which they have to manage their own identities.
Paradoxes additionally appear elsewhere and, whilst the mobile telephone is associated with privacy, freedom,
security (Ling, 2000; Charlton, Panting, & Hannan, 2002), recent research reveals complex aspects of the
relationships between mobile phone technology,youngsters and parents. The mobile telephone allows parents to
give their youngsters more freedom (Crabtree & Nathan, 2003), but Ling (2000), Yoon (2003) and W illiams and
Williams (2005) all highlight the role of mobile technology in extending parental control and also in young
people negotiating parental control. The creative challenge of mobile phone technology, therefore, sits uneasily

[18]
on the private role of the mobile, and is somewhat controversial and open to further regulation and control
(Stone, 2004).
Livingstone et al.’s work (2011) reveals that contemporary youngsters are using a wide variety of technologies
in their everyday lives with varying degrees of knowledge and competency. The technologies that they use and
how they use them have profound implications on young people’s development of self-identity. Yoon (2003, p.
329) suggests that “young people respond increasingly to the issue of self-identity by continually reinventing
cultural conventions of socialization on the basis of individual choice and reflexivity”. The mobile phone has
become a ubiquitous technology in youngsters’ everyday lives and is associated with simultaneously both
protecting youngsters from and inducing risk. Little research, however, focuses on the youngsters’ views and
experiences themselves.

[19]
3
RReesseeaarrcchh MMeetthhooddoollooggyy

[20]
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
 SAMPLING DESIGN:
Our target population is youngsters in Pakistan. We take the sample size of up to 100 with the consent of our
supervisor. We consider both male and female with the further categorization such as alone or with siblings. The
type of sample is convenience and we take it randomly.
 RESEARCH DESIGN:
The present research follows on formal, communicative and ex-post facts research design use descriptive
statistics to collect the cross-sectional data through field experiments. In this research design, we use research
instruments which is describe as under.
Research Instruments:
This instrument is based on two sub parts. Items were adapted fromprevious researches. The section one of the
questionnaire contains the information about respondents i.e. age, gender, number of siblings etc. This section
was measure on nominal scale. The second section was about the research variables containing three variables
one was dependent (youngsters buying behaviour), other was moderating (influence of parents)and independent
variable (mobile phone brands). The instrument was measured on 5 point likert scale rating strongly agree to
strongly disagree.
As there are two types of research i.e. basic research and applied research. Both researches are a way to acquire
and solve the under discussion problem. We encompasses on both of it to achieve our research objectives.
1. Basic Research: “The research done chiefly to enhance the understanding of certain problems that
commonly occur in organizational settings, and seek methods of solving them is called basic or
fundamental research”.
2. Applied Research: “Research done with the intension of applying the results of the findings to
solve specific problems currently being experienced in the organization”.
So by considering the above definitions and their quite appreciable importance in the world of scientific
research, we decide to apply the both types of research on achieving the practical and appreciable solution of
problem.
Types of Research Design:
 Formal Study:
Our research study is formal. The research problem is clear that the parents influence on youngsters’ buying
behaviour when they purchase mobile phones.
 Expostfacto:
In this study there is no control over the variables and we cannot manipulate them.
 Descriptive:
Our research study is concerned with finding that how much the parents influence the youngerbuying behaviour
towards branded mobile phones.
 Statistical:
Our research is based on statistical study which emphasize on breadth rather than depth.

[21]
Influence of
Parents
Mobile Phone
Youngsters'
Buying
Behavior
 Field:
Our research study is conducted under actual environmental conditions.
Description of Our Research Methodology in detail:
The study shows the impact of the independent and moderating variables on one dependent variable. We
consider the variables in our research, the name of those variables are (1) mobile phone brand, (2) parents’
influence, and (3) youngsters buying behaviour.
Mobile phone brand is the independent variable, parents’ influence is moderating variable, and youngsters’
buying behaviour is dependent variable in our research.
By taking the above variables fromthe critical literature review the present study develop the proposed model to
prove the study.
Figure:
The propose model shows that both mobile phones and parents have impact on youngsters’ buying behavior.
Influence of parents is a moderating variable which has impact on both youngsters and their purchasing of
mobile phone. Mobile phone is an independent variable which has an impact on youngster i.e. dependent
variable.
To conduct the study more authentic we develop a questionnaire on independent, moderating and dependent
variables (Given in Appendix). It has been built of the 5- Likert scale in which those variables have been taken.
The target population is youth in Sahiwal. The sample size of the study is 100 respondents fromdifferent areas
of Sahiwal against each Questionnaire.
To make analysis of data we use SPSS software in which we make analysis of our research.
Reliability Test:
The reliability of the questionnaire is checked using Chronback alpha. The value of Chronback alpha should be
greater than 0.70.
Descriptive analysis:
We used first techniques for generating result is descriptive statistics. It shows minimum, maximum, and mean
values and standard deviation of data.
Histograms:
We used histograms that are used to display the distribution of variables.

