You are on page 1of 19

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

INDIAN CONSUMER FOOD SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR AND THEIR CHOICE & PREFERENCE FOR PACKAGED FOOD AND FOOD RETAILERS – AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

Sanjay Kumar Research Scholar, Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar-125001 (Haryana) E-mail: sanjaygju @yahoo.co.in Dr. Vinod Kumar Bishnoi Associate Professor, Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar-125001 (Haryana) E-mail: bishnoivk29@gmail.com ABSTRACT The aim of this research paper is to study the Indian consumer food shopping behaviour & their choice and preference for packaged food and food retailers. It is to assess the impact of demographic dynamics on their choice for food and preference for food retailers across NCR (National Capital region) in India. In this study six different retailers viz. food bazaar, spancer retail, reliance fresh, 6ten retail stores, convenience stores and kirana (mom-n-pop) shops have been taken to examine the consumer‟s perception for these retailers The purpose to choose these retailers was to assess the overall influence of both organised and unorganised food retailing on consumer buying decisions. Respondents were selected by using the stratified random sampling method and participation was voluntary. 925 respondents from Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida, and Faridabad cities were interviewed using structured questionnaire. Statistical tools like chi-square, factor analysis, t-test, ANOVA and bonferroni test were used to attain final empirical results. In findings, there are varied variations in the consumer buying behaviour of packaged food on the preference of food and grocery retailers. Factor analysis produced seven dimensions of consumers‟ food shopping behaviour viz. innovative buying behaviour, traditional shopping behaviour, health conscious behaviour, hygiene conscious behaviour, brand and store conscious behaviour, reference group influence behaviour and quality conscious behaviour. The mean rating of categorized groups of respondents differs in their respective food shopping behaviour. KEYWORDS: Food retailing, demographic, food shopping behaviour, consumer behaviour, packaged food. INTRODUCTION Diversified culture is a typical characteristic of food diversity in different regions and states in India. The retail sector is one of the fastest growing industries in India, catering of the worl d‟s second largest consumer market (Prasad and Reddy, 2007). Retailing is being hailed as the future of Indian industry, spurred by country‟s huge consumer market of $ 300 billion per year by 2010 and it is forecasted that aggregate consumption will grow to rupees 70 trillion by 2025 (McKinsey report, 2007). Beside, the food and grocery retail is expected to grow to $ 1.6 billion over the next five years (AT Kearny report, 2006). This figure supports to a current size of food retailing of over $ 391 million and a figure projection size of $

274

the food and grocery retail sector was slow starter.e. 2008).6 billion and makes up for 2 percent of the country‟s total retail market. 2006). Psychographic research primarily allows us to understand why consumers behave the way they do (Schiff Man et al. values and life styles have also completely changed the retail formats in India. supermarkets. 2007). race. economic. Most psychographic research attempts to segment customers in accordance with their 275 . 2004). The ever-changing consumers‟ psychographic variables like activities. In the post-liberalization era. food habit. consumer buying behaviour and lifestyles in India too are changing and the concept of “value for money” and “value for time” is fast catching on in Indian retailing. 2007).ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies 1.000 crores.8 percent (Images F&R Research. family size. hypermarkets and speciality stores for various conspicuous reasons namely.00. Out of these. Each variable of the demographic factors has played its own unique role in the growth and development of modern retail formats like apparel. Modern retail penetration in the food and grocery retail sector is the lowest at the rate of 0. The working age population between 15 and 64 years will increase by a staggering 71 million in India to reach 762 million by 2011 (UN Report. technology and government policies (Prasad and Reddy. Most of the food and grocery products reach the consumers through traditional markets which are unorganized (Baja et al.43. 100 million and will have about 325 million people in the 25-35 age group by 2020 (Sinha. dialect. is presently able to captivate the maximum attention. This creates whopping 600 million-plus effective consumers by the year 2010 (A. Supermarkets and Hypermarkets (Kumar and Smriti. a rapidly expanding middle class. 2007). LITERATURE REVIEW The demographic variables such as age. departmen tal stores. 2002). sex. All these portend a sustained growth in discretionary spending and reiterate the chronic need of modern retail formats (Prasad and Reddy. 540 million is below the age of 25. opinions. increasing number of working women. Religion. which is a compounded growth rate of 33 percent (Srivastava. growing literacy.e. income. The population explosion has triggered a massive demand for consumer goods and services.900 crores out of the total retail market which is approximately of rupees 12. The median age of an average Indian is about 25 years i. Increasing double income families in cities is another positive factor.T. out of which organized food and beverage retail market accounting for 5 percent of the total food and beverage market (KSA Technopak report. Thus. The largest young population in the world over 890 million people below 45 years of age is in India. religion and community are the most decisive and wield significant influence on the prospects of retail business. demographic forces like a large segment of young population. Earlier. food and grocery. educational levels.. and nuclear family structure have created an enormous demand for consumer goods and paved way for the modern retail formats (Prasad and Reddy. 96 percent of this market is dominated by the neighbourhood Kirana(grocery) stores(Images retail report. However. marital status. economic buying power. sociocultural. But the very fast changing trends in food and eating habits of consumers have contributed immensely to the growth of „Western‟ format typologies such as convenience stores. occupation. interests.2007). value system. 2005). The food and grocery contributes a whopping rupees 7. 2007). rising income levels. The current Indian retailing is highly fragmented with an estimated 15 million retail outlets. supply. and 45 percent below 19 years. demand. 2011). demographic.6 billion over the next five years. Kearny. tradition are all attributes that clearly demonstrate the complexity in India (Halepete et al. Salary hikes in India are also expected to increase at a faster pace than other developing nations. This study examines the impact of ever changing demographic and psychographic dynamics of the consumers on the strategies of food and grocery retailers. it is imperative to understand the modern formats like Convenience stores. 2008). psychographic.. language. 2005). The food and beverage retail market in India is estimated at $ 4... The census figures for 2001 show that 54 percent of the population i. 2007).

