1st object

Age
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Below 25 30 18.8 18.8 18.8
yrs
25 to 35 yrs 38 23.8 23.8 42.5
35 to 45 yrs 51 31.9 31.9 74.4
Above 45 41 25.6 25.6 100.0
yrs
Total 160 100.0 100.0

This table shows the age distribution of a sample of 160 individuals. The majority of the sample
(57.5%) falls between the ages of 25 to 45 years old, with 23.8% of individuals aged between 25
to 35 years, 31.9% of individuals aged between 35 to 45 years. Meanwhile, 18.8% of individuals
are below 25 years old, and 25.6% of individuals are above 45 years old.
The cumulative percent column indicates the percentage of individuals in the sample who fall
under each age category, as well as the percentage of individuals who fall under that category or
any previous category. For example, 74.4% of the individuals in the sample are 45 years old or
younger.
Overall, this table provides a snapshot of the age distribution in the sample and can be used to
draw conclusions about the age patterns in the population from which the sample was drawn.

Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Male 84 52.5 52.5 52.5
Female 76 47.5 47.5 100.0
Total 160 100.0 100.0
The frequency table shows that out of the 160 respondents, 84 (52.5%) are male and 76
(47.5%) are female.

Marital Status
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Married 78 48.8 48.8 48.8
Unmarried 82 51.2 51.2 100.0
Total 160 100.0 100.0
This table shows the marital status of a sample of 160 individuals. 48.8% of individuals are
married, while 51.2% are unmarried.
The cumulative percent column indicates the percentage of individuals in the sample who fall
under each category, as well as the percentage of individuals who fall under that category or any
previous category. For example, 100% of individuals in the sample are either married or
unmarried.
Overall, this table provides a snapshot of the marital status distribution in the sample and can be
used to draw conclusions about the marital status patterns in the population from which the
sample was drawn

Educational Qualification
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Below SSC 35 21.9 21.9 21.9
Intermediate 49 30.6 30.6 52.5
Post Graduate 37 23.1 23.1 75.6
Professional 39 24.4 24.4 100.0
Total 160 100.0 100.0

This table shows the educational qualifications of a sample of 160 individuals. The sample
includes individuals with a range of qualifications, with the largest group (30.6%) having an
Intermediate level education, followed by those with a Professional qualification (24.4%), a Post
Graduate degree (23.1%), and those with education below SSC (21.9%).
The cumulative percent column indicates the percentage of individuals in the sample who fall
under each category, as well as the percentage of individuals who fall under that category or any
previous category. For example, 52.5% of the individuals in the sample have an Intermediate or
higher level of education.
Overall, this table provides a snapshot of the educational distribution in the sample and can be
used to draw conclusions about the educational patterns in the population from which the
sample was drawn

Occupation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Private Employee 40 25.0 25.0 25.0
Government 45 28.1 28.1 53.1
Employee
Business 42 26.3 26.3 79.4
Self Employed 33 20.6 20.6 100.0
Total 160 100.0 100.0
This table shows the occupation of a sample of 160 individuals. The majority of the sample is
employed, with 40 individuals working in private companies (25%), 45 individuals in
government
jobs (28.1%), 42 individuals in business (26.3%), and 33 individuals who are self-employed
(20.6%).
The cumulative percent column indicates the percentage of individuals in the sample who fall
under each category, as well as the percentage of individuals who fall under that category or any
previous category. For example, 25% of the individuals in the sample are private employees,
while
53.1% are either private or government employees, and so on.
Overall, this table provides a snapshot of the occupational distribution in the sample and can be
used to draw conclusions about the employment patterns in the population from which the
sample was drawn.
 Monthly Income
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Upto 10000 33 20.6 20.6 20.6
10000 to 25000 30 18.8 18.8 39.4
25000 to 35000 49 30.6 30.6 70.0
35000 and 48 30.0 30.0 100.0
above
Total 160 100.0 100.0

This table shows the monthly income distribution of a sample of 160 individuals. The majority of
the sample (60.6%) earns between 10,000 to 35,000 per month. Specifically, 18.8% of the
individuals earn between 10,000 to 25,000 per month, 30.6% earn between 25,000 to 35,000 per
month, and 30% earn 35,000 and above per month. 20.6% of individuals earn up to 10,000 per
month.
The cumulative percent column indicates the percentage of individuals in the sample who fall
under each category, as well as the percentage of individuals who fall under that category or any
previous category. For example, 70% of the individuals in the sample earn 35,000 or less per
month, while 100% of the sample earn within the listed income brackets.
Overall, this table provides a snapshot of the income distribution in the sample and can be used
to draw conclusions about the income patterns in the population from which the sample was
drawn.

