buying roles in the purchase decision …. indushri.pdfbuying roles in the purchase decision making...

BUYING ROLES IN THE PURCHASE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF CONSUMER DURABLES

A THESIS REPORT

Submitted by INDUSHRI. N

Under the guidance of

Dr. Mirza S. Saiyadain

in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY

in

MANAGEMENT

B.S.ABDUR RAHMAN UNIVERSITY (B.S. ABDUR RAHMAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY)

(Estd. u/s 3 of the UGC Act. 1956)

www.bsauniv.ac.in

December 2011

B.S.ABDUR RAHMAN UNIVERSITY (B.S. ABDUR RAHMAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY)

(Estd. u/s 3 of the UGC Act. 1956)

www.bsauniv.ac.in

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this thesis report on BUYING ROLES IN THE PURCHASE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF CONSUMER DURABLES is the bonafide work of INDUSHRI. N (RRN: 1044202) who carried out the thesis work under my supervision. Certified further, that to the best of my knowledge the work reported herein does not form part of any other thesis report or dissertation on the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an earlier occasion on this or any other candidate.

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

Dr. Mirza S. Saiyadain Dr. Mirza S.

Saiyadain

SUPERVISOR HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

Professor & Dean Professor & Dean

Crescent Business School Crescent Business School

B.S. Abdur Rahman University B.S. Abdur Rahman University

Vandalur, Chennai – 600 048 Vandalur, Chennai – 600 048

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO

TITLE PAGE NO

ABSTRACT 1

1 INTRODUCTION 2

1.1 Consumer Durables 2

1.2 Growth of Consumer Durables 3

1.3 Decision Making 5

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9

2.1 Purchase Involvement Relevance 9

2.2 Family Decision Making 9

2.3 Marketing and Consumer Behaviour 11

2.4 Family Purchasing Roles 13

2.5 Role of women 15

3 METHODOLOGY 18

3.1 Research Design 18

3.2 Choice of Product 18

3.3 Decision Types 18

3.4 Questionnaire 19

3.5 Demographic Predictors 19

3.5 Data Collection Procedure and Sample 19

4 RESULT 21

4.1 Profile of the Sample 21

4.2 Rank Correlation for Television 22

4.3 Rank Correlation for Washing Machine 23

4.4 Rank Correlation for Microwave Oven 24

4.5 Rank Correlation for Refrigerator 24

4.6 Rank Correlation for Air Conditioner 25

5 DISCUSSIONS 26

LIMITATIONS 27

6 REFERENCES 28

7 ANNEXURE 1 31

8 ANNEXURE 2 34

9 TECHNICAL BIOGRAPHY 42

ABSTRACT

The Indian consumer market has witnessed sustained development

since the liberalization and privatization policies came into effect post 1991.

Owing to the changes in the economic environment, there has been a positive

change in the life style of the consumers, the disposable income available to

them has increased, the product range as well as the brand options have

widen.

Emergence of dual income nuclear families has been instrumental in

increasing the disposable income floating in the economy coupled with

decrease in amount of savings and increase in borrowing by households.

The entry of global giants like Sony, LG, Samsung, Hitachi, Panasonic,

Toshiba etc. have played a major role in shaping up the present Indian market

new product launches, wide product offerings, and aggressive marketing

campaigns, competitive pricing, innovative promotional activities are few of

the characteristic of the Indian consumer market.

A study was conducted to study the purchase behaviour of family

members for the purchase of consumer durables. Specifically five (television,

washing machine, microwave oven, refrigerator, Air conditioner) was taken

into consideration. Data was collected from 210 female respondents. They

were asked to indicate the family member on who are the initiator, influencer,

decider, purchaser and user. The result shows that in almost in all consumer

durables the initiator and influencer as well as decider and purchaser are

same family member. Other roles are played by different members of the

family for all consumer durables.

BUYING ROLES IN THE PURCHASE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF

CONSUMER DURABLES:

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION:

1.1 CONSUMER DURABLES:

This study examines the roles that different family members play in the purchase of

consumer durables. This chapter introduces the basic elements of the research

study. During the last two decades the Indian consumer durables industry has

observed substantial developments. Changing lifestyle, higher disposable income

joined with greater affordability and an indication in advertising has been

instrumental in bringing about a change in the consumer behaviour pattern. An

increase in disposable income is supported by an increase in the number of dual-

income nuclear families. Steady income gains, consumer financing and hire-

purchase schemes have become a major driver in the Indian consumer durables

industry. In the case of high end consumer goods, such as high-end colour

televisions (LCD and LED), refrigerators, washing machines, split air conditioners

and personal computers, retailers are joining hands with banks and financing

companies to market their goods aggressively. Advanced technology and increasing

competition have narrowed the price gap of durable goods. Several global players

like Samsung, Philips, LG, Whirlpool, Nokia and Sony are well established in the

Consumer durables sector in India, with competition from strong Indian players like

Bajaj Electricals, Blue Star, Carrier, Godrej, MIRC Electronics, Videocon, and Voltas.

Developments of such degree have to be tracked and studied by marketers to

formulate successful marketing strategies for their survival and growth in Indian

market.

The Indian consumer market has never had it better. Higher disposable incomes, the

development of modern urban lifestyles and an increase in consumer awareness

have affected buyer behaviour — in cities, towns and even rural areas. According to

a 2007 report by McKinsey & Co., India is set to grow into the fifth largest consumer

market in the world by 2025. Buying power has also expanded to new consumer

segments — be it the youth or the urban woman. The vast rural heartland of India is

calling and the sheer numbers make it impossible to ignore. In this scenario, creating

consumer loyalty is now a whole new challenge. These demographic shifts have also

created the need for leaders who can keep pace with change and identify with and

predict future demand.

1.2 GROWTH OF CONSUMER DURABLES:

Korean high – tech companies LG and Samsung have virtually taken over India‘s

consumer durables market with aggressive marketing and competitive price

positioning, according to the Economic Times if India, statistics show that LG and

Samsung command between them a market share of 24 percent in the colour

television market, 40 percent in the refrigerator industry‘s frost free segment, 38

percent in the air conditioning industry and close to 55 percent in the microwave

oven segment. (EMEconomy.com)

Colour TVs 24%

Refrigerator 40%

Air Conditioners 38%

Microwave oven 55%

Several global players are well established in the Consumer Durables sector in India,

with competition from strong Indian player.

LG Electronics: is a global electronics and telecommunications

company headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. The company operates its

business through five divisions: mobile communications, home entertainment,

home appliance, air conditioning and business solution. LG Electronics is the

world's second-largest manufacturer of television sets and third-largest

producer of mobile phones. It is a flagship subsidiary company of LG Group,

one of the world's largest electronic conglomerates.

Samsung Electronics: is a South Korean multinational electronics and

information technology company headquartered in Samsung Town, Seoul. It is

the flagship subsidiary of the Samsung Group. With assembly plants and

sales networks in 61 countries across the world, Samsung has approximately

160,000 employees.

