Journal of Business & Policy Research

Volume 5. Number 1. July 2010 Pp. 123 - 157

Consumers’ Shopping Behaviour Pattern on Selected Consumer Goods: Empirical Evidence on Malaysian

Consumers

Oriah Akir* and Md. Nor Othman**

In the consumer behaviour literature, several perspectives on consumer decision making have been considered, including consumer degree of involvement, degree of information search, the number of alternatives available/attributes importance, demographic variables and interpersonal influence that affect consumer buying decision and shopping pattern on certain consumer goods, both high and low involvement products. A cross-sectional survey was conducted and 1000 consumers were interviewed through mall intercept of which only 500 were useable for the analysis of the findings. In this paper, a framework which integrates several dimensions affecting consumer decision making (demographic variables, attributes importance, interpersonal influence) and repurchase intention as well as the possible relationship among variables is developed. The framework is tested by the use of standardized multiple regression analysis to determine the linear relationship among all these variables. The results of this research support the complexity of consumer buying behaviour. Consumers’ preference differs on which attributes they emphasize more as compared to the others, and the issue of how significantly others influence their buying decisions. The findings revealed that purchasing high involvement products was regarded as a very important decision in comparison to purchasing low involvement products. Second, quality, brand name, informational influence and product information had significant direct relationship on repurchase intention for high involvement products. While for low involvement products, price and brand name significantly predict consumers’ repurchase intention. Finally, the influence of significant others/interpersonal influence (spouses, siblings, family members, friends, and the like) did not significantly affect repurchase intention regardless of whether the products are low involvement products or high involvement products. In conclusion, the implications of this research: 1) contributes to the body of knowledge and exploratory model building on consumer purchase behaviour; and 2) the research model will provide an important input to the marketing decision-making process and management decision, such as marketers, product managers and/or brand managers to streamline their marketing plan and strategies.

Field of Research: consumer behaviour and marketing

1. Introduction Consumer behaviour theorists generally believe that consumer behaviour theories can be applied globally but consumer preferences and tastes are influenced by their cultural background (Schutte and Ciarlante, 1998). Therefore, marketers and business practitioners have to recognize that consumers‟ attitudes and beliefs, preferences, needs and tastes towards certain products or services are greatly influenced by their culture and the society they belong to. For instance, consumers in other parts of the globe may consider price as the most important determinant in their decision to buy food items, whereas, in others, they may consider quality as the most important factor that may affect their choices. Other factors that may surface could also be the influence of significant others, ____________________________________ * Lecturer of University Technology MARA, Malaysia, oriah@sarawak.uitm.edu.my ** Professor of University Malaya, Malaysia, mohdnor@um.edu.my

Akir & Othman

124

such as spouse, siblings, family members, friends, salespersons, relatives or neighbours (on consumers‟ purchase decisions and/or repurchase intentions), and even the marketing stimuli triggered by the marketers. Despite all these uncertainties, marketers or businesses still invest a lot of money in their marketing plans to indulge consumers to buy their products or services. This is an on-going process that they have to deal with in order to meet consumers‟ specific needs and preferences. It is not enough to offer a variety of products, but the true gain in business platform is how to sustain profit and survive in the marketplace by satisfying consumers‟ needs and wants relative to the value of the offerings. Hence, this paper empirically investigate the consumers‟ shopping behaviour pattern on selected consumer goods and address the issues on what they buy, why they buy, when they buy, where they buy, how much and how often do they buy, the factors that influence their buying decisions, and the determinants that influence consumers‟ purchase/repurchase intention. For example, in the case of Malaysia, it was reported that, around 70 percent of Malaysian consumers across all segments plan what they buy. Nevertheless the majority will still buy additional items (AC Nielsen, 2006).

Specific research questions addressed by the research: a) What are the general shopping behaviour patterns of consumers when

they decide to buy selected consumer goods (high and low involvement products)?

b) Is there any relationship between products‟ attributes importance, selected consumers‟ demographic variables, interpersonal influence and consumers‟ repurchase intention?

Specific objectives of the research: a) To determine consumers‟ general shopping behaviour patterns when they

decide to buy selected consumer goods (high and low involvement products).

b) To examine the relationship between product attributes‟ importance, selected consumers‟ demographic variables, interpersonal influence and repurchase intention.

2. Literature Review This section reviews past studies on various factors, such as price, quality, brand, product information, demographic variables and interpersonal influence that might influence consumers‟ purchase decision and how these factors in turn affect their repurchase intention.

2.1 Introduction Understanding consumer behaviour is paramount for both marketers and business alike. Two factors critical to understanding consumer behaviour are: firstly, the degree of differentiation that a consumer perceives in the product or service; and secondly, the fundamental determinant of consumer behaviour is their degree of involvement in the purchase (Blackwell, Miniard, and Engel, 2001;

Akir & Othman

125

Kotler, 1998; Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel, 2000; Business World, 2001). Conceptually, all consumer buying decisions generally fall along the continuum of three broad categories: routine response behaviour or habitual decision making; limited-decision making; and extensive decision-making (Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel, 2001, Kotler, 2003). The common notion is, consumer tends to be highly involved when they purchase expensive items, and less involved when they purchase low involvement products that they purchase frequently and the price is less expensive (Blackwell, Miniard, and Engel, 2001, Business World, 2001). Prior to choice decision or repurchase intention, consumers place a number of attributes in his or her choice sets, in order of importance and relevance. Among these attributes are price and quality, and consumers tend to use price as a proxy to quality (Lichtenstein, Bloch, and Black, 1988; Bloch and Black, 1988; Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal, 1991; Ofir, 2004). However, studies also reveal that, besides price and quality, other cues that are also considered as more important to assess the product‟s worth, are attributes such as brand, store name, past experience, attitude and product information (Cury and Riesz, 1988; Stafford and Enis, 1969; Erikson and Johansson, 1985; Zeithaml, 1985; Tellis and Geath, 1990, Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal, 1991). Brand name, for example, often signals as a cue or as a surrogate of product quality use by consumers in their evaluation of goods or services before they decide to purchase. Some researchers argue that the effect of price tends to be stronger when it is presented alone as compared when it is combined together with brand name (Dodds and Monroe, 1989; Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal, 1991). On the other hand, Bristow, Schneider, and Schuler (2002), suggest that if consumers believed that there are differences among brands, then the brand name becomes the center piece of information in the purchase decision or repurchase intention and the dependence on the usage of brand name in the search information will likely increase. Another branch of consumer behaviour research related to brand, is that, consumers use brands to create or communicate their self-image or status (Encalas and Betman, 2003; O‟ Cass, and Frost, 2002). Consumers, sometimes, associate themselves to a given brand when they make brand choice, and also make their brand choice based on associations with manufacturer‟s brand name (Aaker, 1997; Fugale, 1986). Besides, brand names contribute value to the consumer‟s image, as well as the economic success of the businesses, and it also can affect preference, purchase intention and consequently, sales (Alreck and Settle, 1999; Ataman and Ulengin, 2003). An economic theory of information was first proposed by George Stigler in 1961. Accordingly, this theory assumes that the markets are characterized by price dispersions and both seller and buyer has little information about this dispersion of prices. As such, consumer has to engage in search activity in order to obtain information about the products and price at cost. According to Avery (1996) rational consumers are assumed to search for product information/price information to a point where the marginal benefits of search are equal to the marginal costs of search. The search for product information varies in accordance to price and quality perception on products or services to be purchased. If consumers perceived that there is a high level of price and higher

Akir & Othman

126

quality variability in the market then they should be more willing to engage in search activities for price and quality information (Avery, 1996). Consumers purchase/repurchase intention or purchase decision for a product and/or service is driven by various reasons, which can be triggered by rational or emotional arousal (Schffmann and Kanuk, 2004). For example, consumers use brands to communicate their self-image or status, and the brand images chosen must be congruent to their own and match to groups they aspire to establish an association with (Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975; Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teele, 1989; Encalas and Bettmann, 2003; O‟ Cass and Frost, 2002). Similarly, consumers will seek for others who are significant to them for information or wish to associate or bond with, that is, the group social norms with whom consumers aspire to establish a psychological association or bonding, such as friends, neighbours, and the like (Bunkrant and Consineau, 1975; Park and Lessig, 1977; Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teele, 1989; Mourali, Laroche, and Pons, 2005; Kropp, Lavack, and Holden, 2005; Kropp, Lavack and Silvera, 2005). Besides, other factors, such as price, income, education, and other attributes also contribute to purchase decision/repurchase intention (Andaleeb and Conway, 2006; Al-Hawari and Ward, 2006; Jamal and Naser, 2002).

