A Scale to Assess the Efficacy

of Consumer Decision Making

Ruchika Sachdeva*

In today’s consumer-oriented society the utmost concern of the marketers is to know the
consumers’ decision-making process. Consumer decision making is a process describing
how a consumer makes choices. There is a shortage of marketing scales in India and the
scales developed in other countries are not necessarily appropriate for use in India. The
purpose of this research is to construct a scale to assess the efficacy of consumer decision
making. Based on the previous literature, a 19-item scale is constructed, and after
checking the various psychometrics of the scale, the scale is reduced to nine items. This
scale is constructed on five parameters: problem recognition, information search, evaluation
of alternatives, purchase decision and post-purchase behavior. Psychometrics of the scale
is tested with the help of data collected over two rounds. Using analytical tools like
Cronbach’s alpha, item to total correlation, t-test and exploratory factor analysis, the
author concludes that the scale has desirable, reliable and valid properties and thus
could be used by the aspiring researchers.

Introduction
It is very important for marketers to analyze and observe the consumer decision-making
process. It is important for them to analyze how consumers make decisions. Durvasula
et al. (1993) state that profiling consumers’ decision-making styles helps advertisers
and marketers to understand their shopping behavior. Marketers can use them to segment
the consumers into various niches for product positioning.

According to Loudon and Bitta (2009), “Consumer behavior is the decision process
and physical activity individuals engage in when evaluating, acquiring, using or disposing
of goods and services.” Many authors (Karunakaran, 2009; Loudon and Bitta, 2009;
Meenakshi and Kumar, 2009; Schiffman and Kanuk, 2009; and Solomon, 2009) have
discussed the process, various levels, models, types, and importance of consumer decision
making.

According to Solomon (2009), the major steps in the decision-making process are
problem recognition (which includes need recognition and opportunity), information
search (by which consumers survey the environment for appropriate data to make a
reasonable decision), and evaluation of alternatives (searching rationally the consumers
carefully identify every alternative before choosing the one they prefer). According to

* Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management Studies, Manav Rachna International University, Delhi Suraj
Kund Road, Sector 43, Faridabad 121004, Haryana, India. E-mail: ruchika.sachdeva@hotmail.com

© Scale
A 2015 to
IUP. All Rights
Assess Reserved.
the Efficacy of Consumer Decision Making 7
Loudon and Bitta (2009), the consumer decision process involves problem recognition,
search and evaluation of purchasing processes and post-purchase behavior. Karunakaran
(2009) and Meenakshi and Kumar (2009) state that consumer passes through five
stages for their buying decision process: need recognition, information search, evaluation
of alternatives, purchase decision, and post-purchase decision.

In the present paper, the researcher constructs a scale for consumer decision-making
process, which rests on the process narrated by a majority of the authors (Blackwell et
al., 2003; Karunakaran, 2009; Loudon and Bitta, 2009; Meenakshi and Kumar, 2009;
Schiffman and Kanuk, 2009; and Solomon, 2009). It is a five-stage model of the consumer
decision-making process, with the stages explained as follows:

1. Problem Recognition: According to the above-mentioned authors, the buying

decision process starts when the buyer recognizes a problem or need triggered
by internal or external stimuli. The marketer will have to communicate the
new level of function or benefit of the product in an exaggerated way so that
the customer feels at a disadvantage owning the current product. According
to the authors, marketers need to identify the circumstances that trigger a
particular need by gathering information from a number of consumers. They
can then develop marketing strategies that trigger common interest.

2. Information Search: The consumer, after recognizing the need for a product,
searches for alternatives that may fulfil his needs and desires. Dellaert and
Haubl (2012) state that consumers’ product search with recommendations
transform searcher’s decision process by inducing considerations that are more
in line with choice from a predetermined set of alternatives. According to
Karunakaran (2009), Kotler et al. (2009) and Meenakshi and Kumar (2009),
an aroused consumer searches for information about the product. Consumer
information sources are personal source, commercial sources, public sources
and experimental sources. The relative amount and influence of these sources
vary with the product category and the buyers’ characteristics. Generally
speaking, the consumer receives most information about a product from
commercial-marketer-dominated sources. According to the authors, each
information source performs a different function in influencing the buying
decision. The commercial sources normally perform like an information
function, whereas personal sources perform like a legitimizing or evaluation
function. By gathering information, the consumer learns about the competing
brands and their features.
3. Evaluation of Alternatives: In the next step, the consumer evaluates the
alternatives. Here, the concepts involved are product attributes, weightage for
important attributes, brand image, utility function and evaluation procedure.
According to Kotler et al. (2009) and Meenakshi and Kumar (2009), no single
process is used by all consumers or by one consumer in all buying situations.
Consumers use various types of rules while arriving at a set of possible products

8 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 2015

 that can be considered for purchase. According to the authors the various
important choice criteria set by the consumers while evaluating a specific
product or its alternatives are attributes of the product, benefits of the product,
beliefs and attitudes of the consumers, brand image of the product and their
involvement levels.