In 2009, the company took the position of the world‘s biggest IT maker by

surpassing the previous leader Hewlett-Packard. Its sales revenue in the

areas of LCD and LED displays and memory chips is number one in the world.

OTHER FEW EQUAL COMPETITORS FOR CONSUMER DURABLES ARE,

ONIDA: Onida was started by G.L. Mirchandani and Vijay Mansukhani in

1981 in Mumbai. In 1982, Onida started assembling television sets at their

factory in Andheri, Mumbai. Since then, Onida has evolved into a multi-

product company in the consumer durables and appliances sector. Onida

achieved a 100% growth in ACs and microwave ovens and a 40% growth

in washing machines last year.

Voltas Limited: is an engineering, airconditioning and refrigeration company

based in Mumbai, India. It makes stuff for industries in areas such as heating,

ventilation and air conditioning, refrigeration, construction equipment,

materials handling, water management, building management systems,

indoor air quality and chemicals. Voltas is a part of the Tata Group.

Whirlpool Corporation: is an American multinational manufacturer of

major home appliances headquartered in Benton Charter Township, Michigan,

United States, near Benton Harbor, Michigan. The company is listed

in Fortune 500 and has annual revenue of approximately $18.4 billion, more

than 70,000 employees, and more than 70 manufacturing and technology

research centers around the world. The company

markets Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid, Amana, Gladiator, Inglis

Estate, Brastemp, Bauknecht, Consul, and other major brand names to

consumers in nearly every country around the world.

GODREJ: The Godrej Group is an Indian conglomerate headquartered in Mu

mbai, India. It was founded by Ardeshir Godrej and Pirojsha Godrej in 1897,

Lalbaug, Mumbai. With 7 major companies with interests in real estate,

FMCG, industrial engineering, appliances, furniture, security and agri care –

to name a few – its turnover crosses 2.6 billion dollars.

1.3 DECISION MAKING:

An investigation of decision-making in families is important to identify the members

most vibrant in making a purchase. While for some product purchase husband may

be most influential, for others wife or other family members may decide about all or

most dimensions of purchase. Participation of wives in family decisions, besides

other factors, is essentially a function of attitude of the family towards role of women

in the society. On the basis of division of power, a family may be matriarchal,

patriarchal, or egalitarian. Indian society has traditionally been patriarchal, but

societal and economic changes are making the power structure in families more

egalitarian—where husbands and wives participate almost equally in the decision-

making process. The marital power structure in families determines the domain of

spouses and other family members within which they exercise influence in purchase

situations.

What factors contribute to purchase decision of consumer durables has been a topic

of debate and research. Behind the visible act of making a purchase lays a decision

process. The purchase decision process is the stages a buyer passes through in

making choices about which products and services to buy

Historically, family decision-making has attracted the interest of many consumer

researchers and behavioural scientists. As the most basic decision-making unit, the

family has become the focus of attention for understanding the roles of husbands

and wives in the consumer decision process. Various studies have been conducted

in the area of husband and wife decision-making roles regarding the purchase of an

assortment of goods and services (Blood and Wolfe 1960; Burger and Locke 1960;

Cos 1975; Davis 1970; Davis 1976; Davis and Rigaus 1974; Ferver and Nicosia

1972; Wolgast 1958). From another vantage point, psychologists have been

concerned with the roles played by spouses in decision-making and dependence of

these roles on various socio-psychological factors (Holman and Hendrick 1973).

Market researchers and economists are interested in studying household decision-

making because information about family decision-making may be helpful in

predicting consumer intentions, consumer product/service choice and purchase

(Ferber 1973).

In the current marketing literature, consumer purchase behaviour is examined from

three perspectives: the decision-making perspective, the experiential perspective,

and the behavioural influence perspective. In the first instance, consumers engage in

problem-solving tasks, in which they move through successive stages. The

experimental perspective maintains that consumers make purchases in older to

create feelings, experiences, and emotions rather than to solve problems. The

behavioural influence approach proposes that consumers, in most cases, act in

response to environmental pressures. These perspectives are complementary,

focusing on different aspects of buying and consumption process (Mowen 1988).

The importance of known family decision-making patterns is not limited to United

States. International marketers share an equal interest in learning about the structure

of family roles that exist in the various countries of the world. Besides, knowledge of

family decision-making in foreign environments can help to broaden the scope of the

field of consumer behaviour from its current primarily parochial interest in the United

States (Green & Cunningham, 1980)

In the majority of decision making issues in global markets, consumer behaviourists

performed comprehensive meta-analyses on Country of Origin (COO) effects.

Specifically, they observed the relative impact of COO on different stages of

consumers' decision-making process such a perception, attitude and behavioral

intention (Agrawal and Kamakura 1999; Verlegh and SteenKamp 1999; Peterson

and Jolibert 1995). Additionally, since Davis's (1976) major findings, consumer

investigators have continue to explore family buying behavior dimensions, although

from different perspectives and research approaches (Burns and Granbois 1979)

Burns and Ortinau 1978; Jenkins 1979). Sproles (1985) and Sproles and Kendall

(1986) have continued the work in analyzing consumer behavior and were

instrumental in developing and testing a Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI), which

pointed a new direction in decision-making research.

Studies also indicate that consumers have a specific learning style that uses

systematic and careful market research, observation, and knowledge. The learning

styles of novelty and fashion-conscious consumers are similar to those who are

perfectionists, with the exception that the novelty-conscious consumer is likely to be

a passive learner (Sproles 1990). Characteristics of decision-making techniques can

be useful in profiling an individual consumer style while targeting a select consumer

group for marketing plan development.

In the current marketing literature, consumer purchase behaviour is examined from

three perspectives: the decision-making perspective, the experiential perspective,

and the behavioural influence perspective. In the first instance, consumers engage in

problem-solving tasks, in which they move through successive stages. The

experimental perspective maintains that consumers make purchases in older to

create feelings, experiences, and emotions rather than to solve problems. The

behavioural influence approach proposes that consumers, in most cases, act in

response to environmental pressures. These perspectives are complementary,

focusing on different aspects of buying and consumption process (Mowen 1988).

This paper reports the results of a family decision-making study which compares

purchasing roles of samples of consumers. Consumers play five different roles such

as Initiator, Influencer, Decider, Purchaser, and User. One person initiates and the

other person influences, finally one person among the family decides and purchases.

In some case different people play different roles and in some cases same people

play more than one role.

The family is a complex unit comprised of individuals with varied cognitive,

emotional, and behavioural characteristics and abilities that can greatly affect family

decision-making across an individual‘s life-span. ―Decision-making‖ describes the

process by which families make choices, judgments, and ultimately come to

conclusions that guide behaviours. Family decision-making implies that more than

one member‘s input and agreement is involved (Scanzoni & Polonko 1980). The

decision-making process is cantered on core communication processes involved in

creating shared meaning. In the decision-making process, families can acknowledge

the differences among members and negotiate their needs for closeness and

independence (Baxter & Montgomery 1996)

CHAPTER 2:

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

2.1 PURCHASE INVOLVEMENT RELEVANCE

Purchasing Involvement (PI) has been one of the central issues in the consumer

behaviour literature because it can be an important mediator of consumer behaviour,

which can fundamentally influence the consumer‘s evaluation processes on certain

objects. (Mitchell, 1981). Researchers have made significant efforts to define and

describe purchase involvement. Cohen (1983) emphasizes the plurality of views that

coexist in the relevant literature regarding its meaning. Indeed, it is a concept which

is often described as a potpourri of ideas (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985; Mittal and

Lee, 1989). Some definitions appearing in the literature provide further

enlightenment and illustrate its relevance to related concepts, such as motivation,

goals and personality. Purchase involvement has been examined in many ways.

