buying roles in the purchase decision …. indushri.pdfbuying roles in the purchase decision making...
TRANSCRIPT
BUYING ROLES IN THE PURCHASE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF CONSUMER DURABLES
A THESIS REPORT
Submitted by INDUSHRI. N
Under the guidance of
Dr. Mirza S. Saiyadain
in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY
in
MANAGEMENT
B.S.ABDUR RAHMAN UNIVERSITY (B.S. ABDUR RAHMAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY)
(Estd. u/s 3 of the UGC Act. 1956)
www.bsauniv.ac.in
December 2011
B.S.ABDUR RAHMAN UNIVERSITY (B.S. ABDUR RAHMAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY)
(Estd. u/s 3 of the UGC Act. 1956)
www.bsauniv.ac.in
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
Certified that this thesis report on BUYING ROLES IN THE PURCHASE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF CONSUMER DURABLES is the bonafide work of INDUSHRI. N (RRN: 1044202) who carried out the thesis work under my supervision. Certified further, that to the best of my knowledge the work reported herein does not form part of any other thesis report or dissertation on the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an earlier occasion on this or any other candidate.
SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE
Dr. Mirza S. Saiyadain Dr. Mirza S.
Saiyadain
SUPERVISOR HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
Professor & Dean Professor & Dean
Crescent Business School Crescent Business School
B.S. Abdur Rahman University B.S. Abdur Rahman University
Vandalur, Chennai – 600 048 Vandalur, Chennai – 600 048
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER NO
TITLE PAGE NO
ABSTRACT 1
1 INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 Consumer Durables 2
1.2 Growth of Consumer Durables 3
1.3 Decision Making 5
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9
2.1 Purchase Involvement Relevance 9
2.2 Family Decision Making 9
2.3 Marketing and Consumer Behaviour 11
2.4 Family Purchasing Roles 13
2.5 Role of women 15
3 METHODOLOGY 18
3.1 Research Design 18
3.2 Choice of Product 18
3.3 Decision Types 18
3.4 Questionnaire 19
3.5 Demographic Predictors 19
3.5 Data Collection Procedure and Sample 19
4 RESULT 21
4.1 Profile of the Sample 21
4.2 Rank Correlation for Television 22
4.3 Rank Correlation for Washing Machine 23
4.4 Rank Correlation for Microwave Oven 24
4.5 Rank Correlation for Refrigerator 24
4.6 Rank Correlation for Air Conditioner 25
5 DISCUSSIONS 26
LIMITATIONS 27
6 REFERENCES 28
7 ANNEXURE 1 31
8 ANNEXURE 2 34
9 TECHNICAL BIOGRAPHY 42
ABSTRACT
The Indian consumer market has witnessed sustained development
since the liberalization and privatization policies came into effect post 1991.
Owing to the changes in the economic environment, there has been a positive
change in the life style of the consumers, the disposable income available to
them has increased, the product range as well as the brand options have
widen.
Emergence of dual income nuclear families has been instrumental in
increasing the disposable income floating in the economy coupled with
decrease in amount of savings and increase in borrowing by households.
The entry of global giants like Sony, LG, Samsung, Hitachi, Panasonic,
Toshiba etc. have played a major role in shaping up the present Indian market
new product launches, wide product offerings, and aggressive marketing
campaigns, competitive pricing, innovative promotional activities are few of
the characteristic of the Indian consumer market.
A study was conducted to study the purchase behaviour of family
members for the purchase of consumer durables. Specifically five (television,
washing machine, microwave oven, refrigerator, Air conditioner) was taken
into consideration. Data was collected from 210 female respondents. They
were asked to indicate the family member on who are the initiator, influencer,
decider, purchaser and user. The result shows that in almost in all consumer
durables the initiator and influencer as well as decider and purchaser are
same family member. Other roles are played by different members of the
family for all consumer durables.
BUYING ROLES IN THE PURCHASE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF
CONSUMER DURABLES:
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION:
1.1 CONSUMER DURABLES:
This study examines the roles that different family members play in the purchase of
consumer durables. This chapter introduces the basic elements of the research
study. During the last two decades the Indian consumer durables industry has
observed substantial developments. Changing lifestyle, higher disposable income
joined with greater affordability and an indication in advertising has been
instrumental in bringing about a change in the consumer behaviour pattern. An
increase in disposable income is supported by an increase in the number of dual-
income nuclear families. Steady income gains, consumer financing and hire-
purchase schemes have become a major driver in the Indian consumer durables
industry. In the case of high end consumer goods, such as high-end colour
televisions (LCD and LED), refrigerators, washing machines, split air conditioners
and personal computers, retailers are joining hands with banks and financing
companies to market their goods aggressively. Advanced technology and increasing
competition have narrowed the price gap of durable goods. Several global players
like Samsung, Philips, LG, Whirlpool, Nokia and Sony are well established in the
Consumer durables sector in India, with competition from strong Indian players like
Bajaj Electricals, Blue Star, Carrier, Godrej, MIRC Electronics, Videocon, and Voltas.
Developments of such degree have to be tracked and studied by marketers to
formulate successful marketing strategies for their survival and growth in Indian
market.
The Indian consumer market has never had it better. Higher disposable incomes, the
development of modern urban lifestyles and an increase in consumer awareness
have affected buyer behaviour — in cities, towns and even rural areas. According to
a 2007 report by McKinsey & Co., India is set to grow into the fifth largest consumer
market in the world by 2025. Buying power has also expanded to new consumer
segments — be it the youth or the urban woman. The vast rural heartland of India is
calling and the sheer numbers make it impossible to ignore. In this scenario, creating
consumer loyalty is now a whole new challenge. These demographic shifts have also
created the need for leaders who can keep pace with change and identify with and
predict future demand.
1.2 GROWTH OF CONSUMER DURABLES:
Korean high – tech companies LG and Samsung have virtually taken over India‘s
consumer durables market with aggressive marketing and competitive price
positioning, according to the Economic Times if India, statistics show that LG and
Samsung command between them a market share of 24 percent in the colour
television market, 40 percent in the refrigerator industry‘s frost free segment, 38
percent in the air conditioning industry and close to 55 percent in the microwave
oven segment. (EMEconomy.com)
Colour TVs 24%
Refrigerator 40%
Air Conditioners 38%
Microwave oven 55%
Several global players are well established in the Consumer Durables sector in India,
with competition from strong Indian player.
LG Electronics: is a global electronics and telecommunications
company headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. The company operates its
business through five divisions: mobile communications, home entertainment,
home appliance, air conditioning and business solution. LG Electronics is the
world's second-largest manufacturer of television sets and third-largest
producer of mobile phones. It is a flagship subsidiary company of LG Group,
one of the world's largest electronic conglomerates.
Samsung Electronics: is a South Korean multinational electronics and
information technology company headquartered in Samsung Town, Seoul. It is
the flagship subsidiary of the Samsung Group. With assembly plants and
sales networks in 61 countries across the world, Samsung has approximately
160,000 employees.
In 2009, the company took the position of the world‘s biggest IT maker by
surpassing the previous leader Hewlett-Packard. Its sales revenue in the
areas of LCD and LED displays and memory chips is number one in the world.
