Docstoc

A Comparative Study of Consumer Decision-Making Styles in Leisure

Document Sample
A Comparative Study of Consumer Decision-Making Styles in Leisure Powered By Docstoc
					A Comparative Study of Consumer Decision-Making Styles in Leisure
           Farm with Different Tourists’ Backgrounds

     Wan-Chi Yang, Doctor of Philosophy Candidate, Department of Tropical Agriculture and International
                Cooperation, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
      Tsung-Liang Lin, Assistant Professor, Department of Leisure, Recreation and Tourism Management,
                                Tatung Institute of Commerce and Technology
      Chia-Ming Chang, Professor, Department of Physical Education, National Chiayi University, Taiwan



                                                      ABSTRACT


      The purpose of this study was to explore the leisure farm tourist's consumer decision-making styles and
willingness to revisit cognitive and diversities situation. This study takes the tourisms in scales for service quality,
consumer decision-making styles and willingness to revisit as measurement tools. 565 valid questionnaires were
collected and used descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, MANOVA to analyze and verify the data. The results indicate
that: 1. Tourist’s consumer decision-making styles situation was highest to hedonistic shopping; lowest to brand
conscious style; and were satisfied at willingness to revisit. 2. Tourist’s different age, residence distributions, average
monthly income and occupations showed a significant difference in consumer decision-making styles; different
education and average monthly income make a clear difference to willingness to revisit. Based on the research findings,
suggestions are offered future research.
Keywords: Leisure Farm, Consumer Decision-Making Styles, Willingness to Revisit

                                                   INTRODUCTION

      When recreation becomes more important in our life; it also creates more leisure business. In addition to that, one
of the biggest shares in the leisure business is tourism. Tourism industry has become the next blooming industry by
every country in the world. It has essential value both on creating job opportunities and earning foreign exchange.
Tourism industry has become increasing important. It must decide on not only how many customers they focus on the
product and service but also what kind of they want. Besides, Leisure farm has been a new leisure service industry for
agriculture transformation and multiple leisure activities (Cheng and Chen, 1996). It can only provide quality that meets
consumers’ demands in order to hold the competitiveness in the severe leisure market. Therefore, the purpose of this
study were to explore the leisure farm tourist's consumer decision-making styles and willingness to revisit cognitive and
diversities situation, then to understand the influence of these variable.

                                              LITERATURES REVIEW

Leisure Farm
      Leisure agriculture was firstly defined on the Leisure Agriculture Development Session held by Agriculture
Extension Department of National Taiwan University in 1989: “Leisure agriculture means to use village facilities,
village space, agricultural production fields, agricultural products, agricultural operation activities, ecological and
natural resources to promote people’s experience in agriculture and villages, improve recreational quality, increase
benefits of farmers and advance development of villages. Chiang (1999) mentioned operational types of leisure
agriculture typically include leisure farm, leisure tree farm, leisure fishery, leisure pasture, tour orchard and family
hostel and so on; among them, development of leisure farm is most diversified, which can provide multiple recreational
functions to tourists besides combining natural landscape, human resources, community resources and ecological
resources. According to Item 3, Article 3 of Leisure agriculture Counseling & Management Measures of Council of
Agriculture, Executive Yuan (2004), leisure farm is the field operating leisure agriculture which is set under counseling
and guidance of relevant authorities. Wu (2001) indicated leisure farms used all resources of farms to maintain
agricultural production and sale, provide services concerning agricultural experience, education or restaurant or family
hostel and provide recreational opportunities for tourists by integrating village culture and life so as to increase farm
benefits and become social responsibility practitioner.
      Leisure agriculture entered an comprehensive development stage especially after Leisure Agriculture Counseling
& Management Measures being revised and issued in 1996 (Chen, 2000), and endowing traditional agricultural
production with attribute of customer orientation (Chen, 1997). However domestic agricultural development of Taiwan
was influenced and impacted severely after Taiwan joined into WTO in 2002, so Council of Agriculture, Executive
Yuan began to revised concerned rules and regulations to establish an assessment system for leisure farm in 2004 for
the purpose of providing domestic leisure agriculture with whole new development and competitiveness in international
tour market.

