Consumer Involvement In Product Choice – A Demographic Analysis

*
G Sridhar1
ABSTRACT In the past, consumer involvement has received notable attention among academicians as it is considered to have paradigmatic implications on the consumer decision making. However, studies in this area have been mostly conducted in developed economies and more specifically in US. If the construct has to receive wider acknowledgement and generalisability, there is a need for studies on consumer involvement spanning over varied cultures and contexts. Further, exclusive studies examining the relationship between demographics and consumer involvement are very few. Hence, this study was conducted to examine the relationship between consumer involvement and five key demographics family life cycle, age, sex, income and occupation. After reviewing relevant literature, a survey was conducted taking two products, namely, television and toothpaste. Zaichkowsky’s Personal Involvement Inventory has been used to measure consumer involvement. 332 respondents from Hyderabad and Warangal towns were interviewed using structured questionnaire. Results indicate that demographics significantly influence high involved products of the consumers. In case of low involved products, influence of demographics on consumer involvement has been found to be moderate. Implications of the study for academicians and practitioners are also discussed in the paper.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Consumer involvement is a source to explain the differences in the degree of both mental and physical effort of a consumer and his decision making (Beharrell and Denison 1995; Laaksonen 1994). During the past five decades, consumer involvement received notable attention among academicians as it is considered to have paradigmatic implications on the consumer decision
* 1.

making. There has been an overabundance of research since its origin through the decade of 1980 till 1990’s. However, since then, there has been decelerating number of research studies on the construct. One wonders if the construct has lost its charm or if there is a fatigue to conduct studies on the construct. The fact remains that during the past few years, there is hardly any study that empirically tested and validated the construct.

Received November 11, 2006; Revised February 13, 2007 Fellow (Doctoral) Student, Institute of Rural Management, Anand, e-mail : sri_guda@yahoo.co.in, f021@irma.ac.in

132 Vilakshan. With the objective of examining the relationship between consumer involvement and demographics in a different temporal and The concept of involvement originated from Split Half theory where the assumption is that left and right halves of the human brain processes the information differently (Mittal 1987). If the construct has to receive wider acknowledgement and generalisability. Among such studies. Krugman (1965) proposed that there are two levels of involvement. Andrews et al 1990. moderating factors. this study on consumer involvement has been conducted. In India. search for more information (Beatty. For the corporate community. XIMB Journal of Management .1 Consumer Involvement. Later. Laurent and Kepferer 1985). there is a need for studies on consumer involvement spanning over varied cultures and contexts. consumer involvement was conseptualised on a continuum with low and high at the two extremes of the continuum (Zaickhowsky 1985. otherwise an overly broad construct would result in making investigation of relationships imprecise. low and high and associated it with split half theory. and Smith 1987). 2. Sharma. studies on consumer involvement received little attention except for few studies conducted by Avinandan and Anirban (1996). Same product & Different Products Considering the above mentioned reasons. Loudon and Della Bitta 2002). When compared to low involved consumers. How consumer involvement varies with product? How consumer involvement differs with various demographic characteristics of the consumer? Answers to the above questions would be useful for both academic and corporate community. Many scholars have followed the advice of Cohen (1982) and Andrews (1988) who argued that involvement has to be kept separate from its antecedents and its consequences. Zaichkowsky 1985. the study would be useful in designing appropriate marketing strategies. March.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE cultural context. know more about the alternatives (Petty . 2002). 3. antecedents. involvement properties and consequences (Antil 1984. Consumer involvement is conceptualized and broadly categorized into four dimensions viz. this study would be a step further in validation of the construct in a different cultural and temporal context. Two questions that the study attempted to address were 1.0 HYPOTHESES 3. (2000). For the academic community. Sadarangani and Sanjaya (1998). 2007 Most of the studies on consumer involvement have been conducted in developed economies and more specifically in US (O’Cass 1998). Results of the study are presented in this paper. (2000. there are a very few which attempted to examine the relationship between the demographics and the consumer involvement. high involved consumers use more criteria for choice making (Mitchell 1989). 2. Jain and Sharma.