OTHER FEW EQUAL COMPETITORS FOR CONSUMER DURABLES ARE,
ONIDA: Onida was started by G.L. Mirchandani and Vijay Mansukhani in
1981 in Mumbai. In 1982, Onida started assembling television sets at their
factory in Andheri, Mumbai. Since then, Onida has evolved into a multi-
product company in the consumer durables and appliances sector. Onida
achieved a 100% growth in ACs and microwave ovens and a 40% growth
in washing machines last year.
Voltas Limited: is an engineering, airconditioning and refrigeration company
based in Mumbai, India. It makes stuff for industries in areas such as heating,
ventilation and air conditioning, refrigeration, construction equipment,
materials handling, water management, building management systems,
indoor air quality and chemicals. Voltas is a part of the Tata Group.
Whirlpool Corporation: is an American multinational manufacturer of
major home appliances headquartered in Benton Charter Township, Michigan,
United States, near Benton Harbor, Michigan. The company is listed
in Fortune 500 and has annual revenue of approximately $18.4 billion, more
than 70,000 employees, and more than 70 manufacturing and technology
research centers around the world. The company
markets Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid, Amana, Gladiator, Inglis
Estate, Brastemp, Bauknecht, Consul, and other major brand names to
consumers in nearly every country around the world.
GODREJ: The Godrej Group is an Indian conglomerate headquartered in Mu
mbai, India. It was founded by Ardeshir Godrej and Pirojsha Godrej in 1897,
Lalbaug, Mumbai. With 7 major companies with interests in real estate,
FMCG, industrial engineering, appliances, furniture, security and agri care –
to name a few – its turnover crosses 2.6 billion dollars.
1.3 DECISION MAKING:
An investigation of decision-making in families is important to identify the members
most vibrant in making a purchase. While for some product purchase husband may
be most influential, for others wife or other family members may decide about all or
most dimensions of purchase. Participation of wives in family decisions, besides
other factors, is essentially a function of attitude of the family towards role of women
in the society. On the basis of division of power, a family may be matriarchal,
patriarchal, or egalitarian. Indian society has traditionally been patriarchal, but
societal and economic changes are making the power structure in families more
egalitarian—where husbands and wives participate almost equally in the decision-
making process. The marital power structure in families determines the domain of
spouses and other family members within which they exercise influence in purchase
situations.
What factors contribute to purchase decision of consumer durables has been a topic
of debate and research. Behind the visible act of making a purchase lays a decision
process. The purchase decision process is the stages a buyer passes through in
making choices about which products and services to buy
Historically, family decision-making has attracted the interest of many consumer
researchers and behavioural scientists. As the most basic decision-making unit, the
family has become the focus of attention for understanding the roles of husbands
and wives in the consumer decision process. Various studies have been conducted
in the area of husband and wife decision-making roles regarding the purchase of an
assortment of goods and services (Blood and Wolfe 1960; Burger and Locke 1960;
Cos 1975; Davis 1970; Davis 1976; Davis and Rigaus 1974; Ferver and Nicosia
1972; Wolgast 1958). From another vantage point, psychologists have been
concerned with the roles played by spouses in decision-making and dependence of
these roles on various socio-psychological factors (Holman and Hendrick 1973).
Market researchers and economists are interested in studying household decision-
making because information about family decision-making may be helpful in
predicting consumer intentions, consumer product/service choice and purchase
(Ferber 1973).
In the current marketing literature, consumer purchase behaviour is examined from
three perspectives: the decision-making perspective, the experiential perspective,
and the behavioural influence perspective. In the first instance, consumers engage in
problem-solving tasks, in which they move through successive stages. The
experimental perspective maintains that consumers make purchases in older to
create feelings, experiences, and emotions rather than to solve problems. The
behavioural influence approach proposes that consumers, in most cases, act in
response to environmental pressures. These perspectives are complementary,
focusing on different aspects of buying and consumption process (Mowen 1988).
The importance of known family decision-making patterns is not limited to United
States. International marketers share an equal interest in learning about the structure
of family roles that exist in the various countries of the world. Besides, knowledge of
family decision-making in foreign environments can help to broaden the scope of the
field of consumer behaviour from its current primarily parochial interest in the United
States (Green & Cunningham, 1980)
In the majority of decision making issues in global markets, consumer behaviourists
performed comprehensive meta-analyses on Country of Origin (COO) effects.
Specifically, they observed the relative impact of COO on different stages of
consumers' decision-making process such a perception, attitude and behavioral
intention (Agrawal and Kamakura 1999; Verlegh and SteenKamp 1999; Peterson
and Jolibert 1995). Additionally, since Davis's (1976) major findings, consumer
investigators have continue to explore family buying behavior dimensions, although
from different perspectives and research approaches (Burns and Granbois 1979)
Burns and Ortinau 1978; Jenkins 1979). Sproles (1985) and Sproles and Kendall
(1986) have continued the work in analyzing consumer behavior and were
instrumental in developing and testing a Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI), which
pointed a new direction in decision-making research.
Studies also indicate that consumers have a specific learning style that uses
systematic and careful market research, observation, and knowledge. The learning
styles of novelty and fashion-conscious consumers are similar to those who are
perfectionists, with the exception that the novelty-conscious consumer is likely to be
a passive learner (Sproles 1990). Characteristics of decision-making techniques can
be useful in profiling an individual consumer style while targeting a select consumer
group for marketing plan development.
In the current marketing literature, consumer purchase behaviour is examined from
three perspectives: the decision-making perspective, the experiential perspective,
and the behavioural influence perspective. In the first instance, consumers engage in
problem-solving tasks, in which they move through successive stages. The
experimental perspective maintains that consumers make purchases in older to
create feelings, experiences, and emotions rather than to solve problems. The
behavioural influence approach proposes that consumers, in most cases, act in
response to environmental pressures. These perspectives are complementary,
focusing on different aspects of buying and consumption process (Mowen 1988).
This paper reports the results of a family decision-making study which compares
purchasing roles of samples of consumers. Consumers play five different roles such
as Initiator, Influencer, Decider, Purchaser, and User. One person initiates and the
other person influences, finally one person among the family decides and purchases.
In some case different people play different roles and in some cases same people
play more than one role.
The family is a complex unit comprised of individuals with varied cognitive,
emotional, and behavioural characteristics and abilities that can greatly affect family
decision-making across an individual‘s life-span. ―Decision-making‖ describes the
process by which families make choices, judgments, and ultimately come to
conclusions that guide behaviours. Family decision-making implies that more than
one member‘s input and agreement is involved (Scanzoni & Polonko 1980). The
decision-making process is cantered on core communication processes involved in
creating shared meaning. In the decision-making process, families can acknowledge
the differences among members and negotiate their needs for closeness and
independence (Baxter & Montgomery 1996)
CHAPTER 2:
REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
2.1 PURCHASE INVOLVEMENT RELEVANCE
Purchasing Involvement (PI) has been one of the central issues in the consumer
behaviour literature because it can be an important mediator of consumer behaviour,
which can fundamentally influence the consumer‘s evaluation processes on certain
objects. (Mitchell, 1981). Researchers have made significant efforts to define and
describe purchase involvement. Cohen (1983) emphasizes the plurality of views that
coexist in the relevant literature regarding its meaning. Indeed, it is a concept which
is often described as a potpourri of ideas (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985; Mittal and
Lee, 1989). Some definitions appearing in the literature provide further
enlightenment and illustrate its relevance to related concepts, such as motivation,
goals and personality. Purchase involvement has been examined in many ways.
