You are on page 1of 96

UNIVERSITY OF SURREY

School of Management For Business Sector

Determinants of habitual buying behaviour: an exploratory study of British coffee buying behaviour
by

BAZAROV MURODULLO ISHBURIEVICH

Submitted in part for the fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Marketing Management

Bazarov Murodullo Ishburievich 2004

ABSTRACT
In nowadays fiercely competitive markets, high quality is a must that could reasonably be expected from any given company not willing to loose the market share, thus creating, to a certain extend, homogeneity among competing brands. When the rewards in terms of quality for the repetitive purchase of a certain brand are similar, not itself the quality of the brand would go to foreground, instead starting serving as a control factor. As a determinant of habitual buying behaviour, another factor or a set of factors would start playing a role. Previous literature into the area of habitual buying behaviour has been lacking the consensus concerning the determinants of this type of behaviour, different authors coming out with different findings. The primary aim of the current research is to contribute to understanding of the issue in focus and bringing some clarity into the area. Although there is an ongoing debate over the question of how habitual buying behaviour is formed in profound theories of consumer behaviour, brand awareness and brand loyalty had been acknowledged as two biggest determinants of this behaviour. Empirical survey involving 125 respondents was conducted, using the questionnaire designed to measure the influential powers of brand awareness and brand loyalty to habitual buying behaviour. Significant results were obtained, revealing the dominant role of brand awareness in determining the habitual buying behaviour compared to that of brand loyalty. Analysis and discussion of findings along with the managerial implications and recommendations and guidelines for further research are provided. Findings suggest the significant impact of perceived quality into brand loyalty and leading role of brand awareness in determining the habitual buying behaviour for low involvement products. Analysis of findings is carried out, recommendations further research are provided along with the managerial implications. Determinants of loyalty itself are also considered: perceived quality is proposed to impact the brand loyalty.

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby declare that my work entitled "Determinants of habitual buying behaviour: an explanatory study of British coffee buying behaviour" for the degree of Master of Science in Marketing Management embodies the results of an original research programme. I have included explicit references to the citation of the work of others. Signature

Bazarov Murodullo Ishburievich

ii

LIST OF TABLES
Chapter IV. Table 4.1. Distribution across respondent gender 33 Table 4.2. Distribution across respondent age categories 34 Table 4.3. Distribution across respondent educations categories..34 Table 4.4. Distribution across respondent occupation categories 35 Table 4.5. Age and gender chi-square...36 Table 4.6. Gender and occupation chi-square...37 Table 4.7. Gender and education chi-square 37 Table 4.8. Normality test for overall awareness, attitudinal loyalty, habitual buying behaviour and perceived quality..38 Table 4.9. Spearmans rank order correlation for overall perceived quality and attitudinal loyalty..42

iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter II. Figure 2.1. Decision-making process as described by cognitive school of learning....6 Figure 2.2. Kassarijan matrix highlighting the product and personality types impacting the involvement level.....7 Figure 2.3. Kotlers matrix of behavioural patterns: involvement vs. brand differences..9 Figure 2.4. Model of consumer behaviour .11 Figure 2.5. Brand familiarity construct including brand information and experience possessed by the consumers 16 Figure 2.6. Brand experience as a necessary and sufficient prerequisite for formation of brand attitude18 Figure 2.7. Interrelationship between perceived quality and brand loyalty21 Chapter III. Figure 3.1. Impact of perceived quality on attitudinal loyalty and impact of brand awareness and loyalty on habitual buying behaviour24 Chapter IV. Figure 4.1. Score distribution of overall brand awareness...39 Figure 4.2. Score distribution of habitual buying behaviour40 Figure 4.3. Score distribution of overall perceived quality .41 Figure 4.4. Score distribution of overall attitudinal loyalty.41

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... I

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ........................................................................................ II LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. III LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ IV TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... IX INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 THEORY AND SCHOOLS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR .......................................................... 3 2.1 2.2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 SCHOOLS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR ..................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Cognitive school of learning ................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Behavioural school of learning ............................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Post-modern perspective of behaviour.................................................................... 8 2.3 THEORY OF HABITUAL BUYING BEHAVIOUR FOR LOW INVOLVEMENT PRODUCTS 9

2.3.1 Variety seeking behaviour..................................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Habitual buying behaviour.................................................................................... 11 2.3.2.1 Brand loyalty defined .................................................................................... 13 2.3.2.2 Habitual buying behaviour ........................................................................... 14 2.3.2.3 Brand awareness and habitual behaviour .................................................... 14 2.3.2.4 Perceived quality and habitual behaviour .................................................... 19 2.4 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 22 v

METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 23 3.1 3.2 3.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY................................................................................... 23 HYPOTHESIS .......................................................................................................... 24 RESEARCH METHOD .............................................................................................. 25

3.3.1 Variables and questionnaire design....................................................................... 25 3.3.1.1 Habitual buying behaviour ........................................................................... 26 3.3.1.2 Loyalty........................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1.3 Awareness ..................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1.4 Perceived quality........................................................................................... 28 3.3.1.5 Questionnaire design .................................................................................... 29 3.3.2 Data collection ...................................................................................................... 29 3.4 PILOT STUDY AND SAMPLE SIZE ............................................................................ 30

3.4.1 Reliability analysis ................................................................................................ 30 3.4.2 Sample size............................................................................................................ 30 3.5 3.6 DATA ANALYSIS METHOD ...................................................................................... 32 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 32

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 33 4.1 4.2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 33 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 33

4.2.1 Distribution of population ..................................................................................... 33 4.2.1.1 Gender........................................................................................................... 33 4.2.1.2 Age................................................................................................................. 34 4.2.1.3 Education ...................................................................................................... 34

vi

4.2.1.4 Occupation .................................................................................................... 35 4.2.2 Relationship between variables............................................................................. 36 4.2.2.1 Age and gender ............................................................................................. 36 4.2.2.2 Gender and occupation ................................................................................. 37 4.2.2.3 Gender and education ................................................................................... 37 4.3 4.4 4.5 TEST OF NORMALITY ............................................................................................. 38 OVERALL PERCEIVED QUALITY AND ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY ............................. 42 ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY, BRAND AWARENESS AND HABITUAL BUYING BEHAVIOUR .................................................................................................................. 43

4.5.1 Multicollinearity.................................................................................................... 44 4.5.2 Outliers, linearity and independence of residuals ................................................. 44 4.5.3 Analysis of the results ........................................................................................... 44 4.6 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 45

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 46 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 46 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ...................................................................................... 46 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ................................................................................. 46 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................... 48 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION ................................................................................. 50 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY ................................................................................ 52

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 54 APPENDIX 1. QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX 2. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF MEASURES ....................................................... 68 APPENDIX 3. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACROSS GENDER .................................... 69 vii

APPENDIX 4. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACROSS AGE CATEGORIES .................... 70 APPENDIX 5. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACROSS EDUCATION CATEGORIES ........ 71 APPENDIX 6. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACROSS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES . 72 APPENDIX 7. AGE AND GENDER CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS ................................................. 73 APPENDIX 8. OCCUPATION AND GENDER CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS................................... 75 APPENDIX 9. EDUCATION AND GENDER CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS ..................................... 77 APPENDIX 10. DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES OF BRAND AWARENESS ................................. 79 APPENDIX 11. SCORES DISTRIBUTION OF HABITUAL BUYING BEHAVIOUR ..................... 80 APPENDIX 12. SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR OVERALL PERCEIVED QUALITY .................... 81 APPENDIX 13. SCORE DISTRIBUTION OF OVERALL ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY .................. 82 APPENDIX 14. MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR BRAND AWARENESS, ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY AND HABITUAL BUYING BEHAVIOUR ................ 83 APPENDIX 15. CHARTS FOR MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS ...................................... 86

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Id like to express my gratitude to all those who assisted in some or other way to the completion of this final project. First of all, Id like to thank to my grandfather, Ergashev Abramat and my grandmother, Oyhush Shaniyazova, for their ever-lasting spiritual support throughout my entire course. Id also like to add to the list my parents, Mr. Ishburi Bazarov and Mrs. Jamila Abramatova. This work would possibly lack the clarity and comprehensiveness without the proper guidelines by Dr. Michael Howley, whose advisory assistance in the role of my final project supervisor cannot be underestimated. My friends, Bakhodir Ayupov, Farrukh Kamalov, Iroda Komilova and Abdullo Orifboev, who contributed to the survey fieldwork part of the project, provided invaluable assistance as well. If not direct, then somehow indirect assistance of the lecturers of Surrey European Management School by providing quality advises in methodological aspects of the projects, on top of the school syllabus, was very significant. I would like to thank to Dr. A. Agathangelou, Dr. A.Kolsaker and Dr. J.Hemsley-Brown for that reason.

ix

INTRODUCTION
The area of habitual buying behaviour has gained attention of both practitioners and academicians as a result of fierce competition among companies and ever-increasing cost of attracting and retaining new consumers. In these kinds of situations, companies would naturally be predisposed towards the ways of consumer retention by the means of ensuring the brand loyalty or habitual buying behaviour. Product augmentation, which had conventionally been considered as a source of both consumer attraction and retention, has lost its early attractiveness and became a norm of competition, as well as high quality (Johnson and Scholes, 2002). Thus, the interest towards the habitual buying behaviour and brand loyalty had been driving force of the works of a number of researchers that came out with quite contradicting, or at least, different findings. A number of authors emphasize the quality as the driving force of behavioural loyalty, which is accompanied with behaviour on top of the attitudinal predisposition towards the brand. However, review of the literature revealed that behaviour would not necessarily be dictated solely by perceived quality. While attitudinal predisposition can be mainly influenced by perceived product quality, behaviour can be impacted by some other factors, such as awareness and/or channel convenience. Review of the literature showed that brand awareness had been found as one of the main determinants of habitual buying behaviour. A few authors emphasized on attitudinal factors as main determinants of habitual buying behaviour. While quality has been considered as a driving force of loyalty engine, itself the behaviour, however, may or may not be accompanied with attitudinal predisposition. While the concept of loyalty is closely associated with the concept of perceived risk, in the case of low risk products, i.e. low involvement products, this concept would either loose its substance, or would need to be approached from different perspective so, that 1

behavioural aspect of the loyalty would be detached from attitudinal predisposition, or preference. Early researches by Hoyer and Brown (1990) tested the relative influential powers of perceived quality and brand awareness in role of determinants of the behaviour in focus. The results suggested the awareness being the dominant factor in the case of low involvement products, even when the quality of well-known brand was inferior to that of a less known brand of peanut butter. General objective of the current work is to contribute to the understanding of the topic in focus and shed light upon the issue of habitual buying behaviour. Specifically, research is intended to find out whether attitudinal or behavioural factors would precede in habitual buying behaviour, i.e. whether awareness or brand loyalty would be the main determinant of habit. This thesis consists of five chapters, main part starting with review of the appropriate literature. Research methods, methodology are highlighted in respective chapter, followed by findings and analysis. Limitations of research, recommendation for further research are provided along with the managerial implication and overall summary.

THEORY AND SCHOOLS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR


2.1 Introduction
Traditional approaches to consumer behaviour have mainly approached to the consumer behaviour from the point of view of decision making doctrine, claiming that the consumer is active information seeker and any purchase decision is result of interplay between internal motives, values, beliefs, attitude and needs of the person (Howard and Sheth, 1969; Arnould, 2002; Peter et al, 1999). Alternatively, school of behavioural learning refers to conditioning models as a framework for explanation of behavioural patterns (Assael, 1987, Skinner, 1938). Concepts and principles developed by behavioural school of learning, especially instrumental conditioning school have recently gained the attention of academicians as well as practitioners as a result of increasing disappointment with the notion that consumer gets through the process of deep cognitive evaluation while making decision about the purchase, which was developed and brought forward by cognitive school of learning, which fails to explain the phenomenon of buying behaviour for low involvement products, and emergence of simplified explanations to retention of behavioural patterns over time, which argue that this is simply the function of reinforcement. Many authors have argued that instrumental conditioning school is the main discipline that should be relied upon while researching the behaviour towards the inexpensive products, which are bought frequently and within the certain framework, i.e. habitual buying behaviour (Assael, 1987). Habit, as defined by Assael (1987) refers to the purchase behaviour with simplified decision making process. Although, itself habitual behaviour, as a few academicians argued, may include cognitive evaluation process in its attitudinal preferential type, its another type inertia refers to it as a behaviour out of habit, convenience. 3

As such, cognitive school itself also has acknowledged the phenomenon of habit, defining it in similar way to Assael, but with the emphasis on initial trial being influenced by the need recognition (Assael,1987). Consumers would first actively search the information about the product level brands, then after trial, evaluation of alternatives and reinforcement would accept it for frequent purchase. However, the focus of this study is not to investigate whether the concepts of one school are more appropriate or valid than those of the other, rather to investigate the concepts and explanations concerning buying behaviour for low involvement products, particularly, habitual behaviour, as a whole. In this chapter, explanations and discussion of behavioural and cognitive approaches to patterns of buying behaviour for low involvement products (i.e. habit and variety seeking behaviour) will be given, along with the brief explanation of respective theories and newly emerged post-modern perspective of behaviour. Since two alternative schools emphasize different factors in retention of behavioural pattern, both explanations will be hypothesized, followed by operationalized variables to be used for measurements.

