consumer decision-making styles

8/6/2019 Consumer Decision-Making Styles

1/123

Consumer Decision-making Styles:

Comparison Between

Shanghai and Hong KongUniversity Consumers

A Consumer Styles Inventory Approach

BY

Chan Hoi Yee, Bertha02005174

China Business Studies Option

A H D P j t S b itt d t th


2/123

A H D P j t S b itt d t th

Acknowledgements

I would like to give my heartiest thanks to my supervisor Dr. Shi Yi Zheng who has

sacrificed a lot of his valuable time for guiding me in doing this honor project,

suggesting precious advice, pointing out and correcting my mistakes. He is very

patient in answering and explaining my questions all the time. I really have learnt a lot

from him.

In addition, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my dearest friends, Mr. Peter

Wong and Miss Susanna Wong, for squeezing lots of time for helping me in

conducting survey.

Also, I would like to thank my family and friends who always gave me support and

encouraged me when I feel depressed in doing the project.

Last but not least, I would like to thank all the teachers in the Hong Kong Baptist

University who teach me a lot about marketing knowledge in the past three years.


3/123

Abstract

Consumers use a variety of decision-making styles. This study investigates

decision-making styles of consumers in Shanghai and Hong Kong by analyzing the

Consumer Style Inventory (CSI), which is administered to 150 Shanghai and Hong

Kong university consumers respectively. Factor analysis is adopted to develop the

CSI inventories.

Findings indicate that six types of decision-making styles and fifteen statements are

valid and reliable in Shanghai, whereas five types of decision-making styles and

twenty statements are valid and reliable in Hong Kong. Significant differences can be

found in the dimension of quality conscious, brand conscious, fashion conscious and

shopping carefulness. Business implications, which address the above findings, are

provided for marketers in the following section. Limitations of this paper are the final

chapter.


4/123

Table of Contents

Content Page

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

Chapter 1. Introduction1.1 Background Information 11.2 Research Problem Development

1.2.1 Why Shanghai vs. Hong Kong? 11.2.2 Why University Students? 2

1.3 Research Objectives 3

Chapter 2. Literature Review2.1 Historical Researches on Decision-making Styles 42.2 The Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) 4

2.3 Application of CSI Across Cultures 6

Chapter 3. Research Methodology3.1 The Sample 73.2 Instrument 73.3 Data Collection Method 83.4 Data Analysis Method 8

Chapter 4. Hypothesis Development4.1 Differences in Brand Consciousness and Price Consciousness 104.2 Differences in Fashion Consciousness and Confusion by

Overchoice11


5/123

Chapter 7. Limitations7.1 Generality of Consumer Characteristics 287.2 Limitation of the Sample 287.3 Limitation of Culture and Economic Background 29

Chapter 8. Conclusion 30

Chapter 9. References 31

Chapter 10. Appendix 3510.1 Explanation of the eight factors loading by Sproles and Kendall 36

10.2 Tables 3810.3 Questionnaires 4710.4 SPSS Outputs 58


6/123

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Background Information

Decision-making is more complex and even more important for consumers today than

in the past. Consumers are besieged by advertising, news articles, and direct mailings

that provide an abundance of information, much of it with mixed messages. In

addition, increases in the number and variety of goods, stores, and shopping malls,

and the availability of multi-component products and electronic purchasing

capabilities have broadened the sphere for the consumer choice and have complicated

decision making [Hafstrom, Chae, and Chung, 1992].

Profiling consumers decision-making styles focuses on studies of the majority of

consumer interest (eg, Bettman, 1979; Sproles, 1985; Thorelli, Becker, and Engeldow

1975; WestBrook and Black, 1985). Consumer affairs specialists use such profiles to

understand consumers shopping behaviour, while advertisers and marketing

researchers use them to segment the consumers into various niches for product

i i i [S i i d A d 1993]


7/123

colonization for a long time. Culturally, both cities have shared modern and traditional

characterizations. They both are international metropolises that have much

international links. However, there are something different. For example, number of

brothers and sisters, source of income, source of information and culture.

Comparing between these two cities can help companies formulating marketing

strategies. For those companies who have only invested in Hong Kong and have

interest to enter into the Shanghai market, they can study the difference and

similarities between these two cities and then formulate an entering strategy for

Shanghai based on the existing marketing strategy for Hong Kong, and vice versa.

1.2.2 Why University Students?

The university students market is quite large. According to the statistics, there are

189,400 university students in Hong Kong in 2004, amounting about 11.5% of the

educational population [Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, 2004]. And


8/123

people acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to their functioning as

consumers in the marketplace [Ward, 1972]. Socialization usually takes place within

the family and may shape consumer patterns. In this way, it may affect not only

present but also future consumer well-being.

1.2 Research Objectives

Although the CSI research is widely conducted in different nations, few of it is related

to Chinese society, related to the comparison between Hong Kong and Shanghai, and

focused on universities students.

There are three main objectives in this paper:

1. To investigate the decision-making style of Shanghai universities consumers by

purifying the items of CSI.

2. To investigate the decision-making style of Hong Kong universities consumers

b if i h i f


9/123

Chapter 2. Literature Review

2.1 Historical Researches on Decision-making Styles

Consumer-interest researchers have long been interested in identifying the underlying

decision styles of shoppers. For example, consumers are identified as economic

shoppers, personalizing shoppers, ethical shoppers, apathetic shoppers [Bellenger and

korgaonkar, 1980; Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Stone, 1954], store-loyal shoppers

[Moschis and Gorge, 1976; Stephenson and Willett, 1969], recreational shoppers

[Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980; Stephenson and Willett, 1969], convenience

shoppers [Korgaonkar, 1984; Stephenson and Willett, 1969; Williams et al., 1978],

price-oriented shoppers [Korgaonkar, 1984; Stephenson and Willett, 1969; Williams

et al. 1978], brand-loyal shoppers [Jocoby and Chestnut, 1978; Moschis and Gorge,

1976], name-conscious shoppers [Darden and Ashton, 1974-75], fashion shoppers

[Lumpkin, 1985], brand conscious shoppers [Korgaonkar, 1984] and impulse

shoppers [Gehrt and Cater, 1992]. These classifications have provided a number of

measuring methods for the marketers to segment the general public in the consumer


10/123

consumer choices. Broadly speaking, there are three types of approaches in studying

consumer decision-making styles: the psychographic/lifestyle approach, which

identifies hundreds of characteristics related to consumer behavior; the consumer

typology approach, which classifies consumers into several types; and the consumer

characteristics approach, which focuses on different cognitive dimensions of

consumer decision-making. For a review of these different approaches, see Sproles

and Kendall [1986].

Building on the literature related to consumer decision-making in the field of

marketing and consumer studies [Maynes, 1976; Miller, 1981; Sproles, 1979; Thorelli,

Becker and Engledow, 1975], Sproles [1985] identified nine decision-making style

traits and developed a 50-item instrument using the consumer characteristics approach.

Using data collected from 111 undergraduate women in two classes at the University

of Arizona and employing a factor analysis technique, Sproles [1985] found that six

out of the nine traits were confirmed to be present.

In a later study, Sproles and Kendall [1986] used a similar approach with a slightly


11/123

1. Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer,

2. Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer,

3. Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer,

4. Recreational and hedonistic consumer,

5. Price conscious and value for money consumer,

6. Impulsive and careless consumer,

7. Confused by over-choice consumer, and

8. Habitual and brand-loyal consumer.

Appendix 10.1 (page 35) shows the explanations of the eight factors loading by

Sproles and Kendall. It is a pretty good benchmark for us to explain our data analysis

result.

2.3 Application of CSI Across Cultures

The applicability of the CSI has been investigated across several cultures [Alice and


12/123

Chapter 3. Research Methodology

3.1 The Sample

The sample size is 300, 150 of Shanghai undergraduate students and 150 for Hong

Kong undergraduate students.

3.2 Instrument

A questionnaire based on the exploratory studies of Sproles [1985] and Sproles and

Kendall [1986] was used to measure consumer decision-making styles in Hong Kong

and Shanghai. The questionnaire was translated into Chinese. Some mainland Chinese

and Hong Kong students and professors reviewed the translations. This ensured that

idiomatic or colloquialistic wording was minimized [Douglas and Craig, 1983;

Parameswaran and Yaprak, 1987].

