Consumer Purchase Decision Involvement across Product Categories

and Demographics
Ajay Bansal1 Rahul Gupta2 Vinita Srivastava3

Abstract
Customer involvement for various product categories has been area of attention for both
academicians and marketers since long. This involvement of customers has been at the center of
final buying decision. However, developing countries like India still lack in-depth insights into the
said subject, as not many researches have been done taking Indian culture into consideration. If
generalization of concepts has to be done, coverage of various cultures in similar context is a must.
Also, very few researches have focused on effect of demographics on buying involvement and hence
on final buying decision. Hence, the following research was done to investigate consumer purchase
involvement across product categories with integrative effect of three important demographics :
Education, Income, Gender. On the basis of past literature, purchase decision involvement across
six categories viz., eyeglasses, pencils, car, salt, tea and mobile phone was studied. Data collection
was done through an adapted and structured questionnaire which was administered amongst
respondents in Delhi and NCR. Questionnaire included five items for each product category related to
purchase decision involvement. Results indicate that consumer involvement across the six category of
goods studied is independent of gender, income and education. For marketers and researchers,
final implications of the research have been shared in the article. This study will guide the
practitioners in devising marketing strategies owing to differences in product involvement.
Informative marketing strategies can be devised for each category of products depending on the
customer’s involvement in purchase decision of specific category.

Key Words : Customer involvement, demographics, purchase decision, buying consumer

behavior

1
Assistant Professor, Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida
2
Assistant Professor, Amity Business School, Noida
3
Assistant Professor, Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida
Introduction

In todays’ era customers are inundated with multiplicity of products, multiple substitutes for each
of the products, ease of access to products through multiple channels and personalized and new
generation ways of communication media. This has influenced the way in which customers get
involved in buying decision of specific products. This research is undertaken to understand how
buying decision involvement exists today amongst different category of products. Involvement in
buying and taking a decision can be considered as maximum attention and responsibility that a
customer brings along for taking a buy call. Buying decision involvement is also dependent on the
time, money and effort individual customer devotes on a particular product. The amount of
money spent as well as the time and effort involvement for a product differs with product
categories.
People are living bundles of needs. They need life-giving substances, transportation, personality
makeover goods, telecommunication goods & services, and thousands of other items. Every
person in the world is a consumer some way or the other. The consumer or buyer is a complex
entity and through their acquisition of products they try to enhance their living standards. The
consumers’ acquisition of products is often affected by factors like individual demographics.
Some of these product acquisitions are within their means and hence they can easily meet them.
On the other hand, some others may be beyond reach. Consumer realizes that needs can be ever-
growing and yesterday’s luxuries are today’s necessities, and strives to increase income to meet
growing needs. Similarly, gender wise there seem to be peculiarities and inconsistencies in
consumer buying behavior that makes it difficult to predict and understand. Educated consumer
exercises options, dictates creation of goods and services. All these constitute uninhibited
purchase behavior.
Both marketers and researchers have keen interest in understanding buying behavior of
consumers. The question of why, when, where & how consumers buy has been debated for ages.
Since across geographies, customers differ to a great extent in education, purchasing power,
family life cycle and age, with specific gender traits, hence marketers find it useful to know more
about the consumer decision making process, which in turn helps them to segregate and form
segments to develop strategies for optimum marketing efforts. Global competition, pressure on
market share, shrinking profit margins, increasing customer demand towards product and service
quality, has augmented the importance of consumer buying behavior in the recent times.
However, it is very tedious task to understand know consumers and their buying behavior. The
product acquisition is based on individual factors which arouse interest, desire and finally action
and are sometimes entirely different among customers who dwell in different parts of the same
country. It can be observed without doubt the variation in behavior of the customers in various
parts of the country/world, as they differ in their attitudes, beliefs, preferences, education, level of
understanding, awareness level, lifestyle, financial status, methods used for pre-purchase
evaluation.
For marketers to make better strategies, it is important they get into the ‘why and how’ of
individuals getting involved and making their purchase decisions. As per Kotler, even under
marketing concept it is necessary that marketers have an understanding of consumer involvement
in purchase behavior. With this understanding they are able to foresee and visualize the reaction
of customers who differ in demographics and thus perceive various marketing cues differently.
Undoubtedly, this understanding of the extent of consumer involvement for a particular product
and hence consumer buying pattern will equip them with competitive edge in the market and
hence this study may help them. Apart from marketers, the study may also help customers as they
may find merit in understanding the ‘what, why, how’ of own buying behavior and the integrated
effect of demographics in a buy call.