2.2 Schools of consumer behaviour


There are three primary approaches to the study of consumer behaviour, which broadly may be defined as: a. Behavioural perspective b. Experiential perspective c. Decision-making perspective (Chisnall, 1997) First two perspectives are approaches mainly deployed by classical and instrumental conditioning schools respectively, the last one being the main approach by cognitive school of learning.

Apart from perspectives used while approaching the consumer behaviour, three schools of learning (i.e. behaviour) can be distinguished, which are the followings: 1. Cognitive school of learning 2. Behavioural school of learning 3. Post modern perspective of behaviour Representatives of cognitive school of learning emphasize on decision making aspects of consumer behaviour, putting the underlying motives, desires, value system as foremost important factors, as a driving engine of humans behaviour. The changes in behaviour are argued to be caused by changes in intrinsic factors, changes in the set of elements. In its turn, representatives of behavioural school of learning give the credit to behaviour as a main source of learning in behaviour and argue that formed habits do not necessarily require the cognitive processing of stimulus. Consumers are argued to be passive learners rather than active information seekers. However, the inconsistency in itself the behaviour, and so called irrationality of behaviour caused the emergence of a new approach: post-modern perspective of behaviour, which argues that multitude of approaches is needed to explain the behavioural occurrences in different contexts.

2.2.1 Cognitive school of learning


Representatives of cognitive school of learning argue that consumer is an active information seeker, but not information catcher, and purchase is problem solving process, rather than a response to stimuli. Therefore, the purchase process sequence will be following: 1. Need recognition 2. Information search 3. Evaluation of alternatives 4. Purchase 5

5. Post-purchase evaluation Figure 2.1. Decision making process, as described by cognitive school of learning

Need recognition

Information search Evaluation of alternatives Purchase

Post purchase evaluation

adapted from: Assael (1987) and Kotler (2003) The main difference between cognitive and behavioural schools of learning lies in the evaluation coming before or after the purchase. However, need recognition may or may not be present during the certain patterns of behaviour (e.g. impulse buying behaviour), where cognitive factors loose its dominance, unlike what the representatives of current school argue. This is another area, where difference between behavioural and cognitive schools of learning lies. By cognitive school of learning, evaluation of (attributes of) the brand is important for the decision making. It formulates the expectations/beliefs and creates the criteria for post-purchase evaluation (Selnes, 1993). Predominant part of the literature on consumer loyalty is based on this notion, claiming that satisfaction and overall attitude towards the brand is a function of expectations and (perceived) performance of a brand on a certain

attribute, adding the weight of an attribute to the overall brand evaluation. Itself satisfaction is considered as a main factor in consumer loyalty (Selnes, 1993). But the behavioural school of learning argues that behaviour is of foremost importance for predicting the future behaviour, and no evaluation of alternatives or any brand before purchase takes place and the habit is a function of reinforcement.

2.2.2 Behavioural school of learning


Representatives of behavioural school of learning argue that learning occurs as a result of behaviour, and that attitude is formed as a result of trial and experience. Indeed, a big number of researches have identified the experience as a main determinant in forming the attitude and retention of brand in consideration set, if not straightforwardly directly, then mediated by confidence in brand (Laroche et al, 1996, Korchia, 2001). Other determinants are argued to include awareness, perceived quality, price and channel convenience (Lin and Chang, 2003, Foxall et al., 1998; Foxall, 1992; East, 1997; Ehrenberg, 1988). The argument about the leading role of awareness in buying behaviour for low involvement products also belongs to school of behavioural learning. Hoyer and Brown (1990) argue that awareness would in this instance (i.e. purchase of low involvement products) prevail over the attitude depending on personal factors and product itself. This is in line with the arguments of Kassarijan (1980) who provided a model for buying behaviour for low involvement products that included personality types along with the product characteristics, which are argued to be main determinant of whether the consumer is involved or not for particular product (Fig. 2.2). Figure 2.2. Kassarijan matrix highlighting the product and personality types impacting the involvement level Personality types affecting the product involvement
I N V O LV E D D E T AC H E D KN OW NOT HIN G S

High risk Products

Extensive Problem Solving Attributive Evaluation

Attributive evaluation Limited problem solving (simple heuristic model deployed)

Limited problem solving No justification in purchasing

Low risk Products

2.2.3 Post-modern perspective of behaviour


Disappointments with schools of learning in practice, non-universality of both schools brought about the dissonance in the field of behavioural modelling, thus post-modern perspective of approaching the behaviour emerged, which argues that consumer doesnt follow the certain rules, and is therefore unlikely to be predictable (McWilliam, 1997; Gottdiener, 2000; Bareham, 2004; Katona, 1968). Indeed, previous two schools of behaviour do the large assumptions about consumer and are therefore limited, whereas post modern perspective doesnt deny the validity of concepts and arguments of both schools, instead arguing that one consumer can be anybody depending on the context: the same product may attract different levels of attention depending on context/situation (Bareham, 2004). Katona (1968) argues that volatility of behaviour is not necessarily the function of only cognitive factors, neither is it the inconsistency within consumer behaviour. He argues that it is rather the function of environmental, situational factors and external stimuli combined with intrinsic motives, attitudes, beliefs, before stable (habitual) behaviour settles up. Bareham (2004) argues that self-concept issues, which are main determinants in purchases of hedonic products, clothes, cars, will strongly be influenced by the society and the younger the person, the stronger the influence is and persons personal, unique preferences will be formed over time, thus forming his/her unique behavioural pattern. So, younger people would be more exposed to changes in fashion, social norms than 8

older people and any changes in external environment would be reflected in persons purchase behaviour. However, he limits the determinant factors only to demographics, omitting other potentially strong determinants such as personality, awareness, beliefs and attitude. So, post modern school of behaviour acknowledges the validity of all or certain concepts of previous two schools, enriching the school of behaviour with the combinative approach to behaviour as a whole. Representatives of this school argue that multitude of approaches is needed to explain the deviations and permanent changes in behaviour, referring to personality and external factors as main determinants of these changes.

2.3 Theory of habitual buying behaviour for low involvement products


Buying behaviour for low involvement products is one aspect of consumer behaviour, which represents low risk purchase behaviour, not deploying the extended problem solving (Kotler, 2003, Rossiter &Percy, 2002, Jobber, 2002, Fill, 2002). Kotler (2002) outlines four types of buying behaviour, comprising high and low involvement situations vs. big and small differences between brands within product category (figure 2.3.). Figure 2.3. Kotlers matrix of buying behaviour patterns: involvement vs. brand differences Involvement Vs. differences Big High involvement Low involvement

differences Complex decision making Variety seeking behaviour process Habitual buying behaviour

between brand Small

differences Limited problem solving

between brands

2.3.1 Variety seeking behaviour


There has been a scant amount of work done researching the variety seeking behaviour. The previous works on deviations and volatility of behaviour have been limited to surfing the problem and describing it as a function of personality factor and product category level diversification (Kotler, 2003; Rossiter &Percy, 2002; Lin &Chang,2002; Bareham,2004). Kotler (2003) defines the frequent brand switching within low involvement products as variety seeking behaviour. Often practitioners try to transfer this type of behaviour into the habitual buying behaviour, by conditioning the stimuli stronger, thus inducing more positive attitude (Kotler,2003). So, generally, practitioners acknowledge the findings of classical and instrumental conditioning school. However, there have been attempts to explain the variety seeking behaviour within the framework of cognitive decision making concepts. E.g. Fill (2002) refers to them as free standing belief factors, which would be related to the persons overall feeling and belief system, which might or might not work within any circumstances. On the other hand, representatives of post-modern perspective argue that there is no unified rational explanation to the inconsistency in behaviour as such, and rather one should look into this issue from the humanitarian point of view (Bareham,2004). He argues that while all concepts have their grounds to exist within both schools of learning/behaviour, consumers can deploy any type of problem solving pattern during their purchase decision-making process, which in turn constitutes inconsistencies, making them unpredictable. Most comprehensive work on variety seeking behaviour was by Katona (1968), who offered a model, which includes all potentially influential factors. By Katona (1968), inertia would continue to exist, until the strong stimulus induces the consumer to change the behavioural pattern. As such, changes in individual life, in (expected) income and situational factors would build up to be able to change the behavioural pattern as well,

10

which could be classified as changes in environment, external stimuli and situational factors as a whole. Figure 2.4. Model of consumer behaviour Changes in environment Variety seeking behaviour Habitual behaviour Complex decision making Dissonance reducing behaviour

External stimuli Situational factors

Created on the basis of the models provided by Katona (1968), Kotler (2003) and Assael (1987)

External stimuli would include the advertising and promotional campaigns, sales, situational factors would include the factors, which would force the consumer alter the choice as a stand alone case or permanently (unavailability, rush time) and changes in the environment would include the changes in income, marriage, moving to another place. All those factors combined with psychological factors (motivations, attitudes, beliefs) would form the behaviour.

2.3.2 Habitual buying behaviour


Recently, habitual buying behaviour has gained the attention among both the practitioners and academicians, as a result of interest in consumer retention and consumer loyalty (Lin and Chang,2003). Low involvement at the product category level annihilates chances of deployment of extended problem solving and evaluation of the brand benefits, at least prior to purchase, which in turn necessitates to investigate the determinants of habitual behaviour even more thoroughly (McWilliam,1997). 11

When consumers engage in a complex buying decision-making process, in order to access the various alternatives substantial amounts of time and energy are often involved; however, in most situations, consumers do not have the time, the resources or the motivation to engage in extended problem solving processes, particularly in the case of repeat purchases of low involvement products. Therefore, consumers may simply engage in a process of habitual decision making (Engle et al., 1995). Repeat purchase decisions concerning low involvement products are usually related to habitual behaviour, with such decisions being made out of habit because the consumer lacks the motivation to consider the alternatives. Furthermore, an examination of the relevant literature investigating the determinants of such behaviour reveals that research into this area remains very limited. Concept of habitual behaviour proposes that the repeat purchases are made based on habits or routines that are developed to simplify the decision-making process. And it takes different forms of brand loyalty which can be defined as: preferential attitudinal and behavioural responses toward one brand in a product category; inertia, which refers to the repeat purchase behaviour out of convenience or indifference. Therefore, loyalty behaviour is one type of habitual behaviour. If consumers continue to buy the same brand within a given category of a low involvement product, this indicates that they are engaging in habitual behaviour, and this is the measurement method for habitual behaviour used in this study. Significant impact of awareness and attitudinal factors was found in the works of a group of academicians researching habitual behaviour (Laroche et al, 1996; Zeithaml, 1988; Lin &Chang, 2002). Laroche et al (1996) found the impact of awareness on repetitive purchase, mediated by brand confidence, which in turn is affected by brand familiarity. A few authors emphasized the impact of perceived quality serves as a determinant of habitual behaviour, mediated by intention for repurchase of the brand (Aaker,1991; Cronin and Taylor,1992). 12

Park and Srinivasan (1994), Aaker (1991) found the impact of perceived price reasonableness on habitual buying behaviour. Grewal et. al. (1998), Macdonald and Sharp (2000) reached similar findings. They argue, that perceived high prices will lead to switching of the consumers to non-expensive brands. Homburg and Gierings (2001), Brody and Cunningham (1968), Frank (1967) investigated the impact of demographic variables on habitual buying behaviour. All works gave different findings, one indicating no relationship as such between these variables (Frank, 1967), while the rest of the researches found the impact of demographic variables on habitual behaviour. Bareham (2004) focuses on the demographic variables as an important determinant of behaviour.

2.3.2.1 Brand loyalty defined


There have been ongoing debates concerning the conceptualization of loyalty. A few authors included the behavioural aspect to loyalty as necessary component of loyalty (Johnny and Esther,2001). Brady et al (2003) defined loyalty as the intention for repurchase, or a construct including a number of intentions for repurchase. Johnny and Esther (2001) define loyalty as the wide construct spanning behaviour, attitude and cognition, not limited to intentions only. However, while behavioural and cognitive aspects of loyalty, as defined by Johnny and Esther (2001) are covered in habitual buying behaviour and brand awareness constructs respectively, hence are conceptualized as distinct from loyalty, loyalty would include attitude towards the brand, or a set of intentions to favour of the brand. So, for the purposes of the current study, which intends to investigate whether habitual buying behaviour is mainly driven by awareness or attitudinal loyalty, behavioural aspect cannot be included in the operationalization of the loyalty, due to the fact that (repetitive buying) behaviour. Assael (1987) and Lin and Chang (2003) define brand loyalty as attitudinal predisposition towards the brand at the category level, which includes a few subscales, including intention to repurchase the brand, intention to provide word of mouth recommendation, intention to wait if the brand is out of stock, intention to repurchase the brand even if it is 13

temporarily out of stock. Johnny and Esther (2001) also include the intention to repurchase the brand even if the price for it will go slightly (reasonably) up. Thus, five subscales can be used to measure the overall attitudinal loyalty towards the certain brand.