(2006) found that a positive mood resulted in consumers reducing the length and complexity of the decision making process. and behaviour is consumer intention to experiment with the product and cognition is the belief the consumer has exhibit in a product (Solomon. range of products and parking. there is a difference in the result of the studies of different authors as far as relative importance of attributes are concerned. 2000). Tuncalp and Yavas. As purchasing motives driving the food quality perception process and food choice have been found to differ substantially between consumers (Brunso et al. Dunn and Wrigley. 2002). quality and assortment (Seiders et al. 2004). a recent study indicates significantly higher incomes and weekly expenditures of the loyal shoppers (McGoldrick and Andre. locality. Affect is an instrument. that is. In multi-store shopping (MS) patterns. 1984) found loyalty to be a characteristic of poorer shoppers. such as a brand that expresses a degree of favour or disfavour” (Arnould et al. Consumer attitude can be divided into three sections – affect. and products (Hawkins et al. 1997). and opinions (AIO). travel distance. 2003). 1986. which makes the consumer. Grocery industry is strongly driven by price competitiveness (Taylor. Product selection. price and convenience are important in shaping the choice by consumers for traditional outlets for fresh food. 1970. Fox et al. preference for an in-store delicatessen. Overall satisfaction with a store does not significantly influence customers‟ loyalty to that store and shoppers‟ intention to remain loyal to their „primary store‟ is influenc ed by factors like frequent-buyer reward schemes. Blackwell et al. preference for fresh food and fondness of cooking (Alawi.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies activities. interests. traditional supermarket primary shoppers were less willing to tradeoff locational convenience or. A study in Vietnam on the factors which influence decision-making by consumes when selecting traditional bazaars vs supermarkets revealed that freshness. Hence.. place. 2004).. Teller et al. followed by store selection criteria (Yang.. behaviour and cognition. which might be attributed to either changes in consumers over a period of time or to the place of study as grocery shopping patterns vary with culture (Shanon and Mandhachitara. Packaged good‟s store patronage levels in Urban China for both contemporary and traditional produc ts co-vary with 276 . While supercenter primary shoppers of food identified low price and assortment more often as the reason for store for store choice. spatial separation distance best explained respondents‟ shopping destination choice behaviour. 2003). In an investigation of consumer shopping destination choice behaviour for convenience goods shopping trips in Taiwan. assortment and courtesy of personnel are also very important in determining format choice and cleanliness is the most important attribute regardless of the format of grocery store (Carpenter and Moore. division of grocery purchases among supermarkets and other outlets is a distinct aspect of grocery shopping behaviour pattern of consumers of developing countries due to dietary habits. store signage and the level of sale assistance (Miranda et al. the usefulness of distinguishing between segments has become evident. while price played a key role in selecting shopping outlets for processed food and drinks and non-food products (Maruyama and Trung. 2006). Consumers‟ mood can strongly influence their buying behaviour.. 2006. Consumer attitude can be described as “evaluation of a concept or object. followed by price. 2005). 2005). feel about a product. 1990)... ideas. (2004) found that shopping and spending vary much more across than within formats. and expenditures sensitivity was most evident at grocers. 1997). Singh and Powell (2002) found that grocery shoppers consider quality to be most important. 2007). The grocery store patronage behaviour through early studies (Eris and Paul. Knox and Walker (2003) confirmed the existence of a weak but significant relationship between involvement and brand loyalty in grocery markets. in some cases. Psychographics or lifestyle studies include attitudes or evaluative statements about the people. 2006). size of the average grocery bill. “Credit” is a predictor of grocery shopping expenditures spent out of the community and consumers spending a medium proportion of their grocery expenditures out of a locality had the highest overall shopping expenditures in all categories (Sullivan and Savitt.