Literature Review
Beharrell and Denison (1995); Laaksonen (1994) in there study mentioned that customer
involvement to acquire a product may be used in understanding the both levels of efforts of
a consumer ie physical and psychological. Since last half century, there has been
considerable discussion and research on consumer involvement by the academicians, as it
was believed to have some effect on purchase decision. However, in India, the number of
research studies on the construct except for work of Jain and Sharma (2000-2002), Sanjaya
and Sadarangani (1998), and Avinandan and Anirban (1996), have been limited. Further if
effect of other factors like consumer demographics etc on consumer involvement is brought
into picture, the construct seemed to have lost its importance in minds of Indian researchers
since quite a time.
Customer involvement has originated from social psychology and is a conception of ego’s
engagement that refers to the relations between an individual, a goal or a subject. Some connect
research on customer involvement to the studies done by Allport (1943). He asserted that
customer involvement is one of the fundamental behaviors that originate from ego’s
engagement. However, Krugman (1965) used customer involvement in marketing of
products. Since he made his important claim about only two levels of involvement ie low and
high, customer involvement structure has turned into an important factor in the study of
efficiency of marketing (Wang, 2014). However, Zaickhowsky; Laurent; and Kepferer (1985) later
conceptualized that customer involvement was on a continuum. After measurement of customer
involvement via propaganda by Krugman, this concept was connected to marketing and consumer
buying behavior. Since then and especially following an increase in studies on consumer buying
behavior during the 1980s, further attention was focused on the concept and measurement of
customer involvement in relation to objects such as a product, message, purchase, advertising or
activity [Mitchell (1979); Petty and Cacioppo (1981); Slama and Taschain (1985)]. Although
there is no precise definition of customer involvement in marketing field, there is a consensus
about it and that is: customer involvement is an individual level and an internal variable that
refers to personal dependency with goals or events (Dvir, 2012).
Richins and Bloch (1986); Kotler (2002); Saxena (2002), found that consumers are not much
involved in the buying of the products which are low in price. Also, several dispositional
characteristics of individuals and many other factors tend to influence the purchase behavior of
customers, and are quite varied and complex over time and across space. Alreck (2000) stated that
with age an individual forms attitudinal and behavioral paradigm. Eagly and Carli (1981); Fischer
and Arnold (1994); Sanjay (2001), state, males and females vary in personality, thought
processes, and hence their buying behavior is different from each other. Hence the involvement
level while buying products is also different. Hawkins et al (2003), in his research mentioned that
buying power of an individual is determined by his/her income. However, through income just
acquisition of goods is possible not the understanding of the cause of buying decision [Mulhern et
al (1998)]. It was observed by Slama and Taschian (1985), that involvement may vary with
income. It has been found in a past study that with differences in education, the pattern of
involvement in buying also differs. It is evident that considerable work remains in investigating
the demographic factors motivating the people to purchase products. Thus there exists a strong
need to offer conceptually sound, operationally feasible strategies to bring about a change by
empirically studying the attitude and behavior of purchasers. To study the said phenomenon of
customer purchase involvement, authors have adapted purchase decision involvement scale from
Mittal (1989), whose work was published in Journal of Psychology and Marketing.
Marketers’ success in influencing consumer buying behavior depends to a large extent on their
correct understanding of consumer buying behavior. The information related to consumer
buying behavior can be used to help predict their actions in the market. Therefore, it is essential
to know about the factors affecting purchasers’ behavior and what these factors have to do with
purchasers’ decision to purchase a product. Since consumers are considered the turning point of
all marketing activities, successful marketing starts with understanding the why and how of
consumer buying behavior. Studying and investigating the parameters affecting consumer
purchase decision and investigating the rate of effect of each one of these factors on their buying
behavior leads to access to some knowledge and understanding about consumer buying behavior
so that marketers will be able to make strategies which can result into more optimum utilization
of resources, hence increasing both efficiency and effectiveness of marketing efforts. They may
also acquire better understanding for supplying a product which conforms to the consumers’
needs and wants. In other words, they can provide offers for different segments that are the
outcomes of the factors affecting consumer buying behavior and can create utmost satisfaction in
them. They may device offers which change customers’ attitude in order to enhance return on
investment.