2.3.2.2 Habitual buying behaviour


Assael (1987) emphasizes on time spent and deliberation present while doing purchase decision as indicators of habitual buying behaviour: the less time spent making and less deliberation deployed during purchase decision would mean prevalence of habitual buying behaviour. A few authors focused on absolute number of purchases of the same brand and proportion of brand purchased at the category level as indicators of habitual buying behaviour (Tucker, 1964; Lawrence, 1969; Blattberg and Sen, 1976; Assael, 1987[99:26-29]). However, there has been a lack of consensus over the definition of the concept itself and the ways of its measurement, which in turn caused the emergence of different method for measurement. While these variables/criteria can help to identify whether there is indeed habit or not, they are less effective in evaluating the strength of habit in reality. Therefore, they can rather be used as controller variables against which the question of whether there is habitual behaviour or not will be tested. The next two sections will focus on two prominent determinants of habitual buying behaviour: awareness and perceived quality.

2.3.2.3

Brand awareness and habitual behaviour

There has been scant research examining the effect of brand awareness on buying decisions and many studies tend to regard product choice as a very intricate problemsolving process (Foxall, 1992).

14

However, in many low involvement situations, consumers do not have the time, the resources, or the motivation to engage in such extended problem solving processes. They are used to being passive recipients of product information, who need to spend minimal time and effort to determine brand choice (Hoyer, 1984). A simple heuristic method, such as buying well-known brands may be used as a basis for brand choice when consumers undertake commonly repeated product purchases. This may explain why firms marketing low involvement products often invest considerable sums of money into advertising, in order to generate and maintain brand awareness. Consistent with brand awareness precedence, a number of theorists proposed that brand awareness has its own equity. One of the characteristics of strong brand is that it is recognized quickly on the shelves and recalled easily (usually first) in brand recall situations. Given its necessary precursor status for brand attitude, it is meaningful to speak of brand awareness equity, as distinct from the one based on brand attitude (Rossiter and Percy, 2001, Mcdonalds, 1980; Campbell and Keller, 2003). Hoyer and Brown (1990) designed a controlled experiment to probe the role of brand awareness in the process of consumer choice for the purchase of peanut butter. Their results revealed that brand awareness was a dominant factor in both initial (trial) and repeat-purchase decisions, even when the quality of the national brand was inferior to that of a non-national brand. Similar conclusions were obtained in the replicated study of Macdonald and Sharp (2000), further evidencing the effect of brand awareness on purchase decisions. However, there has been precious little research addressing the formal relationship existing between brand awareness and habitual behaviour for other low involvement products. Laroche et al. (1996) confirmed that familiarity with a brand has an influence on consumer confidence towards a brand, which, in turn, affects the intention to buy that brand. Familiarity was measured by the experience and information possessed by the consumer for a specific brand; hence such information will exert some effects on purchase intentions, thus constructing one of the loyalty dimensions (Bloemer et al., 1999). It may well be that band awareness represents the critical information adopted by 15

consumers in reaching their repeat-purchase decisions with regard to low involvement products. This suggests, therefore, that within a situation of low involvement products, brand awareness has an indirect effect on a particular form of habitual behaviour loyalty behaviour. We argue here that a similar relationship will exist between brand awareness and habitual behaviour. Lin and Chang (2003) equate brand awareness to brand familiarity in the case of low involvement products. The drawback of this approach would be in the acceptance of all dimensions of familiarity as a whole, instead of selecting more appropriate dimensions. Korchia (2001) approaches the problem from the point of view similar to Laroche et al (1996): he distinguishes expertise dimensions of familiarity, which are about consumer having adequate knowledge about brand benefits, from experience dimension of the consumer that s/he has had with the brand. Familiarity to brand communication would be more relevant for brand awareness measurement, therefore, the expertise dimensions of familiarity construct can be used to measure the awareness (Lin and Chang, 2003, Korchia, 2001, Assael, 1987, Laroche, 1996 ) (Fig.2.5). Rossiter and Percy (2001) define awareness as consumers ability to positively recognize or recall the brand, which is closely related to the recall of brand advertising in sufficient details. This definition could be used as method of measurement of strength for elements suggested by Korchia (2001), rather than as alternative. Figure 2.5. Brand familiarity construct including brand information and experience possessed by the consumer

16

Element 1 Element 2 Element 3 Overall brand familiarity Familiarity with brand communication (awareness) Brand information possessed by consumer

Number of people that consumer knows which are associated with the brand Brand experience elements, including the usage time, familiarity with the other products within brand umbrella, frequency of use. 2.6.

Interpersonal familiarity with brand

Experiential aspect of familiarity with brand

Consumer brand experience

Source: created on the basis of the models provided by Laroche et al (1996) and Korchia (2001)

Korchia (2001) includes three elements, which he argues are sufficient for retrieving the adequate information about overall band awareness. These elements include TV advertising, newspaper advertising and billboard advertising, which are three most popular and effective means of communication: the probability that a consumers awareness for the certain brand would be formed by the influence of those elements is higher than for any other set of elements. Therefore, these three elements will be included in the study as the reflectors of the brand awareness. The construct of familiarity, as id taken as a whole, blurs the fine line between awareness and attitude. Laroche et al (1996), Korchia (2001) and Lin and Chang (2003) include the experiential aspect into awareness in order to arrive into familiarity. But at the same time, consumers who have long been using the brand, will be more likely to have passed through the evaluation process, either simple heuristic or attributive. Hence, positive or negative reinforcement will have occurred (Fig 2.6.).

17

Figure 2.6. Brand experience as a necessary and sufficient prerequisite for formation of brand attitude

Brand experience elements, including the usage time, familiarity with the other products within brand umbrella, frequency of use.

Initial trial

Attributive evaluation and/or simple heuristic model

Reinforcement occurred ?

Yes Positive reinforcement/attitude: further proceed with the habit

No Negative reinforcement/attitude: switch the brand

Source: created on the basis of the concepts and models provided by Laroche et al (1996), Assael (1987) and Korchia (2001)

So, to a certain extend, familiarity comprises the attitude as well. Indeed, a few researches in the field of marketing communication have found the positive correlation between the attitude and effectiveness of advertising in terms of recall and recognition: the stronger (and more positive) the attitude, the bigger the chance that communication message will be remembered (MacKenzie et al, 2001; Belch, 1983; Campbell and Keller, 2003). However, previous research into the area of low involvement products revealed, that the brand communication message (persuasive message) will be accepted to the long term memory without any cognitive reprocessing, as it is presented. Therefore, it is argued that even though consumers may not realise it, in near unconscious level there is a certain belief about the brand, hence the expectations (Hawkins and Hoch, 1992). But the difference between the expectations for high involvement products, products concerning the self-concept issues, hedonic products, is that the expectations for low involvement products will obey the principles of confirmation, or lower end principles of 18

social judgement theories, unlike their aforementioned parallels, which work by the disconfirmation principles and consumers only seek the satisfactory performance in order to accept the claims (Assael, 1987). To a certain extend, this is in line with the arguments of Oliver (1980), whose satisfaction quality model states that perceived quality is the function of global attitude towards the brand. While the researches in the field of psychology, more specifically, in the area of low involvement, trivial messages reveal the dominance of such principles as truth effect, effectiveness of repetition in message acceptance and remembrance, which is closely associated with the phenomenon of conformism, this gives enough foundation to believe that for low involvement products global unrealized attitude will be formed in advance, as the result of the benefit claims made and only satisfactory performance will be needed to retain the consumers. However, due to the very nature of the attitudes being unrealized, consumers will continue acting the way that brand communication message pursues them to do, without knowing they are being controlled and ordered. It is in the nature of human psychology, that s/he will try to give justification for his/her actions. Therefore, high scores received on perceived quality for low involvement products would rather indicate the workability of principles of Oliver, than any other unknown, abstract principles. However, while high scores in perceived quality (attributive evaluation) may well be affected by internal motives, desires, tastes, mere purchase without any justification (inertia) can be explained as the result of the impact of internal stimulus, i.e. impact of stored persuasive message. Hence, it is proposed that brand awareness impacts upon habitual buying behaviour.

2.3.2.4 Perceived quality and habitual behaviour


Perceived quality represents an intangible, overall feeling for a brand, and is usually based on underlying dimensions, including the brand itself (Aaker, 1991). In an earlier study of the sustainable competitive advantage (SCA) of a business, it was found that over 40 per cent of managers regarded reputation for high quality as the most important 19

factor, thus demonstrating the importance of perceived quality to a firm. Researchers investigating the relationship between perceived quality and loyalty have invariably identified a positive link (Lin and Chang, 2003). Cronin and Taylor (1992) studied the relationship between service quality, consumer satisfaction and purchasing intentions, finding that perceived quality had an effect on satisfaction, which, in turn, influenced purchasing intentions. Additional empirical evidence was provided by Selnes (1993) and Fornell (1992), demonstrating the effects of performance quality on loyalty mediated by satisfaction, while other studies have probed the direct effect of perceived quality on loyalty. In a study of the relationship between attribute-level performance, overall satisfaction and repurchasing intentions, in addition to its impact on satisfaction, attribute level performance (performance quality) was also found to have a direct impact on repurchasing intentions. Similar results on the direct link between quality and loyalty were obtained by Oliva et al. (1992) and Boulding et al. (1993). As noted earlier, other studies have demonstrated the positive link between satisfaction and loyalty; however, it is proposed here that research investigating the relationship between attribute level quality and loyalty offers further insights for marketing practitioners which go beyond the link between satisfaction and loyalty, since attribute level quality is more concrete than the relative abstract concept of satisfaction, and it should therefore be much easier to adopt policies to improve it. Thus, an investigation of the relationship between quality and loyalty, with the effect of satisfaction being excluded, may offer further insights for marketing practitioners. Despite the depth of research into the quality loyalty relationship, there has been scant research investigating the relationship existing between quality and habitual behaviour. As mentioned earlier, loyalty is one type of habitual behaviour, the possible evaluation criteria for brand choice in habitual behaviour may well resemble the criteria adopted in loyalty behaviour. Disconfirmation theory mainly relies upon the fact that consumer forms the expectations with regard to benefits (attribute level claims) attached to the brand (Brady et al, 2002). 20

SERVQUAL model measures the attitude based upon gap between (perceived) performance and the expectations which are/were formed as a result of benefit claims and perceived performance. However, for low involvement products, whereby the evaluation prior to purchase is absent, this model would not work, due to the very nature of low involvement products. As theories of social judgement argue, for low involvement products there is wide latitude of acceptance and consumers only seek the satisfactory performance in order to remain loyal to the brand. So, evaluation of alternatives may not arise even after the trial, as a result of satisfactory brand performance (Assael, 1987). Hence, SERVPERF model comprising only actual or perceived performance on the attribute will be more relevant for the study, omitting expectations and satisfaction (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Brady et al, 2003). Figure 2.7. Interrelationship between perceived quality and brand loyalty

Overall perceived quality (score) Attribute 1 Importance of attribute 1

Attitudinal loyalty (score)

Intention to repurchase Intention to recommend to friends Intention to repurchase even if brand is temporarily unavailable Intention to purchase the brand even when there is promotion going on for other brands

Attribute 2

Importance of attribute 2 Importance of attribute 3

Attribute 3

Attribute 4

Importance of attribute 4

Source: created on the basis of models provided by Cronin and Taylor (1992), Lin and Chang (2003) and Assael (1987)

Alternative to the model(s) quality (satisfaction) loyalty is the model which considers the service encounter satisfaction as the antecedent of perceived quality, whereby loyalty satisfactionquality would hold true (Bitner, 1990, Oliver, 1980, Brady et al, 2001).

21

Bolton and Drew (1991a,b), Bolton and Drew (1994) using an algebraic representation of service quality, also provide support for this causal ordering. Finally, Bitner and Hubbert (1994) advocate the satisfaction service quality causal order based on the premise that service quality is akin to a global attitude and therefore encompasses the more transient satisfaction assessment. In sum, while there is a lack of consensus concerning the specification of the service qualitysatisfaction relationship, the dominant conceptualization suggests service quality is an antecedent of the superordinate satisfaction construct, hence of loyalty (Brady et al, 2003).

2.4 Conclusion
As such, buying behaviour for low involvement products can take the form of variety seeking or habitual behaviour. Variety seeking behaviour, which is still something to be researched thoroughly, was researched by few authors and it was concluded that it is the result of changes in environment, external and situational factors combined with personality characters. Different authors emphasized different factors while researching the habitual buying behaviour. Awareness was well studied and acknowledged by many authors. However, a few authors referred to attitudinal factors of behaviour as main determinants of loyalty behaviour. In the cases when habitual behaviour is driven by these factors (habitual behaviour = loyalty), role played by awareness would lie in assisting to build the attitude. In the case of inertia, awareness would take the dominance and determine the behaviour in the form of familiarity. Therefore, we will hypothesize the impact of awareness on inertia and impact of perceived quality on loyalty, quality comprising the price and qualitative attribute set, taking into account their relative weight of importance for the consumers.