Mittal and Lee (1989) summarize some of the most useful involvement definitions.
For Example, ―Involvement is said to reflect the extent of personal relevance of the
decision to the individual in terms of her basic values, goals and self-concept‖ (Engel
and Blackwell, 1982)
―Involvement is an internal state variable and indicates the amount of arousal,
interest or drive evoked by a particular stimulus or situation‖ (Mitchell, 1979, 1981).
Kassarjian (1981) has stated that it is ‗undeniable that there are differences between
individuals which, regardless of the product or situation, make some people more
interested, concerned or involved in the consumer decision processes. Kassarjian‘s
notion of generalizing purchasing involvement is similar to a personality trait, in the
sense that it transcends individual purchase situations and is a characteristic of the
individual.
2.2 FAMILY DECISION MAKING:
Family decision-making behaviour has long intrigued the minds of social scientists.
Earlier contributions to the field came from sociologists who investigated, among
others, such issues as the structure of marital roles, instrumental versus expressive
roles, role specialization as a function of years of married life, and family life cycle
(Burges and Locke, 1962; Parsons and Bales, 1955).
Research in sociology has been valuable in providing frameworks to study the
dynamics of family decision-making (Jenkins, 1980).
Paralleling the growing recognition that family rather than the individual is the
relevant unit of analysis, the past two decades or so have witnessed increased
attention to the study of family decision-making by marketing scholars (Lackman and
Lanasa, 1993; Quails, 1987; Willkie, Moore-Shay, and Asser, 1992). Whereas family
decision-making has been examined in the context of a broad spectrum of societies,
the evidence specifically pertaining to purchasing behaviour-related aspects comes
with the notable exception of a study by Green and his colleagues (Green et al.,
1983). This is surprising at a time when marketing academics make continuous
pleas for cross-national studies and underscore the need for international research
to establish the universality of consumer behaviour concepts and theories (Al- baum
and Peterson, 1984; Bradley, 1987; Cunningham and Green, 1984; Lee and Green,
1991).
A review of the social science literature identifies four theories that have been
advanced to explain how tasks and power are allocated within families: cultural role
expectations, comparative resources, the least interested member, and the relative
investment theories. The major tenet of the cultural role expectations theory is that
power (defined as the potential ability of one person to influence the other‘s
behaviour) is prescribed into the roles of family members according to existing
cultural norms and controls. Consequently, a spouse‘s power is external to the family
and resides in the position rather than in the person (Davis, 1976).
The comparative resources theory (Blood and Wolfe, 1960) posits that the allocation
of tasks and authority within a marriage is determined totally within the family and not
externally. The theory proposes that the spouse that contributes more resources
(e.g., income, competence, personal attractiveness, better performance as a
homemaker) to the household unit is more powerful. The least interested partner
theory focuses on the resources contributed by each spouse in terms of their relative
value outside the marriage (Heer, 1963).
The relative investment theory (Davis, 1976) is rooted in the relative involvement that
each person has in a particular choice decision. According to this theory, the
importance associated with various decision outcomes determines how members
within the family interact in a decision situation. If decision out- comes are extremely
important and related to woman, then woman attempts to dominate. For a different
decision, however, the male may be dominant.
Rodman (1972) and Michel (l967) realized that there may be difficulties in applying
the theory of comparative resources where educational or occupational status may
have different significance. For instance, in highly developed societies, education
can be a socioeconomic resource variable that increases one‘s power in the family.
However, in developing societies, education can be a cultural variable that brings
about an equalitarian viewpoint. As a result, greater participation of women in the
decision-making process can be found among the more educated groups in these
societies.
2.3 MARKETING AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR:
Marketing and consumer behaviour researchers studying family purchasing
behaviour borrowed conceptual frameworks from other disciplines, but the thrust of
their research has been and continues to be empirical rather than theoretical. A
review and synthesis of the growing research on family purchasing behaviour identify
several areas of research focus: relative influences such as which member makes
the decision, antecedents of such influences, decision processes and their
outcomes, suitable methodologies to study these processes, and household
consumption patterns (Hopper, Burns, and Sherrell, 1989; Krampf, Burns, and
Rayman, 1993; Lackman and Lanasa, 1993; Menasco and Curry, 1989; Qualls,
1987; Wilkie et al., 1992).
The scrutiny of this body of literature suggests that marketing and consumer
behaviour contributions to the family decision-making research can be decomposed
into four avenues. First, locus of control, gender role orientations in the family,
product involvement, education and employment status of the wife, and the wife‘s
need for sensation are key determinants of relative influence in family purchasing
behaviour (Burns, 1992; Hopper et al., 1989; Krampf et al., 1993; Quails, 1987;
Woodside and Motes, 1979).
Second, husbands and wives do not necessarily share similar perceptions of their
influences in the family decision making process. Methodological advances in data
collection procedures as well as in development of psychometrically sound
measures are in order for valid studies of decision dominance (Hopper et al., 1989;
Krampf et al., 1993).
Third, relative influences of woman in family purchasing behaviour vary across
decision stages and product types (Wilkie et al., 1992). Because of their indisputable
relevance for such managerial decisions as promotion, positioning, and
segmentation, not surprisingly, this avenue is the most widely studied aspect of
family decision-making behaviour in the field of marketing. It appears that family
members exert differential influence in recognizing a need, providing expertise,
deciding which brand and model to buy, deciding how much to pay, and which outlet
to buy from (Wilkie, 1990). The influence varies depending on the stage of the
process (e.g., problem recognition, alternative search), type of decision or sub
decision under consideration (e.g., when to buy, where to buy, how much to pay),
and type of product or service (Wilkie et al., 1992). For instance, Woodside and
Motes (1979) found that wife‘s influence was stronger for carpeting and washers,
whereas the husbands influence was stronger for television sets. On the other hand,
the relative influence changed dramatically from one sub decision to another within
the same product category. In the case of carpeting, for example, the wives were
influential in identifying the purchase need 70% of the time, whereas they were
influential only 25% of the time on the issue of how much to pay for it.
Fourth, evidence based on longitudinal studies covering a broad spectrum of
products and services such as food and groceries, life insurance, cars, furniture and
house, shows that the influences are not static (Horton, 1984). Notwithstanding
potential variations due to cultural environment and stage of economic development,
it appears that, over time, women are exercising increasingly more power and
influence in family purchasing decisions around the world (Bartos, 1989).
2.4 FAMILY PURCHASING ROLES:
Research indicates that family roles change according to stages in the purchase
decision process as well as by the type of product or service in question.