Consumer Decision-Making Style
       “Decision-making” means to make choice among all kinds of spare plans or alternatives; in brief,
decision-making means to make a choice under a specific condition after considering some plans carefully (Rong, 1999).
Sproles is the scholar who paid attention to consumer characteristics and consumer decision-making style at first and he
suggested consumer decision-making style was the psychological, emotional and cognitive guidance in shopping, which
could dominate choice of a consumer and most of choices on products or services of a consumer would be affected by
one or more decision-making styles that could control decisions of a consumer fundamentally in 1985. So Sproles
defined four kind of characteristic and process for consumers’ purchase decision-making style as following: 1.
Consumers’ purchase decision-making style is "the psychological, emotional and cognitive guidance of a consumer in
shopping“. 2. Most consumers will be affected by one or more specific decision-making styles when choosing products
or services, which can control decision of consumers. 3. Consumer decision-making style means a pattern of shopping
and buying and the mental and cognitive guidance in purchase, in addition it can guide the decision-making of
consumers. 4. Essentially, consumer decision-making style can present a consumer’s personality or some kind of
psychological opinion and such kind of mental process is existent, predictable and able to dominant choice of a
consumer.
       Literatures concerning consumer decision-making style mentioned consumer decision-making style was a mental
guidance of a consumer’s behavior and the decision process prior to purchase; that is a consumer would use relevant
rules to guide his or her decision under effect of various factors.
       In empirical studies on consumer decision-making style, Sproles (1985) firstly adopted 111 female students of
University of Arizona, USA as study objects for study on consumption problem in shopping and purchasing and he
developed six kinds of decision-making style as following: 1. Perfectionist Style: Consumers of such style will not only
be satisfied with common products; they always pursue products and services of the best quality and search them
carefully and systematically. 2. Value-conscious Style: Consumers of this style are particularly easy to find products of
low prices and they like to be the price comparing purchasers and buy products with comparably low prices. 3. Brand
Conscious Style: Consumers of such style are likely to purchase expensive products with famous international brands
and believe high prices equal to high quality, so they would like to spend more money to choose brand products. 4.
Novelty-and-fashion Conscious Style: Such consumers notice latest and creative products and like to keep up with the
fashion trend and pursue diversification in shopping. 5. Shopping Avoider, Time Saver Style: In order to save shopping
time and be fast, such consumers would pay less attention to some products’ quality or service and the comparison on
price difference. 6. Confused, Support-seeker Style: Such consumers always feel there are too many brands and shops
available for shopping and confused due to knowing too much market information.
       Sproles and Kendall (1986) developed a Consumer Decision-making Style Investigation (CSI) based on the study
of Sproles (1985) to explain or assess the psychological guidance and corresponding guiding principles when
consumers are making decisions in shopping, of which the study object typically was 482 high school students in
Tucson of USA; the investigation applied factor analysis to discuss characteristics of consumer decision-making style
and supplemented two more styles – impulsiveness and habitual or brand-loyal orientation toward consumption besides
the above six kinds of style according to its findings, which are stated below: 7. Impulsiveness: Consumers of such style
often decide to purchase products for instant impulsiveness and less care for price or whether the purchasing decision is
the best one. 8. Habitual or Brand-loyal Orientation toward Consumption: Consumers of such style particularly
like specific brands and shops and would like to purchase products of these brands or go these shops repeatedly.

Revisit Willingness
       Revisit willingness originates from the theory basis of loyalty; that is it is the repurchase willingness belonging to
construct of loyalty. Parasuraman, Zeithmal and Berry (1985) thought loyalty referred to repurchase willingness and the
action to recommend and appraise some product or service positively of a customer. Backman and Crompton (1991)
thought concept of loyalty could be divided into action and attitude; the part of action focused on the consistency
between participating in specific activity and time number of accepting specific service and the part of attitude referred
to emotional preference of customers. Kristensen, Martensen and Gronholdt (2000) believed construct of loyalty
included repurchase willingness, recommendation willingness, price tolerance and cross-buying willingness of
customers. And Liao (2003) suggested loyalty contain revisit willingness, recommendation willingness, cooperation
attitude and active participation and so on. With respect to leisure farm, loyalty of tourists mainly finds expression in
revisit willingness; Wu and Huang (2001) aimed at customer satisfaction and conducted the study on service quality of
Administrative Office, Yushan National Park, which contained three measurement items of revisit willingness,
recommendation to friends and families and preferred consideration of future travel. Result of the study on service
quality of theme park and revisit willingness of tourists which was conducted by Lee (2006) suggested: gender and tour
time number were markedly variant with respect to revisit attitude and tourists of different ages were significantly
different on recommendation attitude.