Mittal and Lee (1989) summarize some of the most useful involvement definitions.

For Example, ―Involvement is said to reflect the extent of personal relevance of the

decision to the individual in terms of her basic values, goals and self-concept‖ (Engel

and Blackwell, 1982)

―Involvement is an internal state variable and indicates the amount of arousal,

interest or drive evoked by a particular stimulus or situation‖ (Mitchell, 1979, 1981).

Kassarjian (1981) has stated that it is ‗undeniable that there are differences between

individuals which, regardless of the product or situation, make some people more

interested, concerned or involved in the consumer decision processes. Kassarjian‘s

notion of generalizing purchasing involvement is similar to a personality trait, in the

sense that it transcends individual purchase situations and is a characteristic of the

individual.

2.2 FAMILY DECISION MAKING:

Family decision-making behaviour has long intrigued the minds of social scientists.

Earlier contributions to the field came from sociologists who investigated, among

others, such issues as the structure of marital roles, instrumental versus expressive

roles, role specialization as a function of years of married life, and family life cycle

(Burges and Locke, 1962; Parsons and Bales, 1955).

Research in sociology has been valuable in providing frameworks to study the

dynamics of family decision-making (Jenkins, 1980).

Paralleling the growing recognition that family rather than the individual is the

relevant unit of analysis, the past two decades or so have witnessed increased

attention to the study of family decision-making by marketing scholars (Lackman and

Lanasa, 1993; Quails, 1987; Willkie, Moore-Shay, and Asser, 1992). Whereas family

decision-making has been examined in the context of a broad spectrum of societies,

the evidence specifically pertaining to purchasing behaviour-related aspects comes

with the notable exception of a study by Green and his colleagues (Green et al.,

1983). This is surprising at a time when marketing academics make continuous

pleas for cross-national studies and underscore the need for international research

to establish the universality of consumer behaviour concepts and theories (Al- baum

and Peterson, 1984; Bradley, 1987; Cunningham and Green, 1984; Lee and Green,

1991).

A review of the social science literature identifies four theories that have been

advanced to explain how tasks and power are allocated within families: cultural role

expectations, comparative resources, the least interested member, and the relative

investment theories. The major tenet of the cultural role expectations theory is that

power (defined as the potential ability of one person to influence the other‘s

behaviour) is prescribed into the roles of family members according to existing

cultural norms and controls. Consequently, a spouse‘s power is external to the family

and resides in the position rather than in the person (Davis, 1976).

The comparative resources theory (Blood and Wolfe, 1960) posits that the allocation

of tasks and authority within a marriage is determined totally within the family and not

externally. The theory proposes that the spouse that contributes more resources

(e.g., income, competence, personal attractiveness, better performance as a

homemaker) to the household unit is more powerful. The least interested partner

theory focuses on the resources contributed by each spouse in terms of their relative

value outside the marriage (Heer, 1963).

The relative investment theory (Davis, 1976) is rooted in the relative involvement that

each person has in a particular choice decision. According to this theory, the

importance associated with various decision outcomes determines how members

within the family interact in a decision situation. If decision outcomes are extremely

important and related to woman, then woman attempts to dominate. For a different

decision, however, the male may be dominant.

Rodman (1972) and Michel (l967) realized that there may be difficulties in applying

the theory of comparative resources where educational or occupational status may

have different significance. For instance, in highly developed societies, education

can be a socioeconomic resource variable that increases one‘s power in the family.

However, in developing societies, education can be a cultural variable that brings

about an equalitarian viewpoint. As a result, greater participation of women in the

decision-making process can be found among the more educated groups in these

societies.

2.3 MARKETING AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR:

Marketing and consumer behaviour researchers studying family purchasing

behaviour borrowed conceptual frameworks from other disciplines, but the thrust of

their research has been and continues to be empirical rather than theoretical. A

review and synthesis of the growing research on family purchasing behaviour identify

several areas of research focus: relative influences such as which member makes

the decision, antecedents of such influences, decision processes and their

outcomes, suitable methodologies to study these processes, and household

consumption patterns (Hopper, Burns, and Sherrell, 1989; Krampf, Burns, and

Rayman, 1993; Lackman and Lanasa, 1993; Menasco and Curry, 1989; Qualls,

1987; Wilkie et al., 1992).

The scrutiny of this body of literature suggests that marketing and consumer

behaviour contributions to the family decision-making research can be decomposed

into four avenues. First, locus of control, gender role orientations in the family,

product involvement, education and employment status of the wife, and the wife‘s

need for sensation are key determinants of relative influence in family purchasing

behaviour (Burns, 1992; Hopper et al., 1989; Krampf et al., 1993; Quails, 1987;

Woodside and Motes, 1979).

Second, husbands and wives do not necessarily share similar perceptions of their

influences in the family decision making process. Methodological advances in data

collection procedures as well as in development of psychometrically sound

measures are in order for valid studies of decision dominance (Hopper et al., 1989;

Krampf et al., 1993).

Third, relative influences of woman in family purchasing behaviour vary across

decision stages and product types (Wilkie et al., 1992). Because of their indisputable

relevance for such managerial decisions as promotion, positioning, and

segmentation, not surprisingly, this avenue is the most widely studied aspect of

family decision-making behaviour in the field of marketing. It appears that family

members exert differential influence in recognizing a need, providing expertise,

deciding which brand and model to buy, deciding how much to pay, and which outlet

to buy from (Wilkie, 1990). The influence varies depending on the stage of the

process (e.g., problem recognition, alternative search), type of decision or sub

decision under consideration (e.g., when to buy, where to buy, how much to pay),

and type of product or service (Wilkie et al., 1992). For instance, Woodside and

Motes (1979) found that wife‘s influence was stronger for carpeting and washers,

whereas the husbands influence was stronger for television sets. On the other hand,

the relative influence changed dramatically from one sub decision to another within

the same product category. In the case of carpeting, for example, the wives were

influential in identifying the purchase need 70% of the time, whereas they were

influential only 25% of the time on the issue of how much to pay for it.

Fourth, evidence based on longitudinal studies covering a broad spectrum of

products and services such as food and groceries, life insurance, cars, furniture and

house, shows that the influences are not static (Horton, 1984). Notwithstanding

potential variations due to cultural environment and stage of economic development,

it appears that, over time, women are exercising increasingly more power and

influence in family purchasing decisions around the world (Bartos, 1989).