[22]
Scattered plots:
We used scatter plot that is a type of mathematical diagram using Cartesian coordinates to display values for
two variables for a set of data. The data is displayed as a collection of points, each having the value of one
variable determining the position on the horizontal axis and the value of the other variable determining the
position on the vertical axis. This kind of plot is also called a scatter chart.
Correlation:
The Pearson's correlation is used to find a correlation between at least two continuous variables. The value for a
Pearson's can fall between 0.00 (no correlation) and 1.00 (perfect correlation). Other factors such as group size
will determine if the correlation is significant. Generally, correlations above 0.80 are considered pretty high.
Multiple regressions:
Linear regression analysis estimates the coefficients of a linear equation, involving one or more independent
variables that best predict the value of the dependent variable.

[23]
4
DDAATTAA CCOOLLLLEECCTTIIOONN

[24]
DATA COLLECTION
We conduct surveys and visit different areas of Sahiwal in order to target youth segment. To conduct the study
more authentic we develop questionnaire. The data were collect on one independent, one moderating and one
dependent variable through questionnaires. The sample size of up to 100 was taken for conducting the study by
using simple random sampling in order to generalize the findings in the particular sector. We collect data from
youngsters i.e. both males and females. Mostly people didn’t give full attention to our questionnaires. They feel
hesitation but after discussion they were ready to cooperate with us.
The male and female were selected and informed the purpose of present research then questionnaire were given
to them and were requested to give their actual responses. Instructions were given to fill up the questionnaire
and the respondents were allowed to ask anything they did not understand and in the end respondents were
appreciated and thanked for the corporation. The survey completion time was approximately ten minutes. From
the questionnaires administered 100 were complete which indicated a 100% usable response rate. There was no
incentive offered for participating in this research.
DATA COLLECTION METHOD
We collect the data by two ways: qualitative and quantitative.
 Qualitative technique: By following the qualitative technique, we are considering the already
publish and unpublished data mainly reports and articles. We are also capturing our judgments and
experiences.
 Quantitative technique: By following quantitative technique, we are going to establish valid and
authentic information gaining questionnaires and getting all information from youngsters.
SOURCES OF DATA
Both secondary and primary sources of data were used. The major type of information used is primary data.
This is done through primary survey. The literature review is the secondary data type. These sources include
articles, books, websites, printed literatures etc.

[25]
5
DDaattaa AAnnaallyyssiiss
&&
RReessuullttss

[26]
DATA ANALYSIS
To make analysis of data we used SPSS software in which we make analysis into two parts where part one lead
descriptive statistics that is used to “describe and summarize data and include measures of central tendency
(average) and dispersion (the spread of data or how close each other is to the measure of central tendency).”
RELIABILITY TEST:
It is very important to check the validity of the construct by using reliability analysis. It is commonly used as a
measure of the internal consistency or reliability of a psychometric test score for a sample of researcher. It is
suggested that value of the Cronbach’s alpha should be greater than 0.70(Cortina, 1993).
 Independent Variable
The data of independent variable or predictor (Mobile Phone Brand) is less reliable. Because the value of
Cronbach's Alpha is 0.599 which is less than 0.7, so the data used for analysis is less reliable.
 Moderating Variable
The data of moderating variable or predictor (Influence of parents) is reliable. Because the value of Cronbach's
Alpha is 0.672 which is almost 0.7, the value is also positive, so the data used for analysis is reliable.
 Dependent variable
The data of independent variable or predictor (youngster’s buying behavior) is reliable. Because the value of
Cronbach's Alpha is 0.671 which is almost 0.7, the value is also positive, so the data used for analysis is reliable.
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS:
The descriptive statistics shows that the average responses of the respondent are present in the tabular form.
Hundred samples have been taken and youngsters from different areas of Sahiwal have been selected for the
target population. The questionnaires have been filled fromboth males and females. Following is the descriptive
statistics for both categorical and continues variables.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.599 4
.672 11
.671 5