                                                       METHODS

Sample
      This study utilized stratified quota and a convenient sampling method. Totally 600 questionnaires were sent out
and returned and effective 565 questionnaires were obtained with effective return rate of 94% after removing ineffective
questionnaires.
      Measurement instruments used by the study involve four parts: basic data of tourists, service quality scale,
consumer decision-making style scale and revisit willingness scale; Likert Five-Point Scale was used to measure the
point calculation of each scale, including 1 point for “Strongly Disagree”, 2 points for “Disagree”, 3 points for
“Neutral”, 4 points for “Agree” and 5 points “Strongly Agree”; higher score means higher degree of agreement.

Analysis
      The study used statistics software such as SPSS12.0 to process the questionnaire data and conducted data analysis
in accordance with study purpose and issue; statistics methods adopted by the study include descriptive statistics, item
analysis, exploratory factor analysis, t-test, ANOVA, and MANOVA to analyze and verify the data.

                                                        RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics
      Demographic results showed that 42.1% of the participants were males (n = 238) and 57.9% were females (n =
327). There were 182 persons in the biggest group of 20-29 (32.2%), 150 persons in the secondary group of 30-39
(26.5%) and 24 persons in the smallest group with age over 60 (4.2%). As regards education degree of tourists,
approximately 6.5% of the participants were tourists with educational background of middle schools or lower (n = 37),
38.1% tourists graduated from high school or vocational schools (n = 215), 45.3% tourists graduated from junior
colleges or universities were 256 and most, 10.1% tourists graduated from Master’s degree or above (n = 57). As for job,
person number of tourists from private enterprises was 134 and took the biggest proportion in the sample (23.7%);
secondarily, there were 110 students who took up a proportion of 19.5% in the sample; the tourists of other kinds of job
were fewest and only 16 persons, accounting for 1.1%. From the aspect to marriage, unmarried tourists were most and
287 persons (50.8%); 262 married tourists were on the second place and took up 46.4% in the sample; there were 16
tourists of other kinds of marriage situation, accounting for 2.8%. The most common number of tourists with income
from NT$ 20001-40000 were 196 persons (34.7%); tourists with income equal to or less than NT$ 20000 were 122
persons on the second place (21.6%); and tourists with income over NT$ 80001 were 19 persons (3.4%). Tourists lived
in north area were most (180 persons, 31.9%); secondarily there were 168 persons from south area (29.7%) and 17
persons from outlaying islands, taking up the smallest proportion (3.0%).

Analysis on Consumer Decision-Making Style
      As for distribution of consumer decision-making style of leisure farm tourists (Table 1), the items of “It is worthy
to spend time on shopping” and “I will choose to go to shopping for relaxation” got the highest average points including
3.95 and 3.90 respectively; items of “Expensive brand products are commonly the best products for me” and “More
famous products are better for me” got the lowest average points that are 3.03 and 3.06 respectively. The construct
contains eight kinds, among which “Leisure shopping” acquired the highest average (3.91), “Novelty-and-fashion” got
the secondary average (3.68) and “Brand Consciousness” got the lowest average point (3.12).
      Table 2 shows revisit willingness of leisure farm tourists is positive; the item of “I will introduce my friends and
families to take part in the activities held by the leisure farm” got the highest point (3.66); secondarily the item of “I will
introduce my friends and families to take a tour here” got the average point of 3.61 and the item acquiring the lowest
point of 3.52 is “The leisure farm is the site I prefer to consider for future tour”.