The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first part contains the forty


13/123

3.3 Data Collection Method

A non-probability sampling survey method is conducted in the universities in Hong

Kong and Shanghai during March 2005. I did the survey in Hong Kong by myself.

The survey in Shanghai universities were done by my relatives who live in Shanghai,

as it is prohibited for the non-Chinese residents to conduct survey without

authorization by the local government and due to the huge transportation fee occurred.

3.4 Data Analysis Method

SPSS was used to analyze the data collected.

Firstly, frequency was used to display the distribution of consumers demographic

background and personal information.

Secondary, CSI for Hong Kong and Shanghai will be developed in two steps

following the method used by Sproles [1985] and Sproles and Kendell [1986].


14/123

and Kendall [1986].

Thirdly, comparison between Shanghai and Hong Kong was done by comparing the

CSI and by calculating the T-Test (by taking the mean score for each of the factor of

CSI).

The negatively worded items had been reversed before the data analysis proceeded, in

order to analyze the data easily. The scores of question 5, 7, 20, 22, 24, 31, 32 and 40

had been reversed.


15/123

Chapter 4. Hypothesis Development

We expect that Shanghai and Hong Kong university consumers will differ in terms of

brand consciousness, fashion consciousness, price consciousness and confusion by

overchoice, based on the explanations as follows.

4.1 Differences in Brand Consciousness and Price Consciousness

Since the late 1970s, one-child-per-couple campaign was taken to curtail the

population explosion. As Chinese per capita income has risen and fertility declined,

Chinese parents' love and money have focused on a single child, resulting in unique

social and economic implications such as the perilous 4-2-1 indulgence: four

grandparents and two parents indulging one child. Many of these children are

self-centered and demand material luxuries from their parents [Baker 1987]. While in

Hong Kong, government did not practice One Child Policy. Many families had two

to four children in the 1980s [The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: Hong


16/123

H1: Shanghai university consumers are more brand consciousness than Hong

Kong university consumers.

H2: Hong Kong university consumers are more price consciousness than

Shanghai university consumers.

4.2 Differences in Fashion Consciousness and Confusion by Overchoice

Hong Kong was a British colony for over 150 years (1842-1997). Citizens were

educated to apprehend Western values. Hong Kong people have long been exposed to,

and fast to learn from, Western culture [Alex, Guijun, Fuan, Nan, 2003]. Nowadays,

Hong Kong people are accustomed to, and want to continue, this lifestyle: Their

aversion to the return of sovereignty to China reflected a fear of lifestyle discontinuity

[Lau and Kuan, 1989]

China adopted an open door policy in 1979; however, the country is not fully open to

l d h hi i d d ill i h


17/123

1996]. When the movie Titanic broke the box-office records across Chinese cities in

1997, Chinese officials expressed their concerned that Western movies could be a

Trojan horse aimed at speeding up the American cultural invasion of China [Platt,

1998].

As Hong Kong universities consumers always and easily come into contact with

information than Shanghai, and Hong Kong has a longer history involvement of

Western values, we expect that university consumers in Hong Kong are more fashion

conscious and more confused by overchoice than Shanghai university consumers.

H3: Hong Kong university consumers are more fashion consciousness than


H4: Hong Kong university consumers are more confused by over choice than



18/123

Chapter 5. Research Findings and Analysis

5.1 Personal Information of the 300 samples from Shanghai and Hong Kong

5.1.1 Shanghai

Among the 150 university student respondents in Shanghai, 44% (66) were male and

56% (84) were female. Most of the respondents have no sibling (125, 83.3%), few

respondents have two to three siblings (25, 16.7%), while no respondents have more

than three siblings. A majority of them viewed parents as their only income source

(111, 74%), while few of them had multiple income sources (39, 26%). Over one-third

of them paid 1001-1500 as their cost of living (52, 34.7%); then 501-

1000 (48, 32%); 500 (26, 17.3%); and 1501 (24, 16%). Finally,

overwhelming of them viewed television (125, 83.3%), Internet (119, 79.3%),

magazine (113, 75.3%) and family and friends (96, 64%) as their information source.


19/123

(114, 76%), Internet (103, 68.7%), magazine (102, 68%) and newspaper (96, 64%) as

their information source.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1: Personal Information of the 300 samplesfrom Shanghai and Hong Kong (Page 39)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.1.3 Comparison

Comparing the characteristics of the two sets of respondents in Hong Kong and

Shanghai, there were some similarities and differences identified.

Similarities

1. The cost of living in Hong Kong and Shanghai are very similar.

2. The information source in Hong Kong and Shanghai are very similar.


20/123

5.2 Decision-making styles of Shanghai university consumers

The 40 items of the consumer decision-making scales of Shanghai were subjected to

principal components analysis (PCA) using SPSS. Prior to performing PCA the

suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix

revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin

value was 0.608 [Kaiser, 1970, 1974] and the Barletts Test of Sphericity [Bartlett,

1954] reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation

matrix.

Principal components analysis revealed the presence of 12 components with

eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 15.113%, 12.663%, 8.073%, 6.216%, 5.901%,

5.401%, 4.747%, 3.783%, 3.310%, 3.055%, 2.853% and 2.686% of the variance

respectively. An inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after the six

components. Using Catells [1996] scree test, it was decided to retain six components,

Varimax rotation was performed. The cross-loading items and items that had a factor

loading value less than 0.4 were removed. The rotated solution (presented in


21/123

The interpretation of the six components was consistent with previous research on the

CSI, with Novelty-fashion consciousness items loading strongly on Component 1,

Perfectionistic and high-quality consciousness items loading strongly on Component

2, Habitual and brand-loyal consumer orientation items loading strongly on

Component 3, Impulsive and careless consumer orientation items loading strongly

on Component 4, Price consciousness and value for money orientation items

loading strongly on Component 5 and Brand consciousness and price equals

quality items loading strongly on Component 6. The results of this analysis support

the use of CSI as separate scales.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2: Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability of Shanghai CSI (Page 41)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.3 Decision-marking styles of Hong Kong university consumers


22/123

eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 4.902%, 3.565%, 2.931%, 2.367%, 1.967%,

1.568%, 1.491%, 1.332%, 1.281%, 1.241%, 1.141%, 1.130%, 1.064% and 1.015% of

the variance respectively. An inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after

the five components. Using Catells [1996] scree test, it was decided to retain five

components, Varimax rotation was performed. The cross-loading items and items that

had a factor loading value less than 0.4 were removed. The rotated solution (presented

in Appendix page 107) revealed the presence of simple structure [Thurstone, 1947],

with all components showing a number of strong loadings, and all variables loading

substantially on only one component. The five factor solution explained a total of

53.140% of the variance, with the five components contributing 13.82%, 10.98%,

10.22%, 10.10% and 7.99% respectively.

The interpretation of the five components was consistent with previous research on

the CSI, withBrand consciousness and price equals quality items loading strongly

on Component 1, Perfectionistic and high-quality consciousness items loading

strongly on Component 2, Novelty-fashion consciousness items loading strongly on

C 3 H bit l d b d l l i t ti it l di


23/123

5.4 Comparison of decision-making styles between Shanghai and Hong Kong

universities consumers

5.4.1 Number of Dimensions

The identified dimensions of CSI are very similar for university consumers in

Shanghai and Hong Kong. Shanghai has six and Hong Kong has five dimensions.

With the same dimensions: (1) fashion conscious, (2) high-quality conscious, (3)

brand-loyal, (4) price conscious, and (5) brand conscious. The dimension of

Impulsive and careless was found only in Shanghai CSI.

There is no cross-loading item between Shanghai and Hong Kong CSI. So, the results

support the use of CSI as separate scales.

Impulsiveness is not identified as a dimension of consumer decision-making styles

for the Hong Kong university consumers. The reasons are as follows.

Impulsive shopping is opposite to habitual shopping [Fan and Xiao, 1998], in order to

fi d h h h i h h di i f i l i hil d


24/123

did not load significantly on any factor for the Hong Kong sample. This may be

caused by differences in the interpretation of the question asked in different languages.

However, it is also possible that Shanghai university consumers are loyal to some

brands but at the same time, they are still facing confusion because there are still

many new brands invading into their minds every day. As noted earlier, as more and

more consumer products are becoming available in Shanghai, Shanghai university

students may feel confused and have to try these new brands in a certain extent.