[27]
 Categorical variables
To obtain descriptive statistics for categorical variables we use Frequencies which shows how many peop le gave
each response (e.g. how many males, how many females). It doesn’t make any sense asking for means, standard
deviations etc. for categorical variables. The descriptive statistics for categorical variable and graph is given
below:
Graph: Histogram of Gender
Inspection of the shape of the histogramprovides information about the distribution of scores on the categorical
variable. The scores are reasonably normally distributed and may be skewed to the left or right or, alternatively,
arranged in a rectangular shape. The above histogramof gender shows the frequencies of respondents i.e. males
and females.
 Continuous variables
For continuous variables, it is easier to use Descriptive. The descriptive analysis shows the standard deviation,
mean, maximum value and maximum value of the responses of the respondent. The descriptive statistics for
continues variables and graphs are given below.
what is your gender
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid male 41 41.0 41.0 41.0
female 59 59.0 59.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[28]
In the above table, the minimum values, maximum values, mean values and the values of standard deviation of
continuous variables including independent, moderating and dependent variables have been shown. Mean value
provides the idea about the central tendency of the values of a variable. Number of observations of each variable
is 100. Standard deviation and the extreme values (minimum in comparison to maximum value) give the idea
about the dispersion of the values of a variable from its mean value. The Minimum value is 1 while Maximum
value is 5. The Mean values and standard deviations of each variable are given in the table.
The graphs of the above variables are as follows in which, on y-axis we take respective frequencies and on x-
axis we take each variable. Inspection of the shape of the histogramprovides information about the distribution
of scores on the continuous variables. The scores are reasonably normally distributed and may be skewed to the
left or right or, alternatively, arranged in a rectangular shape.
Graph: Histogram of Age
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
What is your age 100 1.00 3.00 1.6300 .56237
How many siblings 100 1.00 4.00 2.8800 1.25754
Number of working parents 100 1.00 4.00 2.5200 .81004
What is your family income
level
100 1.00 4.00 2.7100 1.14852
What is your favorite brand in
mobile
100 1.00 8.00 3.6200 2.50567
How much your parents are
willing to pay for a mobile
phone
100 1.00 8.00 2.5000 1.40346
Total SCM 100 6.00 48.00 16.8100 5.65274
Total PIBB 100 18.00 73.00 37.4900 8.05222
Total IMP 100 11.00 54.00 20.7700 5.63154
Valid N (list wise) 100

[29]
The above graph shows the histogram of age. The scores are reasonably normally distributed, with most scores
occurring in the centre, tapering out towards the extremes. Scores may be skewed to the left or right or,
alternatively, arranged in a rectangular shape. The mean value is 1.63, and the standard deviation is 0.562.
Histogram of number of siblings:
The above graph shows the distribution of scores on number of siblings. The scores are reasonably normally
distributed that may be skewed to the left or right or, alternatively, arranged in a rectangular shape. The mean
value is 2.88, and the standard deviation is 1.258
Histogram of number of working parents:

[30]
The above graph shows the distribution of scores on number of working parents. The scores are reasonably
normally distributed that may be skewed to the left or right or, alternatively, arranged in a rectangular shape.
The mean value is 2.52, and the standard deviation is 0.81
Histogram of family income level:
The above graph shows the distribution of scores on family income level. The scores are reasonably normally
distributed that may be skewed to the left or right or, alternatively, arranged in a rectangular shape. The mean
value is 2.71, and the standard deviation is 1.149
Histogram of favourite brand in mobile:

[31]
The above graph shows the distribution of scores on favourite brand in mobile phone. The scores are reasonably
normally distributed that may be skewed to the left or right or, alternatively, arranged in a rectangular shape.
The mean value is 3.62, and the standard deviation is 2.506
Histogram of how much parents are willing to pay for mobile phone:
The above graph shows the distribution of scores on how much parents are willing to pay for a mobile phone.
The scores are reasonably normally distributed that may be skewed to the left or right or, alternatively, arranged
in a rectangular shape. The mean value is 2.50, and the standard deviation is 1.403
Now followings are the table and graphs of independent, moderating and dependent variables:
Histogram of Total IMP:

[32]
The above graph shows the distribution of scores on total IMP. The scores are reasonably normally distributed
that may be skewed to the left or right or, alternatively, arranged in a rectangular shape. The mean value is
20.77, and the standard deviation is 5.632
Histogram of Total PIBB:
The above graph shows the distribution of scores on total PIBB. The scores are reasonably normally distributed
Histogram of Total SCM:

[33]
The above graph shows the distribution of scores on total SCM. The scores are reasonably normally distributed
CORRELATION ANALYSIS:
Now, the analysis of the study is to run the correlation between independent, moderating and dependent
variables. In this way the study finds out the impact of one independent and one moderating variable on one
dependent variable i.e. youngsters. We used Pearson correlation for this analysis. Pearson correlation coefficient
can take on only values from -1 to +1.
Cohen (1988) suggests the following guidelines:
r =.10 to .29 or r = –.10 to –.29 small
r =.30 to .49 or r = –.30 to –.4.9 medium
r =.50 to 1.0 or r = –.50 to –1.0 large
The table suggests that ‘r’ is significant at 0.01 and 0.05 level.
REGRESSION:
Explanation:
In above table the R is multiple correlation coefficient, its value is 0.366. While Adjusted R Square shows the
ratio of interdependence. Value of adjusted R square is 0.116 which is multiply by 100. It that means 11.6% of
the variance in the dependent variable can be predicted from Independent variable.
Correlations
Total PIBB Total IMP Total SCM
Pearson Correlation Total PIBB 1.000 .350 -.132
Total IMP .350 1.000 -.074
Total SCM -.132 -.074 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Total PIBB . .000 .095
Total IMP .000 . .233
Total SCM .095 .233 .
N Total PIBB 100 100 100
Total IMP 100 100 100
Total SCM 100 100 100
Model Summaryb
Model R R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .366a .134 .116 7.57024
a. Predictors: (Constant), Total SCM, Total IMP
b. Dependent Variable: Total PIBB

[34]
Explanation:
To assess the statistical significance of the result it is necessary to look in the table labelled ANOVA. This tests
the null hypothesis that multiple R in the population equals 0. The model reaches statistical significance (Sig =
.001, this really means p<.0005).The significant level in ANOVA table shows that the combination of variables
significantly predicts the dependant variable.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
1 Regression 860.066 2 430.033 7.504 .001b
Residual 5558.924 97 57.308
Total 6418.990 99
a. Dependent Variable: Total PIBB
b. Predictors: (Constant), Total SCM, Total IMP
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. 95.0%
Confidence
Interval for B
Correlations Co linearity
Statistics
B Std.
Error
Beta Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Zero-
order
Partial Part Tolerance VIF
1
(Constant) 29.878 3.818 7.825 .000 22.300 37.457
Total IMP .490 .135 .342 3.613 .000 .221 .758 .350 .344 .341 .995 1.005
Total SCM -.152 .135 -.107 -1.126 .263 -.420 .116 -.132 -.114 -.106 .995 1.005
a. Dependent Variable: Total PIBB

[35]
Graphs:

[36]