Thus. programme. For example. values. Slama and Taschain 1985) and behaviours like purchase. Celsi and Olson 1988). Hence. we speculate that the involvement levels would also differ across products. some believe it as perceived personal relevance (Petty and Cacioppo 1981. Bloch and Richins 1983. have simple features and low perceived risk (Richins and Bloch 1986. having complex features and high perceived risk generate high involvement levels from the consumers. Greenwald and Leavitt 1984. Consumer involvement has been related to objects or levels like product. Petty and Cacioppo 1981. and will form attitudes that are more resistant to change (Petty et al 1983). a motivational paradigm of consumer involvement is considered and defined as unobservable state of arousal and interest and evoked by stimulus or situations having drive properties. Consumer Involvement. Mittal (1989) argues that there has been an agreement among various scholars that consumer involvement is a motivational force leading to consumer behaviour and action. This has led to contradictory view points on what involvement is and is not. Saxena 2002.Sridhar. Mittal 1989. As each product has different levels of perceived risk. Greenwald and Leavitt 1984. person related antecedents are connected to the needs. 133 and Cacioppo 1983. Richins and Bloch 1986.. Bloch and Richins 1983). Importance and interest in the consumer involvement construct has resulted in an extensive body of literature with multitude of definitions and measurements. Celsi and Olson 1988. Hence. and response (Clarke and Belk 1978. Within the person related antecedents demographics have considerable influence on the consumer . Bloch 1982. Andrews et al. message. Antil 1984. features and prices. for the study. Higie and Feick 1989) while some others consider it as a motivational state (Mitchell 1981. advertising. Inspite of such diverse views. Few other considered consumer involvement in a phenomenological view (Houston and Rothschild 1978. Laurent and Kepferer 1985. the level of consumer involvement is dependent on the product. Petty and Cacioppo 1981.2 Demographics & Family size Among the antecedents of consumer involvement. characteristics and personality of the consumer. Though consumer involvement can take place at various levels other than product.. Kotler 2002). the following hypotheses : H 1a : Consumer involvement level is different for two products H1b: Consumer involvement levels differ across consumers for every product. process relevant information in detail (Chaiken 1980). Antil 1984. It has also be identified that products which are highly priced. Finn (1983) argues that the level of motivation results from product attributes and relatedness of the product to the consumer’s psycho social wants and needs. 1990). Consumers express low involvement levels for products which are generally low priced. 3. situation (Mitchell 1979. Maheswaran and Levy 1990).

2007 involvement. and sex. On the basis of the above arguments. . Marketers used family life cycle concept to recognize the stages which are more important for different products and accordingly design strategies related to segmentation. and shopping centers and has been used by marketers to segment the markets. media. On the basis of the above arguments the third hypothesis is stated as follows H3: Consumer involvement levels for a product vary with differences in the age segments. March. occupation. Age also influences the level of consumer involvement (Slama and Tashchin 1985. 3. there would be differences in the involvement levels across the family life stages (Jain and Sharma 2002). and death of spouse. within a product. age and important events in life like marriage. Relationship between demographics and consumer involvement is shown in Figure 1. age. married and non dependent children who are working. Some of the demographics considered for the study include family life cycle. Further. Loudon and Della Bitta 2002). An individual passes thorough the stages like bachelorhood.134 Vilakshan. married and having dependent children. cognitions and consumption behaviours (Peter and Olson 2005). Jain and Sharma 2002). They identified that individuals tend to go through certain stages in their lives called Family Life Cycle (Schiffman and Kanuk 2002. birth of children. Slama and Tashchian (1985) state that family life cycle acts as a summary variable capturing the combined effects Age carries with it culturally defined behavioural and attitudinal norms (Alreck 2000). Figure 1: Demographics and Consumer Involvement – Framework for the Study Demographics Family Life Cycle (H2) Age (H3) Income (H4) Occupation (H5) Sex (H6) H2 – H6 Consumer Involvement of income. yet it is in itself an important factor for various products. Age determines the consumption of various products. Though age forms a part of one’s stage of family life cycle.3 Age Scholars observed that major events in life create different social environment that influence consumers affective reactions. positioning and designing marketing programmes. Age affects consumers self concept and life styles (Henry 2000). second hypothesis is formulated as follows : H 2 : Consumer involvement for a product differs with the differences in the consumers stages in family life cycle. married and without spouse. retirement. recently married. income. XIMB Journal of Management . They add that different stages of family life cycle will be involved in purchasing different types of products.

and social status. Consumer Involvement.6 Occupation Men and women possess unique personality traits. there are differences in the involvement levels for various products between men and women (Slama and Tashchian 1985..5 Family Income Occupation is one of the widely applied cues to evaluate an individual (Hawkins et al 2003).Sridhar. periodicals and newspapers. fourth hypothesis is proposed as follows H4: Consumer involvement levels for the products vary between men and women. Jain and Sharma (2002) and Slama and Taschian (1985) identified that income influences the involvement levels. it may be speculated that the differences in the involvement levels of consumer would be influenced by different occupations. Sanjay 2001). It is strongly related to education and income. Hence.e. choice of the products.. articles published in journals. income provides the means to acquire them (Mulhern et al 1998). Two products were selected for the study i. However. It is likely that the occupation and education directly influence the preferences for products. Hence. Also. knowledge. 3. These products were selected in such a way that one represents high involvement (television) and another . some scholars believe that both sexes process and evaluate products differently (Eagly and Carli 1981. In the first stage. income enables purchases but does not generally cause or explain them. In the second stage. relevant literature was reviewed on consumer involvement and demographic variables from various sources like books. media and activities. Jain and Sharma (2002) could gather a minimal support for the argument that consumer involvement differs for differences in consumers’ occupation. judgment capabilities. Fischer and Arnold 1994. Everhart et al 2001.4 Sex 3. The research design is exploratory and was organized in several stages.0 METHODOLOGY Income of the family combined with family’s accumulated wealth determines the purchasing power (Hawkins et al 2003). Various studies have found differences in consumption of products with differences in the occupations. 4. Hence. Jain and Sharma 2002). television and toothpaste. 135 3. Interviews focused on the reasons for purchasing various products. our fifth hypothesis as follows H5: Consumer involvement levels for a product differ because of the differences in the family income levels. Hence. consumer involvement and consumer decision making process. interests. the sixth hypothesis is stated as H6: Consumer involvement levels for a product would differ with different occupations. fifteen consumers were interviewed for about 30 minutes each. However.