While in Hong Kong, many brands are already in the consumers minds, they do not

have to try, so Hong Kong university consumers are less impulsive.

There is still one reason of why Shanghai has the dimension of impulsiveness while

Hong Kong does not. Impulsive purchases may be interpreted as I have not

gathered enough information for this product before I purchase in Chinese [Fan and

Xiao, 1998]. China has many counterfeit products. How to differentiate and avoid

buying counterfeit products is one of the most salient consumer issues in China. Many

famous brands, both domestic and foreign, are being counterfeited and sold in the

k d h f i d ll f li h hi h i


25/123

5.4.2 Item Loadings

The items loading on each dimension are quite similar, although not exactly the same.

Now, lets take a look of the dimensions while includes more differentiation between

Shanghai and Hong Kong. They are brand conscious and fashion conscious.

Firstly, lets take a look in the brand conscious dimension.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5: Comparison of Brand conscious and price equals quality consumerdimension of Shanghai and Hong Kong (Page 44)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only Question 14 loaded the same in both places, while Question 11, 12, 13 and 35

only loaded on Hong Kong but did not load significantly on any factor for the

Shanghai sample. As suggested by Fan and Xiao [1998], national brands may be

treated as a quality product, and the newly imported brands will be treated as

brand-named product by Chinese consumers. We did not consider this concept when


26/123

Only Question 15 loaded the same in both places, while Question 16 and 21 only

loaded on Shanghai but not on Hong Kong, and Question 18, 20 and 22 loaded on

Hong Kong but not in Shanghai. It seems very different, however, it is not. Items 20,

21 and 22 have loaded on the recreational and hedonistic conscious dimension in

Sproles and Kendalls research [1986]. Sproles and Kendall also found their

fashion-consciousness factor was significantly correlated with recreational

consciousness factor. This correlation is quite intuitive because for most consumers to

be fashion conscious, they have to spend time paying attention to changing fashions

[Fan and Xiao, 1998]. To conclude, although the items loaded in Shanghai are

different from Hong Kong, the nature of the items are similar.

5.4.3 T-test: Test of Hypotheses

Independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the CSI scores for Shanghai and

Hong Kong university consumers, six t-tests instead of only four mentioned in the

H h i D l f d i d di f ll i f


27/123

T-Test 1: Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer

There was significant difference in scores for Shanghai (M =2.3933, SD =0.75881)

and Hong Kong (M =2.8813, SD =0.63799; t(289.46) =-6.029, p =0.00) university

consumers. The magnitude of the differences in the means was large (eta squared

=0.11).

Hong Kong university consumers are more brand conscious than Shanghai. It is

different from what we expected (H1: Shanghai university consumers are more

brand consciousness than Hong Kong university consumers). One possible reason is

the different exposure to brand names. As noted before, Hong Kong is more open to

foreign cultures and brands. The more brands they know the more chance they would

become brand conscious. Furthermore, although the Shanghai university consumers

are indulged by their parents, it is not necessary that they will become brand

conscious.


28/123

would not consider too much about brands. In addition, according to Oliver [1994],

consumers in China always focus on durability when shopping, so Shanghai

university consumers focus on quality in their shopping.

T-Test 3: Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

There was significant difference in scores for Shanghai (M =3.0156, SD =0.89521)

and Hong Kong (M =3.4333, SD =0.65517; t(273.03) =-4.612, p =0.00) university

consumers. The magnitude of the differences in the means was moderate (eta squared

=0.07).

Hong Kong university consumers are more fashion conscious than the Shanghai. This

result is the same as we expected (H3: Hong Kong university consumers are more

fashion consciousness than Shanghai university consumers).


29/123

T-Test 5: Price conscious and value for money consumer

There was no significant difference in scores for Shanghai (M =3.6000, SD =0.81306)

and Hong Kong (M =3.5689, SD =0.71476; t(298) =-1.290, p =0.725) university

consumers. The magnitude of the differences in the means was small (eta squared

=0.00).

We expect that Hong Kong university consumers are more price consciousness than

Shanghai university consumers (H2), but this is not the case, there are no differences

between them, and both of them are quite price conscious. According to Oliver [1994],

consumers in China are still encouraging frugality, many of them still have the mind

that To practice thrift is a virtue (). This may be one of the reasons that

Shanghai university consumers are as price conscious as the Hong Kong students.

T-Test 6: Impulsive and careless consumer


30/123

We also expect that Hong Kong university consumers are more confused by over

choice than Shanghai university consumers (H4), however, from the result of factor

analysis, the confused dimension is even not appear in both places. It shows that

university consumers in Shanghai and Hong Kong can take advantage of the available

information and make better choices [Fan and Xiao, 1998]. It may be because both of

them are highly educated and have certain judgment of the markets, so they can utilize

the information, regardless of the information received.


31/123

Chapter 6. Business Implications

6.1 For Shanghai

Shanghai university consumers are perfectionistic and impulsive. They always make

special effort to obtain the best quality and perfect choice; however, there are too

many counterfeit products that make them feel regretted after the purchase. Marketers

should stress on improving the overall attributes of the products so that the quality of

product could match the requirement of consumers. Overall quality of product can be

divided into two items: extrinsic and intrinsic [Olson and Jacoby, 1972; Jonansson,

1989; Gabbot, 1991]. Extrinsic attributes refer to the brand, country of origin,

advertising, independent consumer, price, after sell services, and distribution channel.

Intrinsic attributes refer to physical product attributes such as shape, type of surface,

color, weight, material used, taste and performance. Using good quality as an

outstanding and clear image would catch the attention of the consumers. Better

customer services should also be provided. As the consumers are still in the stage of

impulsive purchasing, they are still trying each product, offering them a good product


32/123

6.2 For Hong Kong

Hong Kong university consumers are brand and fashion conscious. Therefore,

companies should try to do deep marketing researches to and build their brand once

they enter Hong Kong market. In addition, the content and style of marketing and

promotion programs should be fun, trendy and fashionable.

6.3 For both Shanghai and Hong Kong

Both Shanghai and Hong Kong university students are price conscious. Marketers

should promote their products by offering benefits to consumers, in order to make

them feel that their purchases are value for money.


33/123

Chapter 7. Limitations

There are several limitations that warrant future research.

7.1 Generality of Consumer Characteristics

Consumers have different perceptions on different types of products. For example,

their value for a luxury and durable product, which is totally different from an inferior

and non-durable product [Kaynak,E. & Cavusgil, S.T., 1983]. We cannot assume that

a consumer with high brand consciousness would consider name products on every

decision. Other characteristics may lack perfect generality as well [Sproles and

Kendall, 1986]. Indeed, a consumer may have different consumer styles for each

product category. Therefore, future research should look at consumer decision-making

in various product categories for details.


34/123

university consumers in Shanghai and Hong Kong.

7.3 Limitation of Culture and Economic Background

The Shanghai and Hong Kong student sample may not exhibit certain consumer

decision-making characteristics due to the cultural reasons, for example the Man-to

nature orientation, Man-to-himself orientation, Relational orientation, Time

orientation and Personal-activity orientation [Oliver, 1994]. And the economic

reasons, for example, the income of the families, should also be take into account also.

However, the CSI used in this study provides a good starting point for further

development of the CSI inventory in Shanghai and Hog Kong consumer context.

More items and dimensions that are idiosyncratic to Shanghai and Hong Kong culture

need to be developed in future studies. It would be helpful to develop more items to

improve the psychometric properties of three dimensions; they are quality and price

conscious.


35/123

Chapter 8. Conclusion

The objectives of this study were fulfilled. Decision-making styles of university

consumers in Shanghai and Hong Kong are classified, and several similarities and

differences in decision-making styles were identified. The most important findings are

that Shanghai university consumers are perfectionistic and impulsive, whereas Hong

Kong university consumers are brand conscious and fashion conscious, and they both

have the characteristic of price conscious. This paper provides a good starting point

for marketers who want to enter Shanghai or Hong Kong market. Marketers should

pay more attention in these aspects as to win consumers hearts. They should also take

into account of the culture issues that do not cover in this paper.


36/123

Chapter 9. References

Journals

1. Alex S. L. Tsang, Guijun Zhuang, Fuan Li, Nan Zhou (2003), A Comparison of

Shopping Behavior in Xian and Hong Kong Malls: Utilitarian versus

Non-Utilitarian Shoppers, Journal of International Cousumer Marketing, Vol.