2.2 Research Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses As previously discussed, past and recent studies provide empirical evidence, that suggest the existence of a relationship between demographic variables, product attributes and purchase or repurchase intention. Nonetheless, within the domain of service marketing studies pertaining to the determinants that influence consumers‟ repurchase intention and satisfaction were widely investigated and researched in comparison to tangible products. These determinants include service quality determinants such as reliability, access, courtesy, competence, responsiveness, tangibles, credibility, communication, customization, understanding customers‟ needs, and security. Other determinants mentioned in past studies also included past experience, prior knowledge or familiarity, culture, demographic variables such as income, education, household size, children and so forth. Likewise, the studies on consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence were also well researched but the study directly investigating the relationship between interpersonal influence and customer‟s repurchase intention is still fuzzy. Furthermore, in the literature, past studies that integrated and directly linked product attributes importance, demographic variables and interpersonal influence in explaining repurchase intention was also unclear. Therefore, in view of this argument and to fill in the gap in the literature and add to the body of knowledge in consumer behaviour model and conception, this research attempts to explore specifically amongst others, the relationship among all these variables (product attributes importance, demographic variables, interpersonal influence and repurchase intention) pertaining to consumers decisions to purchase or repurchase selected tangible consumer goods (high and low involvement products). For the purpose of this research the following conceptual framework was developed as depicted in Figure 1 below. The framework of this research was developed based on stochastic models of brand choice and purchase incidence as modified by Jones and Zufryden (1980). Jones and Zufryden‟s model used demographic variables (household income and

Akir & Othman

127

the number of children in a household) and marketing mix (price dimension) as explanatory variables to predict brand choice or purchase (criterion variable). Jones and Zufryden‟s model was tested using logit model estimation. The explanatory variables were categorical data and the criterion variable was metric data. Jones and Zufryden‟s (1980) modified model was adapted due to its flexibility. It was suggested by the authors who developed the model that, “in terms of its use, the model involves relatively straightforward parameter estimation procedure and one that is adaptable to exploratory model building” (Jones and Zufryden, 1980, p. 332). In other words, the intention of Jones and Zufryden (1980) was to develop a general model which can be used to aid in marketing decision process. Hence, it was also suggested that the model is very flexible in which the explanatory variables can be added and dropped as required by the researchers who wish to replicate or adapt the model. However, in the current research framework, besides household income, number of children and price, additional explanatory variables of product attributes importance such as quality, brand name, product information and interpersonal influence variables were added to the model. In contrast to Jones and Zufryden„s model, the current research framework was tested using standardized multiple regression procedures to determine the linear relationship among all sets of variables used in the research. This was because the data used in the research were metric for both the explanatory/independent variables and the criterion/dependent variable. Explanatory Variables Criterion Variable

Figure 1: The Research Framework

Based on the above argument and discussions in the literature, the following general hypotheses and specific hypotheses were developed:

General hypotheses: H1: There is a relationship between products‟ attributes importance,

demographic variables, interpersonal influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.

Specific hypotheses: H1a: There is a relationship between quality attribute importance and a

consumer‟s repurchase intention.

The Determinants that Influence Consumer‟s Purchase Behaviour Attributes Importance

Quality

Price

Brand Name

Product Information Interpersonal Influence

Normative Influence

Informational Influence Demographic Variables

No. of Children

Household Income

Consumer‟s Purchase Behaviour Repurchase Intention [Low and High Involvement Products]

Akir & Othman

128

H1b: There is a relationship between price attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.

H1c: There is a relationship between brand name attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.

H1d: There is a relationship between product information attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.

H1e: There is a relationship between normative influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.

H1f: There is a relationship between informational influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.

H1g: There is a relationship between a household income and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.

H1h: There is a relationship between the number of children in a household and a consumer‟s repurchase intention.

3. Research Methodology This section briefly describes the research design, population and sample size, data collection procedure as well as data analysis procedure.

3.1 Research Design and Sampling Procedure A cross-sectional survey was conducted. A non-probability sampling approach was employed and a quota sampling technique was applied to draw the sample. This approach was employed because the sample frame was not easily available and difficult to draw from and the target population cannot be reached and identified effectively and efficiently by other means of sampling (Clarke, 2006). Kinnear and Taylor (1996) reported that about 86 percent of businesses used quota sampling in business research practice. Further, Kress (1988) contended that samples, if properly selected, are sufficiently accurate in most cases and even when the data has considerable heterogeneity, large samples provide data of sufficient precision to make most decisions (Zikmund, 2000). The target sample for this study was 1000 consumers residing in one of the cities in one of the states in Malaysia.

3.2 Target Population and Sample Size The target population for the research comprised consumers residing in one of the city in East Malaysia. The total population of the city is 422,240, consisting 210,034 male and 212, 205 female (Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 2004, p. 34). Approximately 1000 consumers were targeted and divided proportionately by gender, that is, about 50 percent male and 50 percent female. This composition closely exhibited the population parameter of the chosen city based on statistical report drawn from Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2004). The sample size was considered as adequate, since the minimum sample to determine sample size from a given population is 384 (Krejcie and Morgan, 1970) for every one million population.

Akir & Othman

129

3.3 Data Collection Procedure A total of 1000 questionnaires were distributed using mall intercept at six selected retail outlets located at one of the cities in East Malaysia. The retail outlets included supermarkets, small retail stores, departmental stores, specialty stores, hypermarkets, and malls. The selected units of analysis were interviewed personally. If the sample units were unable to complete the questionnaires, they were requested to send them by mail using a paid stamped-self-address envelop provided by the researcher or to return them personally the following day to the interviewers stationed at the selected retail outlets. The interviews were conducted daily from 10.30 a.m to 9.30 p.m for three months from September 2008 to November 2008. The personal interviews took place within these three months and only ended when the minimum targeted size of 500 respondents who fully completed the questionnaires were achieved with at least 50 percent male and 50 percent female composition as had been determined by the researcher in order to meet the quota targeted. The data collected must meet the desired characteristics that had been determined by the researcher.

3.4 Instrument Before the full scale research was carried out, pre-testing was performed to ensure there were no design errors in the questionnaire. Therefore any mistakes and changes could be corrected and improved. The pre-test was administered using 30 consumers as respondents who characterized the intended consumers for the main research. They consisted of part-time students who enrolled for the Bachelor in Business Administration (Honours) (Marketing) (BBA) (M) and Executive Master in Business (EMBA) programmes at one of the public universities located at one of the cities of an East Malaysian state. These respondents were selected at the researcher‟s convenience and they were similar in makeup to the sample of the main research (Zikmund, 2000; Malhotra, 2004). Feedback from the pre-test study indicated that the respondents were comfortable with the questions asked. However, based on the pre-test feedback, a few changes were made to ensure the final respondents in the actual survey understand the questions. At this pre-testing stage, the respondents were also asked to rank order which of the products category given to them that they considered as high involvement products and low involvement products of the six categories chosen, namely: personal computer, fashion clothing, instant noodle, instant coffee and detergent. In order to address the research questions and objectives, a set of structured questionnaire was prepared consisting of four sections, namely section A, B, C and D. Section A captured the consumers‟ general shopping behaviour pattern which addressed questions related to the products category that the consumers bought, why did the consumers buy the products, what were the preferred brand names bought by the consumers, did they prefer foreign brand or local brand, what were the reasons for choosing foreign and local brand, when did they usually buy the products, where did they usually buy the products, how much they spent and how many times they bought the products for the last 12 months, how did they know about the products, which advertisements medium influenced them the most, who influenced their purchasing decisions and what were the

Akir & Othman

130

products category that they ranked as the most important in their decision making process. Section B which included questions on attributes importance and interpersonal influence consists of 39 items using a 7-point Likert Like Scale anchored with “1” as strongly disagree and “7” as strongly agree. These items included price (7 items), quality (7 items), brand (7 items), product information (6 items) and interpersonal influence (12 items). The items used in section B were adapted from various authors related to the research such as Aliman‟s (2005) product information scales, Lichtenstein, Ridgway and Netemeyer„s (1993) price - quality scales, Sproles and Kendall‟s (1986) consumer decision making styles scales, Bearden, Netemeyer and Teele‟s (1989) 12-items Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence scales (CSI), and Blair and Innis‟s (2002) brand dependence scales. Section C captured the questions on the consumer‟s repurchase intention consisting of eight items adapted from Levesque and McDougall„s (1996) repurchase intention scales using a 7-point Likert Like Scale anchored with “1” as strongly disagree and “7” as strongly agree. Please refer to Appendix 1 for the detailed items used in the research. Finally, section D required the respondents to state their personal information regarding their gender, age, income, education, family size, number of children in a household, household size, marital status, religion, employment sectors, occupation, religious orientation, involvement level and a presence of at least one child in a household. Six types of product category selected for the research were personal computer, branded perfume, and fashion clothing which represented the high involvement product category, while detergent, instant noodle, and instant coffee were low involvement products.

3.5 Analysis Procedure The data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 12.0. Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation were generated to provide an overview of the data. Frequency distribution was used to describe the characteristics of the consumers‟ general shopping behaviour pattern as well as to profile the respondents‟ personal information. The standardized multiple-regression analysis was used to examine the linear relationship between the explanatory/dependent variables (quality, price, brand name, product information, normative influence, informational influence, household income, number of children) and the criterion/dependent variable (repurchase intention). Correlation coefficient test and significant levels were conducted to check the strength of the linear relationships between pairs of variables. The determinant of correlation matrix was generated to provide the information on the multicollinearity. Kaiser‟s criterion (KMO) and Barlett‟s Test of Sphericity was performed as a check to substantiate the appropriateness of conducting a factor analysis and also to examine the sampling adequacy. Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient was conducted to determine the items reliability and internal consistency (Nunally, 1978; Malhotra, 2004).