4. Purchase Decision: Once the consumers have searched and scanned the various
alternatives, they finally purchase the product. According to Karunakaran
(2009) and Nowlis et al. (2010), the purchase process itself involves several
more decisions regarding vendor decision, quantity decision, timing decision
and payment method decision. The authors further state that consumers choose
a greater quantity when flavor/or brand decisions precede, rather than follow,
size decisions.

Meenakshi and Kumar (2009) state that the product can be purchased through
retail stores, online, ordered by telephone or purchased directly from the
company. According to Kotler (1998), in executing a purchase intention, the
consumer may make up to five sub-decisions: brand, dealer, quantity, timing
and payment method.

As stated by the above-mentioned authors, consumers, while executing a

purchase intention, makes several other important decisions like mode/place
of purchase, payment terms and conditions, delivery and timing of the product,
installment and training for the usage of the product, dealer/vendor, and image
and quantity of the product purchased

5. Post-Purchase Behavior: According to many researchers (Karunakaran, 2009;

Kotler et al., 2009; Loudon and Bitta, 2009; Meenakshi and Kumar, 2009;
and Schiffman and Kanuak, 2009), after purchasing the product, the consumer
might feel some level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. If the product falls short
of the buyer’s expectation, the buyer will be disappointed and dissatisfied. If
it meets the expectations, the buyer will be satisfied. If it exceeds the
expectations, the buyer will be delighted.

According to the above-discussed studies, the consumers might face cognitive

dissonance, which is a discomfort felt by the buyer due to post-purchase conflict.
As part of their post-purchase analysis, the consumers try to reassure themselves
that their choice was a wise one, i.e., they attempt to reduce post-purchase
cognitive dissonance. According to Blackwell et al. (2003), Karunakaran (2009)
and Meenakshi and Kumar (2009), dissonance increases with expense of
purchase, noticing certain disquieting factors, hearing favorable things about
other brands, difficulty of decision (many alternatives, many choice criteria
and each alternative offering benefits not available with others), other risks
involved in the purchase (functional, psychological or social risk) and when
decision is irrevocable shortly after the purchase.

A Scale to Assess the Efficacy of Consumer Decision Making 9

 According to Kotler et al. (2009) and Meenakshi and Kumar (2009), a satisfied
consumer will purchase the product again and spread a positive word of mouth.
On the other hand, a dissatisfied consumer may abandon or return the product.
They may take public action by complaining to the company and other groups,
or approaching the court. Thus, consumers’ post-purchase evaluation has great
influence on future purchase decisions.

Literature Review
Cohen (1967) developed a 35-item Likert scale for measuring compliant, aggressive and
detached interpersonal orientations. The study examines the relationships between these
traits and product and media choices. The scale focused entirely on interpersonal aspects
of consumer decision making. The present research uses only a few items of this scale, as
interpersonal orientation is only one aspect of consumer decision making.

Sproles and Kendall (1986) developed a 40-item scale under the title Consumer
Style Inventory (CSI). In CSI, factor analysis was used to identify eight mental
characteristics of consumer decision making: (1) Perfectionism or high quality
consciousness; (2) Brand consciousness; (3) Novelty fashion consciousness;
(4) Recreational, hedonistic shopping consciousness; (5) Price and ‘value for money’
shopping consciousness; (6) Impulsiveness; (7) Confused by over choice; and (8) Habitual,
brand loyal orientation toward consumption. The CSI is the most popular scale used
across different cultures and countries (Austria, UK, US, South Korea, India, Greece, New
Zealand, China, Germany, Taiwan, and Iran) to measure consumer decision-making styles.

