An Investigation of Functional Analysis of Consumers Buying Behaviour towards Mobile Handsets with a Special Reference to the Usability of Mobile

Handsets:

Introduction:The mobile industry has experienced significant growth during the past two decades. As practically nobody owned a mobile phone in the 80s, today it is difficult to find a person without one. The penetration of mobile subscriptions commonly exceeds 100% in the developed world, and the number of subscriptions in developing countries is already outnumbering the number of subscriptions in developed countries. In fact, mobile phones are the largest consumer electronics industry today, and the new growth mainly originates from the developing economies. Incremental growth takes place also in developed countries as more advanced handsets (smartphones) are increasing in penetration. Mobile phones bring mobility, flexibility, connectivity and efficiency to both consumers and business users alike. Mobile communication has made such an impact on the ways people interact and conduct business, that a mobile phone is already considered as a daily necessity in most of the developed countries of the world. With the advent of technology telecommunication has reached remarkable growth in the state of Odissa.During 2004-05 there were 7, 67, 953, land lines 65,154 WLL, 2, 93,085 Mobile subscribers i.e29.3 per 1000 population were having the mobile handsets but recent trends shows that 45% per 1000 population are having the mobile handsets (Ref; Economic survey, 2004-09 Govt. of Orissa).First generation mobile handsets were designed to satisfy the same user need as landline phones to make and to receive phone calls. Later on, increasing number of functions has been added, such as text messaging, calendar, and at the end of 1990's, Internet connectivity. Also the set of available accessories, for example replaceable covers and headsets, has widened. Simple handsets are evolving to the direction of multipurpose smart phones. In order to be able to use the handset effectively, the user needs to deal, in addition to phone user interface, with external devices, diverse networks and remote services. As mentioned earlier we collected data from 1200 respondents. However data collected in a survey falls in one of the

following two categories: measurement or attribute. Measurementdata is specified along a continuous numerical scale (age, height, weight, etc.); whereas attribute-data is concerned with a finite number of discrete classes (male or female, yes or no, Likert-scale responses, etc.). In the present study, as the responses for buying a mobile handset was obtained in a Likert - scale, they come under attribute-data, which give a frequency distribution for each question put to the respondents. Moreover, many a time, it is seen that the results obtained in a sample do not always agree exactly with the theoretical results expected. Such expected results are obtained by probability rules. Hence, we are interested to investigate the significant differences existing between observed and expected frequencies. For this purpose, chi-square test was applied for segment-wise analysis of the data collected. Accordingly, the collected data was categorized into different segments, namely; age, gender, qualification, level of education, geographical area and family-income. In the process, the data were arranged in twodimensional contingency tables with the type of response in columns and type of respondents in rows in cross-tabulation form.

2. Literature Review:Previous literature on mobile handset choice is sparse. Couple of academic articles have dealt with mobile phone usage and grasped the consumer decision making process. To begin with, Agrawal & Famolari (1999)1 examined how much self knowledge consumers have when choosing between different mobile phone brands. The study was built upon six key attributes (telephone features, connection fee, access cost, mobile-to-mobile phone rates, call rates and number of free calls) related to mobile phone purchasing respondents had to importance rate. The research showed that consumers with prior experience about a product can predict their choices relatively well, although respondents tended to overestimate the importance of features, call rates and free calls and underestimate the importance of a monthly access fee, mobile-to-mobile phones rates and the connection fee. Mobile phone choice and use has also been found to be related to prior consumption styles. According to a fresh survey of Finnish young people aged 16-20, it was found that mobile phone choice and especially usage is consistent with

respondents general consumption styles (Balasubramanian et. al 2002)2. The research showed that addictive use was common among females and was related to trendy and impulsive consumption styles. Instead, males were found to have more technology enthusiasm and trend-consciousness. These attributes were then linked to impulsive consumption. The study concluded that genders are becoming more alike in mobile phone choice. In smart phones, consumers value features that enhance their personal time planning (Banerjee & Rao, 2004) 3 . These high-rated features include calendar and e-mail services. It is interesting to note that according to Jones the so-called killer services such as gaming, gambling and music downloads are not seen that important in the diffusion of smart phones. However, there is little support to this argument.