[37]
6
FFIINNDDIINNGGSS AANNDD
DDIISSCCUUSSSSIIOONN

[38]
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Our purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between parents and youngsters buying behaviour.
For this survey questionnaire method was used and through non probability convenient sampling responses of
respondents collected. After applying all necessary SPSS tests results revealed that parents have positive impact
on youngsters buying behaviour in buying mobile phones.
To observe the impact of family on youngsters buying behaviour towards mobile phones, we used multiple
regressions analysis and applied Pearson correlation to examine the connection between variables. In descriptive
statistics, we calculated mean and standard deviation to check the inclination of our respondents and positive
high correlation that is .366. It explains that 36.6% variation in youngsters buying behaviour cause due to
influence of parents which is significant at 0.001
At the end, the conclusion of this study is that parents always facilitate youngster’s choices of mobile phones by
their income level and family class as well but they have less impact on their purchase behaviour. Because now
a days, youngsters become more independent in their choices of mobile phones brand. We also analyze that
parents have less knowledge about different and latest brands in mobile market as compare to youngsters. So we
can conclude that parents have an impact on youngsters in purchasing of mobile phones by the financial and the
family status and their support plays an important role in the youngsters’ mind and to some extent creates
awareness about purchasing products.
From the survey it was also found out that the majority of youngsters buy mobile phones for the sake of status
and they are also highly susceptible to fashions, trends and styles. In survey we found that Nokia has captured
maximum market share in every category. Youngsters are also now very choosy in buying the mobile phone and
it is important for the company to make loyal customer of their brand.
In some situations, mobile phones take over to strengthen family bonds where the family members are scattered
geographically. And also when parents have tight control on youngsters towards buying an d use of mobile
phone. In addition this study can be more accurate in future. Sample size can be increased. As this study was
financial constrained which is only limited to youngsters belongs to Sahiwal city, so other cities will also be
studied in near future.

[39]
7
LLIIMMIITTAATTIIOONNSS
&&
RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS

[40]
LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH:
There are some limitations of our research as follows:
 The study was conducted in only Sahiwal city. It may have different results in any other city or region.
 The sample size was not so large; increasing sample size may show different statistics.
 The sector may influence the relationship, means that by selecting some other sector for study the
results may differ from standard set by this study.
 The results could be more generalized if research is conducted in any other country than Pakistan or in
any other sector, which was left out for the future research.
 Findings are based on sample survey through questionnaires method.
 Hence there is a scope for respondents to be biased or pretentious.
 There was lack of trust from the youngsters.
 They feel hesitate to fill the questionnaires.
 Mostly youngsters were busy and they didn’t have much time to fill the questionnaires.
 Our research work period witness the biggest ups and downs in product sale of different brands, which
affected the perception of the customer. This was biggest drawback of our study.
SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
 Now a day, youngsters are provided with a high tech world of endless connectivity. Parents must also
insure for them the ingredients of privacy, balance, space and time to make it safe as well as vital.
 Discussing and planning the use of the cell phone between parents and youngsters is a far better
alternative to policing.
 If parents are able to plan with their youngsters to open the spaces and relieve the “on call” demands,
the youngster can have the benefit of both parents and peers.
 The midnight kitchen conversation between parent and youngster or the story revealed by either when
driving together needs a space side by side with connection to technology.
 Technology with its possibility of 24/7 connection by cell phone, deprives a youngster of a separate
parental and family domain. Whereas coming home could mean alternative connections, impressions,
and experiences with family members, the 24/7 cell phone connection precludes this. It keeps a
youngster continually connected to peers but "out of” the moment, place and relationships with parents
and family.
 It is the lack of balance - the inability to venture beyond parental connection or the absence of parental
connection - that leaves a youngster overly dependent and with limited resources for self-development.
 Youngsters’ need the ongoing benefit of both parent and peer connections to enhance self-esteemand
to formulate identity.
 The price is a major factor of the attraction to the families as it depends on their financial position.
Now most of the manufacture company provides the mobile handsets at low price but the mobiles are
not in good condition. The materials used in those mobile phones are of low quality. So, most of the
youngsters are not attracted with those mobile phones. So for this all the company should have to know
about those factors to verify this.

[41]
 As regards the youngsters, marketing activity, aimed at raising product-involvement or keeping
product involvement high, can do so through parents and peers, by employing the following
components: mobilizing parental support for the product (direct appeals to parents) and presenting
positive attitudes of peers about the product (advertising buzz). Nevertheless, since parents have a
greater influence than peers, it is recommended to focus on parents.