However, the scale developed by Sproles and Kendall (1986) was developed and
validated for the US samples only. Many researchers (Green and White, 1976;
Durvasula et al., 1993; Lysonski et al., 1996; Mitchell and Bates, 1998; and Khare,
2012) state that this scale is appropriate for application to developed countries rather
than developing countries. Therefore, according to the authors, the consumer specialists
group should develop a more parsimonious version of the scale with fewer scale
dimensions that exhibit greater internal consistency based on the cultures and buying
pattern of the consumers. Khare (2012) suggested that all the factors of CSI are not
applicable in Indian conditions and only three factors emerge as significant. The present
research also includes only four factors of the CSI (perfectionism or high quality
consciousness, brand consciousness, price and ‘value for money’ shopping consciousness
and impulsiveness) for the scale construction.

The scale in the present paper is constructed based only on the above-stated criteria.

Data and Methodology

Study Area
The study covers the area of Faridabad. Judgment and convenience guided the choice of
the geographic area. Faridabad is an upcoming region of National Capital Region and is

10 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 2015

fast becoming an education hub. Thus, the respondents for this study are mostly youth.
The youth are important in the Indian market not only because of their numerical
dominance, but also because of the power they wield in Indian families. According to
Business World (2005), the youth constitute 54% of Indian population. The predominant
position of youth in Indian society and their power to influence purchase decisions are
amply brought out by Ramaswamy and Namakumari (1998). According to them, the
youth constitute a distinct market, and this age group of the country’s population is of
considerable marketing significance. So, it is essential to study the profile of youth and
a picture of their buying motives and habits.

Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted with the objective of testing the various scales, refining the
questionnaire and identifying various problems, which might be faced in the final study.
The details of the pilot study are presented here.

A structured questionnaire was prepared in English. The pilot study was done to
validate the consumer decision-making scale. Data was collected from 94 students selected
through judgment sampling for a period from February 2011 to May 2011. An
educational institution was selected through judgment sampling for two reasons. First,
it was very important to select educated respondents who could understand the concept
of consumer decision making, and second, who play a vital role in the decision making
of their families. The pilot study helped the researcher to identify certain unanticipated
problems. First, many respondents find the 19-item scale too long, and second, the
language of many items was simplified. Testing of the scale was the main objective of the
pilot study. Many items were deleted after checking the various psychometrics of the
scale (details are presented later in the study).

Final Study
The final study was done after the results were obtained from the pilot study. A structured
questionnaire was prepared in English for data collection. The scale with various items
deleted after the pilot study was administered to the respondents with the left-over
items. Data was collected from 140 respondents for the period from January 2012 to
April 2012 through random and judgment sampling. A list of universities in Faridabad
was made, and with the help of random number tables, one university was selected
randomly. Then by judgment sampling, the management department was chosen and
data was collected from all the students of that department. Data entry, checking, and
editing were done for the final study. All the data was entered in the SPSS package as
per the coding done in the questionnaire and various items that were reverse coded were
also checked. Various checks like range checks and logical checks were also applied on
the data. The analysis in the final study further helped the researcher to refine the
questionnaire. All the items which were not fulfilling the scale validation criteria were
deleted from the scale (details are presented later in the study).

A Scale to Assess the Efficacy of Consumer Decision Making 11

Results and Discussion
Demographics of the sample for both the studies are presented in Table 1. The table
depicts four demographic variables: gender, age, education and income. A total of 94
and 140 respondents were selected for pilot and final study respectively. The sample
primarily consisted of youth.

Table 1: Profile of Total Sample for Pilot Study and Final Study

Pilot Study Final Study

Gender n p n p
Male 63 67.0 88 62.9
Female 31 33.0 52 37.1
Total 94 100.0 140 100.00
Age (in years)
20-22 75 79.8 110 78.57
23-25 19 20.2 30 21.43
Total 94 100.0 140 100.00
Mean Age 21.87 – 21.84 –
Standard Deviation 0.99 – 1.14 –
Education (in years)**
15-18 90 98.00 133 97.08
19-24 2 2.00 4 2.92
Total* 92 100.0 137 100.00
Mean Years of Education 16.29 – 16.12 –
Standard Deviation 0.97 1.20
Income (in ) n p n p
Upto 3,500 – – – –
3,501-7,000 1 1.1 2 1.48
7,001-10,500 1 1.1 1 0.74
10,501-14,000 8 8.7 9 6.67
14,001-25,000 21 22.8 26 19.26
25,001-50,000 28 30.4 44 32.59
More than 50,000 33 35.9 53 39.26
Total* 92 100.0 135 100.00

Note: * Some totals in the table like that of education and income differ from the total values
because of non-response for some items; and ** Class 1 being the first year of education.