22

METHODOLOGY
3.1 Objectives of the study

Generally, the objective of the study is to shed the light upon the issue of determinants of habitual buying behaviour for low involvement products. Previous literatures into the area have mainly emphasized brand awareness and attitudinal factors as main determinants of habitual buying behaviour. Habitual buying behaviour is itself argued to consist of two distinct behavioural patterns: inertia and loyalty behaviour. While the conceptualization of habitual buying behaviour and inertia have not made clear the fact where about exactly the differences of those two concepts lie, some authors use both terms as mutually inter-replaceable (e.g. Kotler refers to inertia as habitual buying behaviour: see Kotler, 2003). Assael (1987) and Lin and Chang (2003) bring about some clarity into the problem by stating that the main difference between loyalty based habitual buying behaviour and inertia mainly lies in whether the behaviour is accompanied with attitudinal predisposition towards the brand or not. Otherwise, both types of repetitive buying behaviour have identical behavioural patterns. This study is aimed at contributing to finding out which one is the predominant type of behaviour and how habitual buying behaviour is formed. Different schools and authors have proposed the impact of different variables onto this type of behaviour: mainly attitudinal loyalty and awareness, which respectively originate either from cognitive or behavioural school of learning. The authors representing the former school have mainly emphasized the role of internal motivations, desires, arguing that perceived quality affects the attitudinal predisposition (loyalty) towards the brand, hence habitual buying behaviour. The authors representing the behavioural school of learning mainly focus on awareness as foremost important factor in forming the repetitive purchase behaviour. They argue that when it concerns the low involvement products, consumers take the role of passive 23

recipients of information. Due to such phenomena as truth effect, effect of repetition in message storage, brand awareness will exert the influence on habitual buying behaviour. On the other hand, habitual buying behaviour is argued to be influenced by brand loyalty. Therefore, the relative predictive power of those variables will be measured.

3.2 Hypothesis
Hypothesis of the thesis are designed to measure the extend to which perceived quality impacts brand loyalty, as well as the extend to which brand awareness and brand loyalty can predict the change in habitual buying behaviour. Figure 3.1. Impact of perceived quality on attitudinal loyalty and impact of awareness and loyalty on habitual buying behaviour

Awareness

Perceived quality
H1

Attitudinal loyalty
H2

Habitual buying behaviour


by satisfaction quality models by quality satisfaction models

The first research question will concern whether there is significant impact of perceived quality on loyalty, with null hypothesis stating no such impact at all, and alternative hypothesis stating a significant impact of perceived quality on loyalty: H01 There is no significant impact of perceived quality on brand loyalty HA1 There is a significant impact of perceived quality on brand loyalty

24

Second research question will concern the impact of awareness and brand loyalty on habitual buying behaviour, and relative predictive power of those variables against habitual buying behaviour, null hypothesis stating no such impact at all, and alternative hypothesis stating a significant impact of brand awareness and brand loyalty on habitual buying behaviour: H02 There is no significant impact of brand awareness and brand loyalty on habitual buying behaviour HA2 There is a significant impact of brand awareness and brand loyalty on habitual buying behaviour

3.3 Research method


Research will be conducted in the form of a survey with structured questionnaire. Population will include the repetitive buyers of specific brand of coffee, whose proportion of favourite brand purchased within the product category will either exceed 15% or 3 repetitive purchases of the same brand (Blattberg and Sen, 1976; Tucker, 1964). Those respondents who do not meet any of these requirements will be excluded from the study. The criteria of purchase proportion and purchase number is proposed by Blatbberg and Sen (1976) and Tucker (1964) respectively, each of them bringing forward a few valid and strong arguments to favour of it. Hence, instead of taking one of them as main criterion for selection of respondents, both of them were taken as minimal requirements for classifying the repetitive behaviour as habitual buying behaviour.

3.3.1 Variables and questionnaire design


The tests will have four variables as a whole, which include brand awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality and habitual behaviour.

25

In the first hypothesis, while testing the impact of perceived quality on brand loyalty, there will be one dependent and one independent variable: independent variable will be perceived quality and dependent variable will be brand loyalty. In the second hypothesis, while testing the relative predictive power of brand loyalty and brand awareness on habitual buying behaviour, the independent variables include brand loyalty and brand awareness, with dependent variable being habitual buying behaviour.

3.3.1.1 Habitual buying behaviour


The fact, whether there habitual buying behaviour has any place or not will be identified firstly by asking the direct question, whether the consumer is a product category user at all or not, and then asking if he/she has any brand that he/she purchases on a repetitive basis or not and if yes, if the proportion of the brand he/she purchases most exceeds 15% at the category level, and finally asking if he/she purchased the brand he/she has purchased the brand 3 or more times. Those who answer no any of those questions will be excluded from the study. However, these are control variables which are designed to measure whether there is any habitual behaviour or not, therefore, they will not be included in overall score of habitual buying behaviour, rather they will be used to identify the target respondents. Habitual behaviour itself will be evaluated by the scores on a few dimensions (or measurements) which include the time spent, deliberation deployed during decision making process and proportion of brand purchased within the product category. Time spent for decision making for purchase of the product is coherent with definition of habit by Assael (1987), who emphasizes the time factor. Proportion of brand at the product category level is the argument brought forward by Blattberg and Sen (1976). This is the variable, which on the one hand helps to obtain the score for habitual buying behaviour, and the other hand serves as a control variable: respondents stating less than 15% of brand purchases (question 6) at the category level will be excluded from the study. The next question concerning the proportion of brand 26

purchased at category level will be used to obtain the scores on habitual buying behaviour (question 9). Strength of deliberation deployed while making purchase decision is another characteristic feature of habitual behaviour, which, by definition provided by many authors who researched the issue, is closely associated with the habit, i.e. the stronger the habit, the less deliberation (Assael,1987). So, overall score on habitual buying behaviour will be obtained as the sum of scores in time, deliberation and proportion of brand purchased at the product category level.

3.3.1.2 Loyalty
Loyalty as a construct will include intention to repurchase, to provide word of mouth recommendation, to purchase while the brand is out of stock, to purchase even if there is promotion going on for other brands and intention to keep purchasing the brand even if the price for the brand goes (reasonably) slightly up. This is based on the definition of loyalty provided in the literature review part of the study.

3.3.1.3 Awareness
Awareness is measured as the familiarity with the brand communication elements, which include TV, newspaper, magazine and billboard advertising recall. In addition to measuring the awareness by the means of measuring the familiarity with the brand ad, Rossiter and Percys (2001) definition of awareness as the ability to recall or recognize the brand will also be used. Rossiter and Percy (2001) emphasize on such things to measure the awareness as quickness in brand recall (whether the brand is the first thing or the last thing that comes to mind while making the shop list), or quickness in noticing the brand among the other brands in the product category (quickness in recognition).

27

So overall score on awareness will be obtained by summing the scores on familiarity with brand communication, brand recall and brand recognition.

3.3.1.4 Perceived quality


The study makes use of the SERVPERF model provided by Cronin and Taylor (1992) to measure the perceived quality. This model, unlike its counterpart SERVQUAL, excludes the expectations factor from the overall model, thus relying only on perceived performance measures. Principal differences in between these models are in the profound theories and concepts that lie behind those models. SERVQUAL model is based on disconfirmation model, which states that as a result of benefit claims consumers form the set of expectations, against which they evaluate the actual performance, and thus arriving into the gap between performance and expectations multiplied by the relative importance of the attributes on which the evaluation is taking place. As argued earlier in the literature review part of the study, SERVQUAL model is far from being universal. When it comes to low involvement products, disconfirmation theories may not necessarily work. This is due to very nature of buying behaviour for low involvement products, where consumers would rather seek the mere satisfactory performance, rather than performance exceeding or equalling the expectations. There is wide latitude of acceptance for these types of products and narrow set of attributes against which performance will be evaluated (Assael,1987). As attributes for evaluation of performance for brand of coffee by respondents were chosen taste, flavour, decaffeination, groundness and price, for which Hoyer and Cobb (1992) research found highest significance level while tested for their impact on habitual buying behaviour and biggest number of respondents stating those attributes as essential while choosing a brand of coffee among other 20 attributes. Overall perceived quality will be obtained by summing the perceived performance on a set of attributes multiplied by their respective weight of importance. 28

3.3.1.5 Questionnaire design


Questionnaire consists of 5 sections, which include sections designed to profile the respondents (section 1: questions 1-4), measure the habitual buying behaviour (Section 2: questions 5 to 10), brand loyalty (Section 3: questions 11 to 15), brand awareness (Section 4: questions 16 to 21), perceived quality (Section 5 questions 22 and 23) respectively. After the reliability test was conducted and those with negative corrected total item correlation coefficient were reformulated, questionnaire design was shown to experts for advise on design and if there were any points that might cause confusion.

3.3.2 Data collection


Data will be collected throughout 10 superstores located in areas close to or in London, which sell the reasonably big range and competitive brands of products in their stores. This criterion helps to avoid possible homogeneity of consumers in terms of preference towards the certain types of products: stores with more diversified product brands would attract more diverse consumer groups, hence the possible sampling error while conducting the survey in more focused (targeted or niche) stores will be avoided (Ghauri and Crounhaug, 2002). London was chosen as the base for the survey due to resource restrictions: as a single city it would offer more diverse consumer/respondent base compared to any other city in UK, which in turn sets off the possibility of homogeneity of groups. Apart from choosing the right superstores, choosing the right time was also crucial. Since most of the consumers would go for shopping either after the work (starting 5 pm to 10 pm Mon-Fri) or on weekends (10 am-4 pm Saturday, Sunday), those days and times were chosen for the survey. Respondents were approached, presented and explained the purpose of the survey being conducted and asked if they could spare a few minutes to fill out the questionnaire. During the survey, no significant events, occurrences which would undermine the 29

validity and generalizibility of the sample size (e.g. certain groups of consumers not willing to respond) were observed.

3.4 Pilot study and sample size


Firstly pilot study is conducted to test the constructs, questionnaire to the subject of reliability of measures and scales. Reliability tests are carried out to test the internal consistency of questionnaire (Pallant,2001).

3.4.1 Reliability analysis


Internal consistency would indicate whether the scales in the questionnaire are measuring what they are designed to measure. So, for the 19 questions (concerning the main variables and excluding the ones concerning the respondent profiles) reliability test was taken, Cronbachs of 0.7534 was obtained (Appendix 2). Pallant (2002) states that greater than 0.7 would indicate the reliability of the measures and those with negative sign and great absolute value should ideally be excluded from the questionnaire or modified. Thus, since none of the questions have great impact on overall value, and since it is greater than 0.7, no question was excluded from the main study. However, they were reformulated for the main study and presented as it appears in Appendix 1. One more purpose of the pilot study is to help to calculate the sample size for the main study with the given framework of accuracy and confidence.

3.4.2 Sample size


While the population will include the people who expose the habitual buying behaviour in some or other way, determining the sample size is affected by the problem of ambiguity concerning the characteristics of itself the population, since it is not clear how many people and who exactly buy by habit. Therefore, it would be impossible to conduct any type of research involving the strata or cluster sampling, or sampling involving the population characteristics (Ghauri and Cronhaug, 2002).

30

However, the second method of sample size calculation approaches the problem from the point of view of ensuring the precision and confidence of measures in the main study and is calculated on the basis of the findings of pilot study. This method calculates the sample size using the formula (1) which involves the indicators obtained from pilot study (Ghauri and Cronhaug, 2002). So, giving 99% confidence interval, using the standard deviation of those measures obtained from pilot study and allowing 2 standard error factor from the mean, sample size was calculated. Formula 1. Sample size calculated from the findings of the pilot study

z std 2
E
2

2.58 5.86522
2
2

228.9802 57.24 57 4

Source: http://www.som.surrey.ac.uk and Ghauri and Cronhaug (2002)

Where:

n sample size required for the study with 99% confidence interval and 2 standard error from mean allowed z degree of confidence for the study at 99 % (z=2.58) E standard error factor allowed, E=2

However, while 57 is deemed to be sufficient to ensure the aforementioned preciseness and confidence levels, this is far too small to use in the certain statistic techniques, namely, chi-square analysis to test the relationship between demographic variables: if the group doesnt consist of homogenous groups of respondents - highly educated females/males vs. male/female managers/unemployed, whereby each cell in the matrix consisting of those variables and their subscales (categories) should at least have 5 expected counts.

31

Since most of the scales in the questionnaire consist of 5 categories, relationship matrix would, at most, consist of 25 cells, so, necessitating at least 125 (5x5x5) cases, provided assumptions of itself the chi-square test. Thus, sample size was assigned the value of 125.

3.5 Data analysis method


Since both hypotheses concern the impact of one or more variable(s) into the other, research of causal relationship is in place: even though correlation tests would give sufficient information about the possible relationship of those variables, for this type of relationship, linear and multiple regression analysis would give comprehensive set of information concerning the relationship, provided the assumptions for these analysis tests are not violated. In the case of violation of assumption of normality, non-parametric alternatives will be used.

3.6 Summary
Methodological aspects of research, including research method, identification of population, calculation of sample size, operationalization of variables and questionnaire design were dealt in this chapter. Pilot study was conducted to test the questionnaire subject to reliability of measures. Even though there were a few negatively impacting measures, as a whole, overall Cronbachs 0.7534 was obtained, which is greater than critical value of 0.7. Hypotheses were formed based on arguments provided in literature review part of the study. This study is to hypothesize the impact of brand quality on brand loyalty and the impact of brand loyalty and brand awareness on habitual buying behaviour.