Data collection included interview technique with structured questionnaire. Thirty respondents from lecturers and lawyers categories. lawyers and executives of various business organizations.000 (41)20.1 Measuring Involvement Involvement has been operationalised on various dimensions and as a result we find widely disseminated involvement scales developed.000 (9)10. XIMB Journal of Management . The restriction was done to optimize the time and cost resources. Table 1: Profile Of Respondents Demographics Classification Family Life Cycle Unmarried (11) Married and no children (58) Married and children (atleast one) below 20 years (137) Married and children above 20 years (116)Married and alone (10) 24 and below (11)25 – 35 (98) 36 – 45 (95)46 – 55 (91) 56 and above (37) Male (227)Female (105) Age Sex Monthly Below 10. The aggregate sample for the study was 332. survey method was employed. .136 Vilakshan. Profile of the respondents is given in Table 1. In the third stage. engineers.001 and above (62) Occupation Lecturer (70)Lawyer (70) Doctor (65) Engineer (65) Executive (62) Note: Figures in brackets represent the number of respondents 5.001– 40. Hyderabad and Warangal. These products were selected as they have a wide usage rate. Most of these scales utilized Likert like formats and bipolar scales measured on five or seven points. Sample respondents were chosen from various occupational categories from two major cities in the state of Andhra Pradesh.0 MEASUREMENTS 5. information gathered through interviews. Later. The unit of investigation for the study was individual consumer. Interviews also helped us to understand the consumer decision making process and the extent of involvement they underwent in the purchase decisions with respect to various products. Five field reporters (students pursuing their management graduation) were chosen to administer the questionnaire to the sample respondents. March. and objectives of the study.001 – 30. hypotheses were formulated for testing. to test the hypothesis.000 (112) 40. The number of items ranged from six to over thirty.000 (108)30. lecturers. on the basis of the review of literature. We deliberately restricted the categories of the occupations to five on the basis of convenience which include doctors. They were given instructions on how to administer the questionnaire. 2007 represents the low involvement (toothpaste). twenty five from doctors and engineers and twenty two executives were selected from Warangal totaling to 132. Forty respondents from each of the select occupations were contacted from Hyderabad totaling to 200.001– Family Income 20.

A modernized family life cycle typology proposed by Murphy and Staples (1979) exhibits an extended family life cycle schema and reflects the changing consumer lifestyle realities in . For our study the scale was modified by converting the bipolar items into Likert like scales. brand decisions and advertisements as stimuli. we measured the construct on a five point scale instead of the seven point bipolar scale used by Zaichkowsky. Jensen et al (1989) suggested that involvement may be multidimensional both between products and when collapsing across products. Though there are some minor weaknesses (Mittal 1989) in the instrument.. As the items were measured using a five point scale with minimum value of 1 and maximum value of 5 the theoretical values of the responses for each product would be in the range of 20 to 100. 5. 137 Authors who attempted multidimensional approach to measure the involvement construct. post parenthood and dissolution. generally observed that the scales lack a second reliable dimension. Zaichkowsky developed seven point twenty item bipolar scale called Personal-Involvement-Inventory (PII) to measure consumer involvement. it was used successfully by Sharma (2000) in her study. Literature suggests numerous typologies of Family Life Cycle. Hence. parenthood. This is because respondents found the difference between two intervals in a seven point scale to be very narrow.. those dimensions beyond unity should be considered unreliable for subsequent products unless demonstrated otherwise.Sridhar. for the purpose of this study. But we resorted to Likert like scales primarily because during preliminary field visit bipolar items were not easily understood by the respondents. it is one of the most widely used scales and tested for various validity measures and reliability tests across cultures.2 Measuring Demographics To operationalise the Family Life Cycle it was important to decide on the number of stages that a family undergoes in the context of the respondents of the study. This is a departure from what Zaichkowsky (1985) argued that Likert scale items were problematic “because items that seemed to be appropriate for frequently purchased goods did not seem to apply to durable goods and vie versa”. Zaichkowsky’s (1985) unidimensional conception of involvement was adapted. which are bachelorhood. However. Added. Consumer Involvement. in utilizing involvement dimensions for a specific product. Traditional Family Life Cycle (Schiffman and Kanuk 2002) considers five stages. honeymooners. Later on there were many non traditional family life cycles proposed better reflecting the diversity of the changing family and lifestyle arrangements in the societies (Schaninger and Danko 1993). This instrument is simple and applicable across products. In the Indian context. The adapted scale of Zaichkowsky’s Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) had 20 items measuring the consumer involvement of two products separately.