H3: There is no significant difference in the consumers‟ food shopping behaviour on the basis of their choice to buy packaged food. The population of this study is food buyers in the cities of Delhi. and needs that are deemed to be satisfied by purchasing food and grocery products from the exhibit of different shopping behaviour and their choice for food and preference for food retailers. 1996). In second 277 . Grocery shopping may thus involve “sharing patronages” or “split buying” between multiple stores rather than exclusively buying at one store or “changing patronages” from unorganized grocery stores to stores of the organized sector. 3. H2: There is no significant difference in the preference of packaged food of the consumers on the basis of preferred time frequency and money spent on food shopping. and Faridabad in India. Noida. local shops need to have the commitment and willingness to cater for the local community for survival. The major drivers for choosing a grocery store in India seem to be nearness to place of residence and the comfort level that the respondents has in dealing with the store owner (Sinha and Banerjee. and they patronize other store types/chains in line with market shares (Uncles and Kwok. Noida. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY The main objectives of the present study are: 1. 2002). More involved grocery shoppers are more likely to shop at different supermarkets for various categories of grocery items (Smith and Carsky. A total of 1200 questionnaires were distributed using multistage (3-stage) sampling. particularly for those undertaking their main shopping locally (Smith and Sparks. which reflect the quintessence of consumers‟ ulterior motives. which means focusing attention more closely on local resident‟s wants and needs (Broadbridge and Calderwood. Local shops are seen to provide a vital social and community function. and a majority of consumers are divided in their loyalty. To study the consumers‟ choice & preference for various food retailers. 1997). To understand the role and contribution of consumers‟ demography in their choice and preference for packaged food. Grocery shoppers are said to restore to main shopping trips and top-up shopping trips (Kakkar. 2008). At first stage four cities (Delhi. H4: There is no significant difference in the consumers‟ food shopping behaviour on the basis of their preference for retailer. 2. In view of the above. HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY H1: There is no significant difference in the preference of packaged food of the consumers on the basis of demographic factors. 2008). Gurgaon. and Faridabad) from national capital region were selected randomly. the study has undertaken certain demographic and psychographic variables. The study is based on primary data. few consumers are exclusively loyal. To study the consumers‟ food shopping behaviour and their choice for packaged food.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies market shares. METHODOLOGY The present study is based on an empirical analysis of packaged food buyers‟ demographic and psychographic variables on different strategies of food retailers. 2004). Gurgaon. In an age of increasing competition from large-scale organized grocery retailers.

0) 24 (6. However. Faridabad and Noida contributed 180 and 143 responses respectively. intercept convenience sampling method was adopted to record the responses of the customers. and Noida-250. Statistical tools like mean.2 percent.8) 96 (26. thus making Gurgaon the most responsive city with 94. and ANOVA. Gurgaon-350.01** The table 1 clearly highlights that majority of the respondents who prefer to buy packaged food belong to the middle age segment (approximately 55%). The opinions of the respondents about the strategies of the different food retailers have been analyzed on 5-point Likert scale (from point 5 for strongly agreeing with the statement to point 1 for strongly disagreeing).3) 41 (4.4) 132 (35. The usable questionnaire from both the cities were 154 and 103 respectively making these low on response rate with Faridabad at 60 percent and Noida at 41.2) 200 (21.3) 53 (14.5) 389(100. making the response rate of 84. At third stage. hence.8) 17 (3.1) 556 (100.5 percent. p ≤ 0. the chi-square values have shown the association between the variables at 1 percent level of significance. the stores of organized food retailers were selected across all the four selected cities by means of random sampling.8) 147 (26.0) 278 .05*. data was also collected from the customers of unorganized food retailers (convenience stores and kirana stores).835**. The table further depicts that the youth and old age respondents have lesser amount of inclination towards such products.0) Total 141 (15. The questionnaire distributed in the four above mentioned cities of NCR (National Capital region) in the following order: Delhi-400. were applied in the current study.28 percent response rate. the null 2 Yes 77 (13.8) 138 (24. p ≤ 0.4) 177 (31.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies stage. The inter item reliability was also checked and the value of cronbach alpha was 0. The number of questionnaires collected from Gurgaon is 330 and all are used in final analysis. 344 questionnaires were filled from Delhi out of which 338 were usable. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 Preference of packaged food on the basis of age of the respondents Buy packaged food Age Below 25 yrs 25-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-54 yrs 55 yrs & above Total Source: Primary Data Figures in parenthesis show percentages χ = 23.4) 234 (25. Faridabad-300. To make the current study holistic in nature.70.0) No 64 (17. factor analysis. chi-square.6) 309 (33.4) 925(100. The difference in the number of questionnaire distribution has been primarily due to the population representation of the four cities in the total population of NCR.