3. Objective of the Study

A mobile phone is a portable telephone that does not use a wired connection. It connects to a wireless carrier network using radio waves. To use a mobile phone, one needs to buy a handset and sign up with a wireless service provider for a calling plan. Handsets are sold at retail outlets, electronics stores, wireless service dealers and Web-based retailers. Handsets come in a wide variety of styles, sizes, screens, keypads, software and capabilities. Wikipedia defines mobile phone as: a long-range, portable electronic device used for mobile communication. In addition to the standard voice function of a telephone, current mobile phones can support many additional services such as; SMS for text messaging, email, packet switching for access to the Internet and MMS for sending and receiving photos and video. Our findings will help us give suggestions on what actions

mobile phone manufacturers might take in order to fill the gap between consumer behavior and the company marketing efforts. The purpose of this study is to analyze the role of corporate branding in mobile telecommunication industry. What are reasons that make customers purchase mobile phone connection of any particular company. The main objectives of this study:To analyze the factors, which contributes to the satisfaction level of the customers with regard to the usability of mobile phones? To understand the more prominent attribute which defines the effectiveness of the usability of mobile phones.

4. Methodology:This section outlines the research design for this exploratory study and the manner in which the research was conducted. The geographical area where the study was conducted, the research sample, research methods, instruments used to collect the data, method of distribution of questionnaire, techniques of data analysis including methods implemented to maintain validity and reliability of the instrument are also explained. The ethical issues that have been taken into consideration for this research are also discussed at the end. The study was conducted in 11 coastal districts of Orissa; viz. Balasore, Bhadrakh, Jajpur, Cuttack, Kendrapara, Jagatsinghpur, Puri, Khurdha, Ganjam, Angul and Dhenkanal. To make the data the more scientific, efforts are made to collect the information from various consumer-groups basing upon their age, gender, qualification, occupation, area and income. The technique used for data collection was one-on-one Interviews .Individual responses thus obtained were then compiled, processed and analysed to arrive at the opinions on various issues. The Instrument for data collection, in the form of a Structured questionnaire was designed to elicit information on demographic aspects included age, gender, education, occupation and income.

Table-1: Demographic distribution of the sample data. Parameter Class Below 20 Age 20 30 Above 30 Female Gender Male Under Matric Matric Qualification Under Graduate Graduate Post-Graduate Business Service Occupation Professional Student Urban Area Suburban Rural Below 1,00,000 1,00,000-3,00,000 Income 3,00,000-5,00,000 Above 5,00,000 346 129 28.8 10.8 176 424 844 196 160 347 378 14.7 35.3 70.3 16.3 13.3 28.9 31.5 820 136 84 119 407 454 164 436 68.3 11.3 7.0 9.9 33.9 37.8 13.7 36.3 Frequency 101 745 354 380 % of Total Sample 8.4 62.1 29.5 31.7

The questionnaire contains four sections. Each section contains some subsections on some relevant aspects. These subsections are supported by some statements. The responses obtained in 5-point Likert scale are quantified as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree respectively. Then those quantities have been added up to give average responses of a respondent on an aspect. The cities were chosen for the reason that even though the mobile telecom services are expanding across the

country, yet these are concentrated in urban as well as rural areas (The World Fact book, 2008). This is so because mobile phones technologically in Orissa are perceived as recently innovative as laptops. The prime objective of the study was to understand the variation in the importance of the usability factors like Ease of use, Easy to read text, Navigating Menu, Problem Fixing, Recovery from Mistake, Easy to read labels on buttons, Easy to understand User Manuals and Easy to replace Battery by different age, gender groups Educational Level Occupation, and Inhabited Area. Chi-square test has been applied for the data analysis and drawing conclusions. The approach was chosen to understand both main independent impacts as well as interaction effects of variables - age, gender, Educational Level Occupation, Inhabited Area. 4.1 Hypothesis:Usability of an artifact is decided mainly by its characteristics and its users. Some factors like user acceptance, users competence and a user-friendly system are essential so that the artifact is considered to be useful (Allwood, 1998)4. Usability is an important concept when designers develop products that are easy to learn effective to use and provide an enjoyable experience for the users (Preece et al., 2002)5. According to Preece et al. the aim of the interaction design is Designing interactive products to support people in their everyday and working lives and by fulfilling the usability principles one gets a user-friendly product.