16(1) 2003

2. Alice S.Y.HIU, Noel Y.M. Siu and Charlie C. L. Wang, and Ludwig, M.K. Chang,

(2001) An Investigation of Decision-Making Styles of Consumers in China, The

Journal of Consumer Affairs: (Winter); 35,2; 326-345

3. Baker, Rod. (1987). "Little Emperors' born of a one-child policy." Far Eastern

Economic Review, 137 (July 16): 43-44

4. Bartlett M. S. (1954) A note on the multiplying Faciors for various chi square

approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16(Series B), 296-298

5. Bellenger, Danny N. and Pradeep K. Korgaonkar.(1980). Profiling Recreational

Shopper. Journal of Retailing 56 (fall) 77-91

6. Bettman, Jams R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer

Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company

7. Carmins, Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller (1979), Realiablility and Validity

Assessment, Beverly Hills, CA:Stage Publications.


37/123

Social Administration, University of Hong Kong.

14. Gabbot, Mark (1991), The Role of Product Cues in Assessing Zrisk in

Secondhand Markets, European Journal of Marketing, 25,9, 38-50

15. Gehrt, Kenneth C. and Kent Carter. (1992). An Explortory Assessment Catalog

Shopping Orientations. Journal of Direct Marketing, 6:29-39

16. Hafstrom, Jeanne L., Chae, Jung Sook, Chung, Young Sook. (1992), Consumer

Decision-Making Styles: Comparsion Between United States and Korean Young

Consumers, The Journal of Consumer Affairs. Madison: 26, Iss 1, (Summer);

P146-159

17. Hong Kong Trade Development Council (2001), The two cities: Shanghai, Hong

Kong / Research Department, Hong Kong: The Council.

18. Jacoby, Jacob and Robert W. Chestnut. (1978) Brand Loyalty: Measurement and

Management, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

19. Johansson, Johny K. (1989), Determinants andEfects of the Use of Made in

Labels, International Marketing Review, 6,1, pp 47-58

20. Kaiser (1970), A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415

21. Kaynak,E. & Cavusgil, S.T. (1983).Consumer attitudes towards products of

foreign origin: do they vary across product classes? International Journal of

Advertising, 2, pp.147-157

22. Kim, Jae-On and Charles W.Mueller (1978), Introduction to Factor Analysis:

What it is and How to Do it, Bevely Hills, CA: Sage Publications.


38/123

New York: West Publishing Company.

29. Moschis, George P. (1976), Shopping orientations and Consumer Uses of

Information. Journal of Retailing, 52(Summer): 61-70,93

30. Moschis, George P. (1976), Shopping orientations and Consumer Uses of

Information. Journal of Retailing, 52(Summer): 61-70,93

31. Moschis, George P. and Roy L, Moore (1979), Decision making amoung the

Youth: A Socialization perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 6(setember):

101-102

32. Oliver H. M. Yau (1994) Consumer Behaviour in China Customer satisfaction and

cultural valves Routledge Lodon and New York

33. Olson, Jerry C. and Jacob Jacoby: (1972), Cue Utilization in the Quality

Perception Processes, in M. Venkatesan (ed), The Journal of Consumer Affairs:

(Winter); 12,2; pp.167-179

34. Parameswaran, Ravi and Attila Yaprak (1987), A Cross-National Comparison of

Consumer Research Measures, Journal of International Business Studies, 18

(Spring): 35-49.

35. Shanghai Statistical Yearbook, (2004)

36. Shim, Soyeon and Kenneth C. Gehrt. (1996), Hispanic and American

Adolescents: An Exploratory Study of Their Approach to Shopping, Journal of

Retailing, 72,3:307-324

37. Sproles, George B (1985), From Perfectionism to Fadism: Measuring Consumers


39/123

42. Stone, Gregory. P. (1954) City Shoppers and Urban Identification: Obervations

on the Social Psychology of City Life., American Jounral of Sociology, 60:36-45

43. Thorelli, Hans B., Helmut Becker, and Jack Engeldow (1975), The In formation

Seekers; An International Study of Consumer Information and Advertising Image,

Cambridgek,MA: Ballinger.

44. Thorelli, Hans B., Helmut Becker, and Jack Engeldow (1975), The In formation

Seekers; An International Study of Consumer Information and Advertising Image,

Cambridgek,MA: Ballinger.

45. Thurstone, L. L. (1947) Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

46. Turk James L. and Norman W. Bell, (1972) measuring Power in the Family,

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34(May): 215-222

47. Ward, Scott (1974) Journal of Consumer Research, 1(September): 1-14

48. Westbrook, Robert A. and William C. Black (1985), A Motivation-Based

Shopper Typology, The Journal of Retailing, 61(Spring): 78-103

49. Williams, Robert H., Jon J. Painter, and Herbert R. Nicholas (1978), A

Policyoriented Typology of Grocery Shoppers, Jounral of Retailing, 54 (Spring):

27-34.

Websites


40/123

Chapter 10. Appendix

Appendix Page

10.1Explanation of the eight factors loading by Sproles and Kendall 36

10.2Tables 38

10.3

Questionnaires 47

10.4SPSS Outputs 58


41/123

10.1 Explanation of the eight factors loading by Sproles and Kendall

Factor 1: Perfectionistic and high-quality consciousness

Items loading on this factor measure a consumers search for the best quality in

products. Those consumers who have higher perfectionism could also be expected to

shop more carefully and systematically. They are not satisfied with the good enough

product.

Factor 2: Brand consciousness and price equals quality

It measures consumers orientations toward buying the more expensive, well-known

national brands. High scorers are likely to believe that a higher price means better

quality. They appear to have positive attitudes toward department and specialty stores,

where brand names and higher prices are prevalent. They also appear to prefer best

selling, advertised brands.


42/123


43/123

10.2 Tables

Table Page

Table 1Personal Information of the 300 samples from Shanghai and Hong Kong 39

Table 2Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability of Shanghai CSI 41

Table 3

Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability of Hong Kong CSI 42

Table 4Comparison of Habitual and brand-loyal consumer dimensionof Shanghai and Hong Kong

43

Table 5Comparison of Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer dimensionof Shanghai and Hong Kong

44

Table 6Comparison of Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer dimensionof Shanghai and Hong Kong

45

Table 7Comparison of decision-making styles between Shanghai and Hong Konguniversities consumers

46


44/123

Table 1

Personal Information of the 300 samples from Shanghai and Hong Kong

Shanghai Hong Kong

Frequency

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

Male 66 44.0 56 37.3

Female 84 56.0 94 62.7

Gender

Total 150 100.0 150 100.01 125 83.3 16 10.7

2 13 8.7 52 34.7

3 12 8.0 52 34.7

More than 3 0 0 30 20.0

NumberofBloodSiblings

Total 150 100.0 150 100.0

Parents 111 74.0 41 27.3

Scholarship/Grant/Loan 8 5.3 6 4.0

Part-time 3 2.0 30 20.0

Partly Parents, partlyPart-time

15 10.0 41 27.3

Partly Parents, partlyScholarship/Grant/Loan

7 4.7 9 6.0

PartlyScholarship/Grant/Loan, partly Part-time

3 2.0 13 8.7

Partly Parents,Scholarship/Grant/Loan, and Part-time

3 2.0 10 6.7

IncomeSource


45/123

500 26 17.3

$1500 42 28.0

501-1000 48 32.0$1501-$2000 45 30.0

1001-1500 52 34.7

$2001-$2500 31 20.7

1501 24 16.0

$2501 32 21.3

CostofLiving

Total 150 100.0 150 100.0Television 125 83.3 127 84.7

Radio 26 17.3 44 29.3

Newspaper 86 57.3 96 64

Magazine 113 75.3 102 68

Internet 119 79.3 103 68.7

TransportationAdvertisement

65 43.3 64 42.7

Exhibition 26 17.3 20 13.3Family and friends 96 64 114 76

Others 0 0 9 6

Inform-ationSource

Total 656 437.1 679 452.7


46/123

Table 2

Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability of Shanghai CSI

Shanghai CSI Construct

Reliability

Factor

Loading

Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer 0.7647shcsi15 I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style. .848shcsi16 I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing fashions. .884shcsi21 Going shopping is one of the enjoyable activities of my life. .702

Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer 0.7283shcsi01 Getting very good quality is very important to me. .893shcsi02 When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very best orperfect choice.