Research Objectives
This research work was undertaken after extensive literature review which pointed out
towards the scarcity of work on ‘customer involvement’ in Indian context. The prime
objective of the investigation was to examine the difference in customer involvement across
various products. To check if demographics of consumer have any effect in this involvement
across products. The analysis and results of the study are submitted in the research paper. The
two research questions which the authors have tried to answer in the study were
RQ1 : Does customer involvement differ across different products?
RQ2 : Does customer demographics have any effect on customer involvement ?
Both marketers and academicians would find lot of merit in answers to the two research
questions. The academicians may use the result for further studies in a different culture and
try to find out new dimensions of the construct. Marketers can use the result for developing
business strategies, which can be useful in putting efforts in right direction and in optimum
use of resources.

Research Methodology
A structured questionnaire was adapted for collecting primary data amongst respondents in Delhi
and NCR. Questionnaire included five items related to buying decision involvement. Buying
decision involvement across six categories viz., eyeglasses, pencils, car, salt, tea and mobile
phone was studied. List of categories were identified on the basis of survey of literature and views
of experts. Mean scores across the six categories were studied. Seven hundred respondents were
contacted and a total of three hundred and twenty-four completed and usable questionnaires could
be obtained, which is a response rate of approximately forty-six percent. Convenience sampling
method was used for reaching out to respondents. For analyzing data, tools like t-test, Chi-Sq.,
factor analysis and correlation were used. This study will guide the practitioners in devising
marketing strategies owing to differences in product involvement. Informative marketing
strategies can be devised for each category of products depending on the customer’s involvement
in purchase decision of specific category.
Figure 1 refers to the framework of our research. Demographic variables age, income, gender and
education are being considered and their interaction with consumer involvement is being studied.

Demographics Consumer
Gender Involvement
Income
Education
Fig1 : Framework for the paper

On the basis of literature reviews following hypotheses were developed.

H1: Consumer involvement levels do not differ across consumers for different products.
H2 : Consumer involvement for an individual product(six products studied) does not differ with
the differences in the consumers’ demographics (gender, income and education).
Analysis and Result
Table 1 reflects demographic profile of respondents. It is evident that equal participation from
both the genders was there. Respondents reflect young population and fall in the age group of 21-
30 years. Income in the table refers to household income and respondents reflect education in two
categories, graduate and postgraduate.

Table 1: Demographic profile of respondents

Income (Rs. Per (% of Education (% of respondents)
month) respondents)
<30000 22.9 Graduate 47.9
30000-60000 26.4 Post Graduate 52.1
61000-90000 29.9
>90000 20.8 Gender (% of respondents)
Age (years) (% of Male 52.1
respondents)
21-30 100 Female 47.9
n=324

Table 2 refers to the consumer involvement mean scores across different categories. Higher mean
score refers to higher level of involvement of the respondents in the product category. We find
that consumers demonstrate highest level of involvement for car and lowest level of involvement
for pencil. The difference in level of involvement for each of the product category is in the
following order car, mobile, eyeglass, tea, salt and pencil and has been found to be statistically
significant. Thus we reject hypothesis ‘H1’. This means consumer involvement levels differ
across consumers for different products.