46 – 55 years and 56 years and above. married and children above 20 years. For the purpose of the study.0 FINDINGS 6.15 Low to Moderate Moderate To High 52(15.6773 148(44.29 ** Significant at . Each of this level is given a number in ascending order starting with 1 for the first level to 5 for the last level. each of the stage is given a serial number in the order starting from one to five. recently married. as these values are generally within the acceptable range of reliability. The terms used in the study for the five stages are bachelorhood. 36 – 45 years. we consider that there is a reasonable level of internal consistency within the items of the scale. 6. 2007 USA.1 Consumer Involvement Cronbach alpha values for the twenty item five point scale measuring consumer involvement stood at 0. Similar typology was also offered by Wilkes (1995). As the measurement was ordinal.4) 76 332(100) 55. However. engineers and business executives.001 – 40. There are about thirteen life stages in this model. Figures in brackets indicate percentages # Number of items = 20. (Table 2 about here) Table 2: Consumer Involvement for Products Involvement Level Categories Low Television Tooth Paste N Mean N Mean 8(2. Age has been categorised into five segments. 30. measured on five point Likert like scale .138 Vilakshan.001 – 30.6993 and 0.69 124(37.4) 51.001 – 20. 000 and Rs.001 and above. Rs. married and at least one child below 20 years.3) 64. namely. five occupations have been selected namely lecturers. lawyers.6993 0. married and alone. below 25 years.8) 65 High Total ** ** T test Cronbach Alpha# 0. XIMB Journal of Management . doctors. for the purpose of the study.4) 56 217(65. However. each of the stage is given a serial number in the order starting from one to five. An important reason for the reliability values being less than the alpha values got by Zaichkowsky (1986) could be the changes we have introduced in the PII. March.000. Rs. 20. below Rs.000.01 level.52 8(2. 25 – 35 years. 10. changing from semantic scales to Likert like scales and seven point to five point scale. Rs 10.4) 60. we have categorized family income into five levels which are.56 67.6) 332(100) 73. traditional family life cycle was chosen as it represents the conditions of respondents of our study. 40. As stated in the sample plan. 000. As the measurement was ordinal.7) 60 71(21.19 36(10.6773 for television and toilet soap respectively (Table 2).

For toilet soap majority of the consumers are low involved. Scores indicate that the involvement level for television is higher than the toothpaste. tentatively we can conclude that there is variation in the consumer involvement levels within a product category. Classification of mean scores indicates that the distribution of consumer involvement for each product is varying (Table 2). hypothesis two is partially accepted. moderate to high involved and high involved consumers. Post hoc test results for the dependent variable consumer involvement of television indicate that two stages namely unmarried and married with no children have significantly different means when compared to means of other stages (Table 3).29 respectively. This might be because of less number of respondents in the category. Thus. Mean scores of the involvement levels for two products (Table 2) television and toilet soaps are 67. For television there are significant differences (p<0. t test was conducted.3 Age Cross tabulated results reveals that across the age groups. most of the consumers have considered television as high . To test if these differences are significant are not.52 and 55. 139 Mean scores of consumer involvement of two products was obtained after summating the twenty items scores of the individual responses.. The mean scores were classified into four groups on the basis of quartiles and median scores. Consumer Involvement. hypotheses 1(a) and 1 (b) are accepted. For each product there are low involved. The respondents with scores ‘below 57’ were considered as low involved. between ‘58 – 62’ as low to moderately involved. low to moderately involved.05) across the stages of family life cycle.2 Family Life Cycle Cross tabulation of consumer involvement scores and family life stages for two products reveals that among the unmarried respondents. The results (Table 2) reveal that the differences in the means are significant within each product category.Sridhar. between ‘63 – 66’ as moderate to high involved and ‘67 and above’ were considered as highly involved. Among the remaining stages of family life stages too. the involvement level of television is high and the involvement level of the toilet soap is low. In total. almost all of the respondents are highly involved in television and low involved in the toilet soap (Table 3). Hence. most of the respondents’ level of involvement for television is high and level of involvement for toilet soaps is low. Hence. The table also reveals that majority of the consumers for television is either highly involved or moderate to high involved. 6. (For table 3 see next page) 6.. ANOVA results reveal that there is no significant difference in involvement levels for toilet soap (Table 3).