Akir & Othman

131

4. Findings and Discussions

4.1 Respondents’ Profile Out of 1000 respondents interviewed through mall intercept, only 500 sets of the questionnaires were fully completed and useable in the analysis which yielded a response rate of 50 percent. The research findings revealed that 259 (51.8%) of the respondents were female and 241 (48.1%) were male. The research also indicated that 172 (34.4%) of the respondents were aged between 25 to 29 years old, followed by 107 (21.4%) aged between 20 to 24 years old, 87 (17.4%) of the respondents were within the age range of 30 to 34 years old, 51 (10.2%) of them were aged between 35 to 39 years old, 34 (6.8%) were aged between 40 to 44 years old, 22 (4.4%) of them aged below 20 years old, while 13 (2.6%) of them were aged between 45 to 49 years and the other 14 (2.6%) of them were 50 years old and above. In terms of household income, the research indicated that the household monthly income of the respondents were mostly within the range of RM2000 to RM4999 (197 or 39.4%), followed by 129 (24%) between RM5000 to RM6999, 81 (16.2%) below RM1000, 52 (10.4%) between RM7000 to RM8999, 24 (4.8%) between RM9000 to RM9999, and only 26 (5.2%) earned above RM10 000. Most of the respondents, that is, 169 (33.8%) of them had college diploma level of education, followed by a university degree, that is, 143 (28.6%) of them, 108 (21.6%) of them had secondary level of education, five (1%) of them had primary level education, and 18 (3.6%) had other educational level. Essentially, the majority of the respondents, that is, 246 (49.2%) were single, 167 (33.4%) of them were married with children, 80 (16%) of them were married without children, and seven (1.4%) of them were divorced/widowed or single-parents. The majority of the respondents were Christians (248 or 49.6%), 168 (33.6%) of them were Muslims, 67 (13.4%) were Buddhist/Taoist, 11 (2.2%) of them were Hindu and six (0.2%) of them were from other beliefs. Most of the respondents had 3 to 4 children in their household (223 or 44.6%), 145 (29%) had 5 to 6 children, 82 (16.4%) of them had between 1 to 2 children, and 50 (10%) of them had 7 or more children. On average most of the respondents were religious people, that is, 411 (82.2%) of them stating that their strength of religious orientation were between average and strong. While the other 63 (12.6%) of them and another 26 (5.2%) of them stated that their strength of religious orientation were between very strong and very weak, respectively. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the detailed breakdown of the respondents‟ characteristics.

4.2 Respondents’ Shopping Behaviour Pattern In terms of buying decision, the research indicated that a majority of the respondents ranked buying fashion clothing as their most important purchase decision, followed by personal computer, branded perfume, instant noodle, instant coffee, and stated buying detergent as the least important purchase decision. This finding seems to be consistent with past studies that contended any purchase which is used publicly such as fashion clothing (rank 1, mean - 1.72) is considered as an important decision by consumers (Clerk and Belk,

Akir & Othman

132

1979). Buying personal computer (Rank 2, mean - 1.88) was also considered as an important decision. This could be due to its expensive price which requires the consumers to search for information and opinion from others. The next important purchase decision is buying branded perfume (rank 3, mean - 2.43), but its usage is invisible to the public as compared to fashion clothing. However, in general, buying low involvement products such as instant noodle, instant coffee and detergent were not considered as an important decision by consumers because these products are bought frequently and do not require considerable effort for information search in the consumer‟s decision making process. In conclusion, the results of the findings were consistently in line with the notion that consumers tend to be more involved when they decide to purchase expensive items and the products that they purchase display social visibility in comparison to purchasing inexpensive, frequently purchased items and if the usage of the product is not publicly visible (Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel, 2001, Kotler, 2003; Blackwell, Miniard, and Engel, 2001; Business World, 2001; Asseal, 1987; Clarke and Belk, 1979). Examples of such products include instant noodle, instant coffee and detergent, which are considered as low involvement products and perfume which is used by consumers but not publicly visible. In relation to brand preference, a majority of the respondents mentioned Acer as the most preferred brand for personal computer/laptop, followed by Dell and Compact. While fashion clothing (designer label) most preferred was Levi‟s followed by Nike, Adidas and Nicole. Calvin Klein was considered as the most preferred brand for branded perfume, followed by Avon, Silky, and Body Shop. Next, Breeze was the most preferred brand for detergent, followed by Daia and Fab. For instant noodle, Maggie was the most preferred brand, followed by Indomee, and Mee Sedap. While for instant coffee, Nescafe was the most preferred brand, followed by Kapal Api and Indocafe.

Table 1: Most Important Purchase Decision Ranked According to Products‟ Category

No. Products‟ Category Mean Score Rank

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Fashion Clothing Personal Computer / Laptop Branded Perfume Instant Noodle Instant Coffee Detergent

1.72 1.88 2.43 4.84 5.03 5.11

1 2 3 4 5 6

Note: Most important given rank “1” and least important rank “6”

In terms of place, a majority of the respondents stated that they purchased their personal computer at departmental stores, followed by specialty stores, malls, small retail shops and other shops in that order. Most respondents went to departmental stores and malls to purchase their fashion clothing and only a few preferred to go to small retail shops. Similarly, most of the respondents preferred to shop at departmental stores, supermarkets and malls to buy their branded perfume, and only a few of them went to small retailers and other shops. However, for low involvement products such as detergent, instant noodle and instant coffee, most of the respondents stated that they preferred to go to supermarkets to purchase them.

Akir & Othman

133

For most high involvement products such as personal computer, fashion clothing, and branded perfume, a majority of the respondents preferred to purchase them during special occasion, for example, during sales or promotion periods throughout the year. For low involvement products such as detergent, instant noodle and instant coffee, the respondents preferred to buy them either weekly or monthly. The majority of the respondents, who purchased high involvement products such as personal computer/laptop, fashion clothing, and branded perfume, stated that they preferred foreign brand manufactured in foreign countries. In contrast, for low involvement products such as instant noodle, instant coffee and detergent, a majority of the respondents mentioned that they preferred to buy local brands manufactured domestically. The reason for buying foreign brands for high involvement products like personal computer, fashion clothing and branded perfume is mainly because they believed that foreign brands were of high quality as compared to local brands. In addition these products carry established brand names and are reasonably priced. In contrast, for low involvement products like instant noodle, instant coffee and detergent, most of the respondents stated that they preferred local brands because the price was cheap as compared to foreign brands. On average most of the respondents spent between RM1000 to RM3000 to purchase a personal computer/laptop. This explains the popularity of Acer brand among the respondents because the market price for most Acer brand is around RM2000 to RM3000. For fashion clothing and branded perfume, the majority of the respondents stated that they spent between RM100 to RM200 to buy them. In contrast, for low involvement products such as instant noodle, instant coffee and detergent, most of the respondents spent on average between RM10 to RM21 to purchase them. For high involvement products such as personal computer/laptop and branded perfume, most of the respondents stated that they purchased them only once in the past 12 months. However, for fashion clothing, they purchased them between one to six times in the past 12 months. In contrast, most of the respondents buy instant noodle, instant coffee and detergent more than six times in the past 12 months. The majority of the respondents stated that they bought both category of products (high and low involvement products) mainly for their own use, and only a few of them mentioned that they bought the products as „gift giving‟ and for other purposes. Most of the respondents mentioned that they frequently saw advertisements on personal computer/laptop, fashion clothing, and branded perfume in magazines, brochures/catalogs, TV ads, and newspapers. While advertisements for detergent, instant noodle, and instant coffee were frequently advertised on TV, radio, newspapers, and a few in magazines. The respondents‟ decisions to purchase or not to purchase a personal computer/laptop were influenced by ads found in brochures/catalogs, magazines and newspapers as compared to other medium of advertisements. For fashion clothing and branded perfume, most of the respondents stated that their decisions were influenced by ads found in magazines and brochures/catalogs, and also influenced by TV ads, such as Silky brand for perfume. For most low involvement products, such as instant noodle, instant coffee, and detergent, their decisions were influenced by TV ads as compared to other medium of advertisements. The opinion of significant others (such as family members, friends, spouses, siblings, children, salespersons and the like) that influenced on the decisions of the respondents to purchase or not to purchase a personal computer/laptop were influenced by

Akir & Othman

134

friends, followed by family members and salespersons. Decisions on fashion clothing and branded perfume were influenced by friends, spouses, family members and salespersons. In contrast, for low involvement products such as instant noodle, instant coffee, and detergent, their decisions were influenced by their spouses, followed by family members and lastly, friends. Please refer to Appendix 3 for the summary of the respondents‟ shopping behaviour pattern.

4.3 Descriptive Statistics, Correlation Coefficients and Significance Level

A number of statistical tests were conducted to determine the basic information on mean, standard deviation, and N, which are useful to identify the presence of outliers and the adequacy of sample size. The univariate descriptive statistic was conducted and the results revealed that there was non-existence of outliers with standard deviation for all the sets of variables lay within +3 and -3 range (Zikmund, 2000; Malhotra, 2004). The correlation coefficients and significance level were tested to determine the strength of linear relationships between the pairs of variables. The results showed that all the sets of variables correlated well and the results yielded correlation coefficient between 0.30 and below 0.70 among variables (Pallant, 2007), and had positive significant relationship at 0.01 level (sig.- 1-tailed). This information is important to determine whether variables that are not correlated should be excluded for factor analysis. The determinant of the correlation matrix provided the information on multicollinearity. The presence of highly correlated variables will lead to a problem of multicollinearity. However, a check on Tolerance (TOL) indicates a value of more than 0.10 and the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is less than 10 for all the independent variables, which confirms that the possibility of multicollinearity is not detected (Pallant, 2007) - see Table 2 and Table 3 below.

