Republic of the Philippines

BATANGAS STATE UNIVERSITY-LIPA

COLLEGE OF ACCOUNTANCY, BUSINESS, AND ECONOMICS
Maraouy, Lipa City, Batangas

SMARTPHONE PURCHASE DECISION AMONG STUDENTS OF A

STATE UNIVERSITY IN LIPA CITY

A Thesis Presented to
Batangas State University-Lipa

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Program of
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration
Major in Marketing Management

By:
JAY R C. GUTIERREZ
CARL S. LUNAR
YVONNE JOY O. BARCELONA
AMY GALLO
JAMAICAH GARCES
JOYMEE L. IGLE
KIMBERLY B. MALIJAN
PATRICIA ANNE H. MANGOBOS
COLLEENE LYKA M. SAMONTE

May 2019
 Smartphone Purchase Decision among Students of a State
University in Lipa City

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to investigate the smartphone purchase decision of millennials using the
students of a state university in Lipa City, and its association with brand, convenience, dependency, price, product
feature, social influence and social needs concern. The data set is collected through self-administered questionnaire,
and convenient non-probability random sampling method. A total of 100 samples was collected from Batangas State
University-Lipa Campus. The findings revealed that all the variables have an influence but with different levels
ranging from somewhat influential to very influential on purchasing decision. This results indicate that the
smartphone purchase decision of students is influenced by (ranking from the greatest to least influential) product
features, convenience, dependency, social needs, brand, price, and social influences concern. The findings of this
study are limited by the number of respondents, area, and location. This study is important for marketers to understand
the consumer’s smartphone purchase decision to be more competitive.