[42]
APPENDIX:
Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan,
Sub Campus, Sahiwal.
Questionnaire on Family Influences on Youngsters’ Buying Behaviour:
Introduction: We (the students of MBA in Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, sub campus
Sahiwal) are conducting a research to find out influence of family on youngsters’ buying behaviour
towards mobile phones. Your response will be valuable for us.
Name: ___________________________________
Age: _________ years
Gender: Male Female
Siblings: Alone Siblings (_____ Brother/s, ______ Sister/s)
Number of Working Parents: Mother working Father working
Both working none working
What is your family income level? 10000 30000 50000 Greater than 50000
What is your favourite brand in Mobiles?
A) Nokia B) Samsung C) Sony Ericson D) LG
E) Motorola F) IPhone G) Blackberry H) Others
Which mobile phone you are currently using? ____________________
How much your parents are willing to pay for a mobile phone?
A) 10000 B) 10000 to 20000 C) 20000 to 40000 D) any amount
Instruction: Answer the following Question with the reference of mobile phone brand you choose
above.
Q 1) Which are the request strategies you generally use for convincing your parents to
buy a mobile phone?
Statements
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Very
Often
4
Always
5
I ask my parents to buy it for me and they
comply.
I request over and over again till my demand
is satisfied.
I persuade by telling them that my
peers/siblings have it.
I explain to them about the product’s

[43]
Q 2) Please tick any box to show how your parents influence your buying behaviour:
significance and use.
I remind them about the TV ads /Print ads to
reinforce my demands.
I play power games (flattery, bullying,
manipulation, giving ultimatums etc) to get
my way.
Statements
Strongly
Agree
1
Agree
2
Neutral
3
Disagree
4
Strongly
Disagree
5
I watch mostly TV with my parents.
My parents try to control what I see on TV.
I persuade my parents to buy if I like the
products I see in the ads.
I feel it’s important to have the same
products that my parents suggest.
I know a lot about my family’s financial
situation
I think my family is rich enough to afford my
demands.
I think I am richer when my mother also
works and hence I demand for more
products.
I think my parents give into my demands
when I persuade them to buy the products I
wish to buy.
I think my father accepts my demands more
than my mother.
My choice of cell phone is influenced by
parents' word of mouth.
I seek and collect information about various
cell phones' brands and models from my

[44]
Q 3) Why does it is important for you to buy a mobile phone?
(Special thanks to you for cooperating with us)
parents.
The brand preferences of family members
can influence my choice of cell phones.
Other people's recommendation may
influence my final decision.
Statements
Strongly
Agree
1
Agree
2
Neutral
3
Disagree
4
Strongly
Disagree
5
The Mobile has become a necessity today.
Are you aware of latest models available in
the mobile market?
Using the cell phone of a particular brand or
model helps me show others who I am, or
who I would like to be (such as technology
lover, fashionable, up to date etc).
1) I tend to choose those brands or models that
will enhance my image in others' eye.
I feel that those who purchase or use the cell
phone of a particular brand or model possess
the characteristics which I would like to have.
I think that the people who purchase the cell
phone of particular brand or model (e.g.,
Samsung, iPhone, Nokia) are sometimes
admired or respected by others.
I feel that it would be nice to act like the type
of person whom advertisements show using
the cell phone of a particular brand or model.
If I see the cell phones' brand or model which
is used by cell phone R&D people or cell
phone retailers, I may change my mind.