4.4 Standardized Multiple Regression Analysis – Testing the Relationship between Explanatory/Dependent Variables and Criterion/Dependent variable

To determine which of the explanatory/dependent variables (quality, price, brand name, product information, household income, number of children and interpersonal influence) included in the model contributed to the prediction of the criterion/dependent variable (repurchase intention), a standardized multiple regression analysis using enter method was conducted for the different products categories used in the research. The detailed results of the tested model are explained and provided in Table 2 and Table 3. Column (i) depicts the product category used in the research and column (ii) shows the sets of explanatory variables/independent variables. Column (iii) shows the beta value which indicates the importance of each explanatory variable in terms of the contribution of each variable in predicting the criterion variable, when the variance explained by all other variables in the model is controlled for. Column (v) shows the significant value of the relationship between the explanatory variables and the criterion variable. This column shows whether or not each of the explanatory variable, is making a statistically significant unique contribution to the equation. Column R-squared shows how much of the variance in the dependent variable is

Akir & Othman

135

explained by the model. This R-squared is multiplied by 100 and will yield the percentage of the variance. The resulted standardized multiple regression as shown in Table 2, for fashion clothing, beta values in the model showed that quality contributed 0.192, price contributed 0.096, brand name contributed – 0.280, product information contributed 0.208 and household income contributed – 0.082 in explaining the consumers‟ repurchase intention, indicating that these variables made a unique contribution to explaining the dependent variable, when the variance explained by all other variables in the model is controlled for. The other variables, that is, normative influence (beta value -0.048; p-value = -0.933), informational influence (beta value -0.067; p-value = 0.155) and number of children (beta value -0.017; p-value = 0.635) and the relationship between these variables and repurchase intention was not significant, indicating that these variables made less contribution in explaining the repurchase intention. As depicted in the same table (Table 2), the relationship between quality, price, brand name, product information, household income and repurchase intention was significant (p-value for quality = 0.000, p-value for price = 0.001, p-value for brand name = 0.000, p-value for product information = 0.000 and household income p-value = 0.027), indicating that these variables made a unique, statistically significant contribution to the prediction of repurchase intention. The R-squared shows that 59.9% of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the model. Meanwhile for personal computer, as shown in Table 2, beta values revealed that quality contributed – 0.235, brand name contributed – 0.239, product information contributed – 0.238 and informational influence contributed – 0.239 in explaining repurchase intention and the relationship was significant (quality p-value = 0.000, brand name p-value = 0.000, product information p-value = 0.000 and informational p-value = 0.000), indicating that quality, brand name, product information and informational influence made a unique, and statistically significant contribution to the prediction of repurchase intention. The other variables such as price, normative influence, household income, and number of children made less contribution and did not contribute significantly in explaining repurchase intention. The R-squared shows that 64.1% of the variance is explained by the model. On the other hand, as depicted in Table 2, for branded perfume, beta values showed that brand name contributed 0.301, price contributed 0.153, quality contributed 0.120, and product information contributed 0.119 in explaining repurchase intention. The result also revealed that there was a significant relationship between the independent variables and dependent variable (brand name p-value = 0.000, price p-value = 0.001, quality p-value = 0.004 and product information p-value = 0.027), indicating that these variables made a unique, statistically significant contribution to the prediction of repurchase intention. The other variables such as informational influence, household income and number of children made less contribution and did not statistically have a significant contribution in explaining repurchase intention. The R-squared shows that 55.3% of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the model. Hence, for high involvement products, the hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H1f and H1g below were supported for the types of product category as specified in the brackets.

Akir & Othman

136

H1a: There is a relationship between quality attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing, personal computer and branded perfume).

H1b: There is a relationship between price attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing and branded perfume).

H1c: There is a relationship between brand name attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing, personal computer and branded perfume).

H1d: There is a relationship between product information attribute importance and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing, personal computer and branded perfume).

H1f: There is a relationship between informational influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (personal computer).

H1g: There is a relationship between a household income and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing).

However, it was also indicated that the relationship between normative influence, number of children in a household, informational influence, household income and repurchase intention was not significant, indicating that the hypotheses below were not supported for the types of product category being investigated in the research as specified in the brackets. H1e: There is a relationship between normative influence and a consumer‟s

repurchase intention (fashion clothing, personal computer and branded perfume).

H1h: There is a relationship between a number of children in a household and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (fashion clothing, personal computer and branded perfume).

H1f: There is a relationship between informational influence and a consumer‟s repurchase intention (Fashion clothing and branded perfume)

As depicted in Table 2, it can be concluded that when a consumer decides to repurchase a high involvement product, they would consider the quality of the product, the price of the product, the brand name of the product, product information and as well as seeking information from others who are significant to them especially when they purchase expensive items, in this case, purchasing a personal computer. The other attributes such as normative influence, income and number of children do not dominantly influence their decision to repurchase. In terms of low involvement products, as depicted in Table 3, beta values showed that quality (beta value –0.165, p-value = 0.002), price (beta value – 0.183, p-value = 0.006), brand name (beta value – 0.293, p-value = 0.000), and number of children (beta vale – 0.096, p-value = 0.011) made a unique, statistically significant contribution to explaining the dependent variable, when the variance explained by all other variables in the model is controlled for. This is particularly true for instant noodle but for instant coffee and detergent only price (beta value – 0.222, 0.272; p-value = 0.001, 0.000) and brand name (beta value – 0.172, 0.340; p-value = 0.001, 0.000) made a unique, statistically significant contribution to the prediction of repurchase intention. The other variables made less contribution and did not statistically significantly contribute to the prediction of repurchase intention. The R-squared showed that 56.5% (instant noodle), 53.6%

Akir & Othman

137

(instant coffee) and 49.9% (detergent) of the variance were explained by the model. In contrast, for low involvement products, the following hypotheses were supported particularly for instant coffee and detergent except for instant noodle which showed hypotheses H1a and H1h were also supported. The other hypotheses (H1a, H1d, H1e, H1f, H1g and H1h) were not supported (instant coffee and detergent). H1b: There is a relationship between price attribute importance and a

consumer‟s repurchase intention (instant coffee and detergent). H1c: There is a relationship between brand name attribute importance and a

consumer‟s repurchase intention (instant coffee and detergent). As shown in Table 3, it can be concluded that when a consumer decides to repurchase a low involvement product the most important factors that influence his or her decision are price and brand name, besides quality. In this specific case, other factors such as product information, interpersonal influence, income and number of children did not significantly influence a consumer‟s purchase decision. This finding is found to be inconsistent with Jones and Zufryden (1980) in which demographic variables were reported to significantly contribute to the prediction of brand choice or purchase. This could be due to the limited number of explanatory variables entered in their model equation.

Akir & Othman

138

Table 2: Standardized Regression Coefficients Model

Products Category

Variables Standardized Coefficients

Collinearity Statistics

(i) Fashion clothing

(ii)

Beta

(iii)

t-value

(iv)

Sig. p-value

(v)

Tolerance

(vi)

VIF

(vii) Quality 0.192 4.319 0.000** 0.659 1.517 Price 0.096 2.170 0.031* 0.670 1.493 Brand Name 0.280 4.873 0.000** 0.396 2.528 Product Information 0.208 4.873 0.000** 0.522 1.918 Normative Influence -0.046 -2.933 -0.933 0.546 1.831 Informative Influence -0.067 -1.421 0.156 0.580 1.724 Household Income 0.082 2.225 0.027* 0.959 1.042 Number of Children 0.017 0.474 0.635 0.989 1.011 R-squared = 0.599 (59.9%) F-value=34.372

Products Category

Variables Standardized Coefficients

Collinearity Statistics

Personal Computer

Beta t Sig. p-value

Tolerance VIF

Quality Price

0.235 0.033

5.126 0.712

0.000** 0.477

0.569 0.561

1.758 1.784

Brand name 0.239 4.488 0.000** 0.423 2.364 Product Information 0.238 4.680 0.000** 0.463 2.160 Normative Influence 0.056 1.267 0.206 0.635 1.574 Informative Influence 0.239 5.464 0.000** 0.629 1.591 Household Income 0.048 1.381 0.168 0.974 1.027 Number of Children 0.000 0.002 0.999 0.981 1.019 R-squared = 0.641 (64.1%) F-value=42.908

Products Category

Variables Standardized Coefficients

Collinearity Statistics

Branded Perfume

Beta t Sig. p-value

Tolerance VIF

Quality 0.120 2.879 0.004* 0.812 1.231 Price 0.153 3.439 0.001* 0.710 1.483 Brand Name 0.301 5.443 0.000* 0.462 2.166 Product Information 0.119 2.222 0.027* 0.531 1.885 Normative Influence 0.059 1.135 0257 0.552 1.812 Informative Influence 0.056 1.110 0.268 0.678 1.474 Household Income 0.059 1.289 0.198 0.968 1.033 Number of Children 0.043 1.119 0.264 0.958 1.043 R-squared = 0.553 (55.3%) F-value=27.097

*Dependent variable - repurchase intention; ** Significant at <0.01; * Significant at <0.05

Akir & Othman

139

Table 3: Standardized Regression Coefficients Model

Products Category

Variables Standardized Coefficients

Collinearity Statistics

Instant Noodle

Beta

(i)

t Sig. p-value

(ii)

Tolerance

(iii)

VIF

(iv) Quality 0.165 3.115 0.002* 0.495 2.022 Price 0.183 2.740 0.006* 0.311 3.216 Brand Name 0.293 4.906 0.000** 0.388 2.578 Product Information -0.014 -0.261 0.794 0.489 2.045 Normative Influence -0.081 -1.287 0.199 0.353 2.835 Informative Influence 0.077 1.179 0.239 0.326 3.072 Household Income 0.051 1.359 0.175 0.970 1.031 Number of Children 0.96 2.554 0.011* 0.982 1.018 R-squared = 0.565 (56.5%) F-Value=28.854

Products Category

Variables Standardized Coefficients

Collinearity Statistics

Instant Coffee

Beta t Sig. p-value

Tolerance VIF

Quality 0.066 1.168 0.243 0.458 2.183 Price 0.222 3.321 0.001** 0.325 3.076 Brand Name 0.272 4.334 0.000** 0.368 2.720 Product Information 0.040 0.732 0.465 0.487 2.054 Normative Influence -0.099 -1.462 0.145 0.316 3.168 Informative Influence 0.082 1.232 0.218 0.329 3.041 Household Income 0.041 1.074 0.283 0.981 1.019 Number of Children 0.050 1.304 0.193 0.988 1.013 R-squared = 0.536 (53.6%) F-value=24.699