KEYWORDS: Factors, Brand, Millennials, Students, Purchase Decision, Smartphone

INTRODUCTION heavily uses smartphones to obtain information,

Smartphone had been increasingly demanded
in the market nowadays and it seems that the trend of
smartphone will not decrease due to the improvements
of technology. This increasing demand was caused
mostly by millennials, who are more technologically
oriented and very dependent on their smartphones.
Back then, mobile phones were used by consumers
typically to do phone calls and text message. By the
technological development and the implementation of
it in smartphones, consumers started to see
smartphones as their daily need since smartphones can
make their life better and easier (Weinberg, 2012).
Millennials or Generation-Y are referred to by
many different names, such as Millennium Generation,
DotNet, Ne(x)t Generation, Nexters, iYGeneration,
Net Generation, Gen Wired, Why Generation, First
Globals, We Generation, iPod Generation, and Echo
Boomers. This is one of the consumer groups that has
been studied extensively in market segmentation
research (Mafini et al., 2014).
Moreover, according to
millennialmarketing.com, 56% of the millennials in the
Philippines mostly students are usually the ones to try
new technology, making them a target of many
businesses for their products. Hughes (2008) also
claimed that they have greater buying power and will
entice the marketers. Further, in a Deloitte survey, 70%
of millennial respondents in the Philippines say they
own or have ready access to a smartphone. They
connect with their friends and family, and for
entertainment purposes.
As a result, many companies in the Philippines
promote affordable smartphones with standard
specifications. Various mobile brands are available and
intensely competing in the market (e.g. Apple, Nokia,
Samsung, Sony, Huawei, MyPhone, Asus, Vivo, Oppo,
Cherry Mobile, and etc.) and consumers, especially the
large number of millennials, choose their preferred
mobile phone from this pool. It also shows that there is
a large opportunity in the smartphone market in the
near future and smartphone producer should cope this
opportunity well. But what factors drive consumer
purchase decision in smartphone purchasing?
In the study by Ding et al. (2011), a few
variables are tested such as social needs, social
influence, convenience, and dependency. Social needs,
social influence, convenience and dependency are also
tested in a study by (Suki and Suki, 2013). Factors such
as compatibility, social influence, price and relative
advantage is tested as well by Chew (2012). Liew
(2012) tested variables such as entertainment,
convenience, social needs, social influence and
dependency.
With lots of possibilities that could affect
consumer decision in purchasing smartphone, it is
essential for marketers to understand which impact on
the purchase decision. But which factors have the For the purpose of determining the
greatest impact on the consumer purchase decision? demographic profile of the respondents, the researchers
presented the frequency distribution of the students
A thorough understanding of Generation-Y who participated on the research.
including their characteristics and social structure will
help smartphone manufacturers and marketers capture Table 1
the attention of this generation and continue to be Distribution of the Students in terms of Gender
successful and competitive in the marketplace. Gender Frequency Percent
Male 40 40
Thus, guided by the previous study in Female 60 60
Malaysia entitled ‘Factors Affecting Smartphone Total 100 100
Purchase Decisions of Generation Y’ as one of the
bases and references, this study has been designed with The table above shows the students who
the intention to identify the factors and its extent of participated in terms of gender. Out of 100 respondents,
influence in the smartphone choice and purchase 60% of them are female indicating that female
decisions of millennials through the students in a state smartphone users are slightly higher than male, who
university in Lipa City as samples to represent the accounted for 40% of the sample.
population.
Table 2
Distribution of the Students in terms of Age
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY Age Frequency Percent
18 years old and below 30 30
The study aimed to examine the factors that 19 – 21 years old 66 66
influence the smartphone buying decisions of the 22 – 24 years old 4 4
millennials through the students of a state university in 25 years old and above 0 0
Lipa City; to assess the level of influence of the factors Total 100 100
on their smartphone purchase decision; and to
determine which factors have the greatest influence in In terms of age group, the table above shows
the students’ smartphone buying decision. that 30% of the respondents are 18 years old and below,
66% are 19-21 years old, 4% are 22-24 years old, and
MATERIALS AND METHODS 0% s 25 years old and above.
Age 19 to 21 consist the highest percentage
The descriptive design was utilized to answer
and followed by age 18 and below. It shows a majority
the objectives of the study. The respondents were
of the respondents are at the early stage of Generation
limited to the 100 students from Batangas State
Y. This could be due to part of the data collection is
University in Lipa City.
conducted in college, and most students are in this age
For the purpose of conducting the study,
range.
random sampling method was used where respondents
are chosen randomly among the targeted group. It is the Table 3
most appropriate design to use in this study because Distribution of the Students in terms of Program
every student in the chosen state university has an Program Frequency Percent
equal chance of being selected as subject. AB Communication 13 13
BIT Computer Technology 13 13
Moreover, a random sampling method is one BSBA- Human Resource
12 12
of the simplest forms of collecting data from the total Management
population. Under random sampling, each member of BSBA- Marketing Management 13 13
the subset carries an equal opportunity of being chosen BS Management Accounting 12 12
as a part of the sampling process. And due to the BS Computer Science 13 13
representativeness of a sample obtained by this BS Psychology 11 11
technique, it is reasonable to make generalizations BS Industrial Engineering 13 13
from the results of the sample back to the population. Total 100 100
(Hayes, 2019). In this research, the questionnaire
distribution is controlled, so that it do not bias to only The table above shows the students who
one age group, gender, or program. participated in terms of programs.
13% are AB Communication students, 13%
are BIT Computer Technology students, 12% are
BSBA- Human Resource Management students, 13% Table 6
are BSBA-Marketing Management students, 12% are Distribution of the Students in terms of Information
BS Management Accounting students, 13% are BS Sources (Multiple Responses)
Computer Science students, 11% are BS Psychology Information Sources Used for
Frequency Percent
Smartphone Purchasing
students, and 13% are BS Industrial Engineering.
Social Media (Facebook,
86 86
YouTube, etc.)
Table 4
Internet Websites 55 55
Distribution of the Students in terms of Monthly
TV/Radio 28 28
Allowance
Family/ Friends 34 34
Monthly Allowance Frequency Percent
Below Php2,000 36 36 Magazine/Newspaper 13 13
Php2,001 – Php3,000 30 30 Blog/ Vlog 19 19
Php3,001 – Php4,000 21 21 Promotions 9 9
Above Php4,000 13 13 Dealer 3 3
100 100 Others 0 0
Total