Table 2: Consumer involvement for each of the category of products

Comparing means of all items.(computed mean)
No. of items Mean Std. Deviation T-test significance
Car 5 6.35 0.94 0.000
Mobile 5 5.79 0.89 0.000
Eyeglasses 5 5.46 1.34 0.000
Tea 5 4.24 1.45 0.000
Salt 5 4.14 1.51 0.000
Pencil 5 3.06 1.42 0.000
n=324

Table 3 depicts correlation between consumer involvements for different product categories. It
was found that high involvement products are showing high positive correlation like car, mobile
and eyeglasses. It is also evident that low involvement products in our study are exhibiting high
correlation with each other like salt and pencil. High involvement products are also exhibiting low
correlation with low involvement products.

Table 3: Correlations between different categories of products

Correlations
Mobile Pencil Car Salt Tea Eyeglasses
Pearson
Mobile ….. ...... .581** .278** ….. .440**
Correlation
Pearson
Pencil ….. ….. -.252** .410** .291** …..
Correlation
Pearson
Tea ….. .291** ….. .454** ….. .303**
Correlation
Pearson
Eyeglasses .440** ….. .476** .295** .303** …..
Correlation
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
n=324

Consumer involvement for different products and its variation with demographics is being studied
in Table 4 to Table 9 (in annexure 1). It was done by recoding involvement data as low as 1 to 2,
low moderate 2 to 3.5 and high moderate 3.5 to 5.5, high 5.5 to 7. Chi square test was carried out
to study consumer involvement and its relationship with consumer demographics. We fail to
reject hypothesis ‘H2’ at ninety-five percent confidence level. This reflects that consumer
involvement for an individual product (six products studied) does not differ with the differences
in the consumers’ demographics (gender, income and education).
Results are further supported by factor analysis (table 10 in annexure 1) carried out on data. It was
found that items pertaining to each of the product category grouped into single variable with high
reliability. Reliability scores for involvement for car, mobile, eyeglasses, tea, salt and pencil were
0.895, 0.744, 0.900, 0.925, 0.884, 0.893. For purchase decision involvement scale, KMO (0.839)
and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (p=.000) both showed enough adequacies of data to support the
factor analysis. On the basis of this “eigen value greater than 1 heuristic”, confirmatory factor
analysis was done where extracted factors accounted for 79.182 per cent of the total variance. Table
10 displays the rotated factor matrix for purchase decision involvement, based on a factor loading of
0.50. Based on the results reported in the “Rotated Factor Matrix”, the following factor structure
emerged. All the five items of purchase decision involvement related to car, tea, eyeglasses, pencil,
salt and mobile loaded on factor 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, thus the individual factors were named as named as
PD car, PD tea, PD eyeglasses, PD pencil, PD salt and PD Mobile.