Hempel(1974) found that consumers exhibited an initiator and an information seeker
role in the decision-making process. In the initiator role, many families‘ husbands
tended to be more dominant. At information search stage, both samples exhibited
considerable joint decision making of the family. Woman tended to dominate in
products used mostly by women (e.g., microwave oven, washing machine etc),
whereas male were more involved in financial decisions (Qualls, 1987).
Davis and Rigaux (1974) explored family purchasing roles in Belgium at three
decision stages (problem recognition, information search, and final decision) for 25
household decisions. Results showed that husbands became the more dominant
influence for most products as the decision stage progressed from problem
recognition to information search. However, when moving from information search to
final decision, the patterns of influence became more equal.
Davis and Rigaux (1974) also established that family purchasing roles vary by type
of product or service. Later, Woodside and Motes (1979) provided additional
evidence on influence variations due to product differences. Their study also
suggests that the relative influence varies across sub decisions. For instance, the
husbands influence was stronger in ―how much to pay‖ and ―which store to buy from‘
sub decisions in the case of washers and television sets.
Although the extant writings indicate role variations according to decision and
product/service types, they do not provide clear directions in terms of which person
is more dominant under different conditions. However, when the unique nature of the
society is taken into consideration some directionality can be derived. In Chennai,
women are mostly home makers and non working people. This limits them in terms
of knowledge and being dominant in taking a decision. Additionally, without earnings,
women in this country are not expected to be ―decision makers ‖ (Yavas et al., 1988,
p. 92). In Chennai, the husband is still considered the bread winner and the
controller of household finances.
Whyte (1978) suggests that wives in nuclear families have a power or status
advantage that is absent in more complex family types. The fact that extended
families include a number of adults of each gender leads to a fairly rigid sexual
division of labour. In nuclear families, however, spouses are more directly
interdependent; if one cannot perform his or her role, the other must take charge
because same-sex substitutes may not be readily available. Thus, the wife‘s role in a
nuclear family is more critical to the well-being of the entire family, including the
husband. This greater centrality may result in greater decision- making influence.
Studies in patriarchal societies such as India (Conklin, 1979) have found that wives
in nuclear families have greater marital power than do wives in extended families.
Scott (1976) argues that family role influence patterns will vary depending upon the
interest and involvement of family members in a particular product or service. Thus,
households with the same role allocation might show some decision-making
variations on the basis of perceived importance of a product or service (Sheth,
1974). A person who is more involved with a product-service will be more active in
the decision process and have a greater effect on the decision outcome
(Krishnamurthy, 1981). East writings show that involvement has an impact on
Gender power (Douglas, 1979) and it is a viable predictor of woman influence in
purchase decisions (Burns and Granbois, 1980; Davis, 1976; Scanzoni and
Szinovacs, 1980). The existing literature collectively suggests that woman influence
increases as a function of involvement with an object or activity.
Women with high purchase decision involvement exert more influence in consumer
decision-making than those with low involvement.
Women play a crucial role in the economic welfare of the family. Women perform
different tasks depending on their Socio-economic structure, number of people in the
family, the nature of professions they are involved in and many other factors (Reddy
and Narayan 1987).
Decisions made in home management ranges in importance from major once in a
lifetime. The type of home and the duties of women may vary greatly in the
conservative or traditional home and in the modern home (Megha 1990). The
authoritarian character of the traditional joint family entails decision making powers
concentrated, in the position of the eldest male members (Rao 1982).
2.5 ROLE OF WOMEN:
Women are traditionally less involved in decision making at all levels. Their important
role is not recognised and, therefore, still not accepted in decision-making. The
share of women in community decision-making structure is still very low and their
participation is mostly stressed by political parties, more as elements of their own
publicity and proof of democratisation, than as a real interest and need.
Without the active participation of women and incorporation of women‘s perspectives
at all levels of decision making, the goals of equality development and peace cannot
be achieved (Karl 1995)
Lancuster (1965) conducted study on ten wives who had not attended college.
Several women expressed or gave evidence of uncertainty in relation to their
decision making. Families are more likely to report satisfactory than unsatisfactory
decisions. This may be due to pride to accepting the consequences with good grace,
to rationalization of the alternative chosen or to the fact that people frequently make
new decisions to offset the unpleasant consequences of the unsatisfactory decision.
According to Mumtaz (1982) there are various family matters on which men
generally take decisions. Women are quite often not even consulted. This is because
of the feeling among men that women are incapable of expressing their decisions,
due to illiteracy among them. It would mean if women are educated they would
acquire the capacity to participate in decision making. Singh (1992) conducted a
study on modernity and decision making in upbringing of the children, and the study
revealed that 69.5 percent of the respondents of all categories expressed that both
husband and wife should take decisions on this matter. No respondent perceived
that wife only should be a decision maker in giving education to the children. It was
found that 90.8 per cent of the respondents were in high level of modernity, 74.0
percent of the respondents in the medium level of modernity and only 20.3 per cent
of the respondents were in low level of modernity considered that husband and wife
both have to take decisions regarding the education of the children.
Malkit (1998) conducted study on decision making power among women, related to
social obligations, which include decisions regarding age at marriage, mate
selection, dowry. Expenditure on marriage and education of children also showed
relatively high role of women. Dowry was more or less a female domain with 78.3 per
cent, women having high role in it, followed by decisions related to age at marriage
of son or daughter.
Roth (2001) in his study found that wives tend to under-report their household
decision-making power. In couples with both partners educated and in couples in
which women work for pay, both partners were significantly more likely to report that
both of them participate in the final decisions than was the case in couples without
education or in which the wife did not work for pay.
Lait and Rehmat (2001) in their study examined whether men‘s and women‘s
retirement have a differential impact on several aspects of marital life, i.e. power
relations (as reflected in decision-making), spousal resources, division of household
tasks, and quality of marriage. There was evidence of change in decision-making
patterns about spending time and carrying out feminine and general tasks. It was
also found that men‘s retirement has a different impact than women‘s retirement on
decisions about household affairs and performance of feminine tasks.
Marieke (2001) argued in his study that perception of social support were based in
part in the structural conditions of individual marital arrangements, specifically
household decision of labour and decision making The study suggested the
structural arrangements within marriages likely impact individuals perceptions of
social support and that the closer couples come to equal labour and decision making
in the household, the more supported each partner is likely to feel.
Family decision-making and purchasing may lead to alternatives in marketing
strategy in order to appeal to specific region and country. Many companies should
adjust their marketing strategy to accommodate global consumer differences. As
such, not observing such cross-cultural differences can debase a company and
cause products to fail (Hoyer & Maclnnis, 2004).