In terms of monthly allowance, the table above The table shows the information sources which
shows that 36% of the respondents have below the respondents used for purchasing a smartphone.
Php2000, 30% have Php2001-Php 3000, 21% have 86% out of 100% used social media, while 55% out of
Php3001-Php 4000, and 13% have above Php4000. 100% used internet websites. 28% out of 100% used
Majority of the respondents among 100 TV/ Radio, while 34% out of 100% used their
samples have an income below Php2000, perhaps due Family/Friends. 13% out of 100% used magazines/
to most of the Generation Y are still studying without newspaper, and 19% out of 100% used blog/vlogs.
income. Lastly, 3% out of 100% used Dealers, and 0% used
other sources. This indicates that social media and
internet websites are the best platforms to place
Table 5 information about a smartphone nowadays.
Distribution of the Students in terms of Smartphone
Ownership
Brand of Smartphone Used Frequency Percent
Research Instrument
Apple 14 14
Samsung 24 24 Furthermore, the researchers used 100
Huawei 9 9 questionnaires to collect primary data from individual
Asus 4 4 respondents and these were physically distributed. The
Oppo 21 21 variables in the questionnaires are derived from a
Vivo 12 12 previous study which served as our reference and is
MyPhone 6 6 investigated through primary research.
Cherry Mobile 2 2
Nokia 1 1 The questionnaire was designed in English
Others 7 7 which is simple for respondents to understand and
Total 100 100 answer. A cover letter was also included as an
introduction to convey the purpose of the survey to the
The table above shows what smartphones the respondents.
respondents own.
The questionnaire was divided into two parts.
14% have smartphones from Apple, 24% have Part 1 collected demographic information such as
smartphones from Samsung, 9% have smartphones gender, age, program, monthly allowance, smartphone
from Huawei, 4% have smartphones from Asus, 21% ownership, and their information sources. Section B
have smartphones from Oppo, 12% have smartphones gathered information on respondents’ attitudes towards
from Vivo, 6% have smartphones from MyPhone, 2% each independent variable by using a 5-point Likert
have smartphones from Cherry Mobile, 1% have scale with 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
smartphones from Nokia, and 7% are from other
The questions asked are directly linked to the
brands. The results shows that Samsung, Oppo, Apple
objectives of this research, and there are 35 questions
and Vivo have a high market share on students.
in total. The respondents are allowed to select only one
answer for one question in the entire questionnaire. All
questions must be answered, and failing to do so may
void the questionnaire to be used in the data analysis.
Lastly, responses were tabulated and
interpreted using the following statistical tools:
Frequency and Percentage. These were used
to determine the profile of the respondents.
Weighted Mean. It was used to measure the
level of influence of the variables on smartphone
purchase decision of students.
Likert Scale. For easier data analysis, the
following numerical scales were used to quantify the
level of influence of the variables on the smartphone
purchase of students.
4.50–5.00 – Strongly Agree (SA)/ Extremely Influential (EI)
3.50–4.49 – Agree (A)/ Very Influential (VI)
2.50–3.49 – Neutral (N)/ Somewhat Influential (SWI)
1.50–2.49 – Disagree (D)/ Slightly Influential (SI)
1.00–1.49– Strongly Disagree (SD)/ Not at all influential
(NAI)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 7
Influence of Brand on the Students’ Smartphone
Purchase Decision
Items WM VI
1. I prefer a well-known and prestigious
3.36 SWI
smartphone brand.
2. I prefer an elegant and fashionable
3.42 SWI
smartphone.
3. I prefer an internationally recognized
3.59 VI
smartphone with good reputation.
4. I like the glamour of having a branded
3.26 SWI
smartphone.
5. I consider myself to be loyal to my
3.23 SWI
smartphone brand.
Composite Mean 3.37 SWI
It can be viewed from the table that brand got
a composite mean of 3.37 which had a verbal
interpretation of somewhat influential.
It can also be seen that item (3) stating that
students prefer an internationally recognized
smartphone with good reputation, has the highest
weighted mean of 3.59 interpreted as very influential.
Researchers scrutinized the results and it could mean
that the students prefer branded products because of the
perceptions of their performance, quality, service and
the social status associated with the brand. Moreover,
Mudondo (2014) suggests that the younger generation
has a better understanding of the technological
advancement and brand awareness in mobile phones,
influencing their purchasing decision.
On the other hand, although item (5) which
implies students’ brand loyalty, has the lowest
weighted mean of 3.23, it was still somewhat
influential in their purchase decision. The results
suggest that smartphone brands should provide
consumers with reasons to choose their products or
services since a company that communicates a clear
brand promise and actually constantly delivers this