2.4 FAMILY PURCHASING ROLES:

Research indicates that family roles change according to stages in the purchase

decision process as well as by the type of product or service in question.

Hempel(1974) found that consumers exhibited an initiator and an information seeker

role in the decision-making process. In the initiator role, many families‘ husbands

tended to be more dominant. At information search stage, both samples exhibited

considerable joint decision making of the family. Woman tended to dominate in

products used mostly by women (e.g., microwave oven, washing machine etc),

whereas male were more involved in financial decisions (Qualls, 1987).

Davis and Rigaux (1974) explored family purchasing roles in Belgium at three

decision stages (problem recognition, information search, and final decision) for 25

household decisions. Results showed that husbands became the more dominant

influence for most products as the decision stage progressed from problem

recognition to information search. However, when moving from information search to

final decision, the patterns of influence became more equal.

Davis and Rigaux (1974) also established that family purchasing roles vary by type

of product or service. Later, Woodside and Motes (1979) provided additional

evidence on influence variations due to product differences. Their study also

suggests that the relative influence varies across sub decisions. For instance, the

husbands influence was stronger in ―how much to pay‖ and ―which store to buy from‘

sub decisions in the case of washers and television sets.

Although the extant writings indicate role variations according to decision and

product/service types, they do not provide clear directions in terms of which person

is more dominant under different conditions. However, when the unique nature of the

society is taken into consideration some directionality can be derived. In Chennai,

women are mostly home makers and non working people. This limits them in terms

of knowledge and being dominant in taking a decision. Additionally, without earnings,

women in this country are not expected to be ―decision makers ‖ (Yavas et al., 1988,

p. 92). In Chennai, the husband is still considered the bread winner and the

controller of household finances.

Whyte (1978) suggests that wives in nuclear families have a power or status

advantage that is absent in more complex family types. The fact that extended

families include a number of adults of each gender leads to a fairly rigid sexual

division of labour. In nuclear families, however, spouses are more directly

interdependent; if one cannot perform his or her role, the other must take charge

because same-sex substitutes may not be readily available. Thus, the wife‘s role in a

nuclear family is more critical to the well-being of the entire family, including the

husband. This greater centrality may result in greater decision- making influence.

Studies in patriarchal societies such as India (Conklin, 1979) have found that wives

in nuclear families have greater marital power than do wives in extended families.

Scott (1976) argues that family role influence patterns will vary depending upon the

interest and involvement of family members in a particular product or service. Thus,

households with the same role allocation might show some decision-making

variations on the basis of perceived importance of a product or service (Sheth,

1974). A person who is more involved with a product-service will be more active in

the decision process and have a greater effect on the decision outcome

(Krishnamurthy, 1981). East writings show that involvement has an impact on

Gender power (Douglas, 1979) and it is a viable predictor of woman influence in

purchase decisions (Burns and Granbois, 1980; Davis, 1976; Scanzoni and

Szinovacs, 1980). The existing literature collectively suggests that woman influence

increases as a function of involvement with an object or activity.

Women with high purchase decision involvement exert more influence in consumer

decision-making than those with low involvement.

Women play a crucial role in the economic welfare of the family. Women perform

different tasks depending on their Socio-economic structure, number of people in the

family, the nature of professions they are involved in and many other factors (Reddy

and Narayan 1987).

Decisions made in home management ranges in importance from major once in a

lifetime. The type of home and the duties of women may vary greatly in the

conservative or traditional home and in the modern home (Megha 1990). The

authoritarian character of the traditional joint family entails decision making powers

concentrated, in the position of the eldest male members (Rao 1982).

2.5 ROLE OF WOMEN:

Women are traditionally less involved in decision making at all levels. Their important

role is not recognised and, therefore, still not accepted in decision-making. The

share of women in community decision-making structure is still very low and their

participation is mostly stressed by political parties, more as elements of their own

publicity and proof of democratisation, than as a real interest and need.

Without the active participation of women and incorporation of women‘s perspectives

at all levels of decision making, the goals of equality development and peace cannot

be achieved (Karl 1995)

Lancuster (1965) conducted study on ten wives who had not attended college.

Several women expressed or gave evidence of uncertainty in relation to their

decision making. Families are more likely to report satisfactory than unsatisfactory

decisions. This may be due to pride to accepting the consequences with good grace,

to rationalization of the alternative chosen or to the fact that people frequently make

new decisions to offset the unpleasant consequences of the unsatisfactory decision.

According to Mumtaz (1982) there are various family matters on which men

generally take decisions. Women are quite often not even consulted. This is because

of the feeling among men that women are incapable of expressing their decisions,

due to illiteracy among them. It would mean if women are educated they would

acquire the capacity to participate in decision making. Singh (1992) conducted a

study on modernity and decision making in upbringing of the children, and the study

revealed that 69.5 percent of the respondents of all categories expressed that both

husband and wife should take decisions on this matter. No respondent perceived

that wife only should be a decision maker in giving education to the children. It was

found that 90.8 per cent of the respondents were in high level of modernity, 74.0

percent of the respondents in the medium level of modernity and only 20.3 per cent

of the respondents were in low level of modernity considered that husband and wife

both have to take decisions regarding the education of the children.

Malkit (1998) conducted study on decision making power among women, related to

social obligations, which include decisions regarding age at marriage, mate

selection, dowry. Expenditure on marriage and education of children also showed

relatively high role of women. Dowry was more or less a female domain with 78.3 per

cent, women having high role in it, followed by decisions related to age at marriage

of son or daughter.

Roth (2001) in his study found that wives tend to under-report their household

decision-making power. In couples with both partners educated and in couples in

which women work for pay, both partners were significantly more likely to report that

both of them participate in the final decisions than was the case in couples without

education or in which the wife did not work for pay.

Lait and Rehmat (2001) in their study examined whether men‘s and women‘s

retirement have a differential impact on several aspects of marital life, i.e. power

relations (as reflected in decision-making), spousal resources, division of household

tasks, and quality of marriage. There was evidence of change in decision-making

patterns about spending time and carrying out feminine and general tasks. It was

also found that men‘s retirement has a different impact than women‘s retirement on

decisions about household affairs and performance of feminine tasks.

Marieke (2001) argued in his study that perception of social support were based in

part in the structural conditions of individual marital arrangements, specifically

household decision of labour and decision making The study suggested the

structural arrangements within marriages likely impact individuals perceptions of

social support and that the closer couples come to equal labour and decision making

in the household, the more supported each partner is likely to feel.

Family decision-making and purchasing may lead to alternatives in marketing

strategy in order to appeal to specific region and country. Many companies should

adjust their marketing strategy to accommodate global consumer differences. As

such, not observing such cross-cultural differences can debase a company and

cause products to fail (Hoyer & Maclnnis, 2004).