[45]
Frequency Tables
what is your gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 41 41.0 41.0 41.0
Female 59 59.0 59.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
How many siblings
Percent
Valid Alone 22 22.0 22.0 22.0
Brother 19 19.0 19.0 41.0
Sister 8 8.0 8.0 49.0
Both 51 51.0 51.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
What is your family income level
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 10000 19 19.0 19.0 19.0
30000 27 27.0 27.0 46.0
50000 18 18.0 18.0 64.0
Greater than
50000
36 36.0 36.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Number of working parents
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Mother working 2 2.0 2.0 2.0
Father working 62 62.0 62.0 64.0
Both working 18 18.0 18.0 82.0
None working 18 18.0 18.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[46]
What is your favourite brand in mobile
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Nokia 31 31.0 31.0 31.0
Samsung 18 18.0 18.0 49.0
Sonyericson 7 7.0 7.0 56.0
L.G 5 5.0 5.0 61.0
Motorola 2 2.0 2.0 63.0
iPhone 24 24.0 24.0 87.0
Blackberry 4 4.0 4.0 91.0
Others 9 9.0 9.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I ask my parents to buy it for me and they comply
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Never 19 19.0 19.0 19.0
Rarely 15 15.0 15.0 34.0
Sometimes 32 32.0 32.0 66.0
Very often 20 20.0 20.0 86.0
Always 14 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
How much your parents are willing to pay for a mobile phone
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 10000 34 34.0 34.0 34.0
10000_to_20000 22 22.0 22.0 56.0
20000_to_40000 9 9.0 9.0 65.0
Any amount 33 33.0 33.0 98.0
5.00 1 1.0 1.0 99.0
8.00 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[47]
I request over and over again till my demand is satisfied
Percent
Valid Never 31 31.0 31.0 31.0
Rarely 12 12.0 12.0 43.0
Sometimes 26 26.0 26.0 69.0
Very often 17 17.0 17.0 86.0
Always 14 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I persuade by telling them that my peers/siblings have it
Percent
Valid Never 19 19.0 19.0 19.0
Rarely 24 24.0 24.0 43.0
Sometimes 28 28.0 28.0 71.0
Very often 16 16.0 16.0 87.0
Always 13 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I explain to them about the product's significance and use
Percent
Valid Never 12 12.0 12.0 12.0
Rarely 14 14.0 14.0 26.0
Sometimes 41 41.0 41.0 67.0
Very often 18 18.0 18.0 85.0
Always 15 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[48]
I play power games (flattery, bulling, manipulation, giving ultimatums etc) to
get my way
Percent
Valid Never 33 33.0 33.0 33.0
Rarely 17 17.0 17.0 50.0
Sometimes 27 27.0 27.0 77.0
Very often 12 12.0 12.0 89.0
Always 10 10.0 10.0 99.0
33.00 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I watch mostly TV with my parents
Percent
Valid Strongly agree 25 25.0 25.0 25.0
Agree 34 34.0 34.0 59.0
Neutral 19 19.0 19.0 78.0
Disagree 17 17.0 17.0 95.0
Strongly disagree 5 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I remind them about the TV ads/ print ads to reinforce my demands
Percent
Valid Never 31 31.0 31.0 31.0
Rarely 19 19.0 19.0 50.0
Sometimes 28 28.0 28.0 78.0
Very often 17 17.0 17.0 95.0
Always 5 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[49]
My parents try to control what i see on TV
Percent
Agree 31 31.0 31.0 40.0
Neutral 30 30.0 30.0 70.0
Disagree 24 24.0 24.0 94.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I persuade my parents to buy if I like the products I see in the ads
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 30 30.0 30.0 45.0
Neutral 32 32.0 32.0 77.0
Disagree 20 20.0 20.0 97.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I feel it’s important to have the same products that my parents suggest
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 45 45.0 45.0 62.0
Neutral 23 23.0 23.0 85.0
Disagree 10 10.0 10.0 95.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[50]
I know a lot about my family's financial situation
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 40 40.0 40.0 84.0
Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 93.0
Disagree 5 5.0 5.0 98.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I think my family is rich enough to afford my demands
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 23 23.0 23.0 44.0
Neutral 32 32.0 32.0 76.0
Disagree 20 20.0 20.0 96.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I think I am richer when my mother also works and hence I demand for
more products
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 21 21.0 21.0 39.0
Neutral 25 25.0 25.0 64.0
Disagree 22 22.0 22.0 86.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[51]
My choice of cell phones is influenced by parents’ word of mouth.
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 25 25.0 25.0 31.0
Neutral 29 29.0 29.0 60.0
Disagree 23 23.0 23.0 83.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I think my parents give into my demands when I persuade them to buy
the products I wish to buy
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 43 43.0 43.0 57.0
Neutral 27 27.0 27.0 84.0
Disagree 7 7.0 7.0 91.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I think my father accepts my demand more than my father
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 35 35.0 35.0 56.0
Neutral 21 21.0 21.0 77.0
Disagree 16 16.0 16.0 93.0
24.00 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[52]
Others people's recommendations may influences my final decision
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 25 25.0 25.0 45.0
Neutral 23 23.0 23.0 68.0
Disagree 21 21.0 21.0 89.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I seek and collect information about various cell phones brands and
models from my parents
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 25 25.0 25.0 34.0
Neutral 24 24.0 24.0 58.0
Disagree 29 29.0 29.0 87.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The brand preferences of family members can influence my choice of
cell phone
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 26 26.0 26.0 46.0
Neutral 29 29.0 29.0 75.0
Disagree 17 17.0 17.0 92.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[53]
Using the cell phone or particular brand or model helps me show
others who I am, or who I would like to be(such as technology lover,
fashionable, up to date etc)
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 35 35.0 35.0 50.0
Neutral 34 34.0 34.0 84.0
Disagree 13 13.0 13.0 97.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The mobile has become a necessity today
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 36 36.0 36.0 82.0
Neutral 11 11.0 11.0 93.0
Disagree 3 3.0 3.0 96.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Are you aware of the latest models available in the mobile market
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 45 45.0 45.0 72.0
Neutral 17 17.0 17.0 89.0
Disagree 7 7.0 7.0 96.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[54]
I feel that those who purchase or use the cell phone of a particular
brand or model posses the characteristic which i would like to have
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 36 36.0 36.0 53.0
Neutral 25 25.0 25.0 78.0
Disagree 15 15.0 15.0 93.0
33.00 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I think that the people who purchase the cell phone or particular
brand or model are sometimes admired or respected by others
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 30 30.0 30.0 43.0
Neutral 27 27.0 27.0 70.0
Disagree 25 25.0 25.0 95.0
Strongly
disagree
5 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
I tend to choose those brands or models that will enhance my image in
other's eye
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Agree 36 36.0 36.0 53.0
Neutral 22 22.0 22.0 75.0
Disagree 19 19.0 19.0 94.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[55]
I feel that it would be nice to act like the type of a person whom
advertisements show using the cell phone of a particular brand or model
Percent
Agree 32 32.0 32.0 39.0
Neutral 22 22.0 22.0 61.0
Disagree 25 25.0 25.0 86.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
If i see the cell phone's brand or model which is used by cell phone
R&D people or cell phone retailers, I may change my mind
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Strongly agree 12 12.0 12.0 12.0
Agree 30 30.0 30.0 42.0
Neutral 25 25.0 25.0 67.0
Disagree 22 22.0 22.0 89.0
Strongly
disagree
11 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