.690

shcsi04 I make special effort to choose the very best quality products. .799Habitual and brand-loyal consumer 0.6791shcsi33 There are so many brands to choose from that often I feel confused. .774shcsi37 I have favorite brands I buy over and over. .708shcsi39 I go to the same stores each time I shop. .831

Impulsive and careless consumer 0.6189shcsi30 Often I make careless purchases I later wish I had not. .640shcsi31 I take the time to shop carefully for best buys. .802*shcsi32 I carefully watch how much I spend. .640*

Price conscious and value for money consumer 0.4742shcsi05 I really dont give my purchases much thought or care. .803shcsi07 I shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I find that seemsgood enough.

.763*

Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer -shcsi14 The most advertised brands are usually very good choices. .93


47/123

Table 3

Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability of Hong Kong CSI

Hong Kong CSI Construct

Reliability

Factor

Loading

Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer 0.7501hkcsi11 The higher the price of a product, the better its quality. .666hkcsi12 Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best products. .734hkcsi13 I prefer buying the best-selling brands. .786

hkcsi14 The most advertised brands are usually very good choices. .764hkcsi35 The more I learn about products, the harder it seems to choose thebest.

.53

Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer 0.6006hkcsi01 Getting very good quality is very important to me. .582hkcsi02 When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very best orperfect choice.

.692

hkcsi03 In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality. .582hkcsi04 I make special effort to choose the very best qualit y products. .573hkcsi08 A product doesnt have to be perfect, or the best, to satisfy me. .50Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer 0.6491hkcsi15 I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style. .675hkcsi18 To get variety, I shop different stores and choose different brands. .553hkcsi20 Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me. .786*hkcsi22 Shopping other stores wastes my time. .729*

Habitual and brand-loyal consumer 0.7339hkcsi37 I have favorite brands I buy over and over. .797

hkcsi38 Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it. .827hkcsi39 I go to the same stores each time I shop. .752Price conscious and value for money consumer 0.5055


48/123

Table 4

Comparison of Habitual and brand-loyal consumer dimension of Shanghai

and Hong Kong

Habitual and brand-loyal consumer

Shanghai Hong Kong

shcsi33There are so many brands to choose from thatoften I feel confused.

shcsi37 + hkcsi37I have favorite brands I buy over and over.

shcsi39 + hkcsi39I go to the same stores each time I shop.

hkcsi38Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick withit.


49/123

Table 5

Comparison of Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer dimension

of Shanghai and Hong Kong

Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer

Shanghai Hong Kong

hkcsi11The higher the price of a product, the better itsquality.

hkcsi12Nice department and specialty stores offer methe best products.

hkcsi13I prefer buying the best-selling brands.

shcsi14 + hkcsi14The most advertised brands are usually very good choices.

hkcsi35

The more I learn about products, the harder itseems to choose the best.


50/123

Table 6

Comparison of Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer dimension of

Shanghai and Hong Kong

Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

Shanghai Hong Kong

shcsi15 + hkcsi15I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style.

shcsi16

I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with thechanging fashions.

hkcsi18To get variety, I shop different stores and choosedifferent brands.

hkcsi20Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me.

shcsi21

Going shopping is one of the enjoyableactivities of my life.

hkcsi22Shopping other stores wastes my time.


51/123

Table 7

Comparison of decision-making styles between Shanghai and Hong Kong

universities consumers

Mean Std.Deviation

Sig.(2-tailed)

SignificanceDifference?

etasquared

Effect size

T-Test 1: Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer

SH 2.3933 .75881

HK 2.8813 .63799

0.00 0.11 Large

T-Test 2: Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumerSH 4.2222 .67739

HK 3.7973 .49480

0.00 0.11 Large

T-Test 3: Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

SH 3.0156 .89521HK 3.4333 .65517

0.00 0.07 Moderate

T-Test 4: Habitual and brand-loyal consumer

SH 2.9222 .82143

HK 3.0422 .78890

0.198 0.01 Small

T-Test 5: Price conscious and value for money consumer

SH 3.6000 .81306

HK 3.5689 .71476

0.725 0.00 Small

T-Test 6: Impulsive and careless consumer

SH 2.6778 .53431

HK .0000 .00000

0.00 0.93 Very large


52/123

10.3 Questionnaires

Questionnaires Page

Shanghai Version 48

Hong Kong Version 53


53/123

________

5

1

1.

1 2 3 4 5

2. /

1 2 3 4 5


54/123

7.

1 2 3 4 5

8. /

1 2 3 4 5

9.

1 2 3 4 5

10.

1 2 3 4 5

11.

1 2 3 4 5

12. /

1 2 3 4 5

13.

1 2 3 4 5


55/123

18.

1 2 3 4 5

19.

1 2 3 4 5

20.

1 2 3 4 5

21.

1 2 3 4 5

22.

1 2 3 4 5

23.

1 2 3 4 5

24.

1 2 3 4 5


56/123

29.

1 2 3 4 5

30.

1 2 3 4 5

31.

1 2 3 4 5

32.

1 2 3 4 5

33.

1 2 3 4 5

34.

1 2 3 4 5

35.

1 2 3 4 5


57/123

40.

1 2 3 4 5

1.

2.

() ()1. 12. 2

3. 34. 3

1.

2. //

3.

4.

5. //6. //

7. //


58/123

________

5

1

1.

1 2 3 4 5

2. /

1 2 3 4 5


59/123

7.

1 2 3 4 5

8. /

1 2 3 4 5

9.

1 2 3 4 5

10.

1 2 3 4 5

11.

1 2 3 4 5

12. /

1 2 3 4 5

13.

1 2 3 4 5


60/123


61/123


62/123

40.

1 2 3 4 5

1.

2.

() ()

1. 12. 23. 3

4. 3

1.

2. //

3.

4.

5. //

6. //

7. //


63/123

10.4 SPSS Outputs

SPSS Outputs Page

10.4.1Personal Information of the 300 samples from Shanghai and Hong Kong 59

10.4.2Decision-making styles of Shanghai university consumers 65

10.4.3

Cronbachs alpha Reliability method: Shanghai CSI 85

10.4.4Decision-making styles of Hong Kong university consumers 90

10.4.5Cronbachs alpha Reliability method: Hong Kong CSI 108

10.4.6

Comparison of decision-making styles between Shanghai and Hong Konguniversities consumers

113


64/123

10.4.1 Personal Information of the 300 samples from Shanghai and Hong Kong

Shanghai

Sex (SH)

66 22.0 44.0 44.0

84 28.0 56.0 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

Male

Female

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Number of Blood Siblings (SH)

125 41.7 83.3 83.3

13 4.3 8.7 92.0

12 4.0 8.0 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

1

2

3

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Source of Income (SH)

111 37.0 74.0 74.0

8 2.7 5.3 79.3

3 1 0 2 0 81 3

Parents

Scholarship/Grant/Loan

Part-time

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent


65/123

Cost of Living (SH)

26 8.7 17.3 17.348 16.0 32.0 49.3

52 17.3 34.7 84.0

24 8.0 16.0 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

$1501

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Information Source (SH)300 100.0SystemMissing

Frequency Percent

Television (SH)

25 8.3 16.7 16.7

125 41.7 83.3 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

No

Yes

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Radio (SH)

124 41.3 82.7 82.7

26 8.7 17.3 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

No

Yes

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Newspaper (SH)C


66/123


67/123

Hong Kong

Sex (HK)

56 18.7 37.3 37.3

94 31.3 62.7 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

Male

Female

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Number of Blood Siblings (HK)

16 5.3 10.7 10.7

52 17.3 34.7 45.3

52 17.3 34.7 80.0

30 10.0 20.0 100.0

150 50.0 100.0150 50.0

300 100.0

1

2

3

>3

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Source of Income (HK)

41 13.7 27.3 27.3

6 2.0 4.0 31.3

30 10.0 20.0 51.3

41 13.7 27.3 78.7

9 3.0 6.0 84.7

Parents

Scholarship/Grant/Loan

Part-time

Partly Parents, partlyPart-time

Partly Parents, partlyScholarship/Grant/Loan

Valid


Percent


68/123

Information Source (HK)300 100.0SystemMissing

Frequency Percent

Television (HK)

