DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS:

Hypothesis1 Ho: There is no association between gender and consumer method of buying a Smart phone. H1: There is association between gender and consumer method of buying a Smart phone

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Gender * Method of buying 63 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent 0.0% N 63 Total Percent 100.0%

Gender * Method of buying Crosstabulation Method of buying Search within the same brand Count Male Std. Residual Gender Count female Std. Residual Total Count .3 22 -.2 41 63 7 11 18 -.2 .1 15 Go for different brand 30 45 Total

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases .172 63 1 .678
b

Exact Sig. (2sided)

Exact Sig. (1sided)

.175

1 1 1

.676 .900 .677 .772 .445

.016 .173

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.29. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

Hypothesis 2:
Ho: There is no association between consumer method of buying and future purchase options for buying smart phone. H1: There is an association between consumer method of buying and future purchase options for buying smart phone

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Method of buying * Future purchase 63 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent 0.0% N 63 Total Percent 100.0%

Method of buying * Future purchase Crosstabulation Future purchase Samsung Count Search within a same brand Std. Residual Method of buying Count Go for different brand Std. Residual Total Count .0 31 -.5 8 .2 7 .3 17 20 4 5 12 .1 .7 -.3 -.4 11 HTC 4 Sony 2 Micromax 5

Total

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 1.156
a

3 3 1

.764 .770 .612

1.129 .258 63

a. 3 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.44.