           Table 1: Items and Constructs of Consumer Decision-making Style of Leisure Farm Tourists
                                        Item                                              Average       Standard       Rank
                                                                                                        Deviation
                                   Brand Consciousness                                      3.12           1.04          08
6 I would like to buy famous products.                                                      3.13           1.04          33
7 Commonly expensive brand products are the bests products for me.                          3.03           1.01          35
8 I think more famous a product is, better its quality will be.                             3.06           1.07          34
9 Brand commonly is the most important reference in shopping.                               3.22           1.02          28
10 I would like to choose the products designed by famous designers.                        3.15           1.04          32
                                        Perfectionism                                       3.50           1.02          03
1 I often choose good products.                                                             3.53           1.17          09
2 It is extremely important to buy products of the best quality for me.                     3.50           1.01          11
3 Commonly I would like to try hard to find products of the best quality.                   3.46           0.98          13
4 Commonly I have a high standard and expectation on good products.                         3.47           0.95          12
5 I will try to make the best or perfect choice in shopping.                                3.53           1.00          09
                        Price Consciousness                                                 3.42           0.95          04
21 Commonly I will search products with high quality and low price carefully.               3.37           0.98          21
22 I care for how much money I spend on a product.                                          3.44           0.98          15
23 Commonly I like to choose products with lower prices.                                    3.43           0.91          16
24 I prefer cheap products to expensive even fashion products.                              3.45           0.93          14
25 Commonly I choose products with special offers in shopping.                              3.42           0.95          17
                                          Confusion                                         3.31           0.92          06
32 I’m often hesitated in shopping.                                                         3.34           0.89          23
33 I’m often likely to be affected by friends or families in choosing some product.         3.36           0.95          22
34 I always feel confused when facing many choices.                                         3.27           0.94          25
35 More product information I acquire, more confused I will be in shopping.                 3.26           0.91          26
                                      Habitual Loyalty                                      3.38           0.94          05
37 Commonly I keep choosing product of the same kind.                                       3.30           0.93          24
38 Commonly I will buy my favorite brand continuously.                                      3.39           0.95          20
39 I will not change my choice once I find satisfied product or brand.                      3.40           0.97          19
40 I often buy products in the same shops.                                                  3.42           0.92          17
                                       Impulsiveness                                        3.20           0.97          07
27 Commonly I will not care how much money I will spend on a product as long as I like      3.20           0.93          29
    it.
28 I am careless in choosing and regret after buy often.                                    3.23           0.93          27
29 I will not spend much time on choosing and I like to buy products instantly.                  3.19        0.97      30
30 I’m often impulsive in shopping.                                                              3.17        1.03      31
                                   Novelty-and-Fashion                                           3.68        0.99      02
11 Commonly I would like to buy novel and unique products.                                       3.70        1.04      05
12 Commonly I would like to buy novel and fashionable products on season.                        3.65        1.02      07
13 Commonly I would like to buy products of different styles to pursue novelty and               3.64        1.08      08
fashion.
14 It is very important to buy fashionable and attractive products for me.                       3.68        0.91      06
15 I commonly owns more than one products on season.                                             3.71        0.91      04
                                     Leisure Shopping                                            3.91        0.95      01
16 It is a pleased thing to buy products for me.                                                 3.89        0.96      03
17 It is worthy to spend time on shopping.                                                       3.95        0.92      01
18 I would like to choose products for relaxation.                                               3.90        0.96      02


                         Table 2: List of Items for Revisit Willingness of Leisure Farm Tourists
                                            Item                                                Average   Standard    Rank
                                                                                                          Deviation
                    Overall Revisit Willingness of Leisure Farm Tourists                         3.59       1.04
1 I would like to come to the leisure farm again.                                                3.55       1.00       03
2 I will introduce my friends and families to take a tour here.                                  3.61       1.01       02
3 I will introduce my friends and families to take part in the activities held by the leisure    3.66       1.01       01
  farm.
4 The leisure farm is the site I prefer to consider for future tour.                             3.52       1.15       04