52 55.329 (Sig . III = Married and Children < 20 years.45 and 46 – 55 are significantly different when compared to mean values of other groups.36 54.09 68. For the dependent variable consumer involvement of toilet soap. IV = Married and Children > 20 years. Post hoc tests reveal that for the dependent variable consumer involvement of television. mean values of two age groups 36 .57 67.32 V 0 0 3 7 10 67.5 I 7 3 1 0 11 5.47 67.02 III 99 18 14 6 137 8. mean values of two age groups namely. 2007 Table 3: Cross Tabulation and Anova of Family Life Stage and Consumer Involvement Consumer Involvement levels I below 57 58 .011) (I. March. XIMB Journal of Management .62 63 . II) 1.690 (Sig . Deviation ANOVA Scheffe Multiple Comparison 0 1 2 8 11 11. I = unmarried II = married with no children.34 II 6 11 22 19 58 7.62 54.4 Sex Cross tabulation of sex and consumer involvement reveals that for both males and females. Hence.36 65. mean values almost remain same but for the age segment of 46 – 55 which shows high involvement level against other age segments. 24 and below and 25 – 35 are significantly different when compared to means of other groups (Table 4).96 V 7 2 1 0 10 3. 6.140 Vilakshan. third hypothesis is accepted. Reasons for such an interesting trend could not be identified in the survey.6 56. ANOVA test also reveals also indicates that there is a significant difference of involvement levels for both television and toilet soaps across age groups (Table 4).36 3.78 Total 217 71 36 8 332 7.66 67 andabove Total Mean Std. For television.43 IV 63 41 10 2 116 5.25 73.55 II 41 7 10 0 58 7.1 2.152) Note: Here. mean differences are decreasing as we move over age segments.13 Television Toilet Soap III 2 24 62 49 137 7.43 IV 0 16 35 65 116 7.38 56.4 55. For toilet soap however. V = Married and alone involved product and toilet soap as low involved product (Table 4).33 Total 8 52 124 148 332 7. television is high involved .

25 73.34 II 8 21 34 35 98 7.66 67 and above N Mean Std.36 65.29 7.73 54.39 IV 0 16 25 50 91 7.79 55. II = 25 – 35.66 67. Television Female 2 17 40 46 105 67. III = 36 – 45.69 .572) Total 217 71 36 8 332 55.002) Note: Here I = 24 and below.52 55.43 68. V = 56 and above # Age in number of years product and toilet soap is low involved product (Table 5). Deviation ANOVA Scheffe Multiple Comparison 0 1 2 8 11 11.36 54.36 Television Toilet Soap III 0 14 48 33 95 7.52 V 31 3 3 0 37 5.66 67 and above Total Mean Standard Deviation Chi Square Test Value 6 35 84 102 227 67.55 II 72 10 16 0 98 6.22 57.52 7..76 III 66 15 8 6 95 9.62 63 .76 7. Mean values of consumer involvement from the Table 5 reveal that they are equal and chi square Consumer Involvement Levels Male below 57 58 .396 (Sig . IV) 4.11 Total 8 52 124 148 332 7.86 53.25 7.35 Total 217 71 36 8 332 7.07 7.001 (Sig . Toilet Soap Total 8 52 124 148 332 67. Consumer Involvement.31 Female 65 27 10 3 105 55..9 V 0 0 15 22 37 67.473 (Sig .5 Male 152 44 26 5 227 55.12 233 (Sig .5 I 7 3 1 0 11 5.2 IV 41 40 8 2 91 5. II)(III.38 4. IV = 46 – 55.25 Table 5: Cross Tabulation of Sex and Consumer Involvement .972) test reveal that there are no significant differences between male and female for both the products.64 7.29 3.62 63 . 141 Table 4: Cross Tabulation and Anova of Age# and Consumer Involvement Consumer Involvement levels I below 57 58 .Sridhar.13 2.93 67. Hence. fourth hypothesis is not accepted.010) (I.

98 IV 75 17 16 4 112 7.000) and (40. Post hoc tests indicate significant differences of means for television for the income levels of (below 10.6 Occupation Cross tabulation of consumer involvement levels and occupation reveals that across the occupational categories.001 and above . (30.001 – 30.001 – 40.000).02 54. the involvement level of Table 6: Cross Tabulation and Anova of Monthly Family Income and Consumer Involvement Income/ Consumer Involvement I below 57 58 . 2007 6. XIMB Journal of Management .56 7.44 II 22 14 4 1 41 7.91 V 42 14 5 1 62 6. V) .61 68.66 67 and above Total Mean Std.001 – 30. (10.61 54. 10.001 .20.45 III 73 23 10 2 108 6. (I. I = below 10.5 Family Income C r o s s tabulation of consumer involvement levels and income levels of the consumer shows that across the income levels the involvement level of television is considered to be high and involvement level of toilet soap is low (Table 6). March.2 10.16 56.000.05) across the income levels. Deviation ANOVA Scheffe Multiple Comparison 0 0 2 7 9 76.754) Note: Here.29 4.25 67.62 63 .000. (20.142 Vilakshan. IV = 30.38 Total 8 52 124 148 332 67.000).52 7.85 II 2 9 14 16 41 9. for the television there is significant differences (p<0.001 and above) (Table 6).000.000).001 – 30.000. This reveals that a low involved product like toilet soap has no great differences for all income consumers.002) (I. III). Low income respondents have shown higher involvement levels for both television and toilet soap when compared to other levels of income.5 I 5 3 1 0 9 57 4.13 66. (I. However.475 (Sig .12 V 1 9 21 31 62 67.001 -20.288 (Sig . ANOVA also reveals that there is no significant difference of involvement levels for toilet soap across the levels of income (Table 6).98 55. III = 20.001 – 40.13 IV 1 21 48 42 112 5.000). II = 10. II) (I. V = 40.71 Total 217 71 36 8 332 7.32 Television Toilet Soap III 4 13 39 52 108 8.72 55. 6. (20.001 – 20. IV).000.