12 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 2015

Scale Validation
Many authors (Churchill, 1979; Peter, 1981; Durvasula et al., 1993; and Malhotra,
2005) state that a multi-item scale should be evaluated for accuracy and applicability
and emphasis should be on developing measures, which have desirable, reliable and
valid properties. According to the authors, the analyst working to develop a measure
must follow the approaches used for assessing the reliability as well as validity that can
be assessed by examining content validity, criterion validity and construct validity. The
researcher used the procedure suggested by Churchill (1979) for developing better
measures.

Damir et al. (2012) analyzed the applicability of Sproles and Kendall’s CSI
instrument by using factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha. Durvasula et al. (1993) and
Sinkovics et al. (2010) analyzed the dimensionality of CSI by examining the factor
solution and amount of variance explained, and examined the factor loadings to obtain
the factor solution using a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation.
The authors further computed Cronbach’s alpha coefficients to assess the reliabilities of
the factors identified. Fan and Jing (1998) preferred using exploratory factor analysis,
while Durvasula et al. (1993) and Hiu et al. (2001) preferred to use confirmatory factor
analysis.

Hiu et al. (2001) and Sinkovics et al. (2010) compared the results of various studies
done in different countries from 1986 to 2010. The sample population in all the studies
were students. The psychometrics of the scale across all countries were tested by various
authors (Sproles and Kendall, 1986; Durvasula et al., 1993; Lynsonski et al., 1996;
Fan and Jing, 1998; Mitchell and Bates, 1998; Hiu et al., 2001; Sinkovics et al., 2010;
and Damir et al., 2012), using analytical tools like Cronbach’s alpha, item to total
correlation and factor analysis. A majority of the authors had used all the approaches
for accessing the reliability and examined the content and construct validity.

The psychometrics of the present scale is tested with the help of various analytical
tools as stated above.

Pilot Study of Validation of Scale on Consumer Decision Making

The researcher constructed the scale on consumer decision making. It is a 7-point, 19-
item semantic differential scale (see Appendix 1). The items of the scale were framed
after reviewing various studies (Cohen, 1967; Sproles and Kendall, 1986; Karunakaran,
2009; Loudon and Bitta, 2009; Meenakshi and Kumar, 2009; Schiffman and Kanuk,
2009; Solomon, 2009; and Khare, 2012).

It is to be noted that the sample size in this round of data collection was 94 (see
Table 1). The scale was administered only once to the respondents. Thus, a total of 94
cases were reported.

Table 2 exhibits the results obtained on testing the psychometrics of the scale of
consumer decision making in the pilot study. It presents the results of t-test, item to

A Scale to Assess the Efficacy of Consumer Decision Making 13

total correlation and exploratory factor analysis of the items comprising the consumer
decision-making scale during the pilot study. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the
scale is 0.680. The t-test was conducted to find out the discriminating ability of each
item of the scale. All t-values were significant at 0.05 level of significance, except for the

Table 2: Validation of Scale on Consumer Decision Making

– Pilot Study

Test of Sphericity  0.000

Total % Variance Explained
Mean of All Respondents

Significance of Bartlett’s
Mean of High Scores
(No. of Cases = 25)

(No. of Cases = 23)

Mean of Low Scores
(No. of Cases = 94)

(KMO  0.702

Factor Loadings
Factor Analysis
Item to Total

 37.16%)
Correlation
p-Value
Item

1. Do marketers…product 3.67 3.68 4.00 0.502* – –

2. Is you’re…needs 4.51 3.84 5.30 0.011 0.321* –
3. Do…the product 6.20 5.72 6.74 0.003 0.487 0.508
4. Do…latest products 5.18 4.60 5.91 0.005 0.312* –
5. Do personal…product 5.59 4.60 6.57 0.000 0.558 0.526
6. Do commercial…product 5.37 4.32 6.35 0.000 0.518 0.484
7. Do public…product 5.67 4.84 6.22 0.000 0.509 0.689
8. Do experimental…product 5.57 5.08 6.35 0.000 0.453 0.424
9. While…alternatives 5.41 4.68 6.17 0.000 0.451 0.448
10. Your beliefs…alternatives 5.38 4.76 6.22 0.000 0.472 0.480
11. For high…attributes 5.22 4.12 5.87 0.000 0.505 0.487
12. For low…attributes 3.70 3.08 4.39 0.003 0.270* –
13. Place...purchase decisions 5.17 4.32 5.70 0.009 0.458 0.497
14. Payment…decisions 5.53 4.96 6.17 0.001 0.408 0.432
15. Delivery…decisions 4.99 4.24 5.61 0.001 0.400 0.453
16. Installment…decisions 4.97 4.48 5.65 0.003 0.469 0.408
17. If your…product again 6.49 6.24 6.78 0.007 0.352* –
18. 1f your…friends, etc. 6.47 6.08 6.96 0.006 0.351* –
19. If you are…product 5.34 3.84 6.17 0.000 0.480 0.448
Note: * Items dropped from subsequent analysis.