Average Variance Comparison on Consumer Decision-making Style and Revisit Willingness for Different
Demographic Variables
1. Consumer Decision-making Style
   With regard to variance comparison on consumer decision-making style for different demographic variables,
   one-way multivariant analysis was adopted; at first, the study used Box’s M to check the variants, if they didn’t reach
   statistic significance, then they didn’t breach the isomorphism presume; secondly, Wilks’s Λ value of overall test was
   used to judge the variance, if Wilks’s Λ value showed significant variance, then F-test was applied to judge which
   variant reached the statistic significance and Scheffe approach was used to conduct the post hoc comparison to know
   the differences among groups. And findings of the above analysis process are as following:
   (1).From Table 3, we can see Box’s M value of decision-making styles of consumers of different genders is 8.83
       (p>5), not reaching significance level, which means the variant doesn’t breach the isomorphism presume; next the
       overall test result shows Λ value is 0.98 (p>.05), which means there is no marked significance among
       decision-making styles of consumers of different genders.
   (2).As for Box’s M test on multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for consumers of different ages, Box’s M
       value equaled to 7.53 (P>.05) which didn’t reach statistical significance and breached the isomorphism presume;
       the next overall test indicated Wilks’ Λ value was 0.87**(p<.01), showing a significant variance, so there was
       variances among these variants, and F-test found four kinds of consumption decision-making styles including
       price consciousness, confusion, impulsiveness and leisure shopping reached statistical significances; at last post
       hoc comparison of Scheffe Approach discovered only the decision-making style of confusion presents significant
       difference that was tourists from 18-19 of such style were more than tourists over 60 of such style and tourists
       from 30-39 of such style were more than tourists over 60 of such style.
   (3).Since Box’s M value of variants of tourists of different education degrees was 9.52 (p>.05), not reaching
       significant level, the variants didn’t breach isomorphism presume and Wilks’ Λ value of overall test was 0.94
       (p>.05), which meant there was no significant variances among decision-making styles of tourists with different
       education degrees.
   (4).Box’s M value for tourists of different jobs was 332.66(p<.05), reaching the statistical significance, so the
       variance of decision-making styles of tourists of different jobs breached the isomorphism presume, as a result, the
       study corrected the research samples and supplemented 6 tourists of other kind of job and used Box’s M to test
       again, of which the result showed M value was 8.54 (p>.05), which didn't show any significance, so the variance
       of decision-making style of tourists of different jobs didn't breach the isomorphism presume. Next the overall test
       result indicated Wilks’ Λ value was 0.79**(p<.01), reaching the statistical variance; so there were variances
       among these variants, which came from the styles of perfectionism, price consciousness, confusion, habitual
       loyalty, impulsiveness and novelty-and-fashion; post hoc comparison of Scheffe approach discovered labors were
       more than housewives and unemployed with the style of confusion; students were more than unemployed with
       respect to habitual loyalty; public servants and teachers were more than unemployed with regard to
       impulsiveness.
   (5).As variance of tourists of different marriage situations breached the isomorphic presume, the study corrected the
       samples and filled tourists of other marriage situation; then Box’s M test was used for isomorphic presume on
       variance of multivariant and Box’s M value equaled to 7.54 (p>.05), not reaching significant level, which meant
       there were no significant variance for tourists of different marriage situations.
   (6).As Box’s M (8.73,p>.05) showed variances of tourists of different monthly incomes were not significant, the
       variants didn’t breach the isomorphic presume and the overall test result suggested Wilks’ Λ value was
       0.88**(p<.05), reaching significant level, which meant there were variances among the variants; then F-test found
       there were marked variances for styles of perfectionism, price consciousness and leisure shopping and result of
       post hoc comparison of Scheffe approach indicated: only the perfectionism style showed a significant variance
       that is tourists with monthly income lower than NT$ 20000 of such style were more than tourists with monthly
       income from NT$ 60001 to 80000 of such style.
   (7).As for variance of tourists from different habitations, Box’s M value equaled to 8.33 (p>.05), not reaching
       significant level, so the variants didn’t breach the isomorphic presume, next Wilks’ Λ of overall test showed a
       value of 0.90*(p<.05), reaching the significant level, which meant the variants presented significant variance that
       was found in the style of brand consciousness by F-test and was tourists from east area of such style were more
       than tourists from south area and outlaying islands of such style.
2. Revisit Willingness
   In t-test of gender and revisit willingness, the result didn’t show significant variance and t value was -1.83 (p>.05)
   which meant there was no significant variance on revisit willingness for tourists of different genders. According to
   Table 4, Average variance analysis on revisit willingness showed significant variances, F=2.88* (p<.05); however it
   was found there were no significant variances on revisit willingness after post hoc comparison of Scheffe, which
   meant tourists of different ages were not different on revisit willingness for the leisure farm. And the analysis result
   on revisit willingness indicated F=6.41* (p<.05); post hoc comparison of Scheffe approach found revisit willingness
   of tourists with education degree equal to or lower than middle school was lower than that of tourists graduated from
   high school, vocational school, junior college or university, which formed a significant variance. Result of One-way
   ANVOA on revisit willingness showed, tourists of different jobs were not significantly variant based on average
   variance analysis; F=1.11 (p>.05), which means tourists of different jobs were not significantly variant on revisit
   willingness to the leisure farm. Result of One-way ANVOA on revisit willingness showed, tourists of different jobs
   were not significantly variant based on average variance analysis; F=1.59 (p>.05), which means tourists of different
   marriage situations were not significantly variant on revisit willingness to the leisure farm. With respect to the
   average variance analysis on revisit willingness, the variance reached a statistical significant level, F=3.25* (p<.05)
   (Table 9); the post hoc comparison result of Scheffe indicated revisit willingness of tourists with average monthly
   income exceeding NT$ 80001 was significantly variant with and lower than that of tourists with average monthly
   income from NT$ 20001 to 40000. And findings of revisit willingness analysis indicated tourists of different
   habitations were not significantly variant concerning revisit willingness to the leisure farm; F = 1.66 (p>.05), so the
   leisure farm tourists of different habitations had no marked variances on revisit willingness.
Table 3: Summary of Average Variance of Consumer Decision-making Style for Different Demographic Variables
                                                                                             Post Hoc
           Item                   Factor            Λ     SS      DF      MS        F
                                                                                           Comparison
                          Brand Consciousness
                              Perfectionism
                           Price Consciousness
                                Confusion
Sex                                                .98
                            Habitual Loyalty
                              Impulsiveness
                          Novelty-and-Fashion
                            Leisure Shopping
                           Brand Consciousness             3.40     5     .68     1.18
Age
                              Perfectionism                4.15     5     .83   1.44
1. 18-19
                           Price Consciousness             7.30     5   1.46      2.93*
2. 20-29
                                Confusion                  8.01     5   1.60      3.39* 1>6;3>6
3. 30-39                                          0.87**
                             Habitual Loyalty              4.37     5     .87     1.78
4. 40-49
                              Impulsiveness                8.97     5   1.79      3.64**
5. 50-59
                           Novelty-and-Fashion             2.24     5     .45      .83
6. 60 and above
                            Leisure Shopping               6.53     5   1.31      2.33*
                           Brand Consciousness
                              Perfectionism
                           Price Consciousness
                                Confusion
Education Degree                                   0.94
                             Habitual Loyalty
                              Impulsiveness
                           Novelty-and-Fashion
                            Leisure Shopping
Job:
1. Public Servants and
Teachers                   Brand Consciousness             6.60     8     .82    1.43
2. Farmers or Fishers         Perfectionism               11.96     8    1.50    2.63*
3 Employees of Private     Price Consciousness            10.52     8    1.31    2.64*
Enterprises                     Confusion                 15.59     8    2.00    4.37**     4>7;4>9
                                                   0.79**
4 Labors                     Habitual Loyalty              8.80     8    1.10    2.28*        6>9
5. Business Owners            Impulsiveness               11.97     8    1.50    3.05**       1>9
6. Students                Novelty-and-Fashion             9.04     8    1.13    2.13*
7. Housewives               Leisure Shopping               7.67     8     .96    1.70
8. Retirees
9. Unemployed
                           Brand Consciousness
                              Perfectionism
                           Price Consciousness
                                Confusion
Marriage Situation                                 0.97
                             Habitual Loyalty
                              Impulsiveness
                           Novelty-and-Fashion
                            Leisure Shopping
                           Brand Consciousness                      5            1.71
Average Monthly Income:                                    4.93           .99
                              Perfectionism                         5            4.35**
1.No income                                               12.27          2.45                  2>5
                           Price Consciousness                      5            2.85*
2.NT$ 20000 and below                                      7.09          1.42
                                Confusion                           5            1.62
3.NT$ 20001-40000                                  0.88** 3.89            .78
                             Habitual Loyalty                       5             .62
4. NT$ 40001-60000                                         1.54           .31
                              Impulsiveness                         5            1.11
5. NT$ 60001-80000                                         2.80           .56
                           Novelty-and-Fashion                      5             .64
6. NT$ 80001 and above                                     1.72           .34
                            Leisure Shopping                        5            2.18*
                                                           6.10          1.22
Note, *p<.05 **p<.01
     Table 4: Summary of Average Variance of Consumer Decision-making Style for Different Demographic
                                            Variables (continued)
                                                                                              Post Hoc
           Item                   Factor               Λ     SS     DF    MS         F
                                                                                            Comparison
                          Brand Consciousness                 11.35  4    2.84      5.04**   4>3;4>5
Habitation:
                              Perfectionism                    4.83  4    1.21     2.10
1. North Area
                           Price Consciousness                 4.34  4    1.09     2.16
2. Middle Area
                                Confusion                       .76  4     .19       .39
3. South Area                                        0.90*
                            Habitual Loyalty                   4.55  4    1.14     2.33
4. East Area
                              Impulsiveness                    2.29  4     .57     1.14
5. Outlaying Islands
                           Novelty-and-Fashion                 1.38  4     .35       .64
                            Leisure Shopping                   3.04  4     .76     1.35
 Note, *p<.05    **p<.01