Products Category

Variables Standardized Coefficients

Collinearity Statistics

Detergent

Beta t Sig. p-value

Tolerance VIF

Quality 0.076 1.751 0.081 0.804 1.243 Price 0.172 3.749 0.000** 0.730 1.371 Brand Name 0.340 6.461 0.000** 0.552 1.810 Product Information 0.019 0.390 0.697 0.638 1.567 Normative Influence -0.084 -1.541 0.24 0.517 1.934 Informative Influence -0.010 -1.176 0.860 0.465 2.151 Household Income 0.008 0.194 0.846 0.969 1.031 Number of Children 0.012 0.300 0.765 0.967 1.034 R-squared = 0.499 (49.9%) F-value=20.383

*Dependent variable - repurchase intention; ** Significant at <0.01; * Significant at <0.05

In conclusion, since F-values are well above 1 and at least one of the independent variables is significantly related to dependent variables, hence the model can be considered as valid (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1995; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham, 2006; Pallant, 2007). In addition, inter-item consistency reliability test (Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient) was performed to identify the consistency of the respondents‟ answers to all the research items. The result reveals high reliability scores among all factors with Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient well above the recommended threshold of 0.70 and 0.80 (Nunally, 1978; Malhotra, 2004) - Please refer to Appendix 4. Principal component factor analysis was conducted and the overall measure of sampling adequacy for the set variables included in the analysis for each product category met the Kaiser‟s criterion (KMO) and all the sets of variables exceeded the minimum requirement of 0.50 and significant Barlett‟s Test of Sphericity was revealed (see Appendix 5).

5. Summary and Conclusions Essentially, the research indicated that the majority of the consumers who patronize the departmental stores, supermarkets, malls and hypermarkets were young executives, single people with an income between RM2000 to RM4999.

Akir & Othman

140

The findings of the research also suggested that consumers were consistently brand conscious and preferred to buy established brands especially for expensive products, for example, personal computer and branded perfume and also if the product that they bought was highly visible and displayed status connotation such as fashion clothing (Asseal, 1987; Sheth and Mittal, 2004). Similarly, besides price, consumers also considered brand name as one of the driving forces in their decision to purchase or repurchase a product even if the products that they purchased were inexpensive items such as instant noodle, instant coffee and detergent. Interestingly, when the consumers decided to repurchase certain products, regardless of whether those products were categorized as low or high involvement products, normative and informational influence did not greatly influence their repurchase decision except for personal computer in which informational influence strongly influenced the consumers repurchase decision. This scenario could be due to the consumer‟s prior product knowledge or past experiences with the products and these two factors were not considered in the objective of this research. It was also indicated that consumers emphasized more on product information and acquired information from others for high involvement products particularly personal computer as well as perfume which they thought might contain substances that are prohibited by their religious beliefs. This could be due to the fact that the consumers in the research were generally religious people, especially Muslims who are very sensitive to the issue of “halal” products and as such they would like to know the contents of the products either through their own experiences or by getting the information from others whom they admire or trust. The findings of this research supported the notion that consumer behavioural theories may be applicable globally but consumers‟ tastes, preferences and purchase decisions could be regionally or locally oriented and further influenced by their cultural background and norms (Schutte and Ciarlante, 1998). In addition, consumers tend to be quality conscious specifically for high involvement products and price sensitive when it concerns low involvement products. They would prefer to buy low involvement products which are locally manufactured. In contrast, they would prefer foreign products when they decided to buy high involvement products because they believed that products such as personal computer, fashion clothing and branded perfume, besides established brand names, are also of high quality as compared to locally made products. The results of this research suggested that the forces that motivate consumers‟ intention to repurchase were driven by established brand names, quality, product information and informational influence from significant others such as friends, spouses, and family members, particularly for high involvement products (personal computer). For low involvement products (such as instant noodle and instant coffee) consumer repurchase intention were mainly driven by the quality and the price of the products, besides conforming to spouses‟ choices. It was also noted that consumers tend to purchase high involvement products mostly during sales promotion and their purchase decision was partly influenced by advertisements in magazines, catalogs and brochures. On the other hand, the consumers‟ decision to purchase low involvement products was mainly influenced by TV advertisements.

Akir & Othman

141

The findings of this research implied that, regardless of whether the products that the consumers purchase are low involvement products or high involvement products, prior concerns of the businesses and managers or marketers are: (1) consumers‟ involvement in the purchase process; (2) the importance that they place on certain product attributes; and (3) how significantly others influence their decision making process prior to the purchase, after the purchase is completed and the post-purchase behaviour. Hence, this research is beneficial to managers and marketers to streamline their marketing plans and strategies, in order to capture the mind and heart of the consumers at large. As such, it is imperative for marketers and managers to understand consumer behaviour beyond the marketing stimuli but at the same time should also consider the consumers‟ cultural diversity, customs and norms. Nonetheless, there is an indication that this research supports the general conception that consumers pay less attention to price if: (1) other alternatives such as brand names, quality and other more influential attributes are available (Dodds and Monroe, 1989; Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal, 1991); and (2) they consider the importance of seeking others‟ opinion in their choice decision. In conclusion, the findings of this research has potential input to management and marketing decision process as well as contribute to the body of knowledge in terms of exploratory model building, methodology application, consumer behaviour and marketing management fields.

References

Aaker, J.L 1997, „Dimensions of brand personality‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 (3), pp. 347-356. Aggarwal, P 2003, „The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer

research‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 (1), pp. 87-101. Assael, H 1987, Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, Third Edition, Kent

Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Al-Hawari, M and Ward, T 2006, „The effect of automated service quality on

Australian bank‟s financial performance and the mediating role of customer satisfaction‟, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 (2), pp. 127-147, Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-4503.

Aliman, K 2005, Consumer brand choice, Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Faculty of Business and Accountancy, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Alreck, PL and Settle, RB 1999, „Strategies for building consumer brand

Preference‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 (2), pp. 130-144.

Andaleeb, SS and Conway, C 2006, „Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an examination of the transaction-specific model‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 (1), pp. 3-11, Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN 0857-6045.

Attaman, B and Ulengin, B 2003, „A note on the effect of brand image on sales‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 (4), pp. 237-250. Avery, RJ 1996, „Determinants of search for non-durables goods: an empirical

assessment of the economics of information theory‟, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 30 (2), pp. 390-420.

Baker, W, Hutchinson, JW, Moore, D and Nedungadi, P 2004, „Brand

Akir & Othman

142

familiarity and advertising: effects on the evoked set and brand preference‟, Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global, August 8, 2004.

Banks, S 1950, „The relationships between preference and purchase of brands‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 15, pp. 145-157.

Beatty, SE and Smith, SM 1987, „External search effort: an investigation across several product categories‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 83-95.

Bearden, WO, Netemeyer, RG and Teele, JE 1989, „Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 473-481.

Bearden, WO, and Etzel, MJ 1982, „Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 (2), pp. 183-197. Beharrel, B and Dension, TJ 1995, „Involvement in routine food shopping

context‟, British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 24-29. MCB University Press Limited, 0007070X.

Belk, KH 1979, „The effects of positive and negative arousal upon attitude, belief acceptance, behavioral intention, and behavior‟, Journal of Social Psychology, pp. 239-251.

Belk, RW and Clarke, K 1979, „The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort‟, Journal of Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6 (1), pp. 313-317.

Bistow, DN and Asquith, JAL 1999, „What‟s in a name? An intra-cultural investigation of Hispanic and Anglo consumer preferences and the importance of brand name‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 (3), pp. 185-203.

Biswas, A and Sherrell, LD 1993, „The influence of product knowledge and brand name on internal price standards and confidence‟, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 31-46.

Blackwell, RD, Miniard, PW and Engel, JF 2004, Consumer Behavior, Ninth Edition, South-Western Thomson Learning, Ohio, USA.

Blair, ME and Innis, ED 1996, „The effects of product knowledge on evaluation of warranted brands‟, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 13 (5), pp. 445-456. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Bloch, PH and Bruce, GD 1980, „Product involvement as leisure behavior‟, Louisiana University, California State University-Fullerton, USA. Retrieved August 8, 2004, from EBSCOHOST/Business Source Premier database.

Bloch, PH 1981, „An exploration into the scaling of consumers‟ involvement with a product class‟, Portland State University, in K. Monroe (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 61-65.

Bloch, PH 1986, „Product Enthusiasm: many questions, a few answers‟, Journal of Advances in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 13 (1), pp. 539-542.

Bloch, P, Sherrel, D and Ridgeway, N 1986, „Consumer search: an extended Framework‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 119-126. Brady, MK and Heskel, J 2005, „The importance of brand cues in tangible

services industries: an application to investment services. Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 (6), pp. 401-410.

Bristow, DN, Schneider, KC and Schuler, DK 2002, „The brand dependence

Akir & Othman

143

scale: measuring consumers‟ use of brand name to differentiate among product alternatives‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 (6), pp. 343-356.

Brown, WF 1950, „The determination of factors influence brand choice‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14, pp.699-706. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global, August 8, 2004.

Brucks, M 1985, „The effects of product class knowledge on information search Behavior‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 1-16. Burnkrant, RE and Cousineau, A 1975, „Informational and normative social

influence in buyer behavior‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 (3), pp. 206-211.

Calder, BJ and Burnkrant, RE 1977, „Interpersonal influence on consumer behavior: an attribution theory approach‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 29-38.

Catherine, C, Richard, E, Suzanne, R and Tracy, S. 1990, „The elaboration likelihood model (EML): replications, extensions and some conflicting findings‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 (1), pp. 231-236.