32

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS


4.1 Introduction
As stated earlier, the objective of the study is to research the determinants of habitual buying behaviour, whether perceived quality has an impact upon brand loyalty or not. This chapter focuses on results of statistical tests, on interpretation of them, so that they would provide relevant information for the main objective. This chapter mainly consists of three parts, the first part dealing with demographic data analysis, the second part with normality and other relevant techniques designed to test the data set against the assumptions of (multiple) regression analysis. In the third part, statistical results obtained from appropriate tests will be analyzed.

4.2 Demographic data analysis


In this section, distribution of sample across demographic variables and profile information of respondents will be tested subject to relationship in-between themselves, so that the sample wouldnt consist of homogeneous respondents.

4.2.1 Distribution of population


Overall distribution of sample across demographic variables would indicate whether the sample consists of homogeneous or diversified respondents. Diversified respondent contingent would, in turn, indicate sufficiently objective reflection of real population in the sample.

4.2.1.1 Gender
57 out of 125 respondents were males, and 68 respondents being females. This would give (rounded up) 46% and 54% male and female respondents respectively (Appendix 3). Table 4.1. Distribution across respondent gender

33

Respondent sex Cumulative Percent 45.6 100.0

Valid

Male Female Total

Frequency 57 68 125

Percent 45.6 54.4 100.0

Valid Percent 45.6 54.4 100.0

Source: Field study, Appendix 3

4.2.1.2 Age
Respondents aged 25-34 had the biggest proportion among all other categories (41: 32.8%), followed by 16-24 (40: 32%) and 35-50 (25:20%). Respondents aged -15had the least proportion among all respondents (8: 6.4%), followed by 50+ (11: 8.8%) (Appendix 4). Table 4.2. Distribution across age categories

Respondent age Cumulative Percent 6.4 38.4 71.2 91.2 100.0

Valid

-15 16-24 25-34 35-50 50+ Total

Frequency 8 40 41 25 11 125

Percent 6.4 32.0 32.8 20.0 8.8 100.0

Valid Percent 6.4 32.0 32.8 20.0 8.8 100.0

Source: Field study, Appendix 4

4.2.1.3 Education
12 % (15) of the respondents had finished the high school, 36% (46)- college, 38.4 % (48) had done the undergraduate level, followed by 12 % (15) of respondents who had done the postgraduate level, with one PhD respondent (0.8%) (Appendix 5). Table 4.3. Distribution across the education categories 34

Respondent education Cumulative Percent 12.0 48.8 87.2 99.2 100.0

Valid

High school College Did the undergraduate degree Did the postgraduate/master's level PhD and above Total

Frequency 15 46 48 15 1 125

Percent 12.0 36.8 38.4 12.0 .8 100.0

Valid Percent 12.0 36.8 38.4 12.0 .8 100.0

Source: Field study, Appendix 5

4.2.1.4 Occupation
43.2 % of respondents were skilled workers (54 respondents), followed by clerical workers and those on the managerial positions. 11 respondents were unemployed or retired and 3 respondents were on academic or research related positions (Appendix 6). Table 4.4. Distribution across respondent occupation
Respondent occupation Cumulative Percent 2.4 12.8 56.0 91.2 100.0

Frequency Valid Academic, research related Managerial position (incl. non-prof. and govenrm. org) Skilled work Celrical and all other works Unemployed Total 3 13 54 44 11 125

Percent 2.4 10.4 43.2 35.2 8.8 100.0

Valid Percent 2.4 10.4 43.2 35.2 8.8 100.0

Source: Field study, Appendix 6

35

4.2.2 Relationship between variables


Chi-square test comprising two demographic variables with respective number of categories in each variable will test whether there is any significant correlation between these variables. Possible number of combinations would be 6. However, not all of them would be too relevant for the study: possible correlation between education and occupation could instead, to a certain extend, be reasonably expected, since higher the education, higher the position. The same would apply to age and occupation: over the time, as experience increases, so would increase the chance that employer would promote the employee. So, on top of those two mentioned above, age and education would be omitted too, leaving the relationship between age and gender, gender and occupation, gender and education for chi-square tests.

4.2.2.1 Age and gender


Table 4.5 gives the chi-square test results for possible correlation between age and gender: if the male/female respondents with older/younger age categories are prevailing in the respondent contingent. Table 4.5. Age and gender chi-square test

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .299 .284 .320

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value 4.892a 5.037 .990 125

df 4 4 1

a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.65.

Source: Field study, Appendix 7

36

As can be seen from the table, 2 cells (20%) have less than required at least 5 cases, so violating assumption of chi-square tests. However, Gravetter and Wallnau (2000) suggest that this requirement should apply to 80% of the cells in the study, so allowing 20% cells having less than minimum number of cases. Therefore, 20% of cells with expected count less than 5 is acceptable. So, significance level of the correlation between these variable is 0.29, suggesting no significant relationship between age and gender.

4.2.2.2 Gender and occupation


Similar results could be observed in this test as well, with 2 cells (20%) with expected count less than 5. Pearson chi-square has a significance level of 0.12, therefore indicating non-significant relationship between gender and occupation. Table 4.6. Gender and occupation chi-square test

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .120 .116 .349

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value 7.326a 7.409 .875 125

df 4 4 1

a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.37.

Source: Field study, Appendix 8

4.2.2.3 Gender and education


Gender and education also show the same pattern of characteristics as those two above: 2 cells have expected count less than 5 (due to only one PhD respondent). Significance level of .671 suggests the non-significant relationship between gender and education. Table 4.7. Gender and education chi-square 37

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .671 .603 .671

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value 2.354a 2.736 .181 125

df 4 4 1

a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .46.

Source: Field study, Appendix 9

Since no significant relationship was observed between any of those variables considered above, sample structure can be considered as acceptable for the study.

4.3 Test of normality


Parametric techniques have the advantage over non-parametric techniques in terms of preciseness and strength. However, the drawback of these tests would lie in a few underlying assumptions, which include normality as well. Therefore, in this section data set will be tested against the normality. Normality would, generally, suggest the greatest frequency of scores the middle of the distribution set (Pallant, 2002). Non-significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests would indicate normality. Table 4.8. Normality tests for overall awareness, overall attitudinal loyalty, habitual buying behaviour and overall perceived quality

38

Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistic df Sig. .125 125 .000 .108 125 .001 .125 .173 125 125 .000 .000
a

Habitual buying behaviour Overall awareness score Overall perceived quality score Overall attitudinal loyalty

Statistic .948 .955 .952 .928

Shapiro-Wilk df 125 125 125 125

Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Source: field study, Appendixes 10 though 14

As it can be seen from table, results suggest the violation of assumption of normality: Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests with very significant results indicate the abnormality of distribution. However, Pallant (2002:98) and Cone and Foster (1993) argue that for large samples in social sciences this situation is common and rather normality should be checked against some other attributes such as bell-shapedness of distribution, greatest frequency scores being located in the middle of the curve. Cone and Foster (1993) argue that minor violations of assumptions of normality such as ignoring the significant KolmogorovSmirnov test results, while other attributes (curve shapes) would suggest the normal distribution, would not invalidate the parametric test results, provided not any further violation of assumption doesnt have a place, particularly of those test-specific ones. Therefore, the curve shapes will be used in order to test the normality of the distribution of scores of all those variables involved in the study and analyzed. Figure 4.1. Score distribution of overall brand awareness

39

Overall awareness score


30

20

10

Frequency

Std. Dev = 1.88 Mean = 19.7 0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 N = 125.00

Overall awareness score

Source: field study, Appendix 10

As it can be seen from the graph, biggest frequency of scores is located near the mean, which is in turn located near the median and two ends of the curve dont touch the ground. The values of -.104 for skewness and -.754 (Appendix 10) for kurtosis give the foundation to believe that this rather more normal distribution. Therefore, this variable is concluded to be normal. Figure 4.2. Score distribution of habitual buying behaviour

Habitual buying behaviour


30

20

10

Frequency

Std. Dev = 1.66 Mean = 12.2 0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 N = 125.00

Habitual buying behaviour

40

Source: field study, Appendix 11

The similar distribution pattern, with skewness and kurtosis values of -.130 and -.740 respectively, as those above gives the same conclusion concerning distribution normality of habitual buying behaviour. Figure 4.3. Score distribution for overall perceived quality

Overall perceived quality score


50

40

30

20

Frequency

10

Std. Dev = 7.46 Mean = 48.5 N = 125.00 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0

Overall perceived quality score

Source: field study, Appendix 12

This distribution is rather more different than those above with a higher frequency of scores being located on the lower end of the curve (where frequency =35). Although the skewness and kurtosis values of -.184 and -.402 respectively would give the impression of the curve being normal, in order to be cautious for the results to be obtained, this will be treated as abnormal distribution. Figure 4.4. Score distribution of overall attitudinal loyalty

41

Overall attitudinal loyalty


40

30

20

Frequency

10 Std. Dev = 1.46 Mean = 17.7 0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 N = 125.00

Overall attitudinal loyalty

Source: field study, Appendix 13

Overall attitudinal loyalty also exposes curve shape with characteristics similar to those of habitual buying behaviour and brand awareness (Appendix 13). Therefore, distribution of scores of overall attitudinal loyalty is labelled as normal. Assumption of normality has been violated for overall perceived quality, so nonparametric technique will have to be used to test of hypothesis involving this variable. Multiple regression analysis will be used to test the second hypothesis, since other variables are concluded to be normal.

4.4 Overall perceived quality and attitudinal loyalty


Pallant (2002) suggests the use of Spearmans rank order test for bivariate correlations as alternative to Pearsons. Table 4.9. Spearmans rank order correlation for overall perceived quality and attitudinal loyalty

42

Correlations Overall Overall perceived attitudinal quality score loyalty 1.000 .788** . .000 125 125 .788** 1.000 .000 . 125 125

Spearman's rho

Overall perceived quality score Overall attitudinal loyalty

Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N

**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Source: field study

The results indicate a strong and significant relationship between overall perceived quality and attitudinal loyalty. Cohen (1988) classifies the relationships with absolute value of 0.5 r 1 as large, or strong relationships. Significance level of this relationship (.) indicates very small (less than 0.01) chances of H01 being true, thus rejecting null hypothesis and accepting alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between overall perceived quality and attitudinal loyalty.

4.5 Attitudinal loyalty, brand awareness and habitual buying behaviour


Multiple regression analysis provides more powerful analysis of influence or impact of two or more variables onto one dependent variable. Apart from zero-order correlation that would exist between any independent and the dependent variable, relative contribution of each variable to the variations in dependent variable will also be calculated (Pallant, 2002; Ghauri and Cronhaug, 2002). However, the test itself has its specific assumption concerning multicollinearity, outliers, linearity and independence of residuals. SPSS 11 provides the measurement tools to test for those assumptions and all of them will be presented together with the results of the analysis, so that they would be analyzed before proceeding to actual test results.

43

4.5.1 Multicollinearity
Multicollinearity refers to correlation in-between independent variables. Tabachnik and Fidell (1996) suggest that independent variables that correlate with each other with r .7 should be treated carefully or omitted. In the case of present study, the independent variables (brand awareness and attitudinal loyalty) correlate with each other with Pearsons r = 0.608, which is r < 0.7. Therefore, multiocollinearity can be concluded as inexistent (Appendix 14).

4.5.2 Outliers, linearity and independence of residuals


Presence of outliers, with absolute standardised residual value of greater than 3.3, can have an impact on the validity of the results, only if they are too many. In the case of big samples, a few outliers wouldnt pose any threat, and no further actions would be needed (Pallant, 2002:144). Scatterplot shows a single case of an outlier, which can be omitted and retained. In the normal probability plot, no major deviations from the diagonal line can be observed (Appendix 15). Maximum Mahalanobis distance observed was 8.499, which is less than critical value of 13.82 for two independent variables (Pallant,2002). Therefore, it can be concluded, that none of the assumption made above had been violated.

4.5.3 Analysis of the results


The main indicators that would have relevance for the test would concern the model as whole and the impacts or contribution of each variable to the overall model. As a whole, the strength of the model could be checked by R-square value of the model summary, which is .771 in the present test: 77.1% of the variance in the habitual buying behaviour can be explained by the model. Significance level of less than .001 (Appendix 14: ANOVA) indicates the rejection of the hypothesis that R-square is equal to zero. So, model as a whole has an impact on habitual buying behaviour. 44

Contribution of each variable would indicate the relative influential power of independent variables, which may come quite different than those bivariate ones. In this case, relative contributions of brand awareness and attitudinal loyalty are .685 and .273 respectively. Significance levels of both measures are less than 0.001 (Sig = .000), thus suggesting very significant relationship and rejecting the null H02 hypothesis: There is a significant impact of brand awareness and attitudinal loyalty on habitual buying behaviour.

4.6 Summary
In this chapter, preliminary analysis and main tests were carried out to test the hypotheses set in the methodology part of the study. Distribution tests of respondents across different variable categories and relationship between profile variables suggested the acceptability of the sample, showing normal distribution and no significant relationship between demographic variables. Normality test gave significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics for all variables, indicating the violation of the assumption of normality. However, since the abnormality in large samples is a common case in social studies, test of normality on other attributes was carried out. Apart from the overall perceived quality, all other variables showed normal distribution. Therefore, to test the first hypothesis, which involved overall perceived quality, Spearmans rank order test was used. Multiple regression was used to test the second hypothesis. Both tests suggested the existence of significance relationship between variables, thus rejecting the null hypotheses.