       Table 5: Summary of Average Variance of Revisit Willingness for Different Demographic Variables
                                                                                               Post Hoc
      Variable                   Group                      N       M       SD        F
                                                                                              Comparison
               1. Male                                     238     3.05     0.93
Sex
               2. Female                                   327     3.64     0.84
               1.18-19 year old                             95     3.62     0.83
               2.20-29 year old                            182     3.62     0.80
               3.30-39 year old                            150     3.66     0.89
Age                                                                                   2.88*
               4.40-49 year old                             63     3.63     0.92
               5.50-59 year old                             51     3.30     0.87
               6. over 60 year old                          24     3.10     1.26
               1. Middle School or lower                    37     3.11     1.11
Education      2. High School or Vocational School         215     3.63     0.85
                                                                                      6.41*     1<2、3
Degree         3. Junior College or University             256     3.67     0.80
               4. Graduate School or above                  57     3.32     1.06
               1.Public Servants and Teachers               58     3.77     0.75
               2.Farmers or Fishers                         43     3.44     1.02
               3.Employees of Private Enterprises          134     3.58     0.88
               4. Labors                                    53     3.58     0.74
               5. Business Owners                           88     3.53     0.97
Job                                                                                  1.11
               6. Students                                 110     3.70     0.79
               7. Housewives                                29     3.49     0.94
               8. Retirees                                  18     3.54     0.77
               9. Unemployed                                26     3.30     1.19
               10. Others                                    6     3.25     0.47
               1. Married                                  262     3.53     0.93
Marriage
               2. Unmarried                                287     3.64     0.82       1.59
Situation
               3. Others                                    16     3.36     1.06
               1. NA.                                      104     3.63     0.84
               2.NT$ 20000 or less                         122     3.51     0.94
Average        3.NT$ 20001-40000                           196     3.72     0.84
                                                                                      3.25*   6<3
Monthly Income 4.NT$ 40001-60000                           100     3.51     0.83
               5.NT$ 60001-80000                            24     3.40     0.99
               6.NT$ 80001 or more                          19     3.00     0.91
               1. North Area                               180     3.69     0.63
               2. Middle Area                              152     3.82     0.62
Habitation     3. South Area                               168     3.70     0.64       1.66
               4. East Area                                 48     3.72     0.69
               5. Outlaying Island                          17     3.99     0.65
 Note, *p<.05
                                                                 DISCUSSIONS