engineer and executives differ significantly (Table 7).2 Total 8 8 52 124 148 332 7.95 Toilet Soap II 22 45 14 9 2 70 7.92 67. doctor and executives. V). After reviewing literature available on the constructs we have surveyed over three hundred thirty respondents. II = Lawyer.46 III 4 1 13 26 25 65 5.25 68. ANOVA results also reveal that there is significant differences (p<0. we identified that the involvement levels differ from individual to individual and later classified the involvement scores into four levels using quartile deviations. We have also identified that the level of involvement differs from product to product.. Table 7: Cross Tabulation and Anova of Occupation and Consumer Involvement Television I below 57 5below 57 58 – 62 63 – 66 67 and above Total Mean Std.15 55. Post hoc tests indicate that mean values of lawyers and executives.32 10. III = Doctor..985) Note: Here I = Lecturer. IV = Engineer.96 55.49 IV 1 2 11 28 24 65 5.64 65.05) in the mean values of consumer involvement of television (Table 7). Consumer Involvement. (III.000) (II. V). V = Executive 7.23 55.39 V 1 1 5 18 38 62 71.82 IV 75 43 12 8 2 65 7.6 III 73 46 9 7 3 65 7. 143 television is high and involvement level of toilet soap is low (Table 7).29 7. V) .23 65.52 54. Deviation ANOVA Scheffe Multiple Comparison 0 1 8 26 35 70 8.093 (Sig . In the survey.13 Total 217 217 71 36 8 332 7.123 (Sig .51 55.5 I 5 46 16 7 1 70 6.74 V 42 43 12 8 2 62 6.Sridhar.61 55. the involvement levels are almost similar across the categories.47 II 2 3 15 26 26 70 5.0 CONCLUSION IMPLICATIONS & MANAGERIAL Our objective was to identify the relationship between demographics and the consumer involvement levels in Indian context which has been less explored area as of now. Involvement level of executives is more for television when compared to other occupational categories. For the toilet soap. (IV. Involvement level for television .69 66.

The rest of the stages can be offered television with similar marketing strategies. income and occupation do not have significant influence on the low involved product. Marketers of low involved products can use age and sex as the key variables for planning their marketing strategies. Television is widely preferred in the age groups of 36 – 45 and 46 – 55. age. For high involved products. For the marketers of toilet soap the challenge is in converting a significant number of respondents who are in the low and low to moderate levels of involvement to high and moderate to high involved levels. marketers need to consider that the age groups 24 and below . March. Marketers need to target these segments of the market as they are more revenue generators than other groups. While designing strategies for television to different age segments. the information has implications for marketing managers of television product. After collating the consumer involvement level mean scores with various stages of family life cycle. the number of respondents would be high. An even bigger challenge for marketer is to bring the low involved product to a high involved status as it is likely to enhance the brand loyalty. This implies that marketer can segment their markets on the basis of involvement levels and use different marketing strategies to tap the consumers. Later we also found that most of the demographic variables have significant influence on the involvement levels for both the products. income.144 Vilakshan. when we extrapolate the results. family life cycle. for the product toilet soap. each of the demographic variables is to be considered for designing the marketing strategies. These findings are interesting and useful for marketers. 2007 has been found to be more than the toilet soap. give implications of significant importance to the marketers. Differences in the mean scores of consumer involvement levels for various respondents within each product are significant. while soaps are preferred by the age group of 46 – 55. there are no significant differences among any of the stages of family life cycle and hence marketing of the product need not be differentiated. Though the percentage of the respondents is lower in this case. Age and involvement levels also. However. Marketing of television using the family life cycle stage should be differentiated for the unmarried and married with no children. XIMB Journal of Management . when combined. Differences in the mean scores of the involvement levels for two products being significant gives the implication to marketer that there ought to be different marketing programmes for each of the product. ANOVA results have show that the demographic variables like Family Life Cycle stages. The challenge for the marketers of the television product is to convert the low and low to moderate involved consumer to high or moderate to high involved consumer. occupation and sex have significant influence on the involvement of the high involved product. However.