45

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Introduction
This study has been aimed at researching the factors impacting the low involvement buying behaviour, more particularly, habitual buying behaviour. This section is designed to give a brief discussion of findings, outline the limitations of the research and give the recommendations for further research and managerial implications, followed by overall summary of the research at the end.

Discussion of findings
Previous section of the research provides the results of correlation tests between perceived quality and attitudinal loyalty, and the multiple regression analysis of habitual buying behaviour (as dependent variable), attitudinal loyalty and brand awareness (as independent variables). A correlation coefficient of .788 between perceived quality and brand loyalty, which is classified as large by Pallant (2002), indicates the strong relationship between these variables. This would mean that for low involvement products brand loyalty is mainly formed as a result of high perceived quality, overruling the impact of other factors, such as service counter satisfaction effect. Brand awareness and brand loyalty were hypothesized as determinants of habitual buying behaviour. The results showed the leading role of awareness (beta value = .685) in forming habitual buying behaviour to that of brand loyalty (.273). Overall model, comprising both variables could explain 77.1 % variations in habitual buying behaviour (Appendix 14). This is rather strong relationship, implying that habitual buying is largely formed as the result of the impact of those two variables.

Limitations of the study


While the author admits that this research is far from being universal and all spanning, objective factors such as resource and other obstacles hindered to conduct the research 46

spanning all aspects of the consumer behaviour for low involvement buying behaviour, including other factors impacting it. Initially the study was focused on buying behaviour for low involvement products. Later, since variety seeking buying behaviour, which is one type of aforementioned buying behaviour, is different only in dynamic aspects, rather than structural aspects (the same factors influencing with different influential powers), factors that would cause the habitual buying behaviour, i.e. determinants of habitual buying behaviour, were brought into the focus of the study. However, Katona (1968) outlines a few more factors that influence buying behaviour for low involvement products, other than those researched in this study, such as promotions and/or situational factors. While researched as a set of factors altogether, rather than taken individually or in pairs, diversified group(s) of factors would have provided more comprehensive explanation of the buying behaviour for low involvement products, including the interaction effects: e.g. Katona (1968) includes the (expected) average income as one of the major factors impacting this type of behaviour. In its turn, income would possible interact with interact with price, as contemporary theories of consumer behaviour argue (diversified consumer segments exposing diversified buying behaviour for one type of consumers findings might suggest the dominance of price factor, while for the other some other attribute, see: Kotler, 2003; Jobber, 2002), though the findings of the current research suggest the awareness and attitudinal loyalty being the most influential factors within that set, irrespective of belonging to any particular segment. To conduct this type of research would be impossible within the scope of this type of paper. The great threat to validity of findings would lie in mistakes while forming the sample structure. Although the sample for the main study was chosen from single city, instead of a few big cities, justifications and arguments to the favour of this method were provided: as a single city, London would provide most diversified group of consumer, combined with selected stores with diverse consumer bases, which would provide best possible representation of actual population with given resources. So, generalisibility of the research findings was not under a great threat to the best of the author. 47

So, overall limitations of the research could be outlined as follows: 1. As the main limitation of the research could be referred to the span of the research, focusing only on awareness and attitudinal loyalty. Although findings suggest the dominance of these two factors as determinants of the buying behaviour in focus, more precise and comprehensive understanding of it would be achieved by inclusion of all factors outlined in previous literature; 2. Although generalizibility of the findings was not under a big question, formation of more appropriate sample structure would have provided more precise results. However, while these can be classified as tactical mistakes during the research, strategic issue would concern the theories underlying the research method. Although awareness has been found as a main determinant of habitual buying behaviour, accounting for most of the changes, more than attitudinal loyalty, this could easily be challenged by arguments to the favour of quality and attitudinal loyalty. Brands using high awareness but the reputation as one of low quality could reasonably be expected NOT to enjoy the big market share, due to consumer disappointments with the product. However, other things held constant (provided quality of the brand is at least satisfactory), awareness would account for most of the changes in habitual buying behaviour. So, there is probably a need to conceptualize the term minimum performance level for the arguments provided in this paper to work.

Recommendations for further research


Recommendations and guidelines for further research would derive from mainly, but not limited to, the findings of the researches, which in turn indicate the leading role of awareness. The next objective question that would rise would concern the formation of appropriate communication strategies that would provide most efficient outcome in terms of brand awareness. While itself the brand awareness is not a function of a single variable of communication, and since there are some more factors influencing it (e.g. word of mouth), however, previous literature has pointed to communication as a main determinant of brand awareness. 48

Communication strategy formation would mainly involve issues concerning content strategy (whether the ad should be humorous/serious, informative/affective, pictorial/verbal) and context strategy (which communication element should be used and how frequent), which in turn indicates a number of directions for further research. A number of researchers found the relationship between content variation and product class/category in terms of effectiveness of brand communication, while others with consumer groups. E.g. Settle et al (1979) and e.g. Sciglimfia et al (1982) emphasize on demographic variables as main factors impacting the perception of brand ads. Sengupta and Goodstein (1997) bring forward an argument similar to those of Laroche et al (1996), by which consumers would tend to remember the messages consistent with their experience in real life. While initial attitude towards the brand is formed as a result of persuasive message, later revision would occur by comparing attitude to brand experience. While for low involvement products, as argued earlier, satisfactory performance would suffice for retention, further research testing the aforementioned arguments would be useful in forming the theory spanning all aspects of brand awareness for low involvement buying behaviour. So, latent and demographic segmentation of consumers in terms of being main determinants of brand awareness could be studied more thoroughly. The concept of minimum performance level, as stated earlier in this chapter, is crucial for the retention of consumers for low involvement products and for the arguments provided in this paper to work. The question concerning the actual performance, which could be assessed as minimal, should be studied more thoroughly: where exactly the leading role of attitude ends and that of awareness starts? This is in line with arguments brought forward by authors researching consumer behaviour (e.g.: satisfactory performance as necessary and sufficient condition for loyalty, see Assael, 1987). This is another area for research within buying behaviour for low involvement products.

49

Managerial implication
Findings of the research suggest the leading role of brand awareness in formation of habitual buying behaviour, which would imply the need to emphasize on brand communication campaigns in order to raise the brand awareness for low involvement products: brand awareness has the strongest effect on a purchasing decision, demonstrating its critical role in the habitual decision process. Therefore, brand awareness not only represents the dominant cue for choice decisions, but it also plays an important role in terms of habitual behavior for purchases of low involvement products. Thus, provided competitive quality performance is present, more emphasis should be given to increasing brand awareness. However, a group of researchers challenged the existing view of attitude formation as well, arguing that perceived quality is subject to overall attitude towards the brand as well, which would mean that brand attitude is itself the function of brand awareness. This in turn would rhetorically imply the leading role of awareness. However, it is not the only factor affecting behavior; even in the case of habitual purchases, consumers also rely on perceived quality as cues in the decision-making process and not solely on extrinsic attributes, such as awareness, price in order to determine whether they should remain with a certain brand. Therefore, in addition to generating well-known brands and maintaining their image, marketing practitioners of low involvement products should not overlook the role of perceived quality when seeking out ways of retaining their customers. In terms of outlining the possible strategic choices for increasing brand awareness, previous literature has provided sound basis for starting point. For low involvement products, such concepts should be brought into the focus, as repetition effect (truth effect) and consistency in message variations (the same message nature retained throughout all commercials), which would help consumers have some association about brand:

50

1. Intensive advertising campaign, aimed at increasing brand awareness, which will in turn help the location of brand name and persuasive message in long term memory; 2. Consistency within different variations of ads, so that all messages would be coherent with each other, so that consumers would come to believe to overall message. This is, to a great extend, consistent with the findings of researches in the field of psychology, which shows the validity and strength of those arguments. In the cases, where consumer is not involved with the product, he/she would rather rely on extrinsic cues for choice. Apart from dynamic aspect, structural aspect of the communication strategy should be considered thoroughly as well. Although the topic of which communication element is more effective in increasing brand awareness across different product categories and different consumer groups and content strategy are out of scope of this research, its importance should not be overlooked, which will in turn help to increase the efficiency of communication strategy. Content strategy, which will include the question of how the ad should look within the given framework of objectives of brand awareness, has been in the focus of previous researches as well. Some authors emphasized the need to diversify the communication strategy across different consumer groups, while the others across product groups. However, review of literature reveals the strength of both groups of arguments, indicating the need for combinative approach to forming the communication strategy. So, based on findings of previous literature, diversified and appropriate message content and context strategies should be used across different product categories and consumer groups, which will help to maximize the returns on investments from resources located into the brand communication. In nowadays fierce competitive markets, product augmentation and competitive performance across different attributes is rather must be, than would be good, in 51

which case quite homogenous (and high) performance in the marketplace could reasonably be expected from all participants, where the ultimate success would already depend rather on who and how well is aware of the brand, than how well the brand is. A possible situation of low perceived quality of brand would cause the break down of the behavioural cycle offered by Assael (1987), where absence of reward would cause the switch off to another brand. In this case, leading role of awareness would be undermined, another cycle would start until next habitual buying behaviour is formed (Katona, 1968). In this case, not the communication strategy, rather the overall marketing strategy would need to be in the focus, necessitating the allocation of more resources into marketing elements, more particularly, into the product (development).

Conclusion and summary


Factors that affect habitual buying behaviour are important in formulating the marketing strategies of the companies for consumer retention purposes. Traditional perspectives to consumer behaviour approach to the problem mainly from the perspective of cognitive school of learning, which encompass a wide range of factors that not only span the aspects related to product or product quality, but also, overall attitudes, beliefs which might affect the behaviour of the consumer, thus setting up a deterministic approach to consumer behaviour. However, alternatively to those arguments, behavioural school of learning argue that when the need (recognition) is present, simpler forms of decision are deployed. Brand awareness has been argued as one of the factors that would impact the buying behaviour, or, more particularly, habitual buying behaviour. Most of the relevant literature in the field of consumer behaviour draw the line, where application of respective theories would relinquish the place to the other, similar to Einsteins theory of relativity. Since most of the literature in brand loyalty consider the perceived risk as one of the most important (and sometimes single-sufficient) condition for the deployment of cognitive processing, it is proposed that in the case of products with low levels of risk attached to decisions made, i.e. low involvement products, awareness would determine habit. 52

However, even within the behavioural school of learning, some authors argued the importance of rewards for retention or extinction of habit (instrumental conditioning school). Therefore, the concept of attitudinal loyalty has been used in this study, excluding behavioural aspect of it, as distinct from those used in the previous literature, and relative influential power of attitudinal loyalty and brand awareness were tested. Results revealed the perceived quality being the main determinant of attitudinal loyalty, but awareness being the main determinant of habitual buying behaviour, preceding over loyalty. This is consistent with the findings of a few authors, who researched this issue (e.g. Hoyer and Brown, 1990), who found the leading role of awareness in determining the habit. The importance of the findings would be revealed with close review of the profound literature, starting from Pavlovs (1929: cited in Assael, 1987), which show how awareness about the (presence and place of) product can stimulate the action (response). Subjects wouldnt spend a big deal of effort trying to search, evaluate the alternatives and retain the habit, if there is enough information stored about the brand for low involvement products. Managers while elaborating marketing strategy, more particularly, communication strategy would have to remember that fact: implications would rather concern to overall focus, principle, than to single, particular elements of strategy. However, it was tried to outline the implications of findings within the area, so that it would give some idea for managers which issues to address. The main limitation of the research would be the fact, that this paper succeeded in depth, at the expense of breadth, focusing only two variables, which is quite reasonable within the given time and resources. Recommendations for further research are provided.