Chen, TY, Chang, PL and Chang, HS 2005, „Price, brand cues, and banking customer value‟, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23 (3), pp. 273-291.

Churchill, Jr GA 1979, „A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. xvi, pp. 64-73.

Clarke, K and Belk, RW 1979, „The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6 (1), pp. 313-318.

Clarke, P 2006, „Christmas gift giving involvement‟, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23/5, pp. 283-291. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0736-3761.

Corfman, KP and Lehmann, DR 1987, „Models of cooperative group decision-making and relative influence: an experimental investigation of family purchase decisions‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 1-13.

Curry, DJ and Riesz, PC 1988, „Prices and price / quality relationships: a longitudinal analysis‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 36-51. Dahlen, M, Rasch, A and Rossengren, S 2003, „Love at first sight: A study of website effectiveness‟, Journal of Advertising Research, pp. 25-33. Dazed and confused, Businessworld, March 26, 2001. Retrieved from http://www.yahoo.com, August 28, 2004. Dean, DH 2004, „Evaluating potential brand associations through conjoint

analysis and market simulation‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 (7), pp. 506-513.

Dickson, PR and Sawyer, AG 1990, „The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 42-53. Dodds, WB and Monroe, KB 1985, „The effect of brand and price information

on subjective product evaluations‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 85-90.

Dodds, WB, Monroe, KB and Grewal, D 1991, „Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers‟ product evaluation‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28, pp. 307-319.

Encalas, JE and Bettman, JR 2004, „Self-construal, reference groups, and

Akir & Othman

144

brand meaning‟, Retrieved August 8, 2004, from EBSCOHOST/Business Source Premier database.

Encalas, JE and Bettman, JR 2003, „You are what they eat: the influence of reference groups on consumer connections to brands‟, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 (3), pp. 339-348.

Erdem, T, Swait, J and Louviere, J 2002, „The impact of brand credibility on consumer price sensitivity‟, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19, pp. 1-19. Elsevier Services.

Erickson, GM and Johansson, JK 1985, „The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluation‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 195-199.

Engel, F and Blackwell, RD 1982, Consumer Behavior, 4th ed., New York: The Dryden Press.

Feltham, TS 1998, „Leaving home: brand purchase influences on young adults‟, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 (4), pp. 372-385. Foxall, GR and Pallister, JG 1998, „Measuring purchase decision involvement

for financial services: comparison of the Zaichkowsky and Mittal scales‟, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16 (5), pp. 180-194.

Fraizer, PA, Tix, AP and Baron, KE 2004, „Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research‟, Journal of Counseling, Vol. 51 (1), pp. 115-134.

Fugate, DL 1986, „The effects of manufacturer disclosure on consumer perceptions of private brand grocery product attributes‟, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20 (1), pp. 118-130.

Greenwald, AG and Leavitt, C 1984, „Audience involvement in advertising: four Levels‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp.581-592. Gensch, DH and Javalgi, RG 1987, „The influence of involvement on

disaggregate attribute choice models (1987)‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 71- 82.

Gordon, ME, McKeage, K and Fox, MA 1998, „Relationship marketing effectiveness: the role of involvement‟, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15 (5), pp. 443-459.John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hair, JF, Anderson, RE, Tatham, RL and Black, WC 1995, Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall International Edition, Upper Saddle, New Jersey, USA.

Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, Anderson, RE and Tatham, RL 2006, Multivariate Data Analysis, Sixth Edition, Pearson International Edition, Upper Saddle, New Jersey, USA.

Hansen, T 2005, „Perspective on consumer decision making: an integrated Approach‟, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4, pp. 420-437. Hawkin, DI, Best, RJ and Coney, KA 2004, Consumer Behavior: Building

Marketing Strategy, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Hughes, D, Hutchins, R and Karathanassi, V 1998, „Purchase involvement

methodology and product profiles: the case of cheese products in Greece, British Food Journal, Vol. 100 (7), 343-350.

Hussey, M and Duncombe, N 1999, „Projecting the right image: using

projective techniques to measure brand image‟, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 2 (1), pp. 22-30.

Akir & Othman

145

Jamal, A and Naser, K 2002, „Customer satisfaction and retail banking: an assessment of some of the key antecedents of customer satisfaction in retail banking‟, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 (4), pp. 146-160, MCB University Press, ISSN 0265-2323.

Johansson, K 2003, Global Marketing, Third Edition, McGraw Hill, USA. Johnson, E and Russo, JE 1984, „Product familiarity and learning new Information‟, Journal of Consumer research, Vol. 11, pp. 542-550. Jones, JM and Zufryden, FS 1980, „Adding explanatory variables to a consumer

purchase behavior model: an exploratory study‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. xvii, pp. 323-334.

Jones, JM and Zufryden, FS 1982, „An approach for assessing demographic and price influences on brand purchase behavior‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 36-46.

Kapferer, JN and Laurent, JN 1985/1986, „Consumer involvement profiles: a new practical approach to consumer involvement‟, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 5 (6), pp. 48-56.

Kassarjian, Harold, H 1981, „Low involvement: a second look‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 31-34. Kelman, HC 1958, „Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change‟, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2 (1), pp. 51-61. Kim, HS 2005, „Consumer profiles of apparel product involvement and values‟, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 9 (2), pp. 207-220. Kinard, BR and Capella, ML 2006, „Relationship marketing: the influence of

consumer involvement on perceived service benefits‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20/6, pp. 359-368. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.45.

Kinnear, T., and Taylor, J. (1996). Marketing Research: An Applied Research. Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, USA.

Krejcie, RB and Morgan, DW 1970, „Determining sample size for research activities‟, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30, pp. 607-610.

Kress, G 1988, Marketing Research, Third edition, Prentice Hall International, USA.

Kropp, F, Lavack, AM and Holden, SJS 1999, „Smokers and beer drinkers: values and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence‟, Journal of Consumer Marketing: Santa Barbara, Vol. 16 (6), pp. 536.

Kropp, F, Lavack, AM and Silvera, DH 2005, „Values and collective self- esteem as predictors of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence among university students‟, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 7-33.

Kotler, P and Armstrong, G 1996, Principles of Marketing, Seven Edition, International Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle, New Jersey, USA.

Kotler, P 2003, Marketing Managemen, Eleventh Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.

Krugman, HE 1965, „The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement‟, Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Fall), pp. 349-356.

Kwak, H, Zinkhan, GM and French, WA 2001, „Moral orientation: its relation to product involvement and consumption‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28, pp. 431-436.

Latin, JM and Bucklin, RE 1989, „Reference effects of price and promotion on

Akir & Othman

146

brand choice behavior‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp. 299- 310. Latour, SA and Manraj, AK 1989, „Interactive impact of informational and normative influence on donations‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26 (3), pp. 327-335. Lamb, CW, Hair, JF and McDaniel, C 2000, Marketing, South-Western Thompson Learning, USA. Lastovicka, JL and Gadner, DM 1978, „Low involvement versus high involvement

cognitive structures‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, pp. 87-92. Laurent, G., and Kapferer, J.N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement

profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 41-53. Leavitt, C, Greenwald, AG and Obermiller, C 1981, „What is low involvement low

in?‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, ed. Kent Monroe, Arlington, Va: Association for Consumer Research.

Levesque, T and McDougall, GHG 1996, „Determinants of customer satisfaction in retail banking‟, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 14 (7), pp. 12-20.

Li, WK, Monroe, KB and Chan, DKS 1994, „The effects of country of origin, brand, and price information: a cognitive-affective model of buying intentions‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp. 449-456.

Lichtenstein, DR, Bloch, PH and Black, WC 1988, „Correlates of price Acceptability‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 243-252. Lichtenstein, DR, Netemeyer, RG and Burton, S 1990, „Distinguishing

coupon proneness from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 54-67.

Lichtenstein, DR, Ridgway, NM and Netemeyer, RG 1993, „Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a field study‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 100, pp. 234-245.

Lippa, RA 1990, Introduction to Social Psychology, Wadsworth Incorporation, California, USA.

Malhotra, NK 2002, Basic Marketing Research: Application to Contemporary Issues, Prentice Hall, International Edition, Upper Saddle, New Jersey, USA.

Malhotra, NK 2004, Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall, International Edition, Upper Saddle, New Jersey, USA.

Mallalieu, L 1999, „An examination of influence in consumption and non-consumption domains‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 196-202.

Martin, CL 1998, „Relationship marketing: a high-involvement product attribute approach‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 7 (1), pp. 6-26.

Mittal, B 1994, „A study of the concept of effective choice mode for consumer decisions‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp. 256-263.

Mittal, B and Lee, YS 1988, „Separating brand choice involvement from product involvement via consumer involvement profiles‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 43-49.

Mittal, B 1989, „Measuring purchase decision involvement‟, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 147-162.

Mitchell, A and Olsen, JC 1981, „Are products attributes beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude‟ Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 (3), pp. 318-332.

Akir & Othman

147

Mitchell, AA 1981, „The dimensions of advertising involvement‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 25-30.

McDonald, WJ 1994, „Psychological associations with shopping: a moderator variable perspective‟, Psychological and Marketing, Vol. 11 (6), pp. 549-568, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

McDougall, GHG and Levesque, T 2000, „Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into equation‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 (5), pp. 392-410, MCB University Press, 0887-6045.

McColl-Kennedy, JR and Fetter Jr, RE 2001, „An empirical examination of the involvement to external search relationship in services marketing‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 (2), pp. 82-98. MCB University Press.