14 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 2015

first item. So the first item, namely, ‘Do marketers make you feel that you are at a
disadvantage owning the present product?’ was deleted from further analysis. Thus, all
other statements were able to discriminate between high and low scores. An item to
total correlation was conducted. At the pilot study level, the researcher has taken 0.4 as
the cut off for inter-item correlation. As observed from Table 2, five items (second, fourth,
twelfth, seventeenth and eighteenth), namely, ‘Is your buying of the product initiated
by emotional or psychological needs’, ‘Do advertisements and salespeople lay stress on
the importance of owning the latest products’, ‘For low involvement purchase decisions
you carry out less extensive evaluations of the product/attributes’, ‘If your experience
with the product is as per the expectations will you buy the product again’, and ‘If your
experience with the product exceeds your expectations will you communicate about
that product to other groups friends, etc.’, had item to total correlation of less than 0.4,
i.e., 0.321, 0.312, 0.270, 0.352 and 0.351 respectively, so they were dropped from
further analysis.

After dropping these five items, the exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Table
2 also gives the important results of factor analysis. KMO is acceptable, Bartlett’s test of
sphericity is significant, but very low percentage of variance is explained (37.16% only).
Factor loadings range from 0.408 to 0.689.

Final Study of Validation of Scale on Consumer Decision Making

The researcher refined the scale for the final study based on the results of the pilot
study. Now, the scale on consumer decision making is a 7-point, 13-item semantic
differential scale (see Appendix 2).

It is to be noted that the sample size in this round of data collection was 140 (see
Table 1). The scale was administered only once to the respondents. Thus, a total of 140
cases were reported.
Table 3 presents the results obtained on testing the psychometrics of the scale of
consumer decision making at the final stage. It shows the results of t-test, item to total
correlation, and exploratory factor analysis of the items comprising the consumer decision-
making scale. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale is 0.696. The t-test was
conducted to find out the discriminating ability of each item of the scale. All t-values
are significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus, each statement is able to discriminate
between the high and low scores.

An item to total correlation was conducted. At the final study, the researcher has
taken 0.5 as the cutoff for inter-item correlation. Table 3 shows that three items (fifth,
eleventh, and thirteenth), namely, ‘Do experimental sources help you in searching
information about the product?, ‘Delivery of the product has a lot of influence on your
purchase decisions, and ‘If you are dissatisfied after using the product will you abandon
the product?’, had item to total correlation of less than 0.5, i.e., 0.419, 0.401, and
0.398 respectively. So, these three items were dropped from further analysis.

A Scale to Assess the Efficacy of Consumer Decision Making 15

16
Table 3: Validation of the Scale on Consumer Decision Making – Final Study

Item
p-Value

(n = 36)
(n = 34)
Correlation

Mean of All
Item to Total
Factor Loadings
Factor Loadings

(KMO  0.746
(KMO  0.735

Total % Variance
Total % Variance

First Factor Analysis

Mean of Low Scores

Mean of High Scores
Explained  32.81%)
Explained  34.25%)

Second Factor Analysis

Significance of Bartlett’s
Significance of Bartlett’s

Respondents (n = 140)
Test of Sphericity  0.000
Test of Sphericity  0.000

1. Do…the product 6.38 5.72 6.79 0.000 0.526 0.426 0.503

2. Do personal…product 5.71 4.89 6.56 0.000 0.502 0.402 0.484
3. Do commercial...product. 5.56 4.31 6.38 0.000 0.545 0.507 0.510
4. Do public…product 5.70 4.83 6.32 0.000 0.525 0.505 0.515
5. Do experimental...product 5.51 4.83 6.41 0.000 0.419* – –
6. While…alternatives 5.70 4.94 6.35 0.000 0.532 0.540 0.560
7. Your beliefs…alternatives 5.54 4.64 6.56 0.000 0.552 0.526 0.531
8. For high…attributes 5.44 4.50 6.12 0.000 0.503 0.526 0.448
9. Place...purchase decisions 5.20 4.42 6.24 0.000 0.522 0.333* –
10. Payment…decisions 5.49 4.72 6.38 0.000 0.502 0.579 0.525
11. Delivery…decisions 5.00 4.31 5.53 0.000 0.401* – –
12. Installment…decisions 5.06 4.50 6.09 0.000 0.563 0.478 0.487
13. If you are…product 5.29 3.97 6.09 0.000 0.398* – –
Note: * Items dropped and not considered for subsequent analysis.