Mobile phones develop quickly and we use them in our every day life as tools and for entertainment regardless of our gender, or our age. Today more and more functions like camera, mp3, radio calendar, voice recording, etc., are added to mobile phones and it is possible to use it for more than just making calls (Ketola, 2002)6. Therefore, it is important that mobile phone user-interface is designed in a way that facilitates and helps the users to get information and do a specific task easily. Under this backdrop, the hypothesis is formulated as follows:

H1: Usability of a mobile handset is independent of demographic variables

5. Result and Discussion:The usability of a mobile handset was studied on six aspects: Ease of use, Easy to read text, Navigating Menu, Problem Fixing, Recovery from Mistake, Easy to read labels on buttons, Easy to understand User Manuals and Easy to replace Battery and the findings of its analysis are presented below: The observations in this regard are: The frequency distribution of the table-2 shows interrelationship with Ease of use & Easy to read text usage with different demographic profile of the consumers. On the whole, it is evidenced that 46.3 percent respondents are of strong opinion that use of handset is ease for them, 48 percent agree that it is easy to read the text on the screen, 40.8 percent strongly agree that navigating through menu is an wonderful experience, 28.1 percent agree that they know how to fix problems in a handset, when their handset gives error message, 41.3 people agree that their handset recover easily and quickly, if they commit any mistake, 52.8 percent opine that labels on buttons are easy to read, 43.8 percent agree that buttons are extremely flexible to operate, 51.1 percent agree that it is easy to get input text in the mobile handsets, 44.8 percent find it easy to understand user manuals and finally 41.8 percent agreed that it is convenient for them to replace the battery of the handsets. As regards to ease use of major chunk of sample; 17.5 percent comprising Post-graduates in level of education category, 16.8 percent comprising of Students in occupation category, 30.6 percent comprising Urban residents in geographical-area category and 14.8 percent belonging to 3-5 lakh Family-income category (strongly) believe that mobile handsets are convenient to use. For the function easy to read text on the screen it is observed that majority of the sample respondents; 29 percent representing 20-30 years in agegroup, 16.1 percent representing females in gender-group, 19.9 percent representing Post-graduates in level of education group, 18.6 percent representing service-holders in occupational-group, 33.8 percent representing urban area residents in geographical areagroup, and 15.8 percent representing 1-3 lakh in annual family-

income group have (strongly) agreed to the fact that it is easy to read text on the screen by use of mobile handsets. The frequency distributions of the table-3 shows interrelationship with navigate the menu & problem fixing function with different demographic profile of the consumers. On the function navigate the menu, it is found that 26.7 percent consumers representing 20-30 years in age- category, 27.3 percent representing Females in gender-category, 17.5 percent Postgraduates in level of education category, 16.3 percent comprising of Service-holders in occupation category, 30.6 percent comprising of Urban residents in geographical-area category and 16 percent belonging to 1-3 lakh in annual family-income category are of opinion that it is easy to navigate the menu of mobile handsets. Similarly, on Problem fixing function, it is found that largest segment of respondents; 17.9 percent representing to 20-30 years in age-group, 19.3 percent representing Females in gender-group, 11.2 percent representing Graduates in level of education group, 11.2 percent representing Service-holders in occupation group, 22.1 percent representing the Urban residents in geographical-area group and 10.1 percent representing 1-3 lakh in Family-income group believe that they use mobile handset as it is easier to solve the problems.

The frequency distributions of the table-4 shows interrelationship with quick recovery from mistake& Easy to Input Text with different demographic profile of the consumers. On the function quick recovery from mistakes, it is evident that largest segment of respondents; 25.5 percent belonging to 20-30 years in age-group, 26.8 percent belonging to Females in gendergroup, 15.7 percent Graduates in level of education group, 16.7 percent comprising of Students in occupation group, 30.6 percent representing the Urban residents in geographical-area group and 12.8 percent belonging to 3-5 lakh in Family- income group opine that their handsets recover easily and quickly when they commit mistakes. Likewise, largest section in each demographic-group: 30.9 percent representing 20-30 years in age-group, 34.2 percent representing females in gender-group, 22.9 percent representing Post-graduates in level of education group, 21.4 percent representing students in occupation group, 39.1 percent representing Urban residents in geographical - area group and 18.8 percent representing 1-3 lakh in annual family-income group are of opinion that easy readability of labels on buttons helps in avoiding mistakes in handset operations. The frequency distributions of the table-5 shows interrelationship withEasy to understand user manuals & Battery replacement with different demographic profile of the consumers Similarly, on easy to understand the Users manual, we found largest segment of the respondents in each group; 40.7 percent representing 20-30 years in age-group, 32.2 percent belonging to Females in gender-group, 19.8 percent representing Post-graduates in level of education group, 20.1 percent representing Service-holders in occupation group, 33.4 percent representing Urban residents in geographical-area group and 14.3 percent representing 1-3 lakh in annual family-income group have strongly agreed that it is easier to understand the Users manual of the mobile handset. Lastly, on the function battery replacement largest segment of respondents: 25.8 percent representing 20-30 years in age-group, 28.1 percent representing Females in gender- group, 16.3 percent representing Graduates in level of education group, 16.8 percent representing Service- holders in occupation group, 31.3 percent representing Urban residents in