Decision-making power of women is very less and a women needs to adjust in many
situations. There is gender compatibility & psychological adjustment in women
(saxvik, s.k, & joireman, J, 2005)
There is tendency in the literature to research three categories of products: for direct
consumption by the child, for family activities, or for the household (durable
consumer goods and expensive goods) (Gram,2007; Jensen, 1995 cited in Kaur &
singh, 2006; Roedder, 1999)
The parent‘s opinion is the most important for children in making decision about
purchases. If children compare their parents and advertisements as sources of
information, they perceive parents as a trustworthy source of information
(Schiffmann & Kanuk, 2010)
Additionally the importance of the mother is a dominant factor, which seems to result
from the stereotypical female and male roles in Poland suggesting that is women‘s
chore to do the shopping. Moreover, mothers are mainly treated as social agents
due to the fact that their involvement is stronger than involvement of fathers
(Grossbart, Carlson & Walsh, 1991; Moore – shay & Lutz, 1988; Schiffman & Kanuk,
2010)
CHAPTER 3:
METHODOLOGY:
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN:
The present research focused on one outcome variable-who makes the
decision. The hypotheses were developed around this outcome variable using a
set of demographic and attitudinal predictors suggested by the literature. The
relationships between these predictors and the outcome variable were
examined across product categories and decision types using a cross-sectional
research design.
3.2 CHOICE OF PRODUCTS:
Considering the unique characteristics of the household products (Microwave
oven, washing machine, Television, Refrigerator and Air conditioner )were included
in the study design. Besides being appropriate to the study‘s cultural context,
these products have formed the bases of several propositions advanced in the
literature (Davis and Rigaux, 1974; Green et al., 1983; Hopper et al., 1989;
Woodside and Motes, 1979)
3.3 DECISION TYPES
Responses were coded to indicate whether the man or the woman in the family
makes most of the decisions. For example, if she or a female respondent was mostly
responsible for deciding on the product, she was coded as being part of the family in
which the woman makes most of these decisions. If she said her partner or a male in
the family chooses what they would do, she was coded as being in a family in which
the man has the most say.
The responses to the four roles (initiator, influencer decider and purchaser) were
then analyzed together to determine whether, on balance, the man or the woman in
the respondent's family made.
3.4 QUESTIONNAIRE:
Before the survey administration, pre-test of the questionnaire with a small group of
respondents was collected and the results were satisfactory. Only one person - the
respondent - was interviewed and her answer was accepted as an accurate
characterization of that family‘s decision-making. The first part consisted of
definitions relating to purchasing involvement and role of a person in family.
The second part related to the measurement of purchase influence of the various
family members at each stage of the product purchase decision making process.
Consumer durables like Television, Refrigerator, Microwave oven, Air conditioner
and Washing Machine were chosen for this study as they are the most common
products used by almost every household.
The third part of the questionnaire consisted of questions relating to consumer
demographics namely age, education, family income etc. A copy of the final
questionnaire is presented in Annexure-I
3.5 DEMOGRAPHIC PREDICTORS:
Three dichotomized demographic predictors were included in the research design.
They were: education (high school, Higher secondary, UG, PG, Diploma, PhD),
employment (working vs. nonworking), and family income (<10000, 10001-20000,
20001-35000, >35000).
3.6 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE:
The study was conducted in Chennai city of Tamil Nadu state in India. The
researcher has adopted Sampling method for the data collection.Primary data
collection involving the use of a structured format questionnaire. The prepared
questionnaires were distributed among the women residing in areas identified for the
survey purpose. The respondents were chosen through friends, relatives for
identification. Of the 300 respondents contacted because of incompleteness and
other survey difficulties, only 210 usable questionnaires were collected. Secondary
data collected from publications, journals and books related to the topic. Considering
the unique characteristics of the household products (Microwave oven, washing
machine, Television, Refrigerator and Air conditioner) were included in the study
design. Four major family purchase decision roles were selected such as Initiator,
Influencer, Decider, and Purchaser appropriate for the study. The predictor‘s attitude
and purchase decision involvement of family decision-making behaviour for each
product category was measured. They were designed to capture the importance and
relevance of a particular purchase decision, and the level of interest the respondent
had in the decision to purchase that product. For each item, responses were
recorded with relationship (mother, father, brother etc) to which role (initiator,
influencer, decider, and purchaser) they play.
CHAPTER 4
RESULT:
TABLE 1:
This table presents profile of the sample
4.1 PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE:
VARIABLE
AGE
N = 210
M = 35.91
S.D= 24.182
EXPERIENCE:
N = 112
M = 7.63
S.D = 5.373
EDUCATION:
N = 210
High school =0.38%
Higher secondary =
0.29%
UG = 41.9%
PG = 27.6%
Diploma = 15.2%
PhD = 08.6%
FAMILY INCOME:
N = 210
< 10000 = 3.8%
10001 - 20000 =
16.2%
21000 – 30000 =
45.7%
>30000 = 34.3%
The data in table 1 shows that the average age of sample is 35.9 years. As many as
112 respondents were working with an average of 7.63 years. Majority of the
respondents had undergraduate education (41.9%) followed by post graduate
education. However 8.6% of the respondents have acquired a Ph. D degree.
Respondents varied in terms of monthly family income. Majority of them had monthly
income ranging between 20,000 and 30,000 and above.
To get results, rank order correlation were calculated for all the five consumer
durables. The individual results for each of them are presented in table 2 to 6.
Table 2 presents the value of Rho for all the consumer durables.
TABLE 2:
This table consists of rank correlation for television
4.2 RANK CORRELATION FOR TELEVISION:
Roles N Rho Level of significance
Initiator vs influencer 12 0.854 0.01
Initiator vs decider 7 0.536 N.S.
Initiator vs purchaser 9 0.396 N.S.
Influencer vs decider 7 0.295 N.S.
Influencer vs purchaser 9 0.296 N.S.
Decider vs purchaser 6 0.772 0.05
The results of rho coefficient between initiator and influencer suggest strong
possibility that as far television is concerned the initiator and influencer are the same
family member (Rho = 0.854; df = 11; P<.01) and the decider Vs purchaser are more
or less the same family member (Rho = 0.772; df = 5; P<.05) as far as other roles
are concerned, the insignificant value of rank order correlation suggests that different
members of the family play different role. The family members playing different roles
are presents in Annexure 2.
TABLE 3:
This table consists of rank correlation for washing machine
4.3 RANK CORRELATION FOR WASHING MACHINE:
Roles N Rho Level of significance
Initiator vs influencer 10 0.513 N.S
Initiator vs decider 6 0.658 N.S
Initiator vs purchaser 7 0.437 N.S
Influencer vs decider 6 0.915 0.01
Influencer vs purchaser 7 0.09 N.S
Decider vs purchaser 4 0.50 N.S
The results of rho coefficient between influencer and decider suggest strong
possibility that as far washing machine is concerned the influencer and decider are
the same family member (Rho = 0.915; df = 5; P<.01). As far as other roles are
concerned, the insignificant value of rank order correlation suggests that different
members of the family play different role. The family members playing different roles
are presents in Annexure 2.
TABLE 4:
This table consists of rank correlation for microwave oven
4.4 RANK CORRELATION FOR MICROWAVE OVEN:
Roles N Rho Level of significance
Initiator vs influencer 10 0.773 0.01
Initiator vs decider 10 0.652 0.05
Initiator vs purchaser 6 0.2 N.S
Influencer vs decider 9 0.621 N.S
Influencer vs purchaser 6 0.258 N.S
Decider vs purchaser 5 0.625 N.S
The results of rho coefficient between initiator and influencer suggest strong
possibility that as far microwave oven is concerned the initiator and influencer are
the same family member (Rho = 0.773; df = 9; P<.01) and the initiator Vs decider are
more or less the same family member (Rho = 0.652; df = 5; P<.05) as far as other
roles are concerned, the insignificant value of rank order correlation suggests that
different members of the family play different role. The family members playing
different roles are presents in Annexure 2.