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 2015

 After dropping these three items, exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Table 3
shows that KMO is acceptable and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant, but a
very low percentage of variance is explained (32.81% only). Further, factor loadings
range from 0.333 to 0.579. Based on a very low factor loading, i.e., 0.333, of the ninth
item, namely, ‘Place of purchase has a lot of influence on your purchase decisions’, it
was decided to redo the exploratory factor analysis after dropping this item.

Thus, the second exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Table 3 shows that
KMO is acceptable and Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant. The percentage of
variance explained is approximately 35%. The factor loadings of various items have
improved and range between 0.484 and 0.560.

Conclusion
The present paper attempted to construct a scale to assess the efficacy of consumer
decision making based on five parameters—problem recognition, information search,
evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision and post-purchase behavior. Based on the
previous literature, a 19-item scale was constructed and then an in-depth account of
validation of the scale was carried out. Thus, after checking the various psychometrics
of the scale, finally, the author recommends a 9-item scale for consumer decision making
(see Appendix 3).

Limitations: This research suffers from certain limitations. First, it was done in a small
part of the country and that too only in the urban areas. As respondents were contacted
through the educational institutions, the study left out those youth who do not attend
any educational institutions. As the questionnaire was prepared in English, the school
and college-going students who were not very comfortable in English may have faced
difficulty while answering the questions. Despite the researcher’s best effort, many items
of the scale were deleted because they did not fulfil the various criteria of scale validation,
as the scale in the pilot study and the final study levels explained very low percentage
of variance.

Future Research: This research can also be extended to a different sample profile like
working women, children or adults. It is recommended that this topic be studied in
other parts of the country, like in rural areas by preparing a questionnaire in Hindi or
other regional languages. Future research can use confirmatory factor analysis for scale
validation. Further, it is suggested that the sample size of the research should be increased,
which might lead to better results of scale validation. J

References
1. Blackwell R, Miniard D, Paul W and Engel J F (2003), “The Consumer Decision
Process”, in Consumer Behavior, Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., pp. 67-95.

2. Business World (2005), “Consumer Psychographics: The Marketing White Book”,

pp. 99-128.

A Scale to Assess the Efficacy of Consumer Decision Making 17

 3. Churchill G A (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XVI, February, pp. 64-73.

4. Cohen Joel B (1967), “An Interpersonal Orientation to the Study of Consumer

Behaviour”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. IV, pp. 270-278.

5. Damir-Ivan Anic, Edo Rajh and Arnela Bevanda (2012), “Decision-Making Styles
of Young Consumers in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Young Consumers, Vol. 13,
No. 1, pp. 86-98.

6. Dellaert Benedict G C and Haubl Gerald (2012), “Searching in Choice Mode:

Consumer Decision Process in Product Search with Recommendation”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 277-288.

7. Durvasula Srinivas, Lysonski Steven and Andrews J Craig (1993), “Cross-Cultural

Generalizability of a Scale for Profiling Consumers Decision Making Styles”,
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 55-65.

8. Fan Jessie X and Jing J Xiao (1998), “Consumer Decision Making Styles of Young
Adult Chinese”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 2, Winter,
pp. 275-294.

9. Green Robert T and White Philip D (1976), “Methodological Considerations in

Cross National Consumer Research”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 7, Fall/Winter, pp. 81-87.

10. Hiu Alice S, Siu Noel Y M, Wang Charlie C L and Chang Ludivig M K (2001),
“An Investigation of Decision-Making Styles of Consumers in China”, The Journal
of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 326-345.

11. Karunakaran K (2009), Buyer Behaviour (Consumer Behaviour), Marketing

Management, 2nd Edition, Himalaya Publishing House, pp. 55-76.

12. Khare Arpita (2012), “Moderating Effect of Age and Gender on Consumer Style
Inventory in Predicating Indian Consumers Local Retailer Loyalty”, International
Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 223-239.

13. Kotler Philip (1998), Marketing Management Analysis, Planning, Implementation and
Control, 9th Edition, pp. 171-201.

14. Kotler Philip, Keller Kevin Lane, Koshy Abraham and Jha Mithibshwar (2009),
“Analysing Consumer Markets”, in Marketing Management: A South Asian Perspective,
13th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 142-171.