Which brand you most refer

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Domestic 88 55.0 55.0 55.0
Brand
Foreign Brand 72 45.0 45.0 100.0
Total 160 100.0 100.0
This table shows the preferences for domestic and foreign brands in a sample of 160 individuals.
55% of individuals prefer domestic brands, while 45% prefer foreign brands.
The cumulative percent column indicates the percentage of individuals in the sample who fall
under each category, as well as the percentage of individuals who fall under that category or any
previous category. For example, 100% of individuals in the sample prefer either domestic or
foreign brands.
Overall, this table provides a snapshot of the brand preference distribution in the sample and can
be used to draw conclusions about the brand preference patterns in the population from which
the sample was drawn.

Branding plays an important role in my purchasing decisions.

 Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Strongly 5 3.1 3.1 3.1
disagree
Disagree 21 13.1 13.1 16.3
Neutral 38 23.8 23.8 40.0
Agree 65 40.6 40.6 80.6
Strongly agree 31 19.4 19.4 100.0
Total 160 100.0 100.0

This table shows the responses of a sample of 160 individuals to the statement "Branding plays
an important role in my purchasing decisions."
40.6% of individuals agreed that branding plays an important role in their purchasing decisions,
and an additional 19.4% strongly agreed with the statement. 23.8% were neutral, 13.1%
disagreed, and only 3.1% strongly disagreed.
The cumulative percent column indicates the percentage of individuals in the sample who fall
under each category, as well as the percentage of individuals who fall under that category or any
previous category. For example, 80.6% of individuals in the sample agreed or strongly agreed
that branding plays an important role in their purchasing decisions.
Overall, this table provides insight into the attitudes of the sample towards the importance of
branding in their purchasing decisions and can be used to draw conclusions about the attitude
patterns in the population from which the sample was drawn
I tend to be loyal to certain brands.
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Strongly 4 2.5 2.5 2.5
disagree
Disagree 28 17.5 17.5 20.0
Neutral 21 13.1 13.1 33.1
Agree 72 45.0 45.0 78.1
Strongly agree 35 21.9 21.9 100.0
 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Based on the given data, we can see that 67.5% of the respondents either agreed or strongly
agreed that they tend to be loyal to certain brands, while 20.6% either disagreed or strongly
disagreed. The remaining 11.9% of respondents were neutral on the statement. This suggests
that brand loyalty is a relatively common phenomenon among the respondents.

A brand's reputation is a key factor in my decision-making process.

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Strongly 5 3.1 3.1 3.1
disagree
Disagree 15 9.4 9.4 12.5
Neutral 56 35.0 35.0 47.5
Agree 71 44.4 44.4 91.9
Strongly agree 13 8.1 8.1 100.0
Total 160 100.0 100.0

The data presented shows the responses of 160 individuals to a survey on their occupation,
educational qualification, monthly income, age, marital status, brand preference, and attitudes
towards branding.
Occupation: The majority of respondents are either government employees (28.1%) or
businesspeople (26.3%).
Educational Qualification: The highest percentage of respondents have an intermediate
education (30.6%), followed by professional qualifications (24.4%

I pay attention to a brand's packaging or visual identity when making

purchasing
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Strongly 9 5.6 5.6 5.6
disagree
Disagree 15 9.4 9.4 15.0
Neutral 45 28.1 28.1 43.1
Agree 72 45.0 45.0 88.1
Strongly agree 19 11.9 11.9 100.0
Total 160 100.0 100.0

Based on the data, it seems that a significant proportion of the respondents (56.9%) agree or
strongly agree that branding plays an important role in their purchasing decisions. Similarly, a
large number of respondents (66.9%) agree or strongly agree that they tend to be loyal to certain
brands. Furthermore, a majority of the respondents (52.5%) agree or strongly agree that a brand's
reputation is a key factor in their decision-making process. Finally, almost half of the
respondents
(56.9%) agree or strongly agree that they pay attention to a brand's packaging or visual identity
when making purchasing decisions. These results suggest that branding and brand image are
important factors in the purchasing behavior of the respondents.