1. Analysis Result of Each Scale
       The Consumer decision-making style scale concerning the leisure farm tourists in the study was formed based on
EKB Theory and eight constructs including Perfectionism, Brand Consciousness, Novelty-and-Fashion, Leisure
Shopping, Price Consciousness, Impulsiveness, Decision Confusion and Habitual Loyalty were acquired after
concerned exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factory analysis; the result was same as those of scales
established by Sproles (1986), Sproles and Kendall (1986) and Chan (2005). Four items of the Revisit Willingness Scale
all had good reliability and validity and these items were same as those studied by Lu (2006), Wu and Huang (2001)
and so on.
2. Variances of Consumer Decision-making Style and Revisit Willingness of Tourists with Different Background
   Variables
       The result of variance comparison on Consumer Decision-making Style cognition of tourists with different
background variables showed. Comparison result on consumer decision-making style of tourists with different
background variables: significances of different background variables for consumer decision-making style were
different according to concerned literatures and discussions, among which Education Degree and Marriage Situation
didn’t present significant variances for eight kinds of consumer decision-making styles of the leisure farm tourists; the
result was same as that of Chan (2005) who studied consumer decision-making style of customers who applied for bank
cash cards. However, tourists of different ages, jobs, average monthly incomes and habitations had significant variances
on consumer decision-making cognition for the leisure farm, which is some different with the findings of Wu (2003),
Chan (2005) and Chen (2006) etc., although all of the results showed statistical significance, the significant constructs
were different, typically because of effect of characteristics of different tourist groups and study range.
       Overall cognition on consumer decision-making style of the leisure farm tourists, the item with highest point was
“It is worthy to spend time on shopping for me.” (3.95) and the one with lowest point was “Commonly expensive brand
products are the best products for me.” (3.03); as for eight constructs of the consumer decision-making style, "Leisure
Shopping" got the highest average point (3.91); “Novelty-and-Fashion” ranked on the second place (with average point
of 3.68) and “Brand Consciousness” acquired the lowest average point (3.12). With regard to revisit willingness of the
leisure farm tourists were positively inclined with overall average point of 3.59; the item “I will introduce my friends
and families to take part in the activities held by the leisure farm” got the highest point of 3.66 and the one “The leisure
farm is the site I prefer to consider for the future tour” got the lowest point of 3.52.
       Tourists of different “ages”, “habitations”, “average monthly incomes” and “jobs” were significantly different on
consumer decision-making styles; and tourists of different “education degrees” and “average monthly incomes” showed
significant variances on revisit willingness. Finally, this study presents several future study directions, and are offered
future research.