McWilliam, G 1997, „Low involvement brands: is the brand manager to blame?‟, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 15 (2), pp. 60-70. Md. Sidin, S, Zawawi, D, Yee, WF and Hamzah, ZL 2004, „The effects of sex role

orientation on family purchase decision making in Malaysia‟, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 (6), pp. 381-390. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0736-3761.

Moore, WL and Lehmann, DR 1980, „Individual differences in search behavior for a nondurable‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 296-307.

Mourali, M, Laroche, M and Pons, F 2005, „Individualistic orientation and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 (3), pp. 164-173.

Mowen, JC and Minor, MS 2001, Consumer Behavior, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall Incorporation, New Jersey, USA.

Mueller, W 1991, „Who reads the labels?‟, American Demographics, January, Vol. 13 (1), pp. 36-40.

Mueller, RD and Broderick, AJ 1995, „East European retailing: a consumer Perspective‟, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 23 (1), pp. 32-40.

Muncy, JA 1990, „Involvement and perceived brand similarities/differences: the need for process oriented models‟, Journal of Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 (1), pp. 144-147.

Netemeyer, RG, Bearden, WO and Teele, JE 1992, „Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence and attributional sensitivity‟, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 9 (5), pp. 379-394.

Nunally, J 1978, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. Obermiller, C and Wheatley, JJ 2001, „Price effects on choice and perceptions

under varying conditions of experience, information, and beliefs in quality differences‟, Retrieved August 8, 2004, from EBSCOHOST/Business Source Premier database.

Ofir, C 2004, „Reexamining latitude of price acceptability and price threshold: predicting basic consumer reaction to price‟, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., Vol. 30, pp. 612-621.

Ogden, DT 2005, „Hispanic versus Anglo male dominance in purchase decision‟, Journal of Product and Brand Management Vol. 14 (4), pp. 98-105.

Olsen, SO 2007, „Repurchase loyalty: the role of involvement and satisfaction‟, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24 (4), pp.315-341, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. O‟Cass, A and Frost, H 2002, „Status brands: examining the effects of non-

Akir & Othman

148

product-related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 (2), pp. 67-88.

Pallant, J 2007, SPSS: Survival Manual, Third edition, Allen and Unwin, NSW, Australia. Park, J, Ekinci, Y and Cobanoglu, C 2004, „An empirical analysis of internet

users‟ intention to purchase vacations online‟, Retrieved from http://www.google.com.my/search, on August 8, 2004.

Park, B and Lee, MS 1989, „A causal model of consumer involvement‟, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10, pp.363-389. Park, C W and Lessig, VP 1977, „Students and housewives: differences in

susceptibility to reference group influence‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, (5), pp. 102-111.

Park, WC and Mittal, B 1985, „A theory of involvement in consumer behaviour: problems and issues‟, in Sheth, J.N. (Ed.) Research in Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 201-232.

Petty, RE and Cacioppo, JT 1980, „Effects of issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context‟, University of Missouri-Columbia, USA and University of Iowa, USA. Retrieved August 8, 2004, from EBSCOHOST/Business Source Premier database.

Petty, RE, Cacioppo, JT and Schumann, D 1983, „Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 135-146.

Putrevu, S and Lord, KR 1994, „Comparative and non-comparative advertising: attitudinal effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions‟, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 (2), pp. 77-90. Olorunniwo, F, Hsu, MK and Udo, GJ 2006, „Service quality, customer

satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in the service factory‟, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 (1), pp. 59-72, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0887-6045.

Olorunniwo, F and Hsu, MK 2006, „A typology analysis of service quality, customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in mass services‟, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 (2), pp. 106-123, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0960-4529.

Quester, PG, Karunaratna, A and Lim, AL 2003, „The product involvement/brand loyalty link: an empirical examination‟, Journal of Product & Brand Management, pp.1-8, Retrieved from http;//www.google.com, on August 8, 2004.

Quester, PG and Smart, J 1998, „The influence of consumption situation and product involvement over consumers‟ use of product attribute‟, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 (3), pp. 220-238.

Quester, P and Lim, AL 2003, „Product involvement/brand loyalty: is there a link? Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 (1), pp. 22-38.

Ram, S and Jung, HS 1989, „The link between involvement, usage

innovativeness and product usage‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 160-166.

Rao, AR and Monroe, KB 1989, „The effect of price, brand name, and store

Akir & Othman

149

name on buyers‟ perceptions of product quality: an integrative review‟, Marketing Science Institute [working paper series, report no. 89], Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. Ratchford, BT 1987, „New Insights about the FCB grid‟, Journal of Advertising Research, August/September Issue, pp. 24-38. Richins, ML and Bloch, PH 1986, „After the new wears off: the temporal context of product involvement‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 280-285. Rothschild, ML 1979, „Perspectives on involvement: current problems and future

directions‟, University of Wisconsin, USA. Rosa-Diaz, IM 2004, „Price knowledge: effects of consumers‟ attitudes towards

prices, demographics, and socio-cultural characteristics‟, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 13(6), pp. 406-428. Emerald Group Publishing limited.

Sharma, S, Shimp, AT and Shin, J 1995, „Consumer ethnocentrism: a test of antecedents and moderators‟, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 (1).

Schewe, CD 1973, „Selected social psychological models for analyzing buyers‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, pp. 31-39.

Schiffmann, LG and Kanuk, LL 1998, Consumer Behavior, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall International Incorporation, New Jersey, USA.

Shiffmann, LG and Kanuk, LL 2004, Consumer Behavior, Eight Edition, Prentice Hall Incorp. USA.

Sherif, M and H. Cantril 1947, The Psychology of Ego-Involvement, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sheth, JN and Mittal, B 2004, Consumer Behavior: A Managerial Perspective, South-Western Thomson Learning, Ohio, USA.

Schutte, H and Ciarlante, D 1998, Consumer Behavior in Asia, Macmillan Press Ltd. London, UK.

Solomon, MR 2004, Consumer Behavior, Buying, Having, Being, Sixth edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.

Solomon, MR, Marshall, GW and Stuart, EW 2006, Marketing: Real People, Real Choices, Fourth Edition. Pearson Prentice hall, New Jersey, USA. Sproles, GB and Kendall, EL 1986, „A methodology for profiling consumers‟

decision-making styles‟, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20, pp. 267-279.

Stafford, JE and Enis, BM 1969, „The price-quality relationship: an extension‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, pp. 456-458. Stigler, G D 1961, „The economic of information‟, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 69 (3), pp. 213-225. Stone, RN 1984, „The marketing characteristics of involvement‟, Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 11, ed.Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 210-215. Retrieved August 8, 2004, from EBSCOHOST/Business Premier Source database.

Tabachnick, BG and Fidell, LS 2007, Using Multivariate Statistics, Fifth Edition, Pearson International Edition, Boston, USA.

Tarkiainen, A and Sundqvist, S 2005, „Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food‟, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 (11), pp. 808-822.

Tellis, GJ and Geath, GJ 1990, „Best value, price-seeking, and price

Akir & Othman

150

aversion: the impact of information and learning on consumer choices‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 34-45.

Swinyard, WR 1993, „The effects of mood, involvement, and quality of store experience on shopping intentions‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 271-280.

Urbany, JE and Dickson, PR 1991, „Consumer normal price estimation: market versus personal standards‟, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., Vol. 18, pp. 45-51.

Urbany, JE, Dickson, PR and Kalapurakal, R 1996, „Price search in the retail grocery market‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 91-104. Warrington, P and Shim, S 2000, „An empirical investigation of the relationship

between product involvement and brand commitment‟, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17 (9), pp. 761-782. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Webster, C and Faircloth, JB 1994, „The role of Hispanic ethnic identification on reference group influence‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp. 458-463.

Wickliffe, VP and Pysarchik, DT 2001, „A look at product attributes as enhancers of group integration among US and Korean consumers‟, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 29 (2), pp. 99-108.

William, FB 1950, „The determination of factors influencing brand choice‟, Journal of Marketing, April, 1950, Vol. 1, pp. 699-706.

William, KC 1982, Behavioural Aspects of Marketing, Charted Institute of Marketing, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford, UK.

William, T 2002, „Social class influences on purchase evaluation criteria, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 (3), pp.249-276.

Winer, RS 1986, „A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased products‟, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 250- 256. Witt, RE 1969, „Informal social group influence on consumer brand choice‟, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, pp. 473-476. Vanhuele, M and Dreze, X 2002, „Measuring the price knowledge shoppers bring to the shop‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, pp.72-85. Verlegh, PWJ 1999, „In-groups, out-groups and stereotyping: consumer behavior and social identity theory‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 162-164. Vaughn, R 1980, „How advertising works: a planning model: putting it all together‟, Foote, Cone & Belding Inc. Vol. 20 (5), pp. 27-33. Zaickowwsky, JL 1985, „Measuring the involvement construct‟ Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 341-352. Zaichkowsky, JL 1987, „The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision and application to advertising‟, Discussion paper series, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Frazer University, B.C. Canada. Zaichkowsky, JL 1994, „The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision and application to advertising‟, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23, pp. 59-70. Zeithaml, VA 1983, „Issues in conceptualizing and measuring consumer response to price‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 612- 616.

Akir & Othman

151

Zeithaml, VA 1988, „Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 2-22.

Zikmund, WG 2000, Business Research Methods, Sixth Edition, South-Western Thomson Learning, USA.

Zinkhan, GM and Martin, CR 1982, „The attitudinal implications of a new brand‟s name‟, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9 (1), pp. 467-471. Zinkhan, GM and French, WA 2001, „Moral orientation: its relation to product

involvement and consumption‟, Journal Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28, pp. 431-436.

Zong, CT and Wildt, RA 1994, „Price, product information, and purchase intention: an empirical study‟, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 16-27.