promise over time, will build a solid number loyal
customers (Amanda, 2016).
Table 8
Influence of Convenience on the Students’ Smartphone
Purchase Decision
Items WM VI
1. I can accomplish my tasks more quickly
3.62 VI
by using a smartphone.
2. I prefer carrying a smartphone than a
3.99 VI
laptop or a computer.
3. Smartphone saves my time in browsing
3.88 VI
the internet.
4. I can keep in touch with my friends
anytime and anywhere using my 4.02 VI
smartphone.
5. I can complete my assignments faster by
3.76 VI
using a smartphone.
Composite Mean 3.85 VI
As seen above, convenience is very influential
on smartphone purchase decision having a composite
mean of 3.85. It can also be observed that all the items
in the table was interpreted as very influential.
Convenience in smartphone refers to the
ability to use the smartphone at anytime and
anywhere, without having to port it in a fixed
workstation (Ding et al., 2011).
The results justified that the convenience
which smartphones provide (ranking from the highest
and lowest weighted mean) such as instant
communication, having smartphones as
laptops/computers, efficient accomplishment of tasks,
more convenient web surfing, and easier access to
helpful information needed for school works greatly
affects their purchase decision. Not only in terms of
purchase, but also the demand of smartphones in
general.
The result could also be due to the modern
influence and lifestyles where people want things to be
done at the fingertips (Liew, 2012).
 Moreover, just like what Black (2018) claimed,
convenience is now more of a necessity or demand than
just a ‘nice to have’.
Table 9
Influence of Dependency on the Students’ Smartphone
Purchase Decision
Items WM VI
1. In my day-to-day life, usage of a
3.74 VI
smartphone is high.
2. I feel anxious when my smartphone is
3.46 SWI
not with me.
3. I always use my smartphone to deal with
3.67 VI
my job and studies.
4. I feel easy to be on social media sites
using my smartphone than my personal 3.75 VI
computer.
5. I am completely dependent on my
3.16 SWI
smartphone.
Composite Mean 3.56 VI
Based from the table above, dependency got a
composite mean of 3.56 which has a verbal
interpretation of very influential. It can also be
observed that the items’ interpretations only ranges
from somewhat influential to very influential.
Based on the results, item (4) that states
students greatly use smartphones for easier access to
social media sites got the highest mean of 3.75 which
was very influential. Next is item (1) garnering a 3.74
weighted mean also interpreted as very influential
where students admit of having a high usage of
smartphone in their day-to-day life. Followed by item
(3) where students always use smartphone in dealing
with studies.
Then, item (2) that says students feel anxious
when their smartphone is not with them, and item (5)
having a mean of 3.45 and 3. 16 respectively which was
two of the lowest but still interpreted as somewhat
influential.
The results suggest that majority of the
students are highly dependent on smartphones. Having
used and being engaged with smartphones allow
consumers to have personal knowledge about their
characteristics and the personal experience about how
they work for them and how to satisfy their needs
(Keaveney & Parthasarathy, 2001).
This further affect consumers’ expectation for
purchase because of the benefits they are and will
extracting from it (Kuhlmeier & Knight, 2005).
Table 10
Influence of Price on the Students’ Smartphone
Purchase Decision
Items WM VI
1. I prefer purchasing a smartphone for a
3.03 SWI
high price.
2. I prefer buying a smartphone for a
3.42 SWI
reduced price.
3. I think smartphones are expensive. 3.29 SWI
4. I think the price is a vital element in
3.50 VI
judging the quality of a smartphone.
5. I consider the price mainly when I
3.60 VI
decide to buy a smartphone.
Composite Mean 3.37 SWI
As viewed in the table, price is somewhat
influential in the students’ smartphone purchase
decision having a composite mean of 3.37.
Item (5) where students consider the price
mainly when they decide to buy a smartphone has the
highest weighted mean of 3.60 interpreted as very
influential. Upon studying, this could mean that most
of the respondents are price conscious and considers it
as one of the driven factor in a purchase decision. The
price of the device creates a great impact especially to
the people who still don’t have a fixed job (Hanif et al.,
2010).
It can also be seen that item (1) where some of
the respondents prefer purchasing a high-priced
smartphone having the lowest weighted mean of 3.03
which was still interpreted as somewhat influential.
The result suggests that these respondents are the type
of consumers that buy high priced brands (typically
luxury goods), driven by either social adjunctive
attitudes that seek design, image, or social status or
value-expression attitudes that seek product durability
or quality (Wilcox, Kim and Sankar, 2009).
While in item (2-4), some respondents prefers
buying a smartphone for a discounted price. Some
thinks that smartphones are expensive, and some