TABLE 5:
This table consists of rank correlation for refrigerator
4.5 RANK CORRELATION FOR REFRIGERATOR:
Roles N Rho Level of significance
Initiator vs influencer 10 0.785 0.01
Initiator vs decider 7 0.527 N.S
Initiator vs purchaser 7 0.304 N.S
Influencer vs decider 8 0.727 0.05
Influencer vs purchaser 7 0.268 N.S
Decider vs purchaser 5 0.8 N.S
As far refrigerator is concerned the influencer Vs decider are more or less the same
family member (Rho = 0.727; df = 5; P<.05). The same is the case for initiator and
influencer (Rho = 0.785; df = 9; P<.01). As far as other roles are concerned, the
insignificant value of rank order correlation suggests that different members of the
family play different role. The family members playing different roles are presents in
Annexure 2.
TABLE 6:
This table consists of rank correlation for Air conditioner
4.6 RANK CORRELATION FOR AIR CONDITIONER:
Roles N Rho Level of significance
Initiator vs influencer 12 0.785 0.01
Initiator vs decider 7 0.524 N.S
Initiator vs purchaser 9 0.354 N.S
Influencer vs decider 7 0.278 N.S
Influencer vs purchaser 9 0.235 N.S
Decider vs purchaser 6 0.769 0.05
When it comes to air conditioner the decider Vs purchaser are more or less the same
family member (Rho = 0.769; df = 5; P<.05). The results also show that for purchase
of air conditioner same family members play the role of both initiator and influencer
(Rho = 0.785; df = 11; P<.01). As far as other roles are concerned, the insignificant
value of rank order correlation suggests that different members of the family play
different role. The family members playing different roles are presents in Annexure 2.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSIONS:
The family is a complex unit comprised of individuals with varied cognitive,
emotional, and behavioural characteristics and abilities that can greatly affect family
decision making. ―Decision-making‖ describes the process by which families make
choices, judgments, and ultimately come to conclusions that guide behaviours.
Family decision-making implies that more than one member‘s input and agreement
is involved. The temperament and disposition of each child can greatly vary within
the same family. Consequently, the relationship between parents and different
siblings is dynamic and unique, with each individual responding to and modifying the
behaviour of the other. Family decision-making processes are a two-way street with
parent‘s influence on the communicative patterns of their children and vice versa.
Joint decision-making and autonomy are best achieved through collaborative
problem-solving, parental modelling, negotiation, and compromise. When children
are given opportunities for decision-making in areas that matter less, they are more
likely to conform to parental expectations that matter more.
Most of the respondents have insisted that the Male in a family is the Decider and
purchaser. Role of women is so weak. They are mostly initiators for kitchen items
and very rarely they play the role as deciders and purchaser. According to the survey
working women are very less and that may be a reason for the male to play the role
of purchaser and decider.
Women need to be active in the decision-making circle of the society. Barriers to
equality are rooted in long-standing attitudes and traditions. This patriarchal system
keeps women their lower status. The women deprivation starts from birth because
girl child is not particularly wanted child. Her life is a journey of subordination. When
she is young her father decides for her on matters ranging from whether she will get
any education, to all the important matters of whom she would marry. After marriage
husband and her in-laws get hold of her reins and decide matters on her behalf like
shall she or shall she not have a child every year. Women are mostly involved in
unpaid work. The world of men and women are different in term of employment,
health, education etc. They do a lot of work as look after children, bring water, work
in domestic poultry and livestock but their work is not acknowledged. Women still
lack the legal right to inherit property. Factors considered in decision-making at
household level are as access to hospital Mobility, purchases. There are also some
social & cultural factors that Prohibits women to make decisions independently.
Women are mostly involved in unpaid work. There is mostly joint family system. Men
& other members of family play dominant role in decision made at household level.
One aspect that seems to stand at the fact that except for washing machines, in the
remaining four consumer durables the initiator and influencer are same member of
the family. Apparently the family member who takes the initiative for purchase of
consumer durables feels strongly about it and influences the final decision and
purchase. This is an interesting phenomenon as it shows the felt need and the need
to persuade the other members of the family to follow upon the consumer durables
for the family.
LIMITATIONS:
Every study has certain limitations. In my study, also there were certain limitations,
which I could not able to solve.
1. The research was conducted in a small area.
2. My research work period witness the ups and downs in product sale of
different brands, which affected the perception of the customer. This was
biggest drawback of my study.
3. The research does not take into account the varied income level of the
households.
4. The lack of availability of recent research work done on this topic for the
Chennai region.
5. Rural area coverage was limited due to the consumer‘s passiveness towards
the survey.
6. Sample size was too small to come to a conclusion
REFERENCES:
1. ALBAUM, G, AND PETERSON, R. A. ―Empirical Research m International
Marketing: 1976-1982.5‖. Int. Bus. Stud. 15 (2-3): pp. 161-173, 1984
2. ALTORKI, S., ―Family Organization and Women‘s Power in Urban Saudi
Arabian Society‖. J. Anthropol. Res. 33 (3): pp. 277-287, 1977
3. ARNDT, J., AND CRATE, E., ―Marital Roles in Interfamilial Decision making
on Spending Matters, in Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing
Association.‖ Ronald C. Curhan, ed., American Marketing Association,
Chicago, IL., pp. 63-66, 1974
4. BURNS, ALVIN C., AND GRANBOIS, DONALD H., ―Advancing the Study of
Family Purchase Decision Making, in Advances in Consumer Research 7‖.
Jerry C. Olson, ed., Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI., pp.
221-225, 1980
5. BURNS, DAVID J., ―Husband-Wife Innovative Consumer Decision Making:
Exploring the Effect of Family Power.‖ Psychol. Marketing 9, pp. 175-189,
May/June 1992
6. CONKLIN, GEORGE H., ―Cultural Determinants of Power for women within
the Family: A Neglected Aspect of Family Research.‖ J. Comparative Family
Stud. 10 (1), pp. 35-53, 1979.
7. COSTLEY, CAROLYN L., ―Meta Analysis of Involvement Research, in
Advances in Consumer Research 15‖. Michael J. Houston, ed, Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT., pp.554-562, 1988
8. CUNNINGHAM, WILLIAM H., AND GREEN, ROBERT T., ―Marketing 48
(Winter 1984): 9-10. Davis, Harry L., Measurement of Husband-Wife Influence
in Consumer Purchase Decisions Marketing Res. 8‖, pp. 305-312, August
1971
9. DAVIS, HARRY L., ―Decision Making within the Household. J. Consumer Res.
2‖ pp. 241-260, March 1976.
10. DAVIS, HARRY L., AND RIGAUX, BENNY P, ―Perception of Marital Roles in
Decision Processes. J. Consumer Res. 1‖, pp. 51-62, June 1974
11. DOUGLAS, SUSAN P., ―A Cross National Exploration of Husband-Wife
Involvement in Selected Household Activities, in Advances in Consumer
Research‖ 6.William L.Wilkie, ed., Association for Consumer Research, Ann
Arbor, MI, pp. 364-371, 1979.