                                                                REFERENCES

Backman, S. J. & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Differentiating between high, spurious, latent and low loyalty participants in two leisure activities. Journal
       of Park and Recreation Administration, 9(2), 1-17.
Chan, Y. S. (2005). The Study of Consumer’s Decision Behavior on Bank’s Cash Card. Unpublished thesis, Chaoyang University of Technology.
Chen, C. L. (1997). Development & outlook of Taiwan leisure farming. Journal of Agricultural Information, 14(1), 64-68.
Chen, C. L. (2000). Improving Leadership Ability of Cadres, Special Series of Seminar on Enterprise Operation Instruction of Agriculture Production
       and Marketing Groups. Kaohsiung District Agricultural Improvement Station, Kaohsiung City, 67-74.
Chen, C. P. (2006). The Consumer Decision-Making Style and Purchasing Behavior of Participators in Taipei Jhong Jheng People Sports Center.
       Unpublished thesis, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology.
Cheng, J. S. & Chen, C. L. (1996). Study on operation strategy thinking direction of leisure farm. Chinese Journal of Agribusiness Management, l.2,
       123-144.
Chiang, R. J. (1999). Development of Leisure Fishery. National Chung Hsing University Journal of Agriculture Economy, 31, 13-17.
Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan (2004). Legislative Series of Leisure Farming. Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan, Taipei.
Kristensen, K., Martensen, A. & Gronholdt, L. (2000). Customer satisfaction measurement at post denmark: Results of application of the European
       customer satisfaction index methodology. Total Quality Management, 11(7), 1007-1015.
Lee, K. C. (2006). Study on Service Quality of Theme Park and Revisit Willingness of Tourists – A Case Study on Yamay Amusement Theme Park.
       Unpublished thesis, Da Yeh University.
Liao, M. F. (2003). Study on Recreational Attractiveness and Service Quality of Dong Fong Bike Path and Satisfaction and Loyalty of Tourists.
       Unpublished thesis, Nan Hua University.
Lu, C. T. (2006). A Study on Travel Motivation, Satisfaction and Revisit Willingness of Tourists in Chi-Chi Area of Taiwan. Unpublished thesis, Nan
       Hua University.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of
       Marketing, 49(3), 41-50.
Rong, T. S. (1999). Consumer Behavior. Taipei: Wu-Nan Book Co. Ltd.
Sproles, G. B. & Kendall, E. L. (1986). Amethodology for profiling consumer’s decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20,
       267-279.
Sproles, G. B. (1985). From Perfectionism to Fadism: Measuring Consumer’s Decision-Making Styles. Proceedings, American Council on Consumer
       Interests, 79-85.
Wu, C. H. (2001). A Study on the Core Resources and Competitive Advantage of Leisure Farms. Unpublished thesis, National Chung Hsing
       University.
Wu, H. C. & Huang, T. C. (2001). A study on service quality of administrative office, Yushan National Park: Taking customer satisfaction as the case.
       Journal of National Park, 11(2), 117-135.
Wu, H. C. (2003). The Research of Part Time Job on College Students' Consumer Decision-Making Style Influence--Tainan Area Administration
       College as the Case. Unpublished thesis, National Tainan Teachers College.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:24
posted:7/29/2011
language:English
pages:10