automatically thinks that the price is a vital element in
judging the quality of a smartphone.
Given the results, the value of money varies
from different people. Some might think it is valuable
for a high price but others might think it does not worth
for the value of money. But price will always be a key
concern of consumers before making any purchasing
decision (Smith and Carsky, 1996).
 Table 11 It can be viewed from the table that social
Influence of Product Features in the Students’ influences are somewhat influential in students’
Smartphone Purchase Decision smartphone purchase decision having a composite
Items WM VI mean of 3.13. It can also be observed that the items
1. I prefer a smartphone equipped with weighted means range from somewhat influential to
front and rear camera with more 3.89 VI very influential. Ranking the social influences based on
megapixels. their weighted mean, information of smartphones
2. I love a smartphone that can be found on the internet including social media platforms
3.95 VI
connected with On-The-Go USB. are the most influential for students since they are very
3. I prefer a smartphone that supports the exposed to it. It was followed by their consultations
4.03 VI
4G connection. with friends and families, current trend, peer
4. I will buy a smartphone that has a high persuasion, and lastly, the desire of having the same
4.12 VI phone with friends or families which has the lowest
capacity.
5. I will buy a smartphone based on the mean but still somewhat influential. The results also
3.53 VI indicate that in purchasing a smartphone, aside from
shape and sizes.
Composite Mean 4.06 VI surfing the internet for information, consumers tend to
get advice and opinions from their friends and families
It can be seen from the result that product based on the features of smartphones. Overall,
features got a composite mean of 4.06 which had a according to Nelson & McLeod (2015) consumers
verbal interpretation of very influential. It can also be especially students are prone be influenced by the
observed that all the items in the table was interpreted trends, their parents, peers and most of all, the internet
as very influential. This only indicates that students and social media in purchasing a smartphone. It is very
constantly consider a smartphone’s features both vital for companies to always provide information
hardware and software as one of the factors or criteria where and when the consumers need it.
before purchasing one, and feature has a strong ability
Table 13
to induce consumers’ purchasing decision. According Influence of Social Needs in the Students’ Smartphone
to the results, the researchers observed that majority of Purchase Decision
students prefer and give importance to a device’s high Items WM VI
battery and storage capacity. Followed by its ability to 1. I rarely use my smartphone. 2.98 SWI
support 4G connection, compatibility with USB OTGs, 2. I use my smartphone to connect with my
high resolution cameras, and last, aesthetics. In general, 4.02 VI
friends and family.
feature has a strong impact to consumers’ purchasing 3. I always play games on my smartphone. 3.49 SWI
decision (Weinberg, 2012). This explains that when
4. I do my assignments using a
consumers intend to purchase something, consumers 3.72 VI
smartphone.
will tend to make product’s feature as a basis for
evaluating a product 5. My smartphone is everything to me. 3.24 SWI
Composite Mean 3.49 SWI
Table 12
Influence of Social Influences in the Students’ It can be seen from the result that social needs
Smartphone Purchase Decision got a composite mean of 3.49 which had a verbal
Items WM VI interpretation of somewhat influential. It can also be
1. I feel like buying a new phone when my seen that item (2) has the highest weighted mean of
family and friends show their new phones 2.61 SWI 4.02. This only means that most of the millennials
to me. perceive smartphone as a communication tool.
2. I usually consult my family and friend
3.56 VI On the other hand, item (1) got the lowest
before buying a new phone.
weighted mean of 2.98 which indicates that some of the
3. My friend always persuades me to buy respondents rarely use their smartphone in terms of
2.62 SWI
the same phone as theirs. social needs. This could mean that the smartphone they
4. I love to have the same smartphone as
2.75 SWI own are not that advanced or don’t support certain
my family members. features, software, or apps that many smartphone have
5. I usually look for information about nowadays.
4.10 VI
smartphones on the internet.
Composite Mean 3.13 SWI
CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGERIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Based on the information obtained from the
study towards factors affecting smartphone purchase
decision among the students of a state university, some
major conclusions and managerial implications of the
researchers will be given in this section. This might be
useful for companies and their future strategies
planning on improving smartphone sales. Also, with
the large opportunities in the smartphone market in the
near future, smartphone providers should seize the