12. DOUGLAS, SUSAN P, AND CRAIG, C. ―Samuel,International Marketing
Research‖, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1983.
13. ELBASHIER, A. M., AND NICHOLLS, J. R., ―Export Marketing in the Middle
East: The Importance of Cultural Differences.‖ Eur. J. Marketing 17(1), pp. 68-
81, 1983
14. ELLKOTT, JOYCE E., AND MOSKOFF, WILLIAM, ―Decision Making Power in
Romanian Families. J. Comparative Family Study 14 (1)‖, pp. 39-50, 1983.
15. LACKMAN, CONWAY, AND LANASA, JOHN M., ―Family-Decision Making
Theory: An Overview and Assessment.‖ Psychol Marketing 10, pp. 81-93,
March/ April 1993.
16. SCANZONI, JOHN, AND SZINOVACS, M, ―Family Decision Making:
Developmental Sex Role Model,‖ Sage Publications, Inc., Beverly Hills, CA,
1980.
17. ―The Female Consumer‖, Wiley& Sons, New York 1976
18. SCRONS, DEBORAH, ―Woman of the Veil‖, The Atlanta Journal/ Atkmti
Constitution, Section P, pp. 1, June 28, 1992.
19. SHETH, JAGDISH N., ―A Theory of Family Buying Decisions, in Models of
Buyer Behaviour: Conceptual, Quantitative, and Empirical.‖ Harper and Row,
New York, pp. 17-33, 1974.
20. SLAMA, MARK E., AND TASHCHIAN, ARMEN, ―Selected Socioeconomic
and Demographic Characteristics Associated with Purchasing Involvement‖,
Marketing 49, pp. 72-82, 1985.
21. SPIRO, ROSANN L., ―Persuasion in Family Decision Making.‖ J. Consumer
Res. 9, pp. 393-402, 1983.
22. HEER, DAVID M., ―The Measurement and Bases of Family Power: An
Overview.‖ Marriage and Family Living 25, pp. 133-139, May 1963.
23. HEMPEL, DONALD J, ―Family Buying Decisions: A Cross Cultural
Perspective.‖ J. Marketing Res. 11, pp. 295-302, August 1974.
24. HOPPER, J, STILLEY, BURNS, ALVIN C., AND SHERRELL, DANIEL L., ―An
Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of Husband and Wife Self-Report
Purchase Declslon Making Measures‖, Acad.Marketing Sci. 17, pp. 227-234,
Summer 1989.
25. HORTON, RAYMOND L., ―Buyer Behavior: A Decision Making Approach‖,
Charles E. Merrill PublishingCompany, Columbus, OH, 1984
26. IMPERIA, GIOVANNA, O‘GUINN, THOMAS C., AND MACADAMS,
ELIZABETH A., ―Family Decision Making Role Perceptions Among Mexican
Amertcan and Anglo Wives: A Cross-Cultural Comparison, in Advances in
Consumer Research‖ 12. E. Hlrshman and M. Holbrook, eds., Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT., pp. 71-74, 1985.
27. JENKINS, ROGER L., ―Contributions of Theory to the Study of Family
Decision Making, in Advances in Consumer Research 7‖. Jerry C. Olson, ed ,
Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, Ml, pp. 207-211, 1985.
28. ROEDDER J.D., ―Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look
at Twenty – five Years of Research, Journal of marketing research,
26(December), 183 – 213, (1999)
29. SCHIFFMAN L.G., & KANUK L.L., ―Consumer Behaviour, New York: Prentice
Hall, 2010
ANNEXURE 1:
QUESTTIONAIRE:
(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ANYWHERE)
BUYING ROLES IN THE PURCHASE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF
CONSUMER DURABLES:
APPEAL:
I am doing my M.Phil at B.S Abdur Rahman University. In this connection, I need to
collect information on purchase decision for home appliances. I would be grateful to
you if you could complete the following and hand it back to me.
I am looking for 5 roles in purchase decisions. They are defined below:
Initiator: The person who first suggests or thinks of the idea of buying a particular
product.
Influencer: A person whose view or advice influences the buying decision.
Decider: The individual with the power and authority to make the ultimate choice
regarding which product to buy.
Buyer: The person who concludes the transaction and buys the product.
User: The person (or persons) who actually uses the product.
You need to fill up the spaces by mentioning the relation (Eg: Husband, son,
daughter, in laws, friend etc) If all the members of the family uses the product kindly
mention ALL for the necessary column.
PRODUCT/
FACTOR
INITIATOR INFLUENCER DECIDER PURCHASER USER
PURCHASE OF
TELEVISION
PURCHASE OF
REFRIGERATOR
PURCHASE OF
WASHING
MACHINE
PURCHASE OF
MICROWAVE OVEN
PURCHASE OF AIR
CONDITIONER
AGE :
MARITAL STATUS :
Married ( ) Unmarried ( ) Widower ( ) Divorce ( )
NO OF CHILDREN :
EDUCATION :
High school ( ) Higher secondary ( ) UG ( )
PG ( ) Diploma ( ) PhD ( )
WORKING : Yes / No
(If yes fill the following)
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE :
FAMILY INCOME :
Less than10000 ( )
Between 10001-20000 ( )
Between 20001-35000 ( )
More than 35000 ( )
(THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION)
ANNEXURE 2: FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE:
TELEVISION INITIATOR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 20 9.5 9.5 9.5
FATHER 34 16.2 16.2 25.7
MOTHER 24 11.4 11.4 37.1
SISTER 6 2.9 2.9 40.0
BROTHER 12 5.7 5.7 45.7
SON 50 23.8 23.8 69.5
DAUGHTER 34 16.2 16.2 85.7
HUSBAND 8 3.8 3.8 89.5
FATHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 90.5
MOTHER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 92.4
SON IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 94.3
DAUGHTER IN LAW 8 3.8 3.8 98.1
FRIEND 2 1.0 1.0 99.0
GRAND FATHER 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
INFLENCER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 48 22.9 22.9 22.9
FATHER 18 8.6 8.6 31.4
MOTHER 22 10.5 10.5 41.9
SISTER 12 5.7 5.7 47.6
BROTHER 8 3.8 3.8 51.4
SON 46 21.9 21.9 73.3
DAUGHTER 28 13.3 13.3 86.7
HUSBAND 10 4.8 4.8 91.4
FATHER IN LAW 6 2.9 2.9 94.3
MOTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 95.2
SON IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 97.1
DAUGHTER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 99.0
GRANDFATHER 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
DECIDER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 28 13.3 13.3 13.3
FATHER 68 32.4 32.4 45.7
MOTHER 14 6.7 6.7 52.4
SON 14 6.7 6.7 59.0
DAUGHTER 14 6.7 6.7 65.7
HUSBAND 68 32.4 32.4 98.1
FATHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 99.0
MOTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
PURCHASER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 10 4.8 4.8 4.8
FATHER 66 31.4 31.4 36.2
MOTHER 6 2.9 2.9 39.0
SISTER 4 1.9 1.9 41.0
BROTHER 6 2.9 2.9 43.8
SON 12 5.7 5.7 49.5
DAUGHTER 2 1.0 1.0 50.5
HUSBAND 98 46.7 46.7 97.1
FATHER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 99.0
SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
USER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MOTHER 4 1.9 1.9 1.9
ALL 206 98.1 98.1 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
WASHING MACHING
INITIATOR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 32 15.2 15.2 15.2
FATHER 18 8.6 8.6 23.8
MOTHER 42 20.0 20.0 43.8
SISTER 4 1.9 1.9 45.7
BROTHER 4 1.9 1.9 47.6
SON 22 10.5 10.5 58.1
DAUGHTER 40 19.0 19.0 77.1
HUSBAND 10 4.8 4.8 81.9
MOTHER IN LAW 12 5.7 5.7 87.6
SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 88.6
DAUGHTER IN LAW 8 3.8 3.8 92.4
ALL 14 6.7 6.7 99.0
GRAND FATHER 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
INFLUENCER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 44 21.0 21.0 21.0
FATHER 34 16.2 16.2 37.1
MOTHER 40 19.0 19.0 56.2
SISTER 22 10.5 10.5 66.7
BROTHER 2 1.0 1.0 67.6
SON 18 8.6 8.6 76.2
DAUGHTER 14 6.7 6.7 82.9
HUSBAND 22 10.5 10.5 93.3
MOTHER IN LAW 6 2.9 2.9 96.2
BROTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 97.1
SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 98.1
DAUGHTER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
DECIDER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 48 22.9 22.9 22.9
FATHER 62 29.5 29.5 52.4
MOTHER 34 16.2 16.2 68.6
SON 6 2.9 2.9 71.4
DAUGHTER 20 9.5 9.5 81.0
HUSBAND 32 15.2 15.2 96.2
MOTHER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 98.1
SON IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
PURCHASER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 28 13.3 13.3 13.3
FATHER 80 38.1 38.1 51.4
MOTHER 4 1.9 1.9 53.3
SISTER 4 1.9 1.9 55.2
BROTHER 8 3.8 3.8 59.0
SON 2 1.0 1.0 60.0
DAUGHTER 4 1.9 1.9 61.9
HUSBAND 80 38.1 38.1 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
USER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid ALL 210 100.0 100.0 100.0
MICROWAVE OVEN
INITIATOR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 42 20.0 20.0 20.0
FATHER 6 2.9 2.9 22.9
MOTHER 36 17.1 17.1 40.0
SISTER 22 10.5 10.5 50.5
BROTHER 8 3.8 3.8 54.3
SON 26 12.4 12.4 66.7
DAUGHTER 30 14.3 14.3 81.0
HUSBAND 24 11.4 11.4 92.4
MOTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 93.3
SISTER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 94.3
SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 95.2
DAUGHTER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 97.1
FRIEND 2 1.0 1.0 98.1
GRANDFATHER 2 1.0 1.0 99.0
GRANDMOTHER 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
INFLUENCER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 32 15.2 15.2 15.2
FATHER 30 14.3 14.3 29.5
MOTHER 32 15.2 15.2 44.8
SISTER 18 8.6 8.6 53.3
BROTHER 8 3.8 3.8 57.1
SON 26 12.4 12.4 69.5
DAUGHTER 24 11.4 11.4 81.0
HUSBAND 22 10.5 10.5 91.4
FATHER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 93.3
MOTHER IN LAW 6 2.9 2.9 96.2
SISTER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 98.1
DAUGHTER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
DECIDER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 36 17.1 17.1 17.1
FATHER 64 30.5 30.5 47.6
MOTHER 18 8.6 8.6 56.2
SISTER 6 2.9 2.9 59.0
SON 30 14.3 14.3 73.3
DAUGHTER 6 2.9 2.9 76.2
HUSBAND 34 16.2 16.2 92.4
MOTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 93.3
SISTER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 95.2
SON IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 97.1
DAUGHTER IN LAW 6 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
PURCHASER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 28 13.3 13.3 13.3
FATHER 72 34.3 34.3 47.6
MOTHER 8 3.8 3.8 51.4
BROTHER 4 1.9 1.9 53.3
SON 4 1.9 1.9 55.2
DAUGHTER 4 1.9 1.9 57.1
HUSBAND 88 41.9 41.9 99.0
BROTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
USER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid ALL 210 100.0 100.0 100.0
REFRIGERATOR
INITIATOR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 22 10.5 10.5 10.5
FATHER 14 6.7 6.7 17.1
MOTHER 56 26.7 26.7 43.8
SISTER 6 2.9 2.9 46.7
BROTHER 2 1.0 1.0 47.6
SON 22 10.5 10.5 58.1
DAUGHTER 36 17.1 17.1 75.2
HUSBAND 24 11.4 11.4 86.7
MOTHER IN LAW 10 4.8 4.8 91.4
SISTER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 92.4
SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 93.3
DAUGHTER IN LAW 10 4.8 4.8 98.1
GRAND FATHER 4 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
INFLUENCER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 40 19.0 19.0 19.0
FATHER 28 13.3 13.3 32.4
MOTHER 40 19.0 19.0 51.4
SISTER 10 4.8 4.8 56.2
BROTHER 8 3.8 3.8 60.0
SON 28 13.3 13.3 73.3
DAUGHTER 26 12.4 12.4 85.7
HUSBAND 16 7.6 7.6 93.3
FATHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 94.3
MOTHER IN LAW 6 2.9 2.9 97.1
SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 98.1
DAUGHTER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
DECIDER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 44 21.0 21.0 21.0
FATHER 68 32.4 32.4 53.3
MOTHER 22 10.5 10.5 63.8
SON 8 3.8 3.8 67.6
DAUGHTER 18 8.6 8.6 76.2
HUSBAND 44 21.0 21.0 97.1
FATHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 98.1
MOTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 99.0
SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
PURCHASER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 24 11.4 11.4 11.4
FATHER 74 35.2 35.2 46.7
MOTHER 4 1.9 1.9 48.6
SISTER 4 1.9 1.9 50.5
BROTHER 10 4.8 4.8 55.2
SON 6 2.9 2.9 58.1
HUSBAND 84 40.0 40.0 98.1
SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 99.0
GRAND FATHER 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
USER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid MYSELF 14 6.7 6.7 6.7
MOTHER 18 8.6 8.6 15.2
ALL 178 84.8 84.8 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
CHAPTER 9
TECHNICAL BIOGRAPHY
Ms. INDUSHRI N. (RRN. 1044202) was born on 12th June 1988, in Chennai, Tamil
Nadu. She did her schooling in C.S.I. Jessie mosses higher secondary school. She
received B.Sc. degree in Biotechnology from SRM Arts & Science College in the
year 2008 from Madras University. She received MBA degree specialized in HR and
Marketing with 85% in the year 2010 from Sathyabama University. She is currently
pursuing her M.Phil. degree in management from Crescent Business School of B.S.
Abdur Rahman University. The e-mail ID is [email protected] and the contact
number is: 9500127777
Photo