geographical-area group and 16 percent representing 1-3 lakh in Family-income group have either agreed or strongly agreed that it is convenient to replace battery of their handsets. 6. Recommendation With regard to the Usability, the analysis shows that the mobile phones are not users friendly and consequently the consumers are facing a lot of problems, like; navigating the menu as well as delivery of the error message through handsets, etc. I, therefore, suggest manufacturing companies to build users friendly handsets. Apart from those mentioned above, the battery backup is the most essential feature of mobile phones. Higher the battery back-up, more customers are satisfied. So manufacturers should consider it immediately. 7. Conclusion This exploratory study was conducted to increase our current understanding of the mobile phone market in general and analyse consumer decision making in particular. The study attempted to cast light on much unexamined area of mobile phone purchase, operator choice and use of mobile phone services. The main results of the study speaks that mainly 20-30 age group, 13 lakhs income groups,Female,Urban Consumers are significantly influenced by the usability of mobile handsets .Although the results of the study are tentative, the findings contribute to the existing though scarce literature on consumer behavior in mobile phone market. Table - 2: Distribution of responses for usability of cell phone.
Ease of use SD D N .8 5.5 2.3 2.2 6.5 2.8 .4 .8 1.4 3.3 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.7 7.0 .4 1.3 3.8 3.6 1.3 8.7 A 4.4 26.1 14.6 14.7 30.4 5.5 2.6 3.4 16.5 17.1 4.1 17.8 7.3 15.9 30.6 8.5 6.0 14.4 13.3 12.8 4.6 45.1 SA 3.2 30.5 12.6 14.8 31.4 3.1 4.0 5.7 16.0 17.5 7.8 16.7 5.1 16.8 32.8 7.4 6.1 10.8 14.6 14.8 6.2 46.3 Total 8.4 62.1 29.5 31.7 68.3 11.3 7.0 9.9 33.9 37.8 13.7 36.3 14.7 35.3 70.3 16.3 13.3 28.9 31.5 28.8 10.8 100.0
2

value

Gender Qualification

Below 20 20-30 Above 30 Male Female Under Matric Matric Under Grad. Graduate Post Graduate Business Service Professional Student Urban Suburban Rural Below 1 lakh 1-3 lakh 3-5 lakh Above 5 lakh Total

8.66NS 2.37NS

70.06*

Easy to read text SD D N .5 5.0 3.2 1.8 6.8 3.2 .8 .9 3.8 1.4 1.8 3.7 1.8 4.6 2.3 1.8 4.4 3.3 .5 .4 8.7

41.95*

Income

Area

12.81*

42.36*

A 4.3 28.1 15.6 13.8 34.3 3.8 2.7 3.8 17.8 19.9 6.8 18.6 7.1 15.5 33.8 8.7 5.5 15.3 15.8 13.7 3.3 48.0

SA 3.6 29.0 10.8 16.1 27.3 4.3 3.5 5.2 16.2 14.2 5.4 15.9 3.9 18.1 31.9 5.4 6.0 9.3 12.4 14.7 7.0 43.3

Total 8.4 62.1 29.5 31.7 68.3 11.3 7.0 9.9 33.9 37.8 13.7 36.3 14.7 35.3 70.3 16.3 13.3 28.9 31.5 28.8 10.8 100.0

value

Age Group

11.95*

14.88*

117.84*

Occupation

88.41*

23.34*

81.71*

NB: SD Strongly Disagree, D Disagree, N Neutral, A Agree, SA Strongly Agree * - Significant at 5 level (P < 0.05), NS Not Significant

Table - 3: Distribution of responses for usability of cell phone. Navigating Menu S D N D .8 .4 2. 6.8 3 1. 6.4 5 .5 3.6 4. 2 1. 8 .4 10. 1 2.6 1.8 .8 2.8 5.7 1.9 5.2 3.1 3.5 9.9 2.4 1.3 5.6 4.0 2.3 1.8 4. 7 13. 7 Problem Fixing S D N D 1.8 2.7 .8 3.4 16. 15. 6 0 2.8 7.8 8.1 3.8 15.86* 4.3 2.3 1.3 .5 1.4 2.4 1.4 2.5 47.49* 1.4 2.7 5.8 26.65* .9 1.3 3.3 2.8 75.21* .9 1.0 8.0 9.6 17. 4 2.2 2.2 3.9 8.1 10. 7 2.3 11. 2 3.2 10. 3 22. 1 3.0 1.9 5.8 8.5 8.1 4.6 27. 0 6.8 17. 1 2.1 2.3 .8 8.9 9.8 2.3 8.7 3.6 9.4 13. 8 4.7 5.4 7.8 6.8 7.6 1.7 23. 9