Conclusion & Managerial Implications

The purpose of this research was to explore and understand the involvement of customer while
buying a particular category of product. Also the second objective was to check the integrated
effect of demographics like education, gender and income on involvement for buying decision
and hence see if any relationship exists. This study was taken up as in India not much studies of
these types have been done. Extensive literature review for identification of constructs was
followed by administration of a structured survey, and responses of three hundred and twenty-
four respondents were found suitable for analysis. Though as per the questionnaire, if individual
responses are considered, it was found that the involvement depth varied individually for different
products. However, with analysis of all responses taken together it was found that while buying
few categories of products like pencil and salt, involvement of customer was low, tea had
moderate level of customer involvement and rest three ie eyeglasses, car, and mobile had high
level of customer involvement. From tables 4 to 9 it can also be interpreted that various
demographic parameters like gender, education and income have almost no effect on the levels of
customer involvement for all of the six category of products tested. Marketers may have curiosity
in these outcomes and find them useful. These findings are interesting and useful for marketers.
These findings may be used by marketers of these goods for planning and achieving their long
and short term goals.
Referring to table 2, quite a difference is observed in the involvement level mean scores of the six
goods tested in the article. This indicates that marketer should create a different marketing mix
strategy for each of these product category. Also there is a huge task in front of marketers ie
upgrading the low customer involvement goods to a high customer involvement status which
might end up increasing loyalty of the customer towards the brand.
The responses of various customers for their involvement in each of the product buying has
notable variations, which has its own importance. This can enable marketers to form segments
with different segment for a particular involvement level and hence design programs for each
segment. Referring to table 7, the ‘tea’ marketers also have the task of standing the test of
upgrading the consumers’ involvement levels from low to low moderate and so on. In case of tea
as product though the no. of the consumers in low level involvement is less but when generalized,
the number would become high. Similarly, referring to table 5, for the ‘pencil’ marketers, they
have to stand the test of upgrading huge percentage of consumers who have low involvement to
low moderate or may be high later on. In case of ‘car’, ‘eyeglasses’, and ‘mobile’, if we refer to
table 6, 9 and 4 respectively, it is clear that negligible percentage of customers lie in ‘low’ and
‘low moderate’ category for level of involvement. Still there is a job for marketers to upgrade
customers from ‘high moderate’ to ‘high’ category for these products. Referring to table 8 for
‘salt’ as a product the results are, that maximum customers lie in moderate high category.
Customer involvement level when explored from the customer age perspective significant
outcomes have been observed by marketers. Marketers need to target these segments of age group
21 to 30, since these would be their future customers for the life time and hence will be high
revenue generators for them. The outcome of this research is bound by two constraints which are
the moderate sample size of 324 and limited products (six) used for generalization of findings.
The findings of the study are similar to findings of few past studies. However, the findings are
also contrasting to the findings of few past studies. Hence this research would add to the existing
literature related to the title.
References
Andrews, J. Craig, Srinivas Durvasual and Syed H. Akhter (1990). "A Framework for
Conceptualizing and Measuring the Involvement Construct in Advertising Research," Journal
of Advertising, 19 (4), 27-40.
Arora, R. (1982). “Validation of S-O-R model for situational, enduring, and response
components of involvement”, Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 505-516.
Avinandan Mukherjee and Anirban Ghosh (1996). "Consumer Involvement — The Key
to Brand Recall," IIM B Management Review, April — June, 15 -22.
Burton, S., and Andrews, C. J. Age (1996). “Consumer perceptions and product evaluations”,
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 30(1), 68–78.
Beharrell, B and Dennison, T j (1995). "Involvement in a Routine Food Shopping
Context, " British Food journal, 97 (4), 24-29.
Belonax Joseph J., JR and Rajshekhar G. Javalgi (1989). “The influence of involvement
and product class quality on consumer choice sets” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, volume (17), pp. 209-216.
Bloch, Peter H (1982). "Involvement beyond the Purchase Process: Conceptual Issues and
Empirical Investigation," Advances of Consumer Research, 9, 413-417.
Broderick, A. J. (2007). “A Cross-National Study of the Individual and National-Cultural
Nomological Network of Consumer Involvement, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 4, 343-
374.
Chattopadhyay, A. & J.W. Alba (1988). “The situational importance of recall and inferences in
consumer decision making”, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 1–12.
Clarke, Keith, Russel W. Belk (1978). "The Effects of Product Involvement and Task Definition
on Anticipated Consumer Effort," Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 313 – 318.
Erdem, T., & Keane, M. P. (1996). “Decision-making under uncertainty: capturing dynamic brand
choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets”, Marketing Science, 15(1), 1–20.
Finn D W (1983). "Low Involvement Isn’t Low Involving," Advances in Consumer Research,
10, 419 – 424.
Henry, P (2000). "Modes of Thought that vary Systematically with both Social Class and
Age," Psychology and Marketing, May, 421 – 440.
Higie, A. Robin and Lawrence F. Feick (1989). "Enduring Involvement: Conceptual and
Measurement Issues," Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 690-696.
Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild (1978). "Conceptual and Methodological
Perspectives on Involvement," Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions,
ed. Subhash C. Jain, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 184-187.
Huber, J, and C. Puto. (1983). “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction
and Substitution Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research. 10. June. pp. 31-44.
Jain K. Sanjay and Kavita Sharma (2000). "Product Related Antecedents of Consumer
Involvement: An Empirical Investigation," Vikalpa, 25 (1), 29 – 42.
Jensen, D. Thomas, Les Carlson and Carolyn Tripp (1989). "The Dimensionality of
In volvement: An Empirical Test," Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 680-689.
Kinard Brian R. and Michael l. Capella (2006). “Relationship marketing: the influence of
consumer involvement on perceived service benefits” journal of services marketing, volume
(20), pp. 359 – 368.
Lastovicka, John L., and David M. Gardner (1979): “Components of Involvement”, In J. C.
Maloney and B. Silverman (Eds.), Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, Chicago,
American Marketing Association, pp. 53-73.
Laurent, G and J Kapferer (1985). "Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles," Journal of
Marketing Research, 22, February, 41-53.
Mitchell, A A (1989). "Involvement: A Potentially Important mediator of Consumer
Behaviour," Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 127 – 129.
Mittal, Banwari (1989). "A Theoretical Analysis of Two Recent Measures of Involvement,"
Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 697-702.
Richins, M L and P H Block (1986). "After the New Wears Off: The Temporal Context
of Product Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, 13, September, 280-285.