3) 146 (39. The application of chi-square highlights a significant association between the variables at 1 percent level of confidence.0) No 16 (4. Table 2 Preference of packaged food on the basis of household income of the Respondents Buy packaged food Income 2-4 lac per annum 4.0) 125 (22.0) 925(100.4) 71 (19. the preference for buying packaged food is more skewed in comparison to their counterparts. p ≤ 0.5) 556 (100.4) 432 (46.7) 74 (8.4) 78 (14. hence.0) 41 (11.3) 91 (24.8) 241 (26.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies hypothesis (H1) is rejected and it could be concluded that consumer‟s age has significant role on the preference of packaged food among the respondents.8) 149 (16.0) No 64 (17. Table 3 Preference of packaged food on the basis of qualification of the respondents Buy packaged food Qualification High school Graduate Post graduate Doctorate Total Yes 20 (3.1) 178 (19.05*.0) 279 .4) 389(100.9) 556 (100. However.0) 158 (28.1) 248 (26.1) 150 (27.01** It is apparent from the table 2 that the majority of the respondents in the middle-income segments are in both the categories who buy packaged food and who do not buy.8) 33 (5.0) Total 109 (11.7) 90 (24.0) Total 36 (3.1-10 lac per annum Above 10 lac per annum Total Source: Primary Data Figures in parenthesis show percentages χ = 29. null hypothesis is rejected. in the upper income segment.9) 383 (41.1-6 lac per annum 6.**p ≤ 0.0) 2 Yes 45 (8.2) 53 (14.6) 266 (47.244.1-8 lac per annum 8.6) 237 (42.6) 166 (45.1) 389(100.2) 925(100.

6) 94 (25.3) 316 (34. p ≤ 0. Table 5 Chi-square analysis of the preference of packaged food on the basis of frequency of food shopping Buy packaged food Frequency of food shopping Daily Once in a week Twice in a week Total Source: Primary Data Yes 139 (25. have lesser preference of packaged food.2) 181 (19.5) 74 (20.7) 925(100. p ≤ 0.0) Total 242 (26.0) 218 (39.5) 174 (31.2) 390 (42.6%) and postgraduates (47.0) No 103 (27.2) 293 (31.0) 389(100.627*. null hypothesis is rejected.0) No 153 (41.01** The table 4 depicts that the majority of both spouse-working couples prefer to buy packaged food whereas the respondents where both spouse are not working and those are unmarried.3) 107 (19.05*.494*.0) 2 2 Yes 275 (49. The application of chi-square highlights a significant association between the variables at 5 percent level of confidence.6) 925(100.2) 556 (100. The chi-square value has shown the association between the variables at 1 percent level of significant. hence.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies Source: Primary Data Figures in parenthesis show percentages χ = 8.1) 389(100. Table 4 Chi-square analysis of the preference of packaged food on the basis of both husband/wife working Buy packaged food Both spouse working Yes No Unmarried Total Source: Primary Data Figures in parenthesis show percentage χ = 6.01** It can be gauged from the table 3 that the packaged food is the preference of graduates (42.8%).0) 280 .05*.0) Total 428 (46.8) 556 (100.9) 172 (46. p ≤ 0. p ≤ 0.2) 199 (35.5) 142 (38.