Decision-making power of women is very less and a women needs to adjust in many

situations. There is gender compatibility & psychological adjustment in women

(saxvik, s.k, & joireman, J, 2005)

There is tendency in the literature to research three categories of products: for direct

consumption by the child, for family activities, or for the household (durable

consumer goods and expensive goods) (Gram,2007; Jensen, 1995 cited in Kaur &

singh, 2006; Roedder, 1999)

The parent‘s opinion is the most important for children in making decision about

purchases. If children compare their parents and advertisements as sources of

information, they perceive parents as a trustworthy source of information

(Schiffmann & Kanuk, 2010)

Additionally the importance of the mother is a dominant factor, which seems to result

from the stereotypical female and male roles in Poland suggesting that is women‘s

chore to do the shopping. Moreover, mothers are mainly treated as social agents

due to the fact that their involvement is stronger than involvement of fathers

(Grossbart, Carlson & Walsh, 1991; Moore – shay & Lutz, 1988; Schiffman & Kanuk,

2010)

CHAPTER 3:

METHODOLOGY:

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN:

The present research focused on one outcome variable-who makes the

decision. The hypotheses were developed around this outcome variable using a

set of demographic and attitudinal predictors suggested by the literature. The

relationships between these predictors and the outcome variable were

examined across product categories and decision types using a cross-sectional

research design.

3.2 CHOICE OF PRODUCTS:

Considering the unique characteristics of the household products (Microwave

oven, washing machine, Television, Refrigerator and Air conditioner )were included

in the study design. Besides being appropriate to the study‘s cultural context,

these products have formed the bases of several propositions advanced in the

literature (Davis and Rigaux, 1974; Green et al., 1983; Hopper et al., 1989;

Woodside and Motes, 1979)

3.3 DECISION TYPES

Responses were coded to indicate whether the man or the woman in the family

makes most of the decisions. For example, if she or a female respondent was mostly

responsible for deciding on the product, she was coded as being part of the family in

which the woman makes most of these decisions. If she said her partner or a male in

the family chooses what they would do, she was coded as being in a family in which

the man has the most say.

The responses to the four roles (initiator, influencer decider and purchaser) were

then analyzed together to determine whether, on balance, the man or the woman in

the respondent's family made.

3.4 QUESTIONNAIRE:

Before the survey administration, pre-test of the questionnaire with a small group of

respondents was collected and the results were satisfactory. Only one person - the

respondent - was interviewed and her answer was accepted as an accurate

characterization of that family‘s decision-making. The first part consisted of

definitions relating to purchasing involvement and role of a person in family.

The second part related to the measurement of purchase influence of the various

family members at each stage of the product purchase decision making process.

Consumer durables like Television, Refrigerator, Microwave oven, Air conditioner

and Washing Machine were chosen for this study as they are the most common

products used by almost every household.

The third part of the questionnaire consisted of questions relating to consumer

demographics namely age, education, family income etc. A copy of the final

questionnaire is presented in Annexure-I

3.5 DEMOGRAPHIC PREDICTORS:

Three dichotomized demographic predictors were included in the research design.

They were: education (high school, Higher secondary, UG, PG, Diploma, PhD),

employment (working vs. nonworking), and family income (<10000, 10001-20000,

20001-35000, >35000).

3.6 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE:

The study was conducted in Chennai city of Tamil Nadu state in India. The

researcher has adopted Sampling method for the data collection.Primary data

collection involving the use of a structured format questionnaire. The prepared

questionnaires were distributed among the women residing in areas identified for the

survey purpose. The respondents were chosen through friends, relatives for

identification. Of the 300 respondents contacted because of incompleteness and

other survey difficulties, only 210 usable questionnaires were collected. Secondary

data collected from publications, journals and books related to the topic. Considering

the unique characteristics of the household products (Microwave oven, washing

machine, Television, Refrigerator and Air conditioner) were included in the study

design. Four major family purchase decision roles were selected such as Initiator,

Influencer, Decider, and Purchaser appropriate for the study. The predictor‘s attitude

and purchase decision involvement of family decision-making behaviour for each

product category was measured. They were designed to capture the importance and

relevance of a particular purchase decision, and the level of interest the respondent

had in the decision to purchase that product. For each item, responses were

recorded with relationship (mother, father, brother etc) to which role (initiator,

influencer, decider, and purchaser) they play.

CHAPTER 4

RESULT:

TABLE 1:

This table presents profile of the sample

4.1 PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE:

VARIABLE

AGE

N = 210

M = 35.91

S.D= 24.182

EXPERIENCE:

N = 112

M = 7.63

S.D = 5.373

EDUCATION:

N = 210

High school =0.38%

Higher secondary =

0.29%

UG = 41.9%

PG = 27.6%

Diploma = 15.2%

PhD = 08.6%

FAMILY INCOME:

N = 210

< 10000 = 3.8%

10001 - 20000 =

16.2%

21000 – 30000 =

45.7%

>30000 = 34.3%

The data in table 1 shows that the average age of sample is 35.9 years. As many as

112 respondents were working with an average of 7.63 years. Majority of the

respondents had undergraduate education (41.9%) followed by post graduate

education. However 8.6% of the respondents have acquired a Ph. D degree.

Respondents varied in terms of monthly family income. Majority of them had monthly

income ranging between 20,000 and 30,000 and above.

To get results, rank order correlation were calculated for all the five consumer

durables. The individual results for each of them are presented in table 2 to 6.

Table 2 presents the value of Rho for all the consumer durables.

TABLE 2:

This table consists of rank correlation for television

4.2 RANK CORRELATION FOR TELEVISION:

Roles N Rho Level of significance

Initiator vs influencer 12 0.854 0.01

Initiator vs decider 7 0.536 N.S.

Initiator vs purchaser 9 0.396 N.S.

Influencer vs decider 7 0.295 N.S.

Influencer vs purchaser 9 0.296 N.S.

Decider vs purchaser 6 0.772 0.05

The results of rho coefficient between initiator and influencer suggest strong

possibility that as far television is concerned the initiator and influencer are the same

family member (Rho = 0.854; df = 11; P<.01) and the decider Vs purchaser are more

or less the same family member (Rho = 0.772; df = 5; P<.05) as far as other roles

are concerned, the insignificant value of rank order correlation suggests that different

members of the family play different role. The family members playing different roles

are presents in Annexure 2.

TABLE 3:

This table consists of rank correlation for washing machine

4.3 RANK CORRELATION FOR WASHING MACHINE:


Initiator vs influencer 10 0.513 N.S

Initiator vs decider 6 0.658 N.S

Initiator vs purchaser 7 0.437 N.S

Influencer vs decider 6 0.915 0.01

Influencer vs purchaser 7 0.09 N.S

Decider vs purchaser 4 0.50 N.S

The results of rho coefficient between influencer and decider suggest strong

possibility that as far washing machine is concerned the influencer and decider are

the same family member (Rho = 0.915; df = 5; P<.01). As far as other roles are

concerned, the insignificant value of rank order correlation suggests that different

members of the family play different role. The family members playing different roles

are presents in Annexure 2.