I am willing to pay more for products from brands that I trust.

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Strongly 6 3.8 3.8 3.8
disagree
Disagree 34 21.3 21.3 25.0
Neutral 38 23.8 23.8 48.8
Agree 69 43.1 43.1 91.9
Strongly agree 13 8.1 8.1 100.0
Total 160 100.0 100.0

Based on the survey data you provided, it seems that the majority of respondents are between 25
to 45 years old and unmarried. More than half of the respondents (55%) preferred domestic
brands over foreign ones. In terms of branding, 40.6% of respondents agreed that branding plays
an important role in their purchasing decisions, and 45% agreed that they tend to be loyal to
certain brands. Additionally, 44.4% of respondents agreed that a brand's reputation is a key
factor in their decision-making process, and 45% agreed that they pay attention to a brand's
packaging or visual identity when making purchases. Finally, 43.1% of respondents agreed that
they are willing to pay more for products from brands that they trust

2nd objective To know the relationship between branding with consumer purchase behavior

Correlations between “ Brand Awareness” and “ Consumer Purchase Behavior”

TABLE NO :

Brand awareness CPB

Brand awareness Pearson Correlation 1 .685**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
CPB Pearson Correlation .685** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation coefficient (Pearson correlation ) between Brand Awareness and Consumer
purchase behavior is 0.685, and this correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level
( 2-tailed). The sample size for both variables is 160.
This indicates a moderate positive correlation between Brand Awareness and Consumer purchase
behavior. As Band Awareness increases, Consumer purchase behavior tends to increase as well. The
asterisks (**), denoting significance at the 0.01 level, indicate that the correlation coefficient is
unlikely to have occurred by chance, suggesting a strong relationship between Brand Awareness
and Consumer purchase behavior.

Correlations between “Brand Image” and “Consumer purchase behavior”

TABLE NO
Brand image CPB
Brand image Pearson Correlation 1 .718**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
CPB Pearson Correlation .718** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The correlation coefficient (Pearson correlation ) between Brand Image and Consumer
purchase behavior is 0.718, and this correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level
( 2-tailed). The sample size for both variables is 160.
This indicates a moderate positive correlation between Brand Image and Consumer
purchase behavior. As Band Image increases, Consumer purchase behavior tends to
increase as well. The asterisks (**), denoting significance at the 0.01 level, indicate that
the correlation coefficient is unlikely to have occurred by chance, suggesting a strong
relationship between Brand Image and Consumer purchase behavior.

Correlations between “Brand Loyalty” and “Consumer purchase behavior”

TABLE NO

Brand loyalty CPB

Brand loyalty Pearson Correlation 1 .668**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
CPB Pearson Correlation .668** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation coefficient (Peason correlation ) between Brand Loyalty and Consumer purchase
behavior is 0.668, and this correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level ( 2-tailed). The
sample size for both variables is 160.
This indicates a moderate positive correlation between Brand Loyalty and Consumer purchase
behavior. As Band Loyalty increases, Consumer purchase behavior tends to increase as well.
The asterisks (**), denoting significance at the 0.01 level, indicate that the correlation
coefficient is unlikely to have occurred by chance, suggesting a strong relationship between
Brand Loyalty and Consumer purchase behavior.

Correlations between “Brand Trust” and “Consumr Purchase Behavior”

TABLE NO

Brand trust CPB

Brand trust Pearson Correlation 1 .733**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
CPB Pearson Correlation .733** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The correlation coefficient (Peason correlation ) between Brand Trust and Consumer purchase
behavior is 0.733, and this correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level ( 2-tailed). The
sample size for both variables is 160.
This indicates a moderate positive correlation between Brand Trust and Consumer purchase
behavior. As Band Trust increases, Consumer purchase behavior tends to increase as well. The
asterisks (**), denoting significance at the 0.01 level, indicate that the correlation coefficient is
unlikely to have occurred by chance, suggesting a strong relationship between Brand Trust and
Consumer purchase behavior.