15. Loudon David L and Bitta Albert J (2009), “Consumer Decision Processes”, in
Consumer Behaviour, 4th Edition, Tata-McGraw Hill, pp. 481-593.

16. Lysonski Steven, Srini Durvasula and Yiorgos Zotoz (1996), “Consumer Decision
Making Styles: A Multi-Country Investigation”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 30, pp. 12-21.

18 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 2015

17. Malhotra K N (2005), “Measurement and Scaling: Noncomparative Scaling
Techniques”, in Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 4th Edition, Pearson
Education, pp. 254-277.

18. Meenakshi N and Kumar Arun (2009), Consumer Behaviour, Marketing Management,
1st Edition (Second Reprint), Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., pp. 83-119.

19. Mitchell V W and Bates L (1998), “UK Consumer Decision Making Styles”, Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 199-225.

20. Nowlis Stephen M, Dhar Ravi and Simonson Itamar (2010), “The Effect of
Decision Order on Purchase Quantity Decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 725-737.

21. Peter J P (1981), “Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing
Practices”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XVIII, May, pp. 133-145.

22. Ramaswamy V S and Namakumari S (1998), “The Indian Consumer”, in Marketing

Management, 2nd Edition, Macmillan India Limited, pp. 192-202.

23. Schiffman G L and Kanuak L L (2009), “Consumer Decision Making and Beyond”,
in Consumer Behaviour, 9th Edition, Prentice Hall, pp. 544-579.

24. Sinkovics Rudolf R, Leelapanyalert Kannika Mink and Yamin Mo (2010), “A

Comparative Examination of Consumer Decision Styles in Austria”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 26, Nos. 11-12, pp. 1021-1036.

25. Solomon Michael R (2009), “Individual Decision Making”, in Consumer Behaviour:

Buying, Having and Being, 8th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 322-361.

26. Sproles George B and Kendall Elizabeth L (1986), “A Methodology for Profiling
Consumer Decision Making Styles”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20, Winter,
pp. 267-279.

A Scale to Assess the Efficacy of Consumer Decision Making 19

 Appendix 1

Scale and Its Items at Pilot Study

This part of the study measures the factor for consumer purchase behavior. Answer the
questions by ticking the appropriate number/box. The meaning of the numbers is
explained below:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Moderately Slightly Neutral to Slightly Moderately Strongly
agree with agree with agree with either agree with agree with agree with
the option the option the option options the option the option the option
on the left on the left on the left on the on the on the
right right right

1. Do marketers make you feel that you are at a disadvantage owning the present
product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disadvantaged owning Advantaged owning the
the present product present product
2. Is your buying of the product initiated by emotional or psychological needs?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not supported by emotional Supported by emotional
or psychological needs or psychological needs

3. Do advertisements create awareness about the latest model and features of the
product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not create awareness Create awareness
4. Do advertisements and salespeople lay stress on the importance of owning the latest
products?*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lay stress Do not lay stress
5. Do personal sources (family, friends, neighbors and acquaintances) help you in
searching for information about the product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Personal sources do not help Personal sources do help
6. Do commercial sources (advertisements, sales persons, dealers and display) help you
in searching for information about the product?*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Commercial sources do Commercial sources do not
help* help

20 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 2015

 Appendix 1 (Cont.)

7. Do public sources (mass media, consumer rating organizations) help you in

searching for information about the product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Public sources do not help Public sources do help

8. Do experimental sources (handling, examining and using the product) help you in
searching for information about the product?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Experimental sources do Experimental sources do help
not help

9. While evaluating the product, most attention is given to the attributes of the
product/alternatives.*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Importance to attributes No importance to attributes

10. Your beliefs/attitudes have a lot of influence while evaluating the product/alternatives?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Beliefs/attitudes do not have Beliefs/attitudes have influence
influence

11. For high involvement purchase decisions, you carry out extensive evaluations of
the product/attributes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not carry extensive Do carry extensive evaluations
evaluations

12. For low involvement purchase decisions, you carry out less extensive evaluations
of the product/attributes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Less extensive evaluations More extension evaluations

13. Place of purchase (retail stores, online, ordered by telephone or directly from
company) has a lot of influence on your purchase decisions.*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Have influence Do not have influence

14. Payment terms and conditions have a lot of influence on your purchase decisions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not have influence Have influence

A Scale to Assess the Efficacy of Consumer Decision Making 21

 Appendix 1 (Cont.)