23 7.7 15.3 15.3

127 42.3 84.7 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

No

Yes

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Radio (HK)

106 35.3 70.7 70.7

44 14.7 29.3 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

No

Yes

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Newspaper (HK)

54 18.0 36.0 36.0

96 32.0 64.0 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

No

Yes

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Magazine (HK)

48 16 0 32 0 32 0NV lid


Percent


69/123

Transportation Advertisment (HK)

86 28.7 57.3 57.364 21.3 42.7 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

NoYes

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Exhibition (HK)

130 43.3 86.7 86.720 6.7 13.3 100.0

150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

NoYes

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Family and friends (HK)

36 12.0 24.0 24.0

114 38.0 76.0 100.0150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

No

YesTotal

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

Others (HK)

141 47.0 94.0 94.0

9 3.0 6.0 100.0150 50.0 100.0

150 50.0

300 100.0

No

YesTotal

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent


70/123


71/123

Correlation M atrix SH C SI 01 SH C SI 02 SH C SI 03 SH C SI 04 SH C SI 05 SH C SI 06SH CSI 01 1 0.468476 0.566205 0.619297 -0.06757 0.415655

SH CSI 02 0.468476 1 0.468217 0.361046 0.116942 0.526069

SH CSI 03 0.566205 0.468217 1 0.603896 -0.20735 0.476839

SH CSI 04 0.619297 0.361046 0.603896 1 -0.03195 0.490067

SH CSI 05 -0.06757 0.116942 -0.20735 -0.03195 1 0.004879

SH CSI 06 0.415655 0.526069 0.476839 0.490067 0.004879 1

SH C SI 07 0.04714 0.021945 -0.22114 0.025578 0.311903 0.14484

SH C SI 08 0.336379 0.456334 0.297271 0.350266 0.063793 0.358551

SH C SI 09 0.296712 0.266531 0.321982 0.382919 -0.32896 0.368282

SH C SI 10 0.098645 0.311492 0.286536 0.170389 -0.22654 0.330286SH C SI 11 0.107465 0.159822 0.34144 0.242674 -0.24135 0.235988

SH C SI 12 0.166504 0.130526 0.249611 0.254599 -0.12626 0.329876

SH C SI 13 0.115883 0.275283 0.227922 0.180403 0.010653 0.248206

SH C SI 14 -0.11262 -0.02891 -0.07222 -0.18696 -0.02553 -0.035

SH C SI 15 0.184559 0.240006 0.08335 0.202646 -0.04431 0.166949

SH C SI 16 0.052591 0.160901 0.03193 0.081044 -0.03375 0.034904

SH C SI 17 0.091405 0.278279 -0.00845 0.120837 -0.0954 0.062353

SH C SI 18 0.290323 0.428142 0.119435 0.36165 0.224544 0.234709

SH C SI 19 0.172789 0.236736 0.238647 0.365102 -0.06007 0.191606

SH C SI 20 0.114939 0.000614 -0.04404 0.183556 0.193714 0.043689

SH C SI 21 0.063491 0.084534 -0.03089 0.127326 0.179243 0.111281

SH C SI 22 0.031155 -0.16607 -0.18548 0.07138 0.275827 0.031092

SH C SI 23 -0.02519 0.168893 -0.13455 -0.03377 -0.00609 0.102139

SH C SI 24 -0.10137 -0.07199 -0.40816 -0.15303 0.384698 -0.34038

SH C SI 25 -0.07456 0.090315 -0.10635 -0.06155 0.168385 -0.08957

SH C SI 26 -0.17149 -0.05438 0.007934 -0.22402 0.070522 -0.05587

SH C SI27 0 159842 0 111958 0 140431 0 05066 0 030338 0 159087

Correlation


72/123

Correlation M atrix SH C SI 07 SH C SI 08 SH C SI 09 SH C SI 10 SH C SI 11 SH C SI 12SH C SI 01 0.04714 0.336379 0.296712 0.098645 0.107465 0.166504

SH C SI 02 0.021945 0.456334 0.266531 0.311492 0.159822 0.130526

SH C SI 03 -0.22114 0.297271 0.321982 0.286536 0.34144 0.249611

SH C SI 04 0.025578 0.350266 0.382919 0.170389 0.242674 0.254599

SH C SI 05 0.311903 0.063793 -0.32896 -0.22654 -0.24135 -0.12626

SH C SI 06 0.14484 0.358551 0.368282 0.330286 0.235988 0.329876

SH CSI 07 1 -0.19982 0.217684 -0.01742 -0.04106 0.043123

SH CSI 08 -0.19982 1 0.34122 0.376158 0.315378 0.135987

SH CSI 09 0.217684 0.34122 1 0.618969 0.510331 0.592811

SH CSI 10 -0.01742 0.376158 0.618969 1 0.667219 0.469828SH CSI 11 -0.04106 0.315378 0.510331 0.667219 1 0.495489

SH CSI 12 0.043123 0.135987 0.592811 0.469828 0.495489 1

SH C SI 13 -0.05652 0.311848 0.150963 0.089085 0.248123 0.223821

SH C SI 14 -0.08476 0.109365 0.106239 0.166047 0.213947 0.279788

SH C SI 15 -0.09763 0.144413 0.158689 0.112215 -0.00038 0.090177

SH C SI 16 -0.12978 0.096432 0.046423 0.090299 -0.07101 -0.00178

SH C SI 17 0.073631 0.081187 0.286752 0.181063 0.026743 0.266663

SH C SI 18 0.080854 0.273392 0.154152 0.213067 -0.02955 0.127527

SH C SI 19 -0.21438 0.086988 0.093844 0.21999 0.055726 -0.02365

SH C SI 20 0.130962 -0.08556 -0.04257 -0.20139 -0.18227 0.053875

SH C SI 21 0.117302 0.132127 -0.06244 -0.03551 -0.1154 -0.00979

SH C SI 22 0.227257 -0.10491 -0.16738 -0.25896 -0.22048 -0.0087

SH C SI 23 -0.07567 0.17075 -0.14382 0.052334 -0.08367 -0.18249

SH C SI 24 0.385143 -0.16932 -0.19552 -0.19291 -0.23399 -0.01622

SH C SI 25 0.214487 0.086416 0.022627 0.025939 0.080108 0.024743

SH C SI 26 0.019374 -0.15726 -0.29577 -0.25053 -0.23299 -0.33964

SH C SI27 0 288911 0 021897 0 104228 0 048302 0 123542 0 07965

Correlation


73/123

Correlation M atrix SH C SI 13 SH C SI 14 SH C SI 15 SH C SI 16 SH C SI 17 SH C SI 18SH C SI 01 0.115883 -0.11262 0.184559 0.052591 0.091405 0.290323

SH C SI 02 0.275283 -0.02891 0.240006 0.160901 0.278279 0.428142

SH C SI 03 0.227922 -0.07222 0.08335 0.03193 -0.00845 0.119435

SH C SI 04 0.180403 -0.18696 0.202646 0.081044 0.120837 0.36165

SH C SI 05 0.010653 -0.02553 -0.04431 -0.03375 -0.0954 0.224544

SH C SI 06 0.248206 -0.035 0.166949 0.034904 0.062353 0.234709

SH C SI 07 -0.05652 -0.08476 -0.09763 -0.12978 0.073631 0.080854

SH C SI 08 0.311848 0.109365 0.144413 0.096432 0.081187 0.273392

SH C SI 09 0.150963 0.106239 0.158689 0.046423 0.286752 0.154152

SH C SI 10 0.089085 0.166047 0.112215 0.090299 0.181063 0.213067SH C SI 11 0.248123 0.213947 -0.00038 -0.07101 0.026743 -0.02955