Similarly.0) 190 (34.057**.0) 12 (1.8) 87 (15.53 percent of variance.01** Table 5 exhibits that the majority of packaged food buyers like to do food shopping once and twice in a week.5) 14 (3. hygiene conscious behaviour. The seven consumers‟ food shopping behaviour emerged in factor loading were innovative buying behaviour. which indicated the same food shopping behaviour. The chi-square value has shown the association between the variables at 1 percent level of significance. brand and 2 2 Buy packaged food Yes 1 (0.6) 34 (6. the null hypothesis is not accepted. the majority of non-packaged food buyers like to do food shopping once in a week. It is observed from the table that the majority of packaged food buyers spend money on food shopping in the range of rupees 2001-8000 per month.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies Figures in parenthesis show percentage χ = 11.0) No 11 (3. The non-packaged food buyers spend money on monthly food purchasing in the range of rupees 2001-6000. traditional shopping behaviour.082**. Almost similar percentage of respondents from both the categories of buyers who buy packaged food and non-packaged food buyers like to do food shopping on daily basis.2) 117 (21. Table 6 compares the respondents‟ monthly food shopping expenditures with their food buying habits. The chisquare values highlight a significant association between the variables at 1 percent level of confidence. The principal component analysis with varimax rotation was applied on 21 statements.05*.1) 556 (100.2) 925(100.6) 29 (7.0) 145 (39.1) 156 (16. p ≤ 0. The factor analysis of opinion and preference statements emerged in 7 factors with eigenvalue greater than 1 and explained 55.2) 48 (5.05*.01**.3) 325 (35. It is acceptable and above the lower limit for social sciences and determined the statistical significance of each eigenvalue at 1 percent level of significance (Table 11).3) 135 (36.9) 122 (13. In the higher range expenditure. the preference of the respondents is skewed towards buying packaged food in comparison to those who do not buy. hence.9) 35 (9. p ≤ 0. health conscious behaviour.8) 389(100. p ≤ 0.3) 262 (28. Table 6 Chi-square analysis of the preference of packaged food on the basis of money spend on food shopping per month Monthly food shopping expenditure (rupees in thousand) Less than 2000 2001-4000 4001-6000 6001-8000 8001-10000 Above 10000 Total Source: Primary Data Figures in parenthesis show percentage χ = 78.0) Total 281 .2) 127 (22. were averaged. CONSUMERS’ FOOD SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR The scores on different statements. p ≤ 0.

079 50.12 3 1.531 Tota l 2.585 6.078 72.788 49.621 4.431 55.718 33.27 7 1.38 9 1.531 282 .531 60.38 9 1.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies store conscious behaviour.132 9.100 Cumulativ e % 17.421 45.132 26.01 3 1.18 8 1.084 5. reference group influence behaviour and quality conscious behaviour (Table 12).351 5.267 42.346 Tota l V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 3.36 9 1.367 6.01 3 1.084 5.079 50.54 7 1.718 33.820 Sums of Squared Loadings % of Varianc e 17.27 7 1.704 6.396 6.898 Tota l 3.18 8 1.59 7 2.132 26.95 9 0.97 0 0.59 7 2.100 4.658 5.357 3.79 4 1.326 39.351 5.07 1 Cumulativ e% 13.132 9.40 8 1.34 3 1.720 69.520 6.431 55.185 55.91 5 0.86 6 1.12 3 1.618 6.567 4.33 2 Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings % of Varianc e 13.152 64.421 45.195 29.547 7.562 36. Table 7 Principal component analysis for consumer food shopping behaviour Vari Extraction Able s Initial Eigen values % of Varianc e 17.336 39.647 8.585 6.647 22.618 6.658 5.80 2 Cumulativ e% 17.07 1 0.

47 7 0.62 3 0. Approx. Chi-square= 1822.516 0.582 283 .59 5 0.76 4 0.54 1 0.37 6 3.605 0. Significance = 0.956 83.726 Table 8 Factor structuring of consumer food shopping behaviour Rotated Factor Loadings Factor Labels and Variables Innovative buying behaviour V8 V10 V15 V16 V17 I like to try new introduced food items I like to go to big hyper market.419 3.638 3.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 0. df= 210.099 86.000 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.560 0.835 2.969 2.143 2.069 88.792 76.71 8 0.66 0 0.43 3 0.142 98.50 1 0. branded retail outlets to buy food items My food shopping is by and large spontaneous While buying food.272 2.578 2.733.904 91.545 0.387 2.064 1.870 96.536 79. I stick to preferred brands only I am very experimental about food shopping 0.207 100 Bartlett‟s test of sphericity.483 93.

703 Brand and store conscious behaviour V20 V5 If I would have more time.499 Source: Primary Data CONSUMERS’ FOOD SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR AND THEIR CHOICE FOR FOOD Table 9 shows the mean difference on the basis of the respondents‟ responses on their shopping habits & attitudes.564 0.70 of internal consistency.766 Health conscious behaviour V21 V2 It is important for me to know the source of food product I buy I buy a lot of healthy food 0.680 Quality conscious behaviour V9 V1 V3 I think the food products in organized hypermarkets or retail outlets are of better quality I buy a lot of organic products I don't prefer retailer brand 0. The cronbach alpha was measured as 0. in all these cases the null hypothesis ( H3) is rejected.407 0.777 Hygiene conscious behaviour V14 V11 I plan before hand while I need for kitchen shopping I like to shop at clean and tidy places 0. Hence.05 level of confidence. It can be seen from the table that innovative buying behaviour.725 0.681 0.39) show 284 .662 Traditional shopping behaviour V12 V13 I buy everything I need in my kitchen from the kiriana (mom-and-pop) shop I go to my usual shop in the main market to buy kitchen stuff 0. The package food buyers ( X =3.625 0.691 0.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies V18 V19 I like to buy and try imported food items I do bulk shopping and store food items 0.697 0. traditional shopping behaviour and reference group influence are the three prominent buyers‟ behaviour where mean difference is significant at 0. I would buy food stuff from different specialized vendors/markets While buying food items I always chose well known brands than the local or store brands -0.592 0.611 0.557 Reference group influence behaviour V7 V4 V6 At times I end up buying more food items than required I quite often buy retailer brand These days children play an active role in decision of buying stuff 0.