and S. involvement levels of consumers who are below Rs. few products for the study (2). 15. and moderate sample (332). “Consumer Age Role Norms. In that sense. October. 15 –22 Beatty. 24-29 . there are no significant differences in the involvement levels across the income levels and hence marketers can consider the entire income level segment as one and design strategies accordingly. consumers below the bottom of the pyramid would give more business. “A Framework for Conceptualising and Measuring the Involvement Construct in Advertising Research. 97 (4). there are also contrasting results that our study has found. 891 – 900 Andrews. almost all income level respondents differ in the involvement level of television and hence marketers need to differentiate their marketing strategies accordingly. “Motivation. John H (1984).” British Food Journal. “External Search Effort: An Investigation Across Several Product Categories.” Journal of Consumer Research.” IIM B Management Review.M. 145 and 25 – 36 are significantly.. for the product toilet soap there are no such differences and hence there need not be any differential marketing approach for these segments. Consumer Involvement. Akhter (1990). They need to introduce products at various price points.” Advances in Consumer Research. REFERENCES Alreck. P L (2000).000 is high probably because of their ability to take financial risk. And there are significant differences in involvement levels between various professions as mentioned in the analysis of data section which implies that marketing strategies need to be tuned accordingly. 19 (4). Avinandan Mukherjee and Anirban Ghosh (1996). the scale is moderately consistent internally and we have not validated the instrument to our context which remains as another constraint. For the product television.E. For the product television. “Involvement in a Routine Food Shopping Context. 27 . “Consumer Involvement – The Key to Brand Recall.95 Beharrell.” Journal of Advertising. For toilet soap however. B and Dennison. The findings of the study are constrained by two major factors. 14.40 Antil. 203-209. Further.” Advances in Consumer Research.. Andrews. 219-225. Ability and Opportunity to Process Information: Conceptual and Experimental Manipulation Issues. the involvement level of executives is higher than other occupations. April – June. Though some of the findings are similar to the results of past studies. Craig. Similarly for toilet soap the age groups 36 – 45 and 46 – 55 should be treated differently. Srinivas Durvasual and Syed H. As indicated in the findings.Sridhar. If marketers offer products with innovative price offers.” Psychology and Marketing. June. S. 11. “Conceptualization and Operationalisation of Involvement. Smith (1987). 83 . J. 10. J (1988). T J (1995). However. this study would be useful as an addition to the existing literature.

Eagly. Jain K.” Journal of Consumer Research. P (2000).” Advances in Consumer Research. Belk (1978). Olson (1988). and M. 581 . New Delhi. Richard and Jerry C. 329-341. and Consumer Behavior. Shucard. Michael J.592 Hawkins I. 47. and Carli. Del. 11 (2). Tata McGraw Hill. Celsi. J B (1982). S J (1994). Summer. Subhash C. Sanjay and Kavita Sharma (2000). Russel W. Feick (1989). D E. Henry. May.424 Fischer. “Low Involvement isn’t Low Involving. 16.” Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions. “Separating the State from Its Causes and Effects. 163-182. “Product Related Antecedents of Consumer Involvement: An Empirical Investigation. Bloch. June 34. Banwari (1989).” Psychological Bulletin. November. 11 (1). G. “Relevance of Personal Factors as Antecedents of Consumer Involvement: An Exploration. March. Chaiken. 5. 697-702.L. 29 – 42 . Everhart. Gender Role Attitudes. Greenwald. 9. A. 752 . “Involvement beyond the Purchase Process: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Investigation.” Paper presented at the Involvement Colloquium at NYU. 10. T and Shucard. Peter H. Sanjay and Kavita Sharma (2002).” Psychology and Marketing. “The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Quatrin. Coney (2003).146 Vilakshan. 413-417. Roger J. 210 – 224. “Enduring Involvement: Conceptual And Measurement Issues. January – June.318 Cohen.” Advances in Consumer Research. 13 – 24 Jain K. “Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement.” Advances in Consumer Research. Finn D W (1983). “A Theoretical Analysis of Two Recent Measures of Involvement. E and Arnold. L (1981). 25 (1). “The Effects of Product Involvement and Task Definition on Anticipated Consumer Effort. Kenneth A. Face Recognition. “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels. Rothschild (1978). “Modes of Thought that vary Systematically with both Social Class and Age. Robin and Lawrence F. Best. Gender Identity.” Neuropsychology. ed.” Advances in Consumer Research. Anthony and Clark Leavitt (1984). 39. 90 (1).” Vision.” Journal of Marketing. Peter H (1982). “Sex. “Sex-related Differences in Event-related Potentials. 15.” Vikalpa. 2007 Bloch. 313 .Richins (1983). Jain. D W (2001). Ninth Edition. Keith. 419 . 15 (3).756 Clarke. “Sex of Researchers and Sex-Typed Communications as Determinants of Sex Differences on Influenceability: A Meta-Analysis of Social Influence Studies. 421 – 440 Higie. 184-187. Consumer Behaviour – Building Marketing Strategy. XIMB Journal of Management . Cross reference from Mittal. J L. “A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions. 1-20. and Michael L. 69 – 81. Chicago: American Marketing Association. L.” Advances of Consumer Research. H. 690-696 Houston. September. and Facial Affect Processing in Prepubertal Children.” Journal of Consumer Research. 16. “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus message Cues in Persuasion.” Psychology & Marketing. A. S (1980).