TABLE 4:

This table consists of rank correlation for microwave oven

4.4 RANK CORRELATION FOR MICROWAVE OVEN:



Initiator vs decider 10 0.652 0.05


Influencer vs decider 9 0.621 N.S



The results of rho coefficient between initiator and influencer suggest strong

possibility that as far microwave oven is concerned the initiator and influencer are

the same family member (Rho = 0.773; df = 9; P<.01) and the initiator Vs decider are

more or less the same family member (Rho = 0.652; df = 5; P<.05) as far as other

roles are concerned, the insignificant value of rank order correlation suggests that

different members of the family play different role. The family members playing

different roles are presents in Annexure 2.

TABLE 5:

This table consists of rank correlation for refrigerator

4.5 RANK CORRELATION FOR REFRIGERATOR:





Influencer vs decider 8 0.727 0.05



As far refrigerator is concerned the influencer Vs decider are more or less the same

family member (Rho = 0.727; df = 5; P<.05). The same is the case for initiator and

influencer (Rho = 0.785; df = 9; P<.01). As far as other roles are concerned, the

insignificant value of rank order correlation suggests that different members of the

family play different role. The family members playing different roles are presents in

Annexure 2.

TABLE 6:

This table consists of rank correlation for Air conditioner

4.6 RANK CORRELATION FOR AIR CONDITIONER:





Influencer vs decider 7 0.278 N.S


Decider vs purchaser 6 0.769 0.05

When it comes to air conditioner the decider Vs purchaser are more or less the same

family member (Rho = 0.769; df = 5; P<.05). The results also show that for purchase

of air conditioner same family members play the role of both initiator and influencer

(Rho = 0.785; df = 11; P<.01). As far as other roles are concerned, the insignificant

value of rank order correlation suggests that different members of the family play

different role. The family members playing different roles are presents in Annexure 2.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSIONS:

The family is a complex unit comprised of individuals with varied cognitive,

emotional, and behavioural characteristics and abilities that can greatly affect family

decision making. ―Decision-making‖ describes the process by which families make

choices, judgments, and ultimately come to conclusions that guide behaviours.

Family decision-making implies that more than one member‘s input and agreement

is involved. The temperament and disposition of each child can greatly vary within

the same family. Consequently, the relationship between parents and different

siblings is dynamic and unique, with each individual responding to and modifying the

behaviour of the other. Family decision-making processes are a two-way street with

parent‘s influence on the communicative patterns of their children and vice versa.

Joint decision-making and autonomy are best achieved through collaborative

problem-solving, parental modelling, negotiation, and compromise. When children

are given opportunities for decision-making in areas that matter less, they are more

likely to conform to parental expectations that matter more.

Most of the respondents have insisted that the Male in a family is the Decider and

purchaser. Role of women is so weak. They are mostly initiators for kitchen items

and very rarely they play the role as deciders and purchaser. According to the survey

working women are very less and that may be a reason for the male to play the role

of purchaser and decider.

Women need to be active in the decision-making circle of the society. Barriers to

equality are rooted in long-standing attitudes and traditions. This patriarchal system

keeps women their lower status. The women deprivation starts from birth because

girl child is not particularly wanted child. Her life is a journey of subordination. When

she is young her father decides for her on matters ranging from whether she will get

any education, to all the important matters of whom she would marry. After marriage

husband and her in-laws get hold of her reins and decide matters on her behalf like

shall she or shall she not have a child every year. Women are mostly involved in

unpaid work. The world of men and women are different in term of employment,

health, education etc. They do a lot of work as look after children, bring water, work

in domestic poultry and livestock but their work is not acknowledged. Women still

lack the legal right to inherit property. Factors considered in decision-making at

household level are as access to hospital Mobility, purchases. There are also some

social & cultural factors that Prohibits women to make decisions independently.

Women are mostly involved in unpaid work. There is mostly joint family system. Men

& other members of family play dominant role in decision made at household level.

One aspect that seems to stand at the fact that except for washing machines, in the

remaining four consumer durables the initiator and influencer are same member of

the family. Apparently the family member who takes the initiative for purchase of

consumer durables feels strongly about it and influences the final decision and

purchase. This is an interesting phenomenon as it shows the felt need and the need

to persuade the other members of the family to follow upon the consumer durables

for the family.

LIMITATIONS:

Every study has certain limitations. In my study, also there were certain limitations,

which I could not able to solve.

1. The research was conducted in a small area.

2. My research work period witness the ups and downs in product sale of

different brands, which affected the perception of the customer. This was

biggest drawback of my study.

3. The research does not take into account the varied income level of the

households.

4. The lack of availability of recent research work done on this topic for the

Chennai region.

5. Rural area coverage was limited due to the consumer‘s passiveness towards

the survey.

6. Sample size was too small to come to a conclusion

REFERENCES:

1. ALBAUM, G, AND PETERSON, R. A. ―Empirical Research m International

Marketing: 1976-1982.5‖. Int. Bus. Stud. 15 (2-3): pp. 161-173, 1984

2. ALTORKI, S., ―Family Organization and Women‘s Power in Urban Saudi

Arabian Society‖. J. Anthropol. Res. 33 (3): pp. 277-287, 1977

3. ARNDT, J., AND CRATE, E., ―Marital Roles in Interfamilial Decision making

on Spending Matters, in Combined Proceedings of the American Marketing

Association.‖ Ronald C. Curhan, ed., American Marketing Association,

Chicago, IL., pp. 63-66, 1974

4. BURNS, ALVIN C., AND GRANBOIS, DONALD H., ―Advancing the Study of

Family Purchase Decision Making, in Advances in Consumer Research 7‖.

Jerry C. Olson, ed., Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI., pp.

221-225, 1980

5. BURNS, DAVID J., ―Husband-Wife Innovative Consumer Decision Making:

Exploring the Effect of Family Power.‖ Psychol. Marketing 9, pp. 175-189,

May/June 1992

6. CONKLIN, GEORGE H., ―Cultural Determinants of Power for women within

the Family: A Neglected Aspect of Family Research.‖ J. Comparative Family

Stud. 10 (1), pp. 35-53, 1979.

7. COSTLEY, CAROLYN L., ―Meta Analysis of Involvement Research, in

Advances in Consumer Research 15‖. Michael J. Houston, ed, Association for

Consumer Research, Provo, UT., pp.554-562, 1988

8. CUNNINGHAM, WILLIAM H., AND GREEN, ROBERT T., ―Marketing 48

(Winter 1984): 9-10. Davis, Harry L., Measurement of Husband-Wife Influence

in Consumer Purchase Decisions Marketing Res. 8‖, pp. 305-312, August

1971

9. DAVIS, HARRY L., ―Decision Making within the Household. J. Consumer Res.

2‖ pp. 241-260, March 1976.

10. DAVIS, HARRY L., AND RIGAUX, BENNY P, ―Perception of Marital Roles in

Decision Processes. J. Consumer Res. 1‖, pp. 51-62, June 1974

11. DOUGLAS, SUSAN P., ―A Cross National Exploration of Husband-Wife

Involvement in Selected Household Activities, in Advances in Consumer

Research‖ 6.William L.Wilkie, ed., Association for Consumer Research, Ann

Arbor, MI, pp. 364-371, 1979.

12. DOUGLAS, SUSAN P, AND CRAIG, C. ―Samuel,International Marketing

Research‖, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1983.