SH C SI 12 0.223821 0.279788 0.090177 -0.00178 0.266663 0.127527

SH CSI 13 1 0.418649 0.287159 0.309919 0.154354 0.049854

SH CSI 14 0.418649 1 0.129874 0.052354 0.211116 -0.19813

SH CSI 15 0.287159 0.129874 1 0.689501 0.425182 0.191463

SH CSI 16 0.309919 0.052354 0.689501 1 0.45665 0.312971

SH CSI 17 0.154354 0.211116 0.425182 0.45665 1 0.343528

SH CSI 18 0.049854 -0.19813 0.191463 0.312971 0.343528 1

SH C SI 19 -0.1313 -0.25004 0.204408 0.255884 0.276206 0.613846

SH C SI 20 0.218704 -0.04276 0.301506 0.3644 0.383572 0.309045

SH C SI 21 0.204634 0.217297 0.450454 0.44442 0.298588 0.302609

SH C SI 22 0.204973 0.053929 0.392409 0.492136 0.13009 0.16353

SH C SI 23 0.311207 0.153723 0.431493 0.429013 0.063272 0.152282

SH C SI 24 -0.04929 0.159589 0.15576 0.230321 0.325447 0.229426

SH C SI 25 -0.07488 0.016548 -0.20264 -0.33997 -0.1275 -0.11964

SH C SI 26 0.239134 0.069945 -0.06079 0.094308 -0.23782 -0.17081

SH C SI27 0 11432 0 01428 0 1761 0 26357 0 006785 0 14792

Correlation


74/123

Correlation M atrix SH C SI 19 SH C SI 20 SH C SI 21 SH C SI 22 SH C SI 23 SH C SI 24SH C SI 01 0.172789 0.114939 0.063491 0.031155 -0.02519 -0.10137

SH C SI 02 0.236736 0.000614 0.084534 -0.16607 0.168893 -0.07199

SH C SI 03 0.238647 -0.04404 -0.03089 -0.18548 -0.13455 -0.40816

SH C SI 04 0.365102 0.183556 0.127326 0.07138 -0.03377 -0.15303

SH C SI 05 -0.06007 0.193714 0.179243 0.275827 -0.00609 0.384698

SH C SI 06 0.191606 0.043689 0.111281 0.031092 0.102139 -0.34038

SH C SI 07 -0.21438 0.130962 0.117302 0.227257 -0.07567 0.385143

SH C SI 08 0.086988 -0.08556 0.132127 -0.10491 0.17075 -0.16932

SH C SI 09 0.093844 -0.04257 -0.06244 -0.16738 -0.14382 -0.19552

SH C SI 10 0.21999 -0.20139 -0.03551 -0.25896 0.052334 -0.19291SH C SI 11 0.055726 -0.18227 -0.1154 -0.22048 -0.08367 -0.23399

SH C SI 12 -0.02365 0.053875 -0.00979 -0.0087 -0.18249 -0.01622

SH C SI 13 -0.1313 0.218704 0.204634 0.204973 0.311207 -0.04929

SH C SI 14 -0.25004 -0.04276 0.217297 0.053929 0.153723 0.159589

SH C SI 15 0.204408 0.301506 0.450454 0.392409 0.431493 0.15576

SH CSI 16 0.255884 0.3644 0.44442 0.492136 0.429013 0.230321

SH C SI 17 0.276206 0.383572 0.298588 0.13009 0.063272 0.325447

SH C SI 18 0.613846 0.309045 0.302609 0.16353 0.152282 0.229426

SH CSI 19 1 0.163781 0.186896 0.063998 0.164519 -0.04705

SH CSI 20 0.163781 1 0.501429 0.636987 0.179964 0.463182

SH CSI 21 0.186896 0.501429 1 0.621332 0.502195 0.430473

SH CSI 22 0.063998 0.636987 0.621332 1 0.328238 0.492539

SH CSI 23 0.164519 0.179964 0.502195 0.328238 1 0.216493

SH CSI 24 -0.04705 0.463182 0.430473 0.492539 0.216493 1

SH C SI 25 -0.17609 -0.29965 -0.05585 -0.18114 -0.00083 0.082917

SH C SI 26 -0.26623 -0.00959 0.16801 -0.00217 0.202167 -0.01863

SH C SI27 0 17821 0 1628 0 1753 0 27951 0 18733 0 02181

Correlation


75/123

Correlation M atrix SH C SI 25 SH C SI 26 SH C SI 27 SH C SI 28 SH C SI 29 SH C SI 30SH C SI 01 -0.07456 -0.17149 0.159842 -0.12027 -0.14442 -0.11565

SH C SI 02 0.090315 -0.05438 0.111958 -0.15977 -0.07272 -0.02445

SH C SI 03 -0.10635 0.007934 0.140431 -0.19381 0.012693 -0.01161

SH C SI 04 -0.06155 -0.22402 0.05066 -0.13081 0.012588 0.022937

SH C SI 05 0.168385 0.070522 0.030338 0.086874 0.014687 -0.04382

SH C SI 06 -0.08957 -0.05587 0.159087 -0.02127 0.092807 0.088939

SH C SI 07 0.214487 0.019374 0.288911 0.103636 -0.02228 -0.03977

SH C SI 08 0.086416 -0.15726 0.021897 -0.10145 0.077831 0.02501

SH C SI 09 0.022627 -0.29577 0.104228 -0.28281 -0.14313 -0.02684

SH C SI 10 0.025939 -0.25053 0.048302 -0.21699 -0.08942 -0.02764SH C SI 11 0.080108 -0.23299 0.123542 -0.01937 -0.08565 -0.01302

SH CSI 12 0.024743 -0.33964 0.07965 -0.20937 -0.0873 -0.0009

SH C SI 13 -0.07488 0.239134 -0.11432 -0.09216 -0.03755 0.07942

SH C SI 14 0.016548 0.069945 -0.01428 -0.1168 -0.11681 0.051632

SH C SI 15 -0.20264 -0.06079 -0.1761 -0.15295 -0.12298 0.039347

SH C SI 16 -0.33997 0.094308 -0.26357 -0.10237 -0.04737 0.075177

SH C SI 17 -0.1275 -0.23782 0.006785 -0.20252 -0.09237 -0.00011

SH C SI 18 -0.11964 -0.17081 -0.14792 -0.09319 -0.00538 -0.1414

SH C SI 19 -0.17609 -0.26623 -0.17821 -0.06916 0.000745 -0.03889

SH C SI 20 -0.29965 -0.00959 -0.1628 -0.04137 0.017154 -0.06869

SH C SI 21 -0.05585 0.16801 -0.1753 0.028492 -0.00369 0.109098

SH C SI 22 -0.18114 -0.00217 -0.27951 0.054004 0.037179 -0.02337

SH C SI 23 -0.00083 0.202167 -0.18733 0.045738 0.004073 0.137421

SH C SI 24 0.082917 -0.01863 -0.02181 0.02352 0.031297 -0.06713

SH CSI 25 1 0.07485 0.312088 0.166662 0.023446 0.148611

SH CSI 26 0.07485 1 0.08148 0.134348 0.138943 0.161239

SH CSI27 0 312088 0 08148 1 0 095973 0 047732 0 00105

Correlation


76/123


77/123

Correlation M atrix SH C SI 37 SH C SI 38 SH C SI 39 SH C SI 40SH CSI 01 0.100394 0.24923 0.102622 0.01186

SH CSI 02 0.151943 0.1214 0.171759 0.087681

SH C SI 03 0.330955 0.194888 0.376568 0.018698

SH C SI 04 0.311958 0.251114 0.210017 0.080959

SH C SI 05 -0.07669 -0.12407 -0.14946 0.202147

SH C SI 06 0.232156 0.189153 0.397655 -0.06718

SH C SI 07 0.018949 0.25548 -0.06936 -0.13938

SH CSI 08 0.3238 0.128561 0.295995 0.193496

SH C SI 09 0.363952 0.527268 0.401304 -0.21592

SH C SI 10 0.141651 0.228221 0.23785 -0.22883SH C SI 11 0.200306 0.281485 0.252226 -0.21056

SH C SI 12 0.250098 0.588595 0.244111 -0.30351

SH C SI 13 0.229355 0.074189 0.184583 0.28503

SH C SI 14 -0.08177 0.145494 -0.12923 0.098963

SH C SI 15 0.146172 0.078793 -0.06907 0.093642

SH C SI 16 0.137662 0.030218 0.036125 -0.03466

SH C SI 17 0.034302 0.297275 -0.2465 -0.02727

SH C SI 18 0.092869 0.119205 -0.01003 -0.02646

SH C SI 19 0.085598 -0.01783 -0.02546 -0.06896

SH C SI 20 -0.09436 -0.04399 -0.14685 0.118116

SH C SI 21 0.064906 0.028196 -0.12211 0.135859

SH C SI 22 -0.04794 -0.06865 -0.19658 0.058149

SH C SI 23 0.005501 -0.32063 -0.07201 0.026669

SH C SI 24 -0.21173 0.072377 -0.49965 0.045132

SH C SI 25 0.069303 0.107976 -0.06913 -0.09133

SH C SI 26 0.09702 -0.19871 0.174095 0.199637

SH C SI27 0 135907 0 337204 0 084299 0 18495

Correlation


78/123

KMO and Bartlett's Test

.608

3602.776

780

.000

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy.