707 -0.21). 5=strongly agree CONSUMERS’ FOOD SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR AND PREFERENCE FOR FOOD RETAILERS The table 10 explains the mean difference of consumers‟ food shopping behaviour and their preference for food retailers. Moreover.52) are lesser influenced by reference group than non-packaged food buyers ( X =3.54 3.641 Do not buy packaged food (369) Mean 3.660 3.460* -0.098 0.597 t-value -2.047** Sig.58).34 SD 0.542 -1. and food quality preference of respondents shopping behaviour dimensions exhibit no difference of opinions between both the categories of respondents. Apart from that quality conscious behaviour. *Significant at 1% level .78 0.88 0.660 3.644 0.87).612 3.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies lesser traditional shopping behaviour in the preference of packaged food in comparison to non-packaged food buyers ( X =3.627 0.196 α = 0.14 0.610 3.48 0.115** 0.25 SD 0.43 0. packaged food buyers ( X =3. The consumers who always buy packaged food items from big bazaar are more health conscious ( X =3.858 0. 3=neutral.17 0. The customers who always buy packaged food from spencer retail stores 285 .93) and hygiene conscious ( X =3. retailer perception. 2=disagree.35 3. hence.70. brand consciousness.119 3. 4=agree. 0. null hypothesis is accepted.012 3.063 3.632 0.686 3.75 0. 1=strongly disagree.000 0. On the other hand. in these entire cases.740 0.013 3. these consumers are also quality conscious ( X =3.87 0.176 3.60 0.49). Table 9 Analysis of consumers’ food shopping behaviour and their choice for food Consumers food shopping behaviour dimensions Innovative buying behaviour Traditional shopping behaviour Health conscious behaviour Hygiene conscious behaviour Brand & store conscious behaviour Reference group influence behaviour Quality conscious behaviour Buy packaged food (556) Mean 3.57 0.616 0. ** Significant at 5% level Source: Primary Data.701 -3.727 0. shopping experience.

91).65). These consumers have least traditional shopping behaviour ( X =2. 286 .87).93).81) and these consumers also depict quality conscious behaviour ( X =3. show lesser quality conscious behaviour ( X =3.11). Reliance fresh stores customers are more health conscious ( X =3. hygiene conscious ( X =3.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies are highly health conscious ( X =3. The consumers who purchase food from kirana stores.

75 9 0.58 0.24 3.461 4.536 0.56 0 0.615 3.86 3. ** Significant at 0.54 0.72 7 0.01 level Bonferroni test 287 .783 2.20 4.61 6 0.684** 0.865 3.74 3.51 0.20 0.40 0.11 0.549 0.50 0.21 0.91 0.17 3.44 0.51 3.602 1.87 0.49 0.91 0.191 0.42 0.14 3.571 3. * Significant at 0.000 3.24 0.684 3.780 5.28 0.311 3.66 3.21 0.618 10.494 3.000 3.713 3.68 0.189 Source: Primary Data.89 3.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies Table 10 Consumer Shopping Behaviour Innovative buying behaviour Traditional shopping behaviour Health consciousnes s Hygiene conscious Brand store consciousnes s Reference group influence Quality conscious behaviour Analysis of consumers’ food shopping behaviour and their preference for food retailers Big bazaar (82) M SD Spencer (22) M SD Reliance Fresh (120) M SD M 6Ten retail (37) SD 0.793 3.67 3.703 3.676 0.746 3.36 0.63 0 0.683 7.500 3.474** 0.93 3.569 3.65 1.442** 0.671 3.894 3.56 7 0.741 3.682 0.87 0.81 0.27 0.799 3.552 4.000 3.93 3.660 3.927 0.40 3.672** 0.636 3.05 level.833 3.29 0.58 0. 3.000 0.500 3.639 3.33 0.53 0.06 0.45 0.798 3.601 3.494 0.621 0.55 3 Convenience Stores (131) M SD Kirana Stores (533) M SD F Sig.676 1.50 0.