13. ELBASHIER, A. M., AND NICHOLLS, J. R., ―Export Marketing in the Middle

East: The Importance of Cultural Differences.‖ Eur. J. Marketing 17(1), pp. 68-

81, 1983

14. ELLKOTT, JOYCE E., AND MOSKOFF, WILLIAM, ―Decision Making Power in

Romanian Families. J. Comparative Family Study 14 (1)‖, pp. 39-50, 1983.

15. LACKMAN, CONWAY, AND LANASA, JOHN M., ―Family-Decision Making

Theory: An Overview and Assessment.‖ Psychol Marketing 10, pp. 81-93,

March/ April 1993.

16. SCANZONI, JOHN, AND SZINOVACS, M, ―Family Decision Making:

Developmental Sex Role Model,‖ Sage Publications, Inc., Beverly Hills, CA,

1980.

17. ―The Female Consumer‖, Wiley& Sons, New York 1976

18. SCRONS, DEBORAH, ―Woman of the Veil‖, The Atlanta Journal/ Atkmti

Constitution, Section P, pp. 1, June 28, 1992.

19. SHETH, JAGDISH N., ―A Theory of Family Buying Decisions, in Models of

Buyer Behaviour: Conceptual, Quantitative, and Empirical.‖ Harper and Row,

New York, pp. 17-33, 1974.

20. SLAMA, MARK E., AND TASHCHIAN, ARMEN, ―Selected Socioeconomic

and Demographic Characteristics Associated with Purchasing Involvement‖,

Marketing 49, pp. 72-82, 1985.

21. SPIRO, ROSANN L., ―Persuasion in Family Decision Making.‖ J. Consumer

Res. 9, pp. 393-402, 1983.

22. HEER, DAVID M., ―The Measurement and Bases of Family Power: An

Overview.‖ Marriage and Family Living 25, pp. 133-139, May 1963.

23. HEMPEL, DONALD J, ―Family Buying Decisions: A Cross Cultural

Perspective.‖ J. Marketing Res. 11, pp. 295-302, August 1974.

24. HOPPER, J, STILLEY, BURNS, ALVIN C., AND SHERRELL, DANIEL L., ―An

Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of Husband and Wife Self-Report

Purchase Declslon Making Measures‖, Acad.Marketing Sci. 17, pp. 227-234,

Summer 1989.

25. HORTON, RAYMOND L., ―Buyer Behavior: A Decision Making Approach‖,

Charles E. Merrill PublishingCompany, Columbus, OH, 1984

26. IMPERIA, GIOVANNA, O‘GUINN, THOMAS C., AND MACADAMS,

ELIZABETH A., ―Family Decision Making Role Perceptions Among Mexican

Amertcan and Anglo Wives: A Cross-Cultural Comparison, in Advances in

Consumer Research‖ 12. E. Hlrshman and M. Holbrook, eds., Association for

Consumer Research, Provo, UT., pp. 71-74, 1985.

27. JENKINS, ROGER L., ―Contributions of Theory to the Study of Family

Decision Making, in Advances in Consumer Research 7‖. Jerry C. Olson, ed ,

Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, Ml, pp. 207-211, 1985.

28. ROEDDER J.D., ―Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look

at Twenty – five Years of Research, Journal of marketing research,

26(December), 183 – 213, (1999)

29. SCHIFFMAN L.G., & KANUK L.L., ―Consumer Behaviour, New York: Prentice

Hall, 2010

ANNEXURE 1:

QUESTTIONAIRE:

(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ANYWHERE)

BUYING ROLES IN THE PURCHASE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF

CONSUMER DURABLES:

APPEAL:

I am doing my M.Phil at B.S Abdur Rahman University. In this connection, I need to

collect information on purchase decision for home appliances. I would be grateful to

you if you could complete the following and hand it back to me.

I am looking for 5 roles in purchase decisions. They are defined below:

Initiator: The person who first suggests or thinks of the idea of buying a particular

product.

Influencer: A person whose view or advice influences the buying decision.

Decider: The individual with the power and authority to make the ultimate choice

regarding which product to buy.

Buyer: The person who concludes the transaction and buys the product.

User: The person (or persons) who actually uses the product.

You need to fill up the spaces by mentioning the relation (Eg: Husband, son,

daughter, in laws, friend etc) If all the members of the family uses the product kindly

mention ALL for the necessary column.

PRODUCT/

FACTOR

INITIATOR INFLUENCER DECIDER PURCHASER USER

PURCHASE OF

TELEVISION

PURCHASE OF

REFRIGERATOR

PURCHASE OF

WASHING

MACHINE

PURCHASE OF

MICROWAVE OVEN

PURCHASE OF AIR

CONDITIONER

AGE :

MARITAL STATUS :

Married ( ) Unmarried ( ) Widower ( ) Divorce ( )

NO OF CHILDREN :

EDUCATION :

High school ( ) Higher secondary ( ) UG ( )

PG ( ) Diploma ( ) PhD ( )

WORKING : Yes / No

(If yes fill the following)

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE :

FAMILY INCOME :

Less than10000 ( )

Between 10001-20000 ( )

Between 20001-35000 ( )

More than 35000 ( )

(THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION)

ANNEXURE 2: FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE:

TELEVISION INITIATOR

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 20 9.5 9.5 9.5

FATHER 34 16.2 16.2 25.7

MOTHER 24 11.4 11.4 37.1

SISTER 6 2.9 2.9 40.0

BROTHER 12 5.7 5.7 45.7

SON 50 23.8 23.8 69.5

DAUGHTER 34 16.2 16.2 85.7

HUSBAND 8 3.8 3.8 89.5

FATHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 90.5

MOTHER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 92.4

SON IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 94.3

DAUGHTER IN LAW 8 3.8 3.8 98.1

FRIEND 2 1.0 1.0 99.0

GRAND FATHER 2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

INFLENCER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 48 22.9 22.9 22.9

FATHER 18 8.6 8.6 31.4

MOTHER 22 10.5 10.5 41.9

SISTER 12 5.7 5.7 47.6

BROTHER 8 3.8 3.8 51.4

SON 46 21.9 21.9 73.3

DAUGHTER 28 13.3 13.3 86.7

HUSBAND 10 4.8 4.8 91.4

FATHER IN LAW 6 2.9 2.9 94.3

MOTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 95.2

SON IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 97.1


GRANDFATHER 2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

DECIDER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 28 13.3 13.3 13.3

FATHER 68 32.4 32.4 45.7

MOTHER 14 6.7 6.7 52.4

SON 14 6.7 6.7 59.0

DAUGHTER 14 6.7 6.7 65.7

HUSBAND 68 32.4 32.4 98.1

FATHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 99.0

MOTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

PURCHASER


Cumulative

Percent


FATHER 66 31.4 31.4 36.2

MOTHER 6 2.9 2.9 39.0

SISTER 4 1.9 1.9 41.0

BROTHER 6 2.9 2.9 43.8

SON 12 5.7 5.7 49.5

DAUGHTER 2 1.0 1.0 50.5

HUSBAND 98 46.7 46.7 97.1

FATHER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 99.0

SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

USER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MOTHER 4 1.9 1.9 1.9

ALL 206 98.1 98.1 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

WASHING MACHING

INITIATOR


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 32 15.2 15.2 15.2

FATHER 18 8.6 8.6 23.8

MOTHER 42 20.0 20.0 43.8

SISTER 4 1.9 1.9 45.7

BROTHER 4 1.9 1.9 47.6

SON 22 10.5 10.5 58.1

DAUGHTER 40 19.0 19.0 77.1

HUSBAND 10 4.8 4.8 81.9

MOTHER IN LAW 12 5.7 5.7 87.6

SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 88.6


ALL 14 6.7 6.7 99.0

GRAND FATHER 2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

INFLUENCER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 44 21.0 21.0 21.0