[56]
REFERENCES:
 www.google.com
 www.wikipedia.com
 Article on Family communication and parental influence on children's brand attitudes
 http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/role-model-on-pakistani-urban-teenagers-purchase-
behavior-psychology-essay.php
 http://www.slideshare.net/tarasaini29/buyer-behavior-in-consumer-electronics-market#
 https://www.google.com.pk/url_The_influence_of_role_models_on_young_adults_purchase
 http://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/factors-affecting-brand-choice-of-youth-market-marketing
essay.php
 Influence-of-parental-income-on youth.pdf
 TURČINKOVA, J., MOISIDIS, J.: Impact of reference groups on the teenagers’ buying process of
clothing in the
 Czech Republic. Acta univ. agric. et silvic. Mendel. Brun., 2011, LIX, No. 7, pp. 489–496,
http://ideas.repec.org/s/ksb/journl.html
 Analysis of Influential Factors on Consumer Buying Behavior of Youngster towards Branded Products:
Evidence from Karachi, KASBIT Business Journal, 5:56-61(2012)
 www.ccsenet.org/journal.html/Mobile Handset Buying Behavior of Different Age and Gender Groups
 Skog, B. (2002): Mobiles and the Norwegian teen: identity, gender and class. In: Katz, J. E. and
Aakhus, M. (eds.): Perpetual contact. Cambridge University Press, New York
 Campbell, S. W., & Park, Y. J. (2008), Social implications of mobile telephony: The rise of personal
communication society. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 371-387.
 Caronia, L. (2005). Mobile culture: ethnography of cellular phone uses in teenagers’ everyday life.
Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 11(3), 96-103.
 Caronia, L., & Caron, A. H. (2004), Constructing a specific culture: Young people's use of the mobile
phone as a social performance. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies, 10(2), 28-61.
 Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2003), Control, emancipation and status: The mobile telephone in the teen’s
parental and peer group control relationships. Information technology at home, Retrieved March 12,
2008
 Thulin, E., & Vilhelmson, B. (2007), Mobiles everywhere: Youth, the mobile phone, and changes in
everyday practice. Young, 15(3), 235-253.
 YouGov. (2006). the mobile life youth report 2006. The impact of the mobile phone on the lives of
young people. UK: The Carphone Warehouse. Retrieved December 12, 2008,

Project Report on Consumer Behavior

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Project Report on Consumer Behavior

Recently uploaded

Project Report on Consumer Behavior