A 4.1 26. 7 10. 1 13. 5 27. 3 2.1 2.2 4.8 14. 3 17. 5 6.0 16. 3 4.2 14. 3 30. 6 6.1 4.2 10. 2 16. 0 11. 8 2.8 40. 8

SA 3.1 26. 3 11. 5 14. 1 26. 8 4.8 2.7 4.3 15. 3 13. 8 5.3 14. 4 5.9 15. 3 27. 0 7.4 6.4 10. 8 10. 1 13. 8 6.2 40. 8

Below 20 Age Group 20-30 Above 30 Male Female Under Matric Matric Under Grad. Graduate Post Graduate Business Service Occupation Professiona l Student Urban Suburban Area Rural Below 1 lakh Income 1-3 lakh 3-5 lakh Above 5 lakh Total

Tota l 8.4 62.1 29.5 31.7 68.3 11.3 7.0 9.9 33.9 37.8 13.7 36.3 14.7 35.3 70.3 16.3 13.3 28.9 31.5 28.8 10.8 100.0

value

A 3.2 17. 9 7.0 8.8 19. 3 3.0 .8 3.8 11. 2 9.3 5.8 9.3 3.3 9.8 20. 4 4.3 3.3 7.4 10. 1 8.8 1.8 28. 1

SA 9.2 3.8 2.8 10. 3 1.8 .4 .9 4.3 5.6 1.9 4.8 3.3 3.1 8.3 3.4 1.3 4.6 3.3 3.4 1.8 13. 0

Tota l 8.4 62.1 29.5 31.7 68.3 11.3 7.0 9.9 33.9 37.8 13.7 36.3 14.7 35.3 70.3 16.3 13.3 28.9 31.5 28.8 10.8 100.0

value

41.01*

59.37*

Gende r

21.73*

Qualification

1. 5 .9 .5 .4 1. 5 2. 3 2. 8 .4 1. 4 2. 4 1. 4 .8

105.54 *

103.55 *

50.79*

62.54*

55.72*

NB: SD Strongly Disagree, D Disagree, N Neutral, A Agree, SA Strongly Agree * - Significant at 5 level (P < 0.05), NS Not Significant Table - 4: Distribution of responses for usability of cell phone.

NB: SD Strongly Disagree, D Disagree, N Neutral, A Agree, SA Strongly Agree * - Significant at 5 level (P < 0.05), NS Not Significant Table - 5: Distribution of responses for usability of cell phone.

Recovery from mistake

2

Easy to read labels on buttons

2

SD Below 20 20-30 Above 30 Male Gender Female Under Matric Matric Under Grad. Graduate Post Graduate Business Service Professional Student Urban Suburban Rural Below 1 lakh 1-3 lakh 3-5 lakh Above 5 lakh Total Age Group Qualification Occupation Area Income .8 2.4 3.6 1.8 5.0 2.8 1.3 .9 .9 .9 1.3 1.9 2.8 .8 4.7 .5 1.7 3.2 2.8 .9

D .5 4.6 4.3 1.8 7.6 1.3 1.3 .9 2.0 3.8 1.0 3.8 2.7 1.8 6.4 .9 2.0 2.9 3.8 1.3 1.3 9.3

N 1.5 13.3 7.1 6.8 15.2 1.7 1.8 .9 8.8 8.8 3.7 6.8 2.3 9.3 13.9 5.7 2.3 5.8 8.2 6.7 1.3 21.9

A 5.2 25.5 10.7 14.5 26.8 4.2 1.3 4.8 15.7 15.5 4.8 14.8 5.1 16.7 30.6 5.9 4.8 10.9 12.6 12.8 5.0 41.3

SA .4 16.3 3.9 6.8 13.8 1.3 1.3 2.4 6.6 8.9 2.9 9.0 1.9 6.8 14.8 3.3 2.5 6.1 4.3 7.1 3.2 20.6

Total 8.4 62.1 29.5 31.7 68.3 11.3 7.0 9.9 33.9 37.8 13.7 36.3 14.7 35.3 70.3 16.3 13.3 28.9 31.5 28.8 10.8 100.0