53

REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A., (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name, Free Press, New York, NY. Arnould, E.J., (2002), Special session summary. Understanding Consumer Culture: Contributions of Practicing Anthropologists, Advances in Consumer Research, 29(1), pp 361-362 Assael, H., (1987), Consumer behaviour and marketing action, (3rd ed), Boston, Mass: PWS-Kent Pub. Bareham J., (2004), Can the consumers be predicted or are they unmanageable, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(3), pp 159165 Belch G.E. and Belch M.A., (1984), An investigation of the effects of repetition on cognitive and affective reactions to humorous and serious television commercials, Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), pp 4-10 Belch, G.E., (1982), The Effects of Television Commercial Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance, Journal of Consumer Research,9(1), pp5665 Belch, G.E., (1983), The effect of message modality on one- and two-sided advertising messages, Advances in Consumer Research, 10(1), pp 21-26 Bitner M.J. and Hubbert A.R., (1994), Encounter satisfaction versus overall service satisfaction versus quality. Services quality: new directions in theory and practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 34(2), pp 327-334

54

Bitner MJ., 1990, Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses, Journal of Marketing, 54(2), pp 69 82 Blattberg, R.C. and Sen, S.K., (1976), Market segmentation and Stochastic Brand Choice Models; Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), pp 34-45 Bloemer, J., Ruyter, K.D. and Wetzels, M. (1999), Perceived service quality and service loyalty: a multidimensional perspective, European Journal of Marketing, 33(5), pp. 1082-1106. Bolton R.N., Drew J.H., (1994), Linking customer satisfaction to service operations and outcomes. Services quality: new directions in theory and practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 173 200 Bolton R.N., Drew J.H., (1991a), A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service changes on customer attitudes, Journal of Marketing, 55(1), pp 1 9 Bolton R.N., Drew J.H., (1991b), A multistage model of customers assessment of service quality and value, Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), pp 375 84 Boulding, W.; Dalra, A.; Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, A., (1993), A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions, Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), pp. 7-27 Brady, M.K., Cronin J.J. and Brand R.R., (2002), Performance only measurement of service quality: a replication and extension, Journal of Business Research, 55(1), pp 17-31 Brody, R.P. and Cunningham, S.M. (1968), Personality variables and the consumer decision process, Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), pp. 50-56 Campbell, M. C. and Keller, K.L., (2003), Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), pp 292-305

55

Chisnall, P., (1997), Consumer behaviour, (4th ed.), London: McGraw-Hill Cohen, J., (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Cone, J. and Foster, S. (1993), Dissertations and theses from start to finish, Washington: American Psychological Association Cronin, J.J. Jr. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension, Journal of Marketing, 56(1), pp. 55-68 Crowler, A.E. and Hoyer, W.D. (1994), An integrated framework for understanding two-sided persuasion, Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), pp 561-574 East, R., (1997), Consumer behaviour: advances and applications in marketing, London: Financial Times - Prentice Hall Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1988), Repeat-Buying: Theory and Application, (2nd ed.), Charles Griffin, London; Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Goodhardt, G.J. and Barwise, T.P., (1990), Double jeopardy revisited, Journal of Marketing, 54(2), pp. 82-91 Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W., (1995), Consumer Behavior, New York: Dryden Press Fill, C., (2002), Marketing communications: contexts, applications and strategies, (3rd ed.), London: Prentice Hall Fornell, C., (1992), A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience, Journal of Marketing, 56(1), pp. 6-21. Foxall, G.R., (1992), The behavioral perspective model of purchase and consumption: from consumer theory to marketing practice, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), pp. 189-98 56

Frank, R.E. (1967), Is loyalty a useful basis for market segmentation?, Journal of Advertising Research, 7(1), pp. 27-33 Ghauri, P. and Grnhaug, K., (2002), Research methods in business studies: a practical guide, (2nd ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education Gottdiener, M. (2000), Approaches to consumption: classical and contemporary perspectives, New forms of Consumption, 2(2), pp. 34-41 Gravetter, F.J. and Wallnau, L.B., (2000), Statistics for behavioural sciences (5th ed), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N., (1998), The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers evaluations and purchase intentions, Journal of Retailing, 74(3), pp. 331-352 Hawkins, S. A. and Hoch, S. J., (1992), Low-involvement learning: Memory without evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), pp 212-225. Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (2001), Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical analysis, Psychology and Marketing, 18(1), pp. 43-66 Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N., (1969), The theory of buyer behavior, New York London: Wiley Series Hoyer, W.D. (1984), An examination of consumer decision making for a common repeat purchase product, Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), pp. 822-829. Hoyer, W.D., and Brown, S.P. (1990), Effect of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat purchase product, Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), pp. 141-148

57

Johnny, L.T.P. and Esther, T.P.S., (2001), An integrated model of service loyalty, An abstract from 2001 International Conference, Brussels, Belgium, Academy of Business and Administrative Sciences, 23-25 Jul 2001 Johnson, G., Scholes, K., (2002), Exploring corporate strategy, (6th ed), Harlow: Pearson Education Jobber, D.; (2002), Principles and practice of Marketing, (3rd ed), London, McGraw-Hill Kassarijan, H.H., (1981), Low involvement: a second look, Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), pp 31-34 Katona, G., (1968), Consumer behaviour: theory and findings on expectations and aspirations, American Economic Review, 58(2), pp 19-30 Korchia, M., (2001), The dimensions of brand familiarity, Rethinking European Marketing, Proceedings from the 30th EMAC conference, Bergen, Norway Kotler, P., (2003), Marketing Management, (11th ed), New Jersey: Prentice Hall Laroche, M., Kim, C. and Zhou, L., (1996), Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants of purchase intention: an empirical test in a multiple brand context, Journal of Business Research, 37(1), pp. 115-20 Lawrence, R.L., (1969), Patterns of Buyer Behaviour: time for a new approach?, Journal of Marketing Research, 6(3), pp 137-144 Lin, M.Y. and Chang, L.H. (2003), Determinants of habitual behaviour for national and leading brands in China, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(2), pp 94-107 Macdonald, E.K. and Sharp, B.M., (2000), Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making for a common, repeat purchase product: a replication, Journal of Business Research, 48(1), pp. 5-15 58

MacKenzie, S.B.; Lutz, R.J.; Belch, G.E.; (1986), The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations, Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), pp 130-133 Martin, G.R. (1973), The theory of double jeopardy, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1(2), pp. 148-55. Mcdonalds, C., (1980), Measuring advertising response, Admap, 11(2), pp. 128-135 McWilliam, G., (2002), Low involvement brands: is the brand manager to blame?, Marketing Intelligence and planning, 15(2), pp 60-70 Oliva, T.A., Oliver, R.L. and MacMillan, I.C. (1992), A catastrophe model for developing service satisfaction strategies, Journal of Marketing, 56(1), pp 83-95 Oliver R.L., (1980), A cognitive model of the antecedents and outcomes of satisfaction decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), pp. 460-469 Pallant, J., (2001), SPSS survival manual: a step by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows, Buckingham: Open University Press Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), pp 271-88 Peter, J.P, Olson J.C., Grunert K.G.,1999, Consumer behaviour and marketing strategy, [European ed], London: McGraw-Hill Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (2002), Advertising communications and promotion management, (4th ed.), McGraw-Hill series Sciglimpaglia, D., Belch, M. A., Gain, Jr R.F., (1979), Demographic and cognitive factors influencing viewers evaluation of sexy advertisements, Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), pp. 62-65 59

Selnes, F. (1993), An examination of the effect of product performance on brand reputations, satisfaction and loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, 27(1), pp 19-35 Sengupta, J. and Goodstein, R. (1997), All cues are not created equal: Obtaining attitude persistence under low-involvement conditions, Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), pp 351-361 Settle, R.B., Alreck, P.L., Belch, M.A., (1979), Social class determinants of leisure activity, Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), pp 139-135 Shuchman, A. (1968), Are there laws of consumer behavior?, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 8 (1), pp. 19-28. Skinner, B.F., (1938), The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis, London, New York: D. Appleton-Century Company Surrey European Management school, http://www.sems.surrey.ac.uk, [accessed on Jul, 16, 2003] Tabachnik, B.G. and Fidell, L.S., (1996), Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed), New York: Harper Collins Tucker, W.T., (1964), The development of brand loyalty, Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1), pp 32-32 Zeithaml, V. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, 52(1), pp 2-22.

60

APPENDIX 1. QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Sir/madam, I am Murodullo Bazarov, full time MSc Student at the University of Surrey and I am conducting a survey as part of the research to complete the final dissertation project. This questionnaire is designed purely for the use in the research and no personal information will be required and requested. With your help by filling out the questionnaire Id be indefinitely indebted to you and Id ask you to accept my gratitude. Please, feel free to ask any information you need. If you need the time to complete the questionnaire, well provide a prepaid envelope, so you can complete it at the time convenient for you and send it to the address written on the front. Thank you very much for your assistance and patience. Have fun while shopping Murodullo Bazarov MSc in Marketing Management School of Management University of Surrey Guildford Email: emmemb@surrey.ac.uk Tel: +44(0)7780607550

61

QUESTIONNAIRE Section 1. Your profile 1. Age: [] under 16 [] 16-24 [] 25-35 [] 36-50 [] 50+ 2. Gender: [] Male [] Female

3. Professional occupation: [] Academic (including research related works) [] Management (both profit and not for profit organizations, government offices) [] Skilled and semi skilled (e.g. plumbing) [] Clerical [] Other (please, specify) _______________________________ 4. Education: [] High school [] Some college diploma [] Undergraduate level [] Post graduate (MSc and MPhil) [] PhD and above Please, respond the questions accordingly, stating yes or no where the response alternatives are so, ticking one of the boxes that represents your answer to the best in the sections to follow. 62

Section 2. This section is designed to identify the behavioural pattern of respondents 5. I buy the instant coffee regularly and it is a part of my daily use (or use it reasonably often) [] Yes [] No

6. I have a brand of coffee that I buy repetitively a. [] Yes [] No

If the answer for (a) is yes, then the does the proportion of your most purchased brand of coffee exceeds 15 % of overall coffee purchased? b. [] Yes [] No

7. I have a brand of coffee, which I have purchased more than/equal to 3 times [] Yes [] No

8. Please, try to objectively assess the time you spend on decision making about the purchase of the brand of coffee:

Substantial amount of time

Slightly substantial amount of time

Moderate amount of time

Little time

In no time

9. Please, objectively state the proportion of your most purchased brand at the product category level (coffee):

15-30%

30-50%

50-70%

70-90%

90 %+

63

10. Please, objectively state the deliberation that you will get through while purchasing the brand of coffee:
Thorough consideration Moderately high deliberation Little deliberation No deliberation at all

Moderate deliberation

Section 3. Your intention to repurchase the same brand again 11. I am intended to repurchase this brand again

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral/ dont know

Agree

Strongly agree

12. The likelihood that I will buy my favourite brand even if there is a promotion going on for other brands of coffee is:

Very low

Low

Moderate

High

Very high

13. The likelihood that I will wait until most purchased brand arrives, not buying any other brand is:

Very low

Low

Moderate

High

Very high

14. The likelihood that I will be providing word of mouth recommendations about my favourite coffee to my friends, colleagues and family is:

Very low

Low

Moderate

High

Very high

64

15. The likelihood that I will still be buying my favourite brand, even if the price for it will slightly go up:

Very low

Low

Moderate

High

Very high

Section 4. Your awareness of your most purchased brand of coffee 16. Please, objectively state to what extend you can effort detailed recall of TV advertising for your most purchased brand of coffee:
No recall whatsoever Only pictorial recall A few details Moderately detailed Very detailed

17. Please, objectively state to what extend you can effort detailed recall of newspaper advertising for your most purchased brand of coffee:
No recall whatsoever Only pictorial recall A few details Moderately detailed Very detailed

18. Please, objectively state to what extend you can effort detailed recall of billboard advertising for your most purchased brand of coffee:
No recall whatsoever Only pictorial recall A few details Moderately detailed Very detailed

19. Please, objectively state to what extend you can effort detailed recall of magazine advertising for your most purchased brand of coffee:
No recall whatsoever Only pictorial recall A few details Moderately detailed Very detailed

65

20. When I am in the store, the brand of coffee which I purchase most is by me on the shelves:
The last thing to be noticed One of the hardly noticed brands Noticed equally with other brands One of the quickly noticed brands The first thing to be noticed

21. When I am planning, thinking about purchasing coffee, the brand of coffee I purchase most is :
The last thing that comes to my mind One of the hardly recalled brands Recalled equally with other brands One of the quickly recalled brands The first thing that comes to my mind

Section 5. What is important and how they perform on those attributes 22. Please, indicate the importance of each attribute of coffee for you which you consider while purchasing: Attribute Taste Flavour Groundness Decaffeination Price 23. Please, assess the performance of your favourite brand of coffee on the attributes listed below Attribute Taste Extremely Moderately Neutral Moderately satisfactory Extremely satisfactory Not important Moderately at all unimportant Neutral Important Extremely important

dissatisfactory dissatisfactory

66

Flavour Groundness Decaffeination Price

67

APPENDIX 2. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF MEASURES


R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S S C A L E N of Statistics for SCALE Mean 65.6000 Variance 34.4000 Std Dev 5.8652 Variables 19 (A L P H A)

Item-total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted 61.8000 62.0000 61.6000 61.8000 61.9333 61.9333 62.0000 62.7333 61.8000 62.4667 62.4667 62.6667 62.2000 62.7333 61.8667 61.7333 62.1333 62.6000 62.3333 Scale Variance if Item Deleted 26.8857 28.5714 26.4000 34.4571 32.3524 30.7810 30.0000 30.2095 34.1714 28.6952 29.6952 28.2381 33.8857 33.3524 30.6952 36.3524 31.4095 33.8286 34.6667 Corrected ItemTotal Correlation .6167 .5138 .7508 -.0470 .3260 .6244 .7458 .3331 .0118 .6471 .5126 .6507 -.0033 .0863 .5097 -.0528 .3598 .0000 -.0886

TIMESPEN PROPORTI DELIBERA INTENTIO PROMOINT OUTOFSTO WOMINTEN PRICEUP TVADAWAR NWSPPRAW MAGADAWA BILLAWAR NOTICABL BRANDREC TASTPERF FLAVOUR GRIND DECAFFEI PRICE

Alpha if Item Deleted .7115 .7246 .6982 .7615 .7443 .7283 .7203 .7430 .7590 .7158 .7274 .7135 .7681 .7592 .7313 .7664 .7407 .7685 .7688