1 3 2 0. RF M S D E BB vs. CS M S D E BB vs. 1 8 7 S vs. CS 6T vs. 1 6 4 0. 2 1 9 S E 0. 6T M D S E BB vs. KS MD 0. 0 7 2 S vs. KS CS vs. 2 7 7 0.8 59 0. 0 8 0 0. KS M D 0. 0 6 6 0. RF M D 0. 1 7 5 0. CS S vs. 0 9 8 288 . 1 0 8 0. 0 1 6 S E 0. 3 5 6 0. 6T S vs.4 92 SE 0. 2 7 6 0. 2 8 7 S E 0. S BB vs. 3 8 6 0. 1 4 7 M D S E M D S E M D S E M D S E M D S E M D 0.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies Consu mer Shoppi ng Behavio ur Innovati ve buying behavio ur Tradition al shoppin g behavior BB vs.14 6 M D 0. 6 3 4 0. 7 1 2 0. 1 4 0 0. 6 3 2 S E 0. 0 5 9 0. KS RF vs. CS RF vs. 6 7 2 1. 5 4 3 S E 0. 1 4 1 0. 2 0 1 0. 7 9 4 0. KS 6T vs. 0 6 8 0. 2 1 7 M D 0. 1 8 6 M D 0. 6T RF vs.19 4 Health concious Hygiene concious Brand store concious Referen ce group influenc e 0. 4 2 4 0. 7 8 3 S E 0.

RF= Reliance fresh.ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies Quality consciou s behavio ur BB= Big bazaar. KS= Kirana store. S= Spencer.05 level 289 . 6T= 6Ten retail. CS= Convenience store. * Mean difference is significant at 0.

and reference group influence behaviour. health conscious behaviour. The customers who are lesser qualified do not prefer to buy packaged food.66).01 level of confidence. The majority of middle age segment consumers with qualification of graduation and post graduations prefer to buy packaged food. The customers who buy food from spencer retail stores have comparatively higher health conscious behaviour ( X =4. The majority of both spouse-working couples prefer to buy packaged food and it may be shortage of time to prepare meal. The packaged food buyers have lesser traditional and reference group influence behaviour. But the young and old age customers have lesser amount of inclination towards packaged food products. Traditional shopping behaviour ( X =3. health conscious and innovative behaviour. Always packaged food items buyers from big bazaar are more health conscious and hygiene conscious customers and consumers who always buy packaged food from spencer retail stores are also health conscious and have highly innovative buying behaviour. It was also conducted in National Capital Region (NCR) which is a part of North India. The food retailers should offer food related information on packaging in respective local languages and affordable prices. it would be unwise to keep the packaged food in the limits of supermarket and hypermarket set –ups. hygiene and quality conscious behaviour are omnipresent among the food shoppers. The consumers who buy food items from kirana (mom-and-pop) shops have lesser quality consciousness. These consumers have least traditional shopping behaviour. Another prime factor for the promotion of packaged food is its availability and visibility in the market. spencer retail store customers show lesser traditional shopping behaviour ( X =2. innovative buying behaviour. CONCLUSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION A majority of the customers are middle-aged service class female who belong to middle-income bracket with good academic background female and married people with a family size of four members like to buy packaged food. Health. Since a lot of consumer‟s prefer to visit traditional market areas (kirana shops). therefore. the consumers‟ who always buy packaged food from spencer retail stores demonstrate high innovative buying behaviour ( X =3. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION The study was exploratory in nature and many variables were considered which may provide certain insights for the studies which can be undertaken at micro level.91) whereas the customers who always visit kirana shops show lesser inclination towards this behaviour. the consumers who always buy packaged food from spencer have high level of health consciousness and high reference group behaviour and 6Ten retail stores customers have highly traditional shopping behaviour and have lesser reference group behaviour. 290 . The higher reference group behaviour has been noticed among the consumers who buy packaged food from spencer retail stores ( X =3.65). the study can be performed in other part of the country for better understanding and generalisation on entire India. so that these consumers can get first hand information about the product and buy these products. for a bigger picture to understand. In organised food retailing.67) has been highly exhibit among the customers who always buy packaged food from 6Ten retail stores. The mean rating of categorized groups of respondents differences in their respective food shopping behaviour viz. The findings of the analysis are supplemented by the results of bonferroni analysis.53).In the view of comparative analysis of consumers‟ food shopping behaviour and their preference for food retailers. on the other hand.14). It rejects null hypothesis (H4). but the customers who always buy packaged food from 6Ten retail stores show lesser reference group influence behaviour ( X =3. Apart from health and hygiene consciousness the reliance fresh stores consumers are also have quality consciousness. The majority of packaged food buyers like to do food shopping once or twice in a week and these shoppers spend money on food shopping in the range of rupees 2001-8000 per month.54) and reliance fresh stores ( X =3. at 0. convenience and more disposable income at their end.20) than the customers who always buy packaged food from kirana shops ( X =3. traditional shopping behaviour.

