Chapter 4

Data Analysis
This section provides a thorough analysis of the data acquired through an online
structured questionnaire. The data was saved in an Excel file, where graphical
analysis was performed to get insights into customer behavior toward organic goods.
Later, data recorded in Excel format was coded in the SPSS data set and statistical
tests were performed. Regression and One Sample T Test were performed and
output signified the consumer behavior patterns.

4.1. Gender Ratio

Figure 5: Gender Ratio

It can be observed that out of 115 respondents, 53.9 % of the respondent were male
where as 46.1% of respondents were female. We see an inclination of male category
towards organic products more compared to women.
 4.2. Age Split of Respondents

Figure 6: Age Split of Respondents

During the study it was observed that majority (68.7%) of the respondents belonged
to the age group of 19 years to 26 years age bracket. Rest of the respondents (29.6%)
belonged to the brackets of upto 18 years and 27-39 years. We can conclude by
saying that the crowd consisted more of Gen Z.

4.3. Profession Split of Respondents

Figure 7: Profession Split of Respondents

Majority of the respondents are students (62.6%) followed my employed individuals

(12.2%) and professionals (9.6% ).
4.4. Household Income Per Month Split

Figure 8: Household Income Per Month

Split

Majority of the respondents fall under the bracket of “₹90,000 and above” (34.8%).
The next big fraction comprises of respondents falling under the bracket “₹70,000-
₹90,000” (15.7%). We can say that most of the audience, who engage with organic
food products belong to well-to-do families.

4.5. Familiarity with Organic Food

Figure 9: Familiarity with Organic Food

From the survey, we can see that more than 90% of the people were familiar with the
term organic food. Hence, we can conclude that the survey was conducted among
 well informed people.

4.6. Inferential Statistics

Objective: Testing Reliability of the Questionnaire using Cronbach Alpha

Here the Cronbach’s Alpha is .911 which is more than 0.7 indicating that the instrument we
are using is reliable.

Objective: Testing validity of the Questionnaire

Value of KMO (0.859) > 0.8 indicates that the sample size is adequate. This
indicates that questionnaire is valid.
 Objective: To identify the average perception of the respondents about variables
relating to Attitude, Health Consciousness, Perceived Pricing, Emotional Value,
Social Value, and Epistemic.

Justification: Since all the parameters are on interval scale, therefore we will use 1
sample T-test to understand the average perception.

Null Hypothesis: We assume that average perception on all the parameters is

neutral.
Alternate Hypothesis: We assume that average perception on all the parameters is
significant.
H○:µ=3
H1:µ≠3

Interpretation:
From above table, it is observed that at 5% level of significance, for 3 parameters, i.e.
(Healthy content), (pesticide free ), (Fresh), (Environment friendly), and (better taste), p-
value is not greater than α (0.05) so we reject H 0 , therefore we can say that the average
perception for the above mentioned parameters is different from 3, i.e. neither agree nor
disagree, so further to identify the favorable and unfavorable perception we will refer to one
sample statistics.
The parameter for choosing organic food is most favored towards being heathy followed by
being pesticide free.

For the parameter (Like trying new things), p-value is greater than α (0.05). So null
hypothesis is not rejected, so we can say that the average perception of the consumers for the
above parameter is not different from 3 i.e. neither agree nor disagree (neutral), therefore, we
conclude that there is no favorable and unfavorable perception for that parameter.
 One -Way ANOVA Test

Objective: Identifying the impact of profession on buying the organic food if the food is
healthy, is environment friendly, and if the respondents like to try different things
Data Analysis:
Assumptions
H0: There is no significance difference in the change in piracy practice of respondents, if the
organic food is healthy due to profession that is mu(student) = mu(employee) = mu(self-
employed) = mu(professional) = mu(homemaker)

H1: There is a significant difference in the change in piracy practice of respondents, if the
organic food is healthy due to profession that is mu(student) ≠ mu(employee) ≠ mu(self-
employed) ≠ mu(professional) ≠ mu(homemaker)

H01: There is no significance difference in the change in piracy practice of respondents, if the
organic food is environmental friendly due to profession that is mu(student) = mu(employee)
= mu(self-employed) = mu(professional) = mu(homemaker)

H11: There is a significant difference in the change in piracy practice of respondents, if the
organic food is environmental friendly due to profession that is mu(student) ≠ mu(employee)
≠ mu(self-employed) ≠ mu(professional) ≠ mu(homemaker)

H02: There is no significance difference in the change in piracy practice of respondents, if

they like to try new things due to profession that is mu(student) = mu(employee) = mu(self-
employed) = mu(professional) = mu(homemaker)

H12: There is a significant difference in the change in piracy practice of respondents, if they
like to try new things due to profession that is mu(student) ≠ mu(employee) ≠ mu(self-
employed) ≠ mu(professional) ≠ mu(homemaker)
Interpretation:

From the above table it is observed that at 5% level of significance, the p-value for
environmental friendly (0.210) and the p-value for trying new things (0.481) are more than α
(0.05) so we do not reject H0. So we can say that there is no significance difference in buying
the organic food, if the food is environment friendly and if the respondents like to try new
thigs due to profession

For the parameter healthy content, the p-value is 0.03 which is less than alpha. So, we reject
null hypothesis and say that there is a significant difference in the change in piracy practice of
respondents, if the organic food is healthy due to profession that is mu(student) ≠
mu(employee) ≠ mu(self-employed) ≠ mu(professional) ≠ mu(homemaker)
Correlation & Regression

Objective1: To identify the relationship of change in income of respondents with their

capacity to buy organic food on a regular basis.

From the above table, we have observed that there is a low negative relationship between the
change in income of respondents with their capacity to buy organic food on a regular basis
which is 23.8%.

Hoa: Correlation coefficient of affordability and accessibility of income of respondents and

buying capacity of organic food on regular basis is not statistically significant.
H1a: Correlation coefficient of affordability and accessibility of income of respondents and
buying capacity of organic food on regular basis is statistically significant.
Since the adjusted R square for the model is 0.078 which indicates that only 7.8% of the
variation in the change in buying capacity of organic food on a regular basis is explained by
change in income of the respondents.
Since the value of adjusted R square is less than 60%, the model does not fir the data well.
Further to check the significance of R square, we frame the assumptions:
H0: Model is not statistically significant
H1: Model is statistically significant

Since the p-value is less than 0.05, we reject the H0. So the model is statistically significant.

Estimated Regression Model:

Preference = 3.953 – 0.431(Buying organic food capacity on a regular basis) + 0.381(Wish to

buy organic food in future)

The result indicates that var25(Buying organic food on a regular basis) has a negative impact
on the income of the respondents whereas, var26(wish to buy in future) has a positive impact.