FATHER 34 16.2 16.2 37.1

MOTHER 40 19.0 19.0 56.2

SISTER 22 10.5 10.5 66.7

BROTHER 2 1.0 1.0 67.6

SON 18 8.6 8.6 76.2

DAUGHTER 14 6.7 6.7 82.9

HUSBAND 22 10.5 10.5 93.3

MOTHER IN LAW 6 2.9 2.9 96.2

BROTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 97.1

SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 98.1


Total 210 100.0 100.0

DECIDER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 48 22.9 22.9 22.9

FATHER 62 29.5 29.5 52.4

MOTHER 34 16.2 16.2 68.6

SON 6 2.9 2.9 71.4

DAUGHTER 20 9.5 9.5 81.0

HUSBAND 32 15.2 15.2 96.2

MOTHER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 98.1

SON IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

PURCHASER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 28 13.3 13.3 13.3

FATHER 80 38.1 38.1 51.4

MOTHER 4 1.9 1.9 53.3

SISTER 4 1.9 1.9 55.2

BROTHER 8 3.8 3.8 59.0

SON 2 1.0 1.0 60.0

DAUGHTER 4 1.9 1.9 61.9

HUSBAND 80 38.1 38.1 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

USER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid ALL 210 100.0 100.0 100.0

MICROWAVE OVEN

INITIATOR


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 42 20.0 20.0 20.0

FATHER 6 2.9 2.9 22.9

MOTHER 36 17.1 17.1 40.0

SISTER 22 10.5 10.5 50.5

BROTHER 8 3.8 3.8 54.3

SON 26 12.4 12.4 66.7

DAUGHTER 30 14.3 14.3 81.0

HUSBAND 24 11.4 11.4 92.4

MOTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 93.3

SISTER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 94.3

SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 95.2


FRIEND 2 1.0 1.0 98.1

GRANDFATHER 2 1.0 1.0 99.0

GRANDMOTHER 2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

INFLUENCER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 32 15.2 15.2 15.2

FATHER 30 14.3 14.3 29.5

MOTHER 32 15.2 15.2 44.8

SISTER 18 8.6 8.6 53.3

BROTHER 8 3.8 3.8 57.1

SON 26 12.4 12.4 69.5

DAUGHTER 24 11.4 11.4 81.0

HUSBAND 22 10.5 10.5 91.4

FATHER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 93.3

MOTHER IN LAW 6 2.9 2.9 96.2

SISTER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 98.1


Total 210 100.0 100.0

DECIDER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 36 17.1 17.1 17.1

FATHER 64 30.5 30.5 47.6

MOTHER 18 8.6 8.6 56.2

SISTER 6 2.9 2.9 59.0

SON 30 14.3 14.3 73.3

DAUGHTER 6 2.9 2.9 76.2

HUSBAND 34 16.2 16.2 92.4

MOTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 93.3

SISTER IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 95.2

SON IN LAW 4 1.9 1.9 97.1


Total 210 100.0 100.0

PURCHASER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 28 13.3 13.3 13.3

FATHER 72 34.3 34.3 47.6

MOTHER 8 3.8 3.8 51.4

BROTHER 4 1.9 1.9 53.3

SON 4 1.9 1.9 55.2

DAUGHTER 4 1.9 1.9 57.1

HUSBAND 88 41.9 41.9 99.0

BROTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

USER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid ALL 210 100.0 100.0 100.0

REFRIGERATOR

INITIATOR


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 22 10.5 10.5 10.5

FATHER 14 6.7 6.7 17.1

MOTHER 56 26.7 26.7 43.8

SISTER 6 2.9 2.9 46.7

BROTHER 2 1.0 1.0 47.6

SON 22 10.5 10.5 58.1

DAUGHTER 36 17.1 17.1 75.2

HUSBAND 24 11.4 11.4 86.7

MOTHER IN LAW 10 4.8 4.8 91.4

SISTER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 92.4

SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 93.3


GRAND FATHER 4 1.9 1.9 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

INFLUENCER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 40 19.0 19.0 19.0

FATHER 28 13.3 13.3 32.4

MOTHER 40 19.0 19.0 51.4

SISTER 10 4.8 4.8 56.2

BROTHER 8 3.8 3.8 60.0

SON 28 13.3 13.3 73.3

DAUGHTER 26 12.4 12.4 85.7

HUSBAND 16 7.6 7.6 93.3

FATHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 94.3

MOTHER IN LAW 6 2.9 2.9 97.1

SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 98.1


Total 210 100.0 100.0

DECIDER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 44 21.0 21.0 21.0

FATHER 68 32.4 32.4 53.3

MOTHER 22 10.5 10.5 63.8

SON 8 3.8 3.8 67.6

DAUGHTER 18 8.6 8.6 76.2

HUSBAND 44 21.0 21.0 97.1

FATHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 98.1

MOTHER IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 99.0

SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

PURCHASER


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MYSELF 24 11.4 11.4 11.4

FATHER 74 35.2 35.2 46.7

MOTHER 4 1.9 1.9 48.6

SISTER 4 1.9 1.9 50.5

BROTHER 10 4.8 4.8 55.2

SON 6 2.9 2.9 58.1

HUSBAND 84 40.0 40.0 98.1

SON IN LAW 2 1.0 1.0 99.0

GRAND FATHER 2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

USER


Cumulative

Percent


MOTHER 18 8.6 8.6 15.2

ALL 178 84.8 84.8 100.0

Total 210 100.0 100.0

CHAPTER 9

TECHNICAL BIOGRAPHY

Ms. INDUSHRI N. (RRN. 1044202) was born on 12th June 1988, in Chennai, Tamil

Nadu. She did her schooling in C.S.I. Jessie mosses higher secondary school. She

received B.Sc. degree in Biotechnology from SRM Arts & Science College in the

year 2008 from Madras University. She received MBA degree specialized in HR and

Marketing with 85% in the year 2010 from Sathyabama University. She is currently

pursuing her M.Phil. degree in management from Crescent Business School of B.S.

Abdur Rahman University. The e-mail ID is [email protected] and the contact

number is: 9500127777

Photo

buying roles in the purchase decision …. indushri.pdfbuying roles in the purchase decision making...

Documents