opportunities to fulfill what affects purchase decision
of users.
First, the researchers concluded that the factors
tested namely brand, convenience, dependency, price,
product features, social influences, and social needs
concern all have an influence in the smartphone
purchase decision of students.
Second, in terms of level of influence of the
factors, product features, convenience, and
dependency are the most influential or main factors that
affect smartphone purchase decision. Followed by
social needs, brand, price, then social influences for
last.
Additionally, the researchers arrived with the
factors’ managerial implications. For starters, the study
shows that majority of the smartphone users will
consider product feature first. Smartphone providers
should study on what features the users demand for.
For example, higher resolution of camera, better and
faster operating system, smarter and lighter design, and
any other new innovative of product features for both
software and hardware. By improving the product
feature more, and providing what is demanded, it might
help smartphone provider to improve sales and profit.
Convenience is the second consideration based
on the research. It indicates that smartphone users buy
one due to its convenience. With smartphone, tasks can
be accomplished faster, and users do not bring a laptop
because smartphone can perform what laptop could.
Smartphone manufacturers can focus on making
smartphone usage more convenience such as longer
battery life, and a slightly larger screen size that makes
smartphone use more efficient and convenient in any
task and everywhere.
The third consideration of smartphone
purchase decision is dependency. The result shows that
dependency is very influential on the purchase decision
and for some users, they might depend to their
smartphone to the extent of feeling anxious if it is not
around. To improve, smartphone providers should
produce more durable devices, and innovate something
important for users to depend more on it which will
make their day-to-day life easier and faster, especially
in school for students, or in work for adults.
Followed by social needs, the study shows that
it also influences the purchase decision, and it’s the
next thing that the smartphone users considers. These
social needs in the context of smartphones, may
represent the necessity for keeping in touch with
friends, family, and associates (Tikkanen 2009).
Smartphone manufacturers should add features that
will improve more and fulfill the user’s social need to
communicate and stay connected with others and have
a sense of security.
Brand also has an influence on the smartphone
purchase decision. It is important for smartphone
manufacturers to build a strong brand name,
particularly by innovating something new and be the
pioneer in the market, or by creating a unique selling
proposition. Perhaps, not only the smartphone product
itself could help to build the brand. Smartphone
providers should also consider other method such as
good customer service, social responsibility and many
more. With internationally recognized and strong
brand, users are more confident in that brand and it is
perceived to be more trustworthy.
Price also has an influence, but it has less
impact on the purchase decision compared to the other
selected variables tested in this study. It indicates that
if smartphone manufacturers could provide a
smartphone with a very good product feature, users
will still buy it even if it is expensive because many
consumers believe that the higher the price, the better
the quality. But companies shouldn’t overlook the fact
that there are also price-sensitive consumers who uses
this factor as one of the criteria in their smartphone
purchase decision. Given this, smartphone providers
should monitor their competitors daily to check and
ensure if their price is not so high that consumers turn
to competitors, and yet not so low that the product is
viewed as low quality.
Social influence has the least impact on
smartphone purchase decision, but it doesn’t mean it
should not be included in the main concerns for the
company. Because according to Farzana (2012), during
the decision making process, consumers always tend to
be influenced by the social group- which is referring to
friends, family, and the people around them, and
external social influences such as trends, internet, and
social media. Smartphone providers should socialize
more with the targeted market to create a positive word
of mouth for them and spread it to others. Even though
research shows a relatively low effect, the social
influence could really affect one’s purchase decision.
Thus, better customer service and after sales service
should also be provided in order to avoid creating
dissatisfaction leading to negative word of mouth.
Likewise, providing information about the product on
where and when the customers need it should be
creatively provided as well especially using the internet
and social media platforms where millennial
consumers are very exposed to.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This research has several important