brand loyalty and their relationship in grocery markets. Consumer misbehaviour: Promiscuity or loyalty in grocery shopping.C. (2007). Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. Mulhern. Alreck. Carpenter. identity. (2011). J. Marketing Intelligence and Planning. 73-81.L.D. Roger..C. Maruyama. The International Review of Retail. A. iJournal of Retailing. & Arnold. (2005). „Store loyalty‟ as a basis for market segmentation.H. M. Variability of brand price elasticities across retail stores.. (1998). J.. Enis. Kumar. & Calderwood. & Walker. S. 25-60. (2002). & Sharma. Knox. Iyer. Indian Retail Review. (1994).. K. (May). & Park. 421-440. (1970). G. and Lodish. B. Traditional bazaar or supermarkets: A probit analysis of affluent consumer perceptions in Hanoi. 3(1). Rural grocery shoppers: Do their attitudes reflect their actions? International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. S. Kenneth. Williams. (9th ed.. Fischer.. P. P. M. E. (2002). & Smriti. 46(3). E. 17(3). 891-900.M. (2000).P. & Best... J. Psychology and Marketing. Consumer shopping and spending across retail formats. 23(2). Del. Relevance of personal factors as antecedents of consumer involvement: An exploration. and consumer behaviour.. 434-52. 36(9). L. International Marketing Review. S. McGoldrick. Saudi Arabia: Making sense of self service. 271-86. L. D. Journal of Strategic Marketing. I. H. (2006).REFERENCES Alawi. and retail format choice in the US grocery market. (1986). (October). Psychological Bulletin. Henery.. 30(8). 11(2). Eagly.. KVS. Hawkins. & Moore... Wal-mart in India: A success or failure? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. A. Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences on influenceability: A meta analysis of social influence studies. 427-45. & Carli.W. 163-182. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. 394-406. A.. Consumer age role norms. 3. & Leone. E. L. Distribution and Consumer Research. Jain. (2008). Konya. S.V. 61-74. Vision. (1997). (2003). & Havrila.J. 11. K. 13-24. Consumer demographics. Psychology and Marketing. 220-32. 4(2)..J. N. Miranda..M. 233-52. R. Sex. Halepete. J. S. F. M. 77(2). Fox E.. (January).Delhi: TMH.. 90(1). store attributes.. & Paul. Psychology and Marketing. Journal of retailing. Broadbridge. K. 701-13. 34(6). (1981). Empirical developments in the measurement of involvement. & Trung. (January-June). A. L.J. (2003).). 42-56. Modes of thought that vary systematically with both social class and age. Shopper‟s satisfaction levels are not the only key to store loyalty.J. Consumer behaviour – Building Marketing Strategy. 1-20. 291 . & Andre. gender. I. (2004). A favourable circumstances analysis framework for food retailing in India: Multiple considerations for international food retailers. Montgomery. gender role attitudes. 21-38. P. Journal of Business. (2000)..

R.). Shanon. E.M. (2007). Tuncalp.K. (2000). 62(1). & Banerjee. 482-94. 351-364. K. Kotzab. S.D. & Tigert. & Yavas. & Kwok. Schiffman. 714-721. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. R. G. & Carsky. Grocery shopping behaviour: A comparison of involved and uninvolved consumers.. S. PHI: N. Uncles. Simonides. (2002). Sinha.L.L. Private-label grocery shopping attitudes and behaviour: A crosscultural study.Delhi. J. & Taschian. R.Prasad.. R. D. A study on the role of demographic and psychographic dynamics in food and grocery retailing. H. C. D. Patterns of store patronage in urban China. 181-93.B. 25(11). (2008). 16(1). P. (7th ed. Internatioanl Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. Slama. Store choice behaviour in an evolving market. 73-80. Smith.F. Changing retail scene in India. 292 . Brand Management. The impact of supercenters on traditional food retailers in four markets. Vision. Selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with purchasing involvement.. 55-70.. M. Teller. The consumer direct services revolution in grocery retailing: An exploratory investigation. (2004).. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. L. A. & Reddy. 12(6). (1996). 3(2)..L. 68-81. C. (2008). (2005). 21-30. (1997). Journal of Business Research. Store patronage and lifestyle factors: Implications for rural grocery retailers.J. D.. (1990). & Grant. 1(1). 61-74. Seiders. Distribution and Consumer Research.S. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. Managing Service Quality. R. & Savitt. A. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. 78-96. 36(9). Journal of Marketing. P.. Sullivan. 32(10).. M.K. (2006). & Mandhachitara. & Kanuk. 72-82. M. 11(4). Srivastava. 28(4-5). Food shopping behaviour in the Arabian Gulf region: A comparative study. 49. International Review of retail. (1985). Consumer behaviour. U.