H.Sridhar.” Advances in Consumer Research. Seventh Edition. 16. “Characteristics of the Consumer Involvement Literature: A Content Analysis. Routledge: London Laurent. Pradip. “Variability of Brand Price Elasticities Across Retail Stores. 41-45 Mittal. J T Cacioppo and D Schumann (1983). Sanjaya S. Consumer Behaviour & Marketing Strategy. 361 . Consumer Behaviour. September. 1720-1737 Peter. Tata McGraw Hill. J D Williams and R P Leone (1998). 427 – 445 Murphy E Patrick and William A Staples (1979). Fourth Edition. 6. M L and P H Block (1986). 127 . Thomas. A A (1979).” Public Opinion Quarterly. 25-30.” Journal of Marketing Research. August. R E.” Proceedings of the Australia New Zealand Marketing Academy. Consumer Involvement. 249 . “The Influence of Message Framing and Involvement.. 29. “A Framework For Relating Consumer Involvement To Lateral Brain Functioning. Aron (1998). 41-53. Brown Company Publishers. 14. 8. 697-702 Mulhern. Philip (2002). A A (1981). “Role of Emotions and the Moderating Influence of Product Involvement in Web Site Effectiveness. Les Carlson and Carolyn Tripp (1989).. February. June. 10.129 Mittal.” Source URL unknown Sanjay. September. Consumer Involvement: Concepts and Research. Marketing Management. 6 Mitchell. McGraw Hill : New Delhi Krugman. H E (1965). New Delhi Petty R E and J T Cacioppo (1983). Putrevu (2001). 16.” Journal of Retailing. Dubuque. D.” Journal of Consumer Research. WMC. F J. J Paul and Jerry C Olson (2005).” Advances in Consumer Research. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. 280-285. “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement. D and J Meyers Levy (1990). “A Modernized Family Life Cycle.356 Laaksonen.” Journal of Consumer Research. “Involvement: A Potentially Important Mediator of Consumer Behavior. Iowa Petty.” Advances in Consumer Research. “The Dimensionality of Involvement: An Empirical Test.” Academy of Marketing Science .” Journal of Consumer Research. “The Dimensions of Advertising Involvement. “Involvement: A Potentially Important mediator of Consumer Behaviour. 17 O’Cass. 147 Jensen. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement. 680 689 Kotler. A A (1989).” Advances in Consumer Research.” Advances in Consumer Research. Sadarangani. and Albert J Della Bitta (2002). Richins. “A Theoretical Analysis of Two Recent Measures of Involvement. Banwari (1987). P (1994). “Exploring the Origins and Information Processing Differences Between Men and Women: Implications for Advertisers.” Journal of Marketing Research. Banwari (1989). Loudon L David.” Advances in Consumer Research. Tata McGraw Hill Edition: New Delhi Maheswaran. “After the New Wears Off: The Temporal Context of Product Involvement.367 Mitchell. Gaur (1998). Mitchell. 16. 13. 135-146. “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles. 27. 3. G and J Kapferer (1985). 22.

source URL http:// www. March. 10. 49. June. 72 – 82 Wilkes R E (1995). 19. Delhi. 22. Consumer Behaviour. Kavita (2000). “Household Life Cycle Stages.148 Vilakshan. 2007 Review. Winter. 126 – 128 Schaninger M Charles and William D Danko (1993). Transitions and Product Expenditures. XIMB Journal of Management . “A Conceptual and Empirical Comparison of Alternative Household Life Cycle Models.” Journal of Consumer Research. 580 – 594 Schiffman G Leon and Leslie Lazar Kanuk (2002). 12. March. Zaichkowsky L Judith (1985). Mark and Armen Taschian (1985) “Selected Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics Associated with Purchasing Involvement. New Century Publications: Delhi Slama E.193 Sharma.” Journal of Marketing. 183 . Seventh Edition.” Journal of Consumer Research. 27 – 42. Impact of Consumer Involvement on Consumer Behaviour – A Case Study of India. Prentice Hall India: New Delhi.org/articles/putrevu102001.” Journal of Consumer Research.pdf Saxena. 341 – 352 . Rajan (2002). “Measuring the Involvement Construct. Tata McGraw Hill.amsreview. Marketing Management.