Sanjay, Putrevu (2001). "Exploring the Origins and Information Processing Differences
Between Men and Women: Implications for Advertisers," Academy of Marketing Science.
Slama E. Mark and Armen Taschian (1985) "Selected Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics
Associated with Purchasing Involvement," Journal of Marketing, 49, Winter, 72 — 82.
Sproles, G.B., Geistfeld, L.V. and Badenhop, S.B. (1978), ‘‘Informational inputs as influences on efficient
consumer decision-making’’, Journal of Consumer Affair, Vol. 12, Summer, pp. 88-103.
Zaichkowsky L Judith (1985). "Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of Consumer
Research, 12, 341 — 352.

ANNEXURE 1
Table 4: Level of involvement for MOBILE and relation to demographics of respondents
Level of Education of Monthly Income of respondent Gender of the
Involvement respondent respondent
 Graduate Post Below 30000 60001 Above Male Female
Graduate 30000 to to 90000
60000 90000
Low
Low moderate 2.1% 1.4% 0.7% 2.1%
High moderate 13.9% 15.3% 6.9% 7.6% 10.4% 4.2% 16.0% 13.2%
High 31.9% 36.8% 16.0% 17.4% 18.8% 16.7% 34.0% 34.7%
NS
n=324

Table 5: Level of involvement for PENCIL and relation to demographics of respondents

Level of Education of Monthly Income of respondent Gender of the
Involvement respondent respondent
Graduate Post Below 30000 60001 Above Male Female
Graduate 30000 to to 90000
60000 90000
Low 16.0% 16.0% 4.9% 7.6% 9.0% 10.4% 14.6% 17.4%
Low moderate 13.2% 17.4% 10.4% 5.6% 9.7% 4.9% 17.4% 13.2%
High moderate 13.2% 16.7% 6.9% 9.7% 9.0% 4.2% 17.4% 12.5%
High 5.6% 2.1% 0.7% 3.5% 2.1% 1.4% 2.8% 4.9%
NS
n=324

Table 6: Level of involvement for CAR and relation to demographics of respondents

Level of Education of Monthly Income of respondent Gender of the
Involvement respondent respondent
Graduate Post Below 30000 60001 Above Male Female
Graduate 30000 to to 90000
60000 90000
Low 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%
Low moderate
High moderate 6.9% 6.2% 2.8% 5.6% 2.8% 2.1% 9.7% 3.5%
High 41.0% 45.1% 20.1% 20.8% 26.4% 18.8% 42.4% 43.8%
NS
n=324

Table 7: Level of involvement for TEA and relation to demographics of respondents

Level of Education of Monthly Income of respondent Gender of the
Involvement respondent respondent
 Graduate Post Below 30000 60001 Above Male Female
Graduate 30000 to to 90000
60000 90000
Low 5.6% 3.5% 0.7% 1.4% 3.5% 3.5% 4.2% 4.9%
Low moderate 7.6% 9.7% 4.2% 2.8% 4.2% 6.2% 9.0% 8.3%
High moderate 26.4% 27.8% 13.9% 16.7% 16.7% 6.9% 31.2% 22.9%
High 8.3% 11.1% 4.2% 5.6% 5.6% 4.2% 7.6% 11.8%
NS
n=324

Table 8 : Level of involvement for SALT and relation to demographics of respondents