15. Delivery of the product has a lot of influence on your purchase decisions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not have influence Have influence

16. Installment and training for the usage of the product has a lot of influence on your
purchase decisions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not have influence Have influence

17. If your experience with the product is as per the expectations, will you buy the
product again?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Will not buy Will buy

18. If your experience with the product exceeds your expectations, will you
communicate about that product to other groups, friends, etc.?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Will not communicate Will communicate

19. If you are dissatisfied after using the product, will you abandon the product?*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Will abandon Will not abandon

Note: * Reverse coded items.

Appendix 2

Scale and Its Items at Final Study

This part of the study measures the factor for consumer purchase behavior. Answer the
questions by ticking the appropriate number/box. The meaning of the numbers is
explained below:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Moderately Slightly Neutral to Slightly Moderately Strongly
agree with agree with agree with either agree with agree with agree with
the option the option the option option the option the option the option
on the left on the left on the left on the on the on the
right right right

22 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 2015

 Appendix 2 (Cont.)

1. Do advertisements create awareness about the latest model and features of the
product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not create awareness Create awareness

2. Do personal sources (family, friends, neighbors and acquaintances) help you in

searching for information about the product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Personal sources do not help Personal sources do help
3. Do commercial sources (advertisements, sales persons, dealers, display, etc.) help
you in searching for information about the product?*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Commercial sources do help Commercial sources do not
help
4. Do public sources (mass media, consumer rating organizations) help you in
searching for information about the product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Public sources do not help Public sources do help
5. Do experimental sources (handling, examining and using the product) help you in
searching for information about the product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Experimental sources do Experimental sources do help
not help

6. While evaluating the product, most attention is given to the attributes of the
product/alternatives.*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Importance to attributes No importance to attributes

7. Your beliefs/attitudes have a lot of influence while evaluating the product/alternatives?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Beliefs/attitudes do not Beliefs/attitudes have influence
have influence

8. For high involvement purchase decisions, you carry out extensive evaluation of the
product/attributes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not carry extensive Do carry extensive evaluation
evaluation

A Scale to Assess the Efficacy of Consumer Decision Making 23

 Appendix 2 (Cont.)

9. Place of purchase (retail stores, online, ordered by telephone or directly from

company) has a lot of influence on your purchase decisions.*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Have influence Do not have influence

10. Payment terms and conditions have a lot of influence on your purchase decisions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not have influence Have influence

11. Delivery of the product has a lot of influence on your purchase decisions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not have influence Have influence

12. Installment and training for the usage of the product has a lot of influence on your
purchase decisions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not have influence Have influence

13. If you are dissatisfied after using the product, will you abandon the product?*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Will abandon Will not abandon

Note: *Reverse coded items.

Appendix 3

Final Scale on Consumer Decision Making

This part of the study measures the factor for consumer purchase behavior. Answer the
questions by ticking the appropriate number/box. The meaning of the numbers is
explained below:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Moderately Slightly Neutral to Slightly Moderately Strongly
agree with agree with agree with either agree with agree with agree with
the option the option the option option the option the option the option
on the left on the left on the left on the on the on the
right right right

1. Do advertisements create awareness about the latest model and features of the product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not create awareness Create awareness

24 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XIV, No. 2, 2015

 Appendix 3 (Cont.)

2. Do personal sources (family, friends, neighbors and acquaintances) help you in

searching for information about the product?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Personal sources do not help Personal sources do help

3. Do commercial sources (advertisements, sales persons, dealers, display, etc.) help

you in searching for information about the product?*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Commercial sources do help Commercial sources do not
help
4. Do public sources (mass media, consumer rating organizations) help you in
searching for information about the product?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Public sources do not help Public sources do help
5. While evaluating the product, the most important attention is given to the
attributes of the product/alternatives.*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Importance to attributes No importance to attributes

6. Your beliefs/attitudes have a lot of influence, while evaluating the product/alternatives?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Beliefs/attitudes do not Beliefs/attitudes have influence
have influence
7. For high involvement purchase decisions, you carry out extensive evaluations of
the product/attributes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not carry extensive Do carry extensive evaluations
evaluations
8. Payment terms and conditions have a lot of influence on your purchase decisions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not have influence Have influence
9. Installment and training for the usage of the product has a lot of influence on your
purchase decisions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do not have influence Have influence

Note: *Reverse coded items.

Reference # 03J-2015-05-01-01

A Scale to Assess the Efficacy of Consumer Decision Making 25

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.