value 85.66*

SD .9 1.3 2.3 .9 .9 .4

D .9 .8 .4 1.3 .4

N .4 4.0 3.1 2.7 4.8 1.8 1.3 .8 .4 3.3 1.3 .8 3.3 2.2 4.9 1.8 .8 3.5 1.8 1.3 .9 7.5

A 7.2 30.9 14.8 18.7 34.2 4.7 2.2 5.3 17.8 22.9 6.1 19.8 5.6 21.4 39.1 7.2 6.6 13.8 18.8 14.0 6.3 52.8

SA .8 25.3 9.5 9.9 25.8 3.6 2.7 3.3 14.8 11.3 5.4 14.4 4.5 11.3 23.7 6.9 5.1 9.8 9.3 13.0 3.6 35.7

Total 8.4 62.1 29.5 31.7 68.3 11.3 7.0 9.9 33.9 37.8 13.7 36.3 14.7 35.3 70.3 16.3 13.3 28.9 31.5 28.8 10.8 100.0

value 70.19*

12.55*

20.63*

158.91*

170.29*

.9 .4 .9 .5 .8 1.3 .5 .4 1.4 .8

103.76*

.8 .5 .4 1.3 .4 .4 .8 .5

129.63*

41.38*

18.39*

68.11*

61.43*

6.8

2.3

1.8

Easy to understand user manuals

2

Easy to replace battery

2

SD Below 20 20-30 Above 30 Male Female Under Matric Matric Under Grad. Graduate Post Graduate Age Group 3.4 1.8 1.9 3.3 1.0 1.3 .5 1.0 1.4

D 2.9 5.1 1.5 5.3 4.3 .4 .9 1.7 3.7 2.8

N 2.3 12.9 7.7 6.7 16.3 5.3 1.8 2.3 4.3 9.3

A 2.3 29.7 12.9 12.7 32.2 3.8 2.2 3.2 16.0 19.8

SA .9 11.0 5.6 5.2 12.3 .8 .8 2.3 9.0 4.5

Total 8.4 62.1 29.5 31.7 68.3 11.3 7.0 9.9 33.9 37.8

value 97.69*

SD

D .5 4.3 1.0 2.8 2.9

N 3.1 10.9 6.4 5.6 14.8 5.2 1.8 1.8 2.8 9.0

A 2.7 25.8 13.3 13.8 28.1 3.9 1.7 4.1 16.3 15.8

SA 2.2 21.1 8.8 9.5 22.5 2.3 3.2 3.6 13.3 9.7

Total 8.4 62.1 29.5 31.7 68.3 11.3 7.0 9.9 33.9 37.8

value 27.43*

Gender

34.20*

13.03*

Qualification

167.04*

.4 .5 1.5 3.3

129.17*

Business Service Professional Student Urban Suburban Rural Below 1 lakh 1-3 lakh 3-5 lakh Above 5 lakh Total

1.4 1.0 2.3 .5 3.8 .5 1.0 2.0 2.3 1.0

1.3 3.3 1.0 3.9 6.8 1.0 1.8 3.3 2.7 1.8 1.8 9.5

4.3 4.9 4.5 9.3 14.3 5.1 3.6 7.8 6.9 6.6 1.7 22.9

5.2 20.1 4.5 15.1 33.4 6.3 5.1 12.3 14.3 13.8 4.5 44.8

1.5 7.1 2.3 6.6 12.2 3.4 1.9 3.6 5.4 5.7 2.8 17.5

13.7 36.3 14.7 35.3 70.3 16.3 13.3 28.9 31.5 28.8 10.8 100.0

120.33*

Income

Area

24.15*

2.8 .5 2.4 3.3 1.0 1.4 2.9 1.8 .5 .5 5.8

4.5 4.5 3.2 8.3 11.3 5.3 3.9 6.7 5.4 6.6 1.8 20.4

3.7 16.8 6.3 15.1 31.3 5.8 4.8 9.4 16.0 12.1 4.3 41.8

5.5 12.2 4.8 9.6 24.4 4.3 3.3 9.9 8.3 9.7 4.2 32.0

13.7 36.3 14.7 35.3 70.3 16.3 13.3 28.9 31.5 28.8 10.8 100.0

Occupation

61.39*

47.44*

44.66*

47.61*

5.3

NB: SD Strongly Disagree, D Disagree, N Neutral, A Agree, SA Strongly Agree * - Significant at 5 level (P < 0.05), NS Not Significant