Level of Education of Monthly Income of respondent Gender of the
Involvement respondent respondent
Graduat Post Below 30000 60001 Above Male Female
e Graduate 30000 to to 90000
60000 90000
Low 6.2% 2.8% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.8% 3.5% 5.6%
Low moderate 11.8% 14.6% 7.6% 4.9% 4.9% 9.0% 13.9% 12.5%
High moderate 22.2% 23.6% 9.0% 15.3% 16.7% 4.9% 27.1% 18.8%
High 7.6% 11.1% 4.2% 4.2% 6.2% 4.2% 7.6% 11.1%
NS
n=324

Table 9:Level of involvement for EYEGLASSES and relation to demographics of

respondents
Level of Education of Monthly Income of respondent Gender of the
Involvement respondent respondent
Graduate Post Below 30000 60001 Above Male Female
Graduate 30000 to to 90000
60000 90000
Low 0.7% 0.7% 1.4% 1.4%
Low moderate 2.8% 4.2% 1.4% 2.1% 2.8% 0.7% 4.2% 2.8%
High moderate 19.4% 18.1% 6.9% 11.1% 11.8% 7.6% 19.4% 18.1%
High 25.0% 29.2% 14.6% 13.2% 15.3% 11.1% 27.1% 27.1%
NS
n=324

Table 10 :Rotated Component Matrix : Consumer involvement of each product category

Component
 1 2 3 4 5 6
PD PD PD PD PD PD
CAR TEA EYE G PENCIL SALT MOBILE
C3. Will a choice of this good make a big difference to you in
.818
daily routine life ?
C1. If you are buying this good and various brands and types
of this good are available in the market, would you care for a .817
particular brand or type ?
C4. In case you choose this good, how important is the
.764
consequence of purchase for you ?
C5. What is the importance of this good in your day today
.711
living ?
C2. In your opinion, how different are various brands and
.698
types of this good available in the market ?
T1. If you are buying this good and various brands and types
of this good are available in the market, would you care for a .859
particular brand or type ?
T3. Will a choice of this good make a big difference to you in
.857
daily routine life ?
T4. In case you choose this good, how important is the
.846
consequence of purchase for you ?
T5. What is the importance of this good in your day today
.812
living ?
T2. In your opinion, how different are various brands and
.792
types of this good available in the market ?
E3. Will a choice of this good make a big difference to you in
.866
daily routine life ?
E5. What is the importance of this good in your day today
.799
living ?
E4. In case you choose this good, how important is the
.792
consequence of purchase for you ?
E1. If you are buying this good and various brands and types
of this good are available in the market, would you care for a .778
particular brand or type ?
E2. In your opinion, how different are various brands and
.701
types of this good available in the market ?
P1. If you are buying this good and various brands and types
of this good are available in the market, would you care for a .850
particular brand or type ?
P2. In your opinion, how different are various brands and
.822
types of this good available in the market ?
P3. Will a choice of this good make a big difference to you in
.812
daily routine life ?
P4. In case you choose this good, how important is the
.807
consequence of purchase for you ?
P5. What is the importance of this good in your day today
.688
living ?
S3. Will a choice of this good make a big difference to you in
.866
daily routine life ?
S4. In case you choose this good, how important is the
.850
consequence of purchase for you ?
S2. In your opinion, how different are various brands and
.815
types of this good available in the market ?
S1. If you are buying this good and various brands and types
of this good are available in the market, would you care for a .709
particular brand or type ?
S5. What is the importance of this good in your day today
.686
living ?
M3. Will a choice of this good make a big difference to you in
.737
daily routine life ?
M5. What is the importance of this good in your day today
.730
living ?
M1. If you are buying this good and various brands and types
of this good are available in the market, would you care for a .673
particular brand or type ?
.403
M2. In your opinion, how different are various brands and
types of this good available in the market ?
M4. In case you choose this good, how important is the
.649
consequence of purchase for you ?
Cronbach Alpha .895 .925 0.900 0.893 0.884 0.744
n=324

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .834

Approx. Chi-Square 7492.897

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 435

Sig. .000