Appendix Appendix 1: Items used in the Research

Quality Dimension – 7 items

1. Getting very good quality is very important to me. 2. In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality. 3. I make special effort to choose the very best quality products. 4. My standards and expectations for the products I buy are very high. 5. I shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I find that seems good enough. 6. A product doesn‟t have to be perfect, or the best, to satisfy me.* 7. I really don‟t give my purchases much thought or care.*

Price Dimension – 7 items

1. If other important factors remain the same, price is an important criterion for me. 2. Price is the most important factor on my decision to purchase or not to purchase. 3. The money saved by finding low prices is usually not worth the time and effort. * 4. I look carefully to find the best value for the money when selecting for a product/

brand. 5. The time it takes to find low prices is usually not worth the effort. * 6. It is important that I buy at sales prices. 7. The lower priced products/brands are usually my choice.

Brand Name Dimension – 7 items

1. When it comes to buying a product, I rely on brand names to help me choose

among the alternative products/brands. 2. I would be more likely to purchase a product that had a well-known brand name. 3. The brand name would play a significant role in my decision to purchase or not to

purchase. 4. When faced with deciding among two or more brands of product, I will depend on

the brand name of each product to help me make a choice. 5. If faced with choosing between two brands with similar features, I would select the

better known brand name. 6. The brand of a product is important to me when deciding which product/brand to

purchase. 7. Regardless of what features competing stores/shops may offer, I would buy the

brand of that I trust most.

Akir & Othman

152

Product Information dimension – 6 items

1. I will use the information provided by the shops when selecting for a product that I want to purchase.

2. I am not willing to purchase without knowing the detailed information related to the product that I buy.

3. The information regarding the products/brands that I buy usually helps me to make decision on which products/brands to choose.

4. I think the availability of information provided by the shops is important to me when purchasing a product/brand.

5. I often look at information about the products/brands that I buy before I purchase a product/brand.

6. I will not purchase a product/brand if the shops fail to show me the information about the product/brand.

Normative Influence dimension – 8 items

1. I rarely purchase the latest products/fashion styles until I am sure my friends approve of them.

2. It is important that others like the products I buy. 3. When buying products/brands, I generally purchase those brands that I think others

will approve of. 4. If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect

me to buy. 5. I like to know what brands make good impressions on others. 6. I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same brands that others

purchase. 7. If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the same brands that they buy. 8. I often identify with other people by purchasing the same brands they purchase.

Informational Influence – 4 items

1. To make sure I buy the right product or brand, I often observe what others are

buying and using. 2. If I have a little experience with a product or brand, I often ask my friends about the

product/brand. 3. I often consult other people to help me choose the best alternative available from a

product class. 4. I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy.

Note: Measured using a 7-point Likert Like scales were used anchored with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree - adapted from Sproll and Kendall (1986), Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993), Bristow, Schneider, and Schuler (2002), Aliman (2005), Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teele (1989), Kropp, Lavack, and Silvera (2005)

Repurchase intention – 8 items 1. I feel a commitment to continue buying this product/brand. 2. I feel loyalty to this product/brand. 3. I intend to buy this product again. 4. I plan to buy this product/brand in future. 5. This product/brand pleases me. 6. This product/brand satisfies me. 7. I am happy with this product/brand. 8. Buying this product/brand in the future would be a wise choice.

Note: Measured using a 7-point Likert Like scales with 1 = strongly disagree, and 7 = strongly agree - adapted from Levesque and McDougall (1996).

Akir & Othman

153

Appendix 2: Respondents‟ Profile

No. Demographic Variables Frequency (N) Percent (%)

1. Gender Male Female

241 259 500

48.10 51.80 100.00

2. Race Malay Chinese Iban Bidayuh Indian Others

157 127 92 88 11 25 500

31.40 25.40 18.40 17.60 2.20 5.00

100.00

3. Age Below 20 years old Between 20 to 24 years old Between 25 to 29 years old Between 30 to 34 years old Between 35 to 39 years old Between 40 to 44 years old Between 45 to 49 years old 50 years old and above

22 107 172 87 51 34 13 14 500

4.40 21.40 34.40 17.40 10.20 6.80 2.60 2.80

100.00

4. Occupation Clerical / supervisory Managerial / Administrative Professional Academician Self-employed / Entrepreneurs Others

107 164 67 79 53 30 500

21.40 32.80 13.40 15.80 10.60 6.00

100.00

5. Employment Organizations Private sectors Government / public sectors Self-employment / Entrepreneur Others

171 254 63 12 500

34.20 50.80 12.60 2.40

100.00

6. Income (self) Below RM1000 RM1000 to RM2999 RM3000 to RM3999 RM4000 to RM4999 RM5000 to RM5999 RM6000 to RM6999 RM7000 and above

72 254 122 33 12 3 4

500

14.40 50.80 24.40 6.60 2.40 0.60 0.80

100.00

7. Income (household) Below RM2000 RM2000 to RM4999 RM5000 to RM6999 RM7000 to RM8999 RM9000 to RM9999 RM10000 and above

81 197 120 52 24 26 500

16.20 39.40 24.00 10.40 4.80 5.20

100.00

8. Education level Primary Secondary HSC / STPM

5

108 57

1.00 21.60 11.40

Akir & Othman

154

College Diploma University Degree (undergraduate/postgraduate) Others

169 143

18 500

33.80 28.60

3.60

100.00

9. Marital status Single Married without children Married with children Divorced / widowed (single-parents)

246 80 167 7

500

49.20 16.00 33.40 1.40

100.00

10. Religion Muslim Hindu Budhist / Taoist Christian Others

168 11 67 248 6

500

33.60 2.20 13.40 49.60 1.20

100.00

11. Number of Children in a Household 1 to 2 children 3 to 4 children 5 to 6 children 7 children and above

82 223 145 50 500

16.40 44.60 29.00 10.00 100.00

12. Strength of religious orientation Very weak Weak Average Strong Very strong

5 21 209 202 63 500

1.00 4.20 41.80 40.40 12.60 100.00

Akir & Othman

155

Appendix 3: Summary of Consumers‟ Shopping Behavior Pattern

Products Category

Preferred brand

Where purchase

When purchase

COO Why COO

Amount spent

Reasons purchase

Ads influence purchase decisions

most

Significant others

influence purchase decisions

Personal Computer

Acer Dell Compact

Departmental stores Specialty stores Malls

Special occasion sales promotion

Foreign made

Quality Brand name Price

RM1000 to RM3000

Own use and few for “gifts‟ giving

Brochures Catalogs Magazines Newspaper

Friends Family members Salesperson

Fashion Clothing

Levi Nike Adidas Nicole

Departmental stores Malls

Special occasion sales promotion

Foreign made

Quality Brand name Price

RM100 to RM200

Own use and few for „gifts‟ giving

Magazines Brochures Catalogs TV ads

Friends Spouse Family members salesperson

Branded Perfume

Calvin Klein Silky Avon Body shop

Departmental stores Malls

Special occasion sales promotion

Foreign made

Quality Brand name Price

RM100 to RM200

Own use and few for „gifts‟ giving

Magazines Brochures Catalogs TV ads

Friends Spouse Family members salesperson

Detergent Breeze Daia Fab

Supermarkets Weekly monthly

Local made

Price

RM10 to RM21

Own use TV ads Spouse Family members Friends

Instant Noodle

Maggie Indomee Mee Sedap

Supermarkets Weekly monthly

Local made

Price RM10 to RM21

Own use TV ads Spouse Family members Friends

Instant Coffee

Nescafe Kapal Api Indocafe

Supermarkets Weekly monthly

Local made

Price

RM10 to RM21

Own use TV ads Spouse Family members Friends

Akir & Othman

156

Appendix 4: Reliability Statistics and Cronbach‟s Coefficients Alpha

Products Category Variables No. of items Cronbach‟s

Alpha Coefficient

Personal Computer Price Quality Brand Product information. Normative influence Informative influence Total Repurchase intension

7 7 7 6 8 4

39 8

0.67 0.61 0.86 0.89 0.76 0.77 0.89 0.93

Fashion Clothing Price Quality Brand Product information. Normative influence Informative influence Total Repurchase intension

7 7 7 6 8 4

39 8

0.68 0.68 0.88 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.91 0.89

Branded Perfume Price Quality Brand Product information. Normative influence Informative influence Total Repurchase intension

7 7 7 6 8 4

39 8

0.71 0.83 0.86 0.81 0.85 0.81 0.92 0.89

Detergent Price Quality Brand Product information. Normative influence Informative influence Total Repurchase intension

7 7 7 6 8 4

39 8

0.70 0.82 0.88 0.75 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89

Instant Noodle Price Quality Brand Product information. Normative influence Informative influence Total Repurchase intension

7 7 7 6 8 4

39 8

0.66 0.77 0.92 0.82 0.93 0.87 0.89 0.89

Instant Coffee Price Quality Brand Product information. Normative influence Informative influence Total Repurchase intension

7 7 7 6 8 4

39 8

0.66 0.80 0.93 0.80 0.94 0.89 0.91 0.98

Akir & Othman

157

Appendix 5: KMO and Barlett‟s Test of Sphericity

Products Category

Variables KMO (Measure of sampling adequacy

[MSA])

Barlett‟s Test of Sphericity

Personal Computer

Quality Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influence

0.890 Sig. 0.000

Fashion Clothing Quality Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influence

0.877 Sig. 0.000

Branded Perfume Quality Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influence

0.887 Sig. 0.000

Detergent Quality Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influence

0.903 Sig. 0.000

Instant Noodle Quality Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influence

0.929 Sig. 0.00

Instant Coffee Quality Price Brand name Product information Normative Influence Informative influence

0.939 Sig. 0.000