Correlations between “ Brand Personality” and “ Consumer Purchase Behavior”

TABLE NO

Brand personality CPB

Brand personality Pearson Correlation 1 .785**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
CPB Pearson Correlation .785** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The correlation coefficient (Peason correlation ) between Brand Personality and Consumer
purchase behavior is 0.785, and this correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level ( 2-
tailed). The sample size for both variables is 160.
This indicates a moderate positive correlation between Brand Personality and Consumer
purchase behavior. As Band Personality increases, Consumer purchase behavior tends to
increase as well. The asterisks (**), denoting significance at the 0.01 level, indicate that the
correlation coefficient is unlikely to have occurred by chance, suggesting a strong relationship
between Brand Personality and Consumer purchase behavior.

Correlations between “Brand Associstions” and “Consumer Purchase Behavior”

TABLE NO

Brand associations CPB

Brand associations Pearson Correlation 1 .625**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
CPB Pearson Correlation .625** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The correlation coefficient (Pearson correlation ) between Brand Associations and Consumer
purchase behavior is 0.625, and this correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level ( 2-
tailed). The sample size for both variables is 160.
This indicates a moderate positive correlation between Brand Associations and Consumer
purchase behavior. As Band Associations increases, Consumer purchase behavior tends to
increase as well. The asterisks (**), denoting significance at the 0.01 level, indicate that the
correlation coefficient is unlikely to have occurred by chance, suggesting a strong relationship
between Brand Associations and Consumer purchase behavior.

Correlations between “Brand Packaging and Design” and “Consumer Purchase Behavior”
TABLE NO

Brand packaging
and design CPB
Brand packaging and design Pearson Correlation 1 .545**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
CPB Pearson Correlation .545** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The correlation coefficient (Peason correlation ) between Brand Packaging and Design and
Consumer purchase behavior is 0.545, and this correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01
level ( 2-tailed). The sample size for both variables is 160.
This indicates a moderate positive correlation between Brand Packaging and Design and
Consumer purchase behavior. As Band Packaging and Design increases, Consumer purchase
behavior tends to increase as well. The asterisks (**), denoting significance at the 0.01 level,
indicate that the correlation coefficient is unlikely to have occurred by chance, suggesting a
strong relationship between Brand Packaging and Design and Consumer purchase behavior.

Correlations between “Brand Endorsements and Sponsorships” and “Consumer

Purchase Behavior”
TABLE NO

Brand
endorsements and
sponsorships CPB
Brand endorsements and Pearson Correlation 1 .738**
sponsorships
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
 N 160 160
CPB Pearson Correlation .738** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 160 160

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation coefficient (Peason correlation ) between Brand Endorsement and Sponsorship and
Consumer purchase behavior is 0.738, and this correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level
( 2-tailed). The sample size for both variables is 160.
This indicates a moderate positive correlation between Brand Endorsement and Sponsorship and
Consumer purchase behavior. As Band Endorsement and Sponsorship increases, Consumer purchase
behavior tends to increase as well. The asterisks (**), denoting significance at the 0.01 level,
indicate that the correlation coefficient is unlikely to have occurred by chance, suggesting a strong
relationship between Brand Endorsement and Sponsorship and Consumer purchase behavior.

3rd objective
 Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 1.000a 1.000 1.000 .00000

a. Predictors: (Constant), Brand endorsements and

sponsorships, Brand packaging and design, Brand
awareness, Brand associations, Brand loyalty, Brand image,
Brand trust, Brand personality

ANOVAa
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 83.811 8 10.476 . .b
Residual .000 151 .000
Total 83.811 159

a. Dependent Variable: CPB

b. Predictors: (Constant), Brand endorsements and sponsorships, Brand packaging
and design, Brand awareness, Brand associations, Brand loyalty, Brand image,
Brand trust, Brand personality
 Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 3.886E-16 .000 .000 1.000
Brand awareness .125 .000 .181 68846298.97 .000
4
Brand image .125 .000 .174 65115251.48 .000
1
Brand loyalty .125 .000 .192 76628591.97 .000
9
Brand trust .125 .000 .178 59423806.96 .000
7
Brand personality .125 .000 .198 65589425.31 .000
3
Brand associations .125 .000 .168 70725115.59 .000
3
Brand packaging and .125 .000 .174 69613490.62 .000
design 5
Brand endorsements .125 .000 .186 70551607.39 .000
and sponsorships 3
a. Dependent Variable: CPB