limitations. Mainly, the small numbers of respondents
who may not adequately represent the millions of
millennial smartphone users. The research was also
conducted in one geographical location only which is
the Batangas State University in Lipa City. A bigger,
more representative sample could lead to more robust
results.
Also, this research uses only seven
independent variables to understand the smartphone
purchase decisions of students. However, there could
be other factors that influence smartphone purchasing
decisions. The results are specific for the Filipino
smartphone market only.
Further, the findings might not be valid to all
types of smartphone brand as different brand have
different operating systems, specification,
functionalities and applications.
Hence, each smartphone brand may impact
differently on university students’ views and
evaluations on the stimulus that sway their dependency
on smartphones. By specifying a particular brand and
specification of smartphones, the relationship of social
needs, social influences and convenience with
university students’ dependency of smartphones can be
studied more accurately and may provide
advantageous information to marketers.
Therefore, more research is needed to gain
more insightful information that would be useful for
marketers in the formulation of marketing strategies.
REFERENCES
Black, P. (2018). What Makes Consumers Buy?
Retrieved from
https://minutehack.com/guides/what-makes-
consumers-buy
Chew, J.Q., (2012). Exploring the factors affecting
purchase intention of smartphone: A study of
young adults in UTAR, Unpublished Degree
Paper. Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Perak
Campus, Malaysia.
Deloitte (2016). Global Mobile Consumer Survey.
Retrieved from
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitt
e/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-
millenial-survey-2016-exec-summary.pdf
Ding, H.T. et al. (2011). Dependency on Smartphone
and the impact on purchase behaviour, Young
Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible
Marketers, 12(3), PP 193 – 203
Essays, UK. (November 2018). Factors Affecting
Purchase Of A Smart Phone. Retrieved from
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/fa
ctors-affecting-consumers-to-purchase-a-smart-
phone-marketing-essay.php?vref=1
Farzana, W. (2012). Consumers’ psychological factors
association with brand equity of high
involvement product: Case of laptop. World
Journal Of Social Sciences, 2(5): 90-101.
Fromm, J. (2017). Who Are Millennials? Retrieved
from http://www.millennialmarketing.com/who-
are-millennials/#slide-3
Genova, G. L. (2010). The anywhere office = anywhere
liability. Business Communication Quarterly, 73
(119).
Hanif, M., et al. (2010). Factors affecting customer
satisfaction. International Research Journal of
Finance and Economics, 60(1) pp 44-52
Hughes, A. (2008). Y and How: Strategies for
Reaching the Elusive Generation Y Consumer.
Unpublished thesis. Pace University, New York
Keaveney, S. and Parthasarathy, M. (2001). Customer
switching behavior in online services: An
exploratory study of the role of selected
attitudinal, behavioral, and demographic factors.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
29 (4) pp 374-390
Kuhlmeier, D., & Knight, G. (2005). Antecedents to
internet based purchasing: A multinational study.
International Marketing Review, 22(4), 460-473.
Liew, T. S. (2012). Smartphone dependency and
impact on consumer purchase behaviour of
people in Kota Kinabalu, Unpublished Master
Thesis. University Sabah Malaysia, Malaysia
Mudondo, C. D. (2014). Determinants of Generation-
Y brand preferences in the mobile phone market
in Southern Zimbabwe. Researchjournali’s
Journal of Commerce, 2(5) pp 2-12
Mafini, C., Dhurup, M., et al (2014). Shopper
typologies amongst a Generation Y consumer
cohort and variations in terms of age in the
fashion apparel market. Acta Commercii 14(1)
pp 1-11
Nelson, M. R. & McLeod L.E. (2005). Adolescents
brand consciousness and product placement:
Awareness, liking and perceived effects on self
and others. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 25 (1): 1-13.
Shabrin, N., Khandaker, S., Susila, T., et al. (2017).
Factors Affecting Smartphone Purchase
Decisions of Generation-Y
Suki, N.M. and N.M. Suki. (2013). Dependency on
smartphone: An analysis of structural equation
modeling. Jurnal Teknologi 62(1): 49-55.
Tikkanen, I. (2009) Maslow's hierarchy and pupils'
suggestions for developing school meals.
Nutrition and Food Science, 39(5) pp 534-43.
Weinberg, D. (2012). Smartphone features [Online].
Retreived from
http://techtips.salon.com/Smartphonefeatures-
179.html.