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases =

15.0

N of Items = 19

Alpha =

.7534

68

APPENDIX 3. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACROSS GENDER


Statistics Respondent sex N Valid Missing

125 0

Respondent sex Cumulative Percent 45.6 100.0

Valid

Male Female Total

Frequency 57 68 125

Percent 45.6 54.4 100.0

Valid Percent 45.6 54.4 100.0

Respondent sex

Male

Female

69

APPENDIX 4. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACROSS AGE CATEGORIES


Statistics Respondent age N Valid Missing

125 0

Respondent age Cumulative Percent 6.4 38.4 71.2 91.2 100.0

Valid

-15 16-24 25-34 35-50 50+ Total

Frequency 8 40 41 25 11 125

Percent 6.4 32.0 32.8 20.0 8.8 100.0

Valid Percent 6.4 32.0 32.8 20.0 8.8 100.0

Respondent age
50

40

30

20

Frequency

10

0 -15 16-24 25-34 35-50 50+

Respondent age

70

APPENDIX 5. DISTRIBUTION
CATEGORIES

OF

RESPONDENTS

ACROSS

EDUCATION

Statistics Respondent education N Valid 125 Missing 0

Respondent education Cumulative Percent 12.0 48.8 87.2 99.2 100.0

Valid

High school College Did the undergraduate degree Did the postgraduate/master's level PhD and above Total

Frequency 15 46 48 15 1 125

Percent 12.0 36.8 38.4 12.0 .8 100.0

Valid Percent 12.0 36.8 38.4 12.0 .8 100.0

Respondent education
60

50

40

30

20

Frequency

10 0 High school Did the undergraduat College PhD and above Did the postgraduate

Respondent education

71

APPENDIX 6. DISTRIBUTION
CATEGORIES

OF RESPONDENTS ACROSS OCCUPATIONAL

Statistics Respondent occupation N Valid 125 Missing 0

Respondent occupation Cumulative Percent 2.4 12.8 56.0 91.2 100.0

Frequency Valid Academic, research related Managerial position (incl. non-prof. and govenrm. org) Skilled work Celrical and all other works Unemployed Total 3 13 54 44 11 125

Percent 2.4 10.4 43.2 35.2 8.8 100.0

Valid Percent 2.4 10.4 43.2 35.2 8.8 100.0

Respondent occupation
60

50

40

30

20

Frequency

10 0 Academic, research r Skilled work Unemployed Managerial position Celrical and all oth

Respondent occupation

72

APPENDIX 7. AGE AND GENDER CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS


Case Processing Summary Cases Missing N Percent 0 .0%

Valid N Respondent age * Respondent sex 125 Percent 100.0%

Total N 125 Percent 100.0%

Respondent age * Respondent sex Crosstabulation Respondent sex Male Female 6 2 75.0% 25.0% 10.5% 2.9% 4.8% 1.6% 17 23 42.5% 57.5% 29.8% 33.8% 13.6% 18.4% 18 23 43.9% 56.1% 31.6% 33.8% 14.4% 18.4% 13 12 52.0% 48.0% 22.8% 17.6% 10.4% 9.6% 3 8 27.3% 72.7% 5.3% 11.8% 2.4% 6.4% 57 68 45.6% 54.4% 100.0% 100.0% 45.6% 54.4%

Total 8 100.0% 6.4% 6.4% 40 100.0% 32.0% 32.0% 41 100.0% 32.8% 32.8% 25 100.0% 20.0% 20.0% 11 100.0% 8.8% 8.8% 125 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Respondent age

-15

16-24

25-34

35-50

50+

Total

Count % within Respondent age % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent age % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent age % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent age % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent age % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent age % within Respondent sex % of Total

73

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .299 .284 .320

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value 4.892a 5.037 .990 125

df 4 4 1

a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.65.

74

APPENDIX 8. OCCUPATION AND GENDER CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS


Case Processing Summary Cases Missing N Percent 0 .0%

Valid N Respondent occupation * Respondent sex 125 Percent 100.0%

Total N 125 Percent 100.0%

Respondent occupation * Respondent sex Crosstabulation Respondent sex Male Female 1 2 33.3% 1.8% .8% 5 38.5% 8.8% 4.0% 21 38.9% 36.8% 16.8% 27 61.4% 47.4% 21.6% 3 27.3% 5.3% 2.4% 57 45.6% 100.0% 45.6% 66.7% 2.9% 1.6% 8 61.5% 11.8% 6.4% 33 61.1% 48.5% 26.4% 17 38.6% 25.0% 13.6% 8 72.7% 11.8% 6.4% 68 54.4% 100.0% 54.4%

Total 3 100.0% 2.4% 2.4% 13 100.0% 10.4% 10.4% 54 100.0% 43.2% 43.2% 44 100.0% 35.2% 35.2% 11 100.0% 8.8% 8.8% 125 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Respondent occupation

Academic, research related

Managerial position (incl. non-prof. and govenrm. org)

Skilled work

Celrical and all other works

Count % within Respondent occupation % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent occupation % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent occupation % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent occupation % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent occupation % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent occupation % within Respondent sex % of Total

Unemployed

Total

75

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .120 .116 .349

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value 7.326a 7.409 .875 125

df 4 4 1

a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.37.

76

APPENDIX 9. EDUCATION AND GENDER CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS


Case Processing Summary Cases Missing N Percent 0 .0%

Valid N Respondent education * Respondent sex 125 Percent 100.0%

Total N 125 Percent 100.0%

Respondent education * Respondent sex Crosstabulation Respondent sex Male Female 8 7 53.3% 14.0% 6.4% 22 47.8% 38.6% 17.6% 19 39.6% 33.3% 15.2% 7 46.7% 12.3% 5.6% PhD and above Count % within Respondent education % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent education % within Respondent sex % of Total 1 100.0% 1.8% .8% 57 45.6% 100.0% 45.6% 46.7% 10.3% 5.6% 24 52.2% 35.3% 19.2% 29 60.4% 42.6% 23.2% 8 53.3% 11.8% 6.4%

Total 15 100.0% 12.0% 12.0% 46 100.0% 36.8% 36.8% 48 100.0% 38.4% 38.4% 15 100.0% 12.0% 12.0% 1 100.0% .8% .8% 125 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Respondent education

High school

College

Did the undergraduate degree

Did the postgraduate/master's level

Count % within Respondent education % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent education % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent education % within Respondent sex % of Total Count % within Respondent education % within Respondent sex % of Total

Total

68 54.4% 100.0% 54.4%

77

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .671 .603 .671

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value 2.354a 2.736 .181 125

df 4 4 1

a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .46.

78

APPENDIX 10. DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES OF BRAND AWARENESS


Statistics Overall awareness score N Valid Missing Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis

125 0 -.104 .217 -.754 .430

Overall awareness score Cumulative Percent 4.8 15.2 25.6 45.6 66.4 79.2 93.6 100.0

Valid

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Total

Frequency 6 13 13 25 26 16 18 8 125

Percent 4.8 10.4 10.4 20.0 20.8 12.8 14.4 6.4 100.0

Valid Percent 4.8 10.4 10.4 20.0 20.8 12.8 14.4 6.4 100.0

Overall awareness score


30

20

10

Frequency

Std. Dev = 1.88 Mean = 19.7 0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 N = 125.00

Overall awareness score

79

APPENDIX 11. SCORES DISTRIBUTION OF HABITUAL BUYING BEHAVIOUR


Statistics Habitual buying behaviour N Valid Missing Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis

125 0 -.130 .217 -.740 .430

Habitual buying behaviour Cumulative Percent 6.4 16.8 33.6 56.0 76.0 91.2 100.0

Valid

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total

Frequency 8 13 21 28 25 19 11 125

Percent 6.4 10.4 16.8 22.4 20.0 15.2 8.8 100.0

Valid Percent 6.4 10.4 16.8 22.4 20.0 15.2 8.8 100.0

Habitual buying behaviour


30

20

10

Frequency

Std. Dev = 1.66 Mean = 12.2 0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 N = 125.00

Habitual buying behaviour

80

APPENDIX 12. SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR OVERALL PERCEIVED QUALITY


Statistics Overall perceived quality score N Valid Missing Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis

125 0 -.184 .217 -.402 .430

Overall perceived quality score Cumulative Percent 1.6 6.4 10.4 16.8 25.6 33.6 40.0 60.0 65.6 72.0 86.4 96.0 98.4 100.0

Valid

33 34 35 40 44 45 47 48 50 52 55 60 61 62 Total

Frequency 2 6 5 8 11 10 8 25 7 8 18 12 3 2 125

Percent 1.6 4.8 4.0 6.4 8.8 8.0 6.4 20.0 5.6 6.4 14.4 9.6 2.4 1.6 100.0

Valid Percent 1.6 4.8 4.0 6.4 8.8 8.0 6.4 20.0 5.6 6.4 14.4 9.6 2.4 1.6 100.0

Overall perceived quality score


50

40

30

20

Frequency

10

Std. Dev = 7.46 Mean = 48.5 N = 125.00 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0

Overall perceived quality score

81

APPENDIX 13. SCORE DISTRIBUTION OF OVERALL ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY


Statistics Overall attitudinal loyalty N Valid Missing Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis

125 0 -.197 .217 -.801 .430

Overall attitudinal loyalty Cumulative Percent 9.6 22.4 43.2 68.8 88.8 100.0

Valid

15 16 17 18 19 20 Total

Frequency 12 16 26 32 25 14 125

Percent 9.6 12.8 20.8 25.6 20.0 11.2 100.0

Valid Percent 9.6 12.8 20.8 25.6 20.0 11.2 100.0

Overall attitudinal loyalty


40

30

20

Frequency

10 Std. Dev = 1.46 Mean = 17.7 0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 N = 125.00

Overall attitudinal loyalty

82

APPENDIX 14. MULTIPLE

REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR BRAND ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY AND HABITUAL

AWARENESS,

BUYING BEHAVIOUR

Descriptive Statistics Mean 12.20 17.67 19.70 Std. Deviation 1.656 1.463 1.880 N 125 125 125

Habitual buying behaviour Overall attitudinal loyalty Overall awareness score

Correlations Habitual buying behaviour 1.000 .690 .851 . .000 .000 125 125 125 Overall attitudinal loyalty .690 1.000 .608 .000 . .000 125 125 125 Overall awareness score .851 .608 1.000 .000 .000 . 125 125 125

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

Habitual buying behaviour Overall attitudinal loyalty Overall awareness score Habitual buying behaviour Overall attitudinal loyalty Overall awareness score Habitual buying behaviour Overall attitudinal loyalty Overall awareness score

b Variables Entered/Removed

Model 1

Variables Entered Overall awarenes s score, Overall attitudinal a loyalty

Variables Removed

Method

Enter

a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: Habitual buying behaviour

83

b Model Summary

Model 1

R .878a

R Square .771

Adjusted R Square .767

Std. Error of the Estimate .798

a. Predictors: (Constant), Overall awareness score, Overall attitudinal loyalty b. Dependent Variable: Habitual buying behaviour

ANOVAb Sum of Squares 262.223 77.777 340.000

Model 1

df 2 122 124

Regression Residual Total

Mean Square 131.112 .638

F 205.661

Sig. .000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Overall awareness score, Overall attitudinal loyalty b. Dependent Variable: Habitual buying behaviour

a Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) -5.139 .914 Overall attitudinal loyalty .309 .062 .273 Overall awareness score .603 .048 .685 a. Dependent Variable: Habitual buying behaviour

t -5.625 5.002 12.559

Sig. .000 .000 .000

Collinearity Statistics Tolerance VIF .630 .630 1.587 1.587

a Collinearity Diagnostics

Model 1

Dimension 1 2 3

Eigenvalue 2.993 4.504E-03 2.830E-03

Condition Index 1.000 25.778 32.517

Variance Proportions Overall Overall attitudinal awareness (Constant) loyalty score .00 .00 .00 .74 .00 .56 .26 .99 .44

a. Dependent Variable: Habitual buying behaviour

84

a Casewise Diagnostics

Case Number 19

Std. Residual -3.481

Habitual buying behaviour *

Predicted Value 12.78

Residual -2.78

a. Dependent Variable: Habitual buying behaviour

Residuals Statisticsa Predicted Value Std. Predicted Value Standard Error of Predicted Value Adjusted Predicted Value Residual Std. Residual Stud. Residual Deleted Residual Stud. Deleted Residual Mahal. Distance Cook's Distance Centered Leverage Value Minimum 9.75 -1.686 .073 9.70 -2.78 -3.481 -3.519 -2.84 -3.698 .051 .000 .000 Maximum 14.91 1.865 .221 14.91 1.44 1.805 1.858 1.53 1.877 8.499 .219 .069 Mean 12.20 .000 .120 12.20 .00 .000 .000 .00 -.003 1.984 .010 .016 Std. Deviation 1.454 1.000 .032 1.454 .792 .992 1.007 .816 1.022 1.635 .025 .013 N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125

a. Dependent Variable: Habitual buying behaviour

85

APPENDIX 15. CHARTS FOR MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual Dependent Variable: Habitual buying behaviour
1.00

.75

Expected Cum Prob

.50

.25

0.00 0.00 .25 .50 .75 1.00

Observed Cum Prob

Scatterplot Dependent Variable: Habitual buying behaviour


2

Regression Standardized Residual

-1

-2

-3 -4 -2 -1 0 1 2

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

86

You might also like