Approx. Chi-Square

df

Sig.

Bartlett's Test of

Sphericity

Scree Plot

Component Number

39373533312927252321191715131197531Eigenvalue

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0


79/123

Communalities

1.000 .793

1.000 .752

1.000 .752

1.000 .751

1.000 .755

1.000 .682

1.000 .721

1.000 .794

1.000 .726

1.000 .801

1.000 .662

1.000 .761

1.000 .740

1.000 .703

1.000 .688

1.000 .784

1.000 .665

1.000 .7801.000 .783

1.000 .747

1.000 .676

1.000 .803

1.000 .760

1.000 .775

1.000 .635

1.000 .801

1.000 .680

1.000 .720

1.000 .681

SH CSI 01

SH CSI 02

SH CSI 03

SH CSI 04

SH CSI 05

SH CSI 06

SH CSI 07

SH CSI 08

SH CSI 09

SH CSI 10SH CSI 11

SH CSI 12

SH CSI 13

SH CSI 14

SH CSI 15

SH CSI 16

SH CSI 17

SH CSI 18SH CSI 19

SH CSI 20

SH CSI 21

SH CSI 22

SH CSI 23

SH CSI 24

SH CSI 25

SH CSI 26

SH CSI 27

SH CSI 28

SH CSI 29

Initial Extraction


80/123

Total Variance Explained

6.045 15.113 15.113 6.045 15.113 15.113

5.065 12.663 27.776 5.065 12.663 27.776

3.229 8.073 35.849 3.229 8.073 35.849

2.486 6.216 42.064 2.486 6.216 42.064

2.360 5.901 47.965 2.360 5.901 47.965

2.160 5.401 53.366 2.160 5.401 53.366

1.899 4.747 58.112 1.899 4.747 58.112

1.513 3.783 61.895 1.513 3.783 61.895

1.324 3.310 65.205 1.324 3.310 65.205

1.222 3.055 68.260 1.222 3.055 68.260

1.141 2.853 71.113 1.141 2.853 71.113

1.074 2.686 73.799 1.074 2.686 73.799

.955 2.387 76.186

.879 2.198 78.383

.842 2.105 80.488

.717 1.792 82.280

.696 1.740 84.019

.639 1.598 85.617

.596 1.490 87.107

.526 1.316 88.423

.498 1.246 89.669

.447 1.119 90.787

.409 1.023 91.810

.395 .987 92.797

.349 .872 93.669

.331 .828 94.497

.283 .707 95.204

.259 .647 95.851

Component1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings


81/123

Com ponent M atrixaCom ponent

1 2 3 4 5 6

SH CSI 01 0.525 0.346SH CSI 02 0.530 0.351

SH CSI 03 0.692

SH CSI 04 0.606 0.368

SH CSI 05 0.445

SH CSI 06 0.644

SH CSI 07 0.518 0.529

SH CSI 08 0.552 0.391

SH CSI 09 0.755SH CSI 10 0.640

SH CSI 11 0.593

SH CSI 12 0.568 -0.374 0.363

SH CSI 13 0.334 -0.391

SH CSI 14 0.483 -0.535

SH CSI 15 0.655

SH CSI 16 0.636 0.333 -0.306

SH CSI 17 0.632 -0.300SH CSI 18 0.541 0.397

SH CSI 19 0.373 -0.529

SH CSI 20 0.680

SH CSI 21 0.689 0.334

SH CSI 22 0.631 -0.328

SH CSI 23 0.465 0.413

SH CSI 24 -0.445 0.569 0.329

SH CSI 25 0.380 0.368

SH CSI 26 0.577

SH CSI27 0.356 0.364


82/123

Com ponent M atrixaCom ponent

7 8 9 10 11 12

SH CSI 01 -0.380SH CSI 02 0.302

SH CSI 03

SH CSI 04 -0.321

SH C SI 05 -0.334 0.365

SH CSI 06

SH CSI 07

SH CSI 08 -0.347

SH CSI 09SH CSI 10 0.309 0.302

SH CSI 11

SH CSI 12

SH CSI 13

SH CSI 14

SH CSI 15

SH CSI 16

SH CSI 17 0.318SH CSI 18

SH CSI 19 0.406

SH CSI 20

SH CSI 21

SH CSI 22

SH CSI 23 0.364 -0.315

SH CSI 24

SH CSI 25 0.378

SH CSI 26 0.371

SH CSI27 0.315 -0.319


83/123

Shanghai CSI - Factor Rotation (1st trail)

Rotated Component Matrixa

.682

.733

.697 .301

.776

.434

.667

.722

.585 .381

.407 -.394 .390 .404

.373 -.386 .437

.532

-.344 .458 .490

.347 .601

.745.664

.784

.438 -.322 -.349

.564 .377

.519 -.334

.694

.752

.794

.536 -.304

.501 -.518 .376

- 360 337 334

SH CSI 01

SH CSI 02

SH CSI 03

SH CSI 04

SH CSI 05

SH CSI 06SH CSI 07

SH CSI 08

SH CSI 09

SH CSI 10

SH CSI 11

SH CSI 12

SH CSI 13

SH CSI 14SH CSI 15

SH CSI 16

SH CSI 17

SH CSI 18

SH CSI 19

SH CSI 20

SH CSI 21

SH CSI 22

SH CSI 23

SH CSI 24

SH CSI 25

1 2 3 4 5 6

Component


84/123

Shanghai CSI - Factor Rotation (2nd trail)

Rotated Component Matrix a

.755

.759

.778

.722

.728

.677

.351 -.328 .327

.735

.733

.811

.684

.757

.805 .356

.614 -.447

SH CSI

01

SH CSI

02

SH CSI

04

SH CSI05

SH CSI

06

SH CSI

07

SH CSI

11

SH CSI

14SH CSI

15

SH CSI

16

SH CSI

20

SH CSI

21

SH CSI

22SH CSI

28

S CS

1 2 3 4 5 6

Component


85/123

Shanghai CSI - Factor Rotation (3rd trail)


.822

.750

.757

.777

.312 .731

.725

.848

.796

.856

.631 .340

.732

.668

.788

SH CSI

01

SH CSI

02

SH CSI

04SH CSI

05

SH CSI

06

SH CSI

07

SH CSI

14

SH CSI15

SH CSI

16

SH CSI

20

SH CSI

21

SH CSI

30

SH CSI

31

SH CSI

1 2 3 4 5 6

Component


86/123

Shanghai CSI - Factor Rotation (4th trail)


.902

.668

.805

.807

.751

.729

.844

.872

.690

.649

.796

.809

.725

SH CSI

01

SH CSI

02

SH CSI

04SH CSI

05

SH CSI

07

SH CSI

14

SH CSI

15

SH CSI16

SH CSI

21

SH CSI

30

SH CSI

31

SH CSI

32

SH CSI

33

SH CSI

1 2 3 4 5 6

Component


87/123

Shanghai CSI - Factor Rotation (5th and the final trail)

Communalities

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

SH CSI

01

SH CSI

02

SH CSI

04

SH CSI05

SH CSI

07

SH CSI

14

SH CSI

15

SH CSI

16

SH CSI

21

SH CSI

30

SH CSI

31

SH CSI

32

SH CSI

33

SH CSI

37

Initial


88/123


89/123


.893

.690

.799

.803

.763

.939

.848

.884

.702

.640

.802

.808

.774

.708

.831

SH CSI

01

SH CSI

02

SH CSI

04

SH CSI

05

SH CSI

07

SH CSI

14

SH CSI

15

SH CSI

16

SH CSI

21

SH CSI

30

SH CSI

31

SH CSI

32

SH CSI

33

SH CSI

37

SH CSI

39

1 2 3 4 5 6

Component


90/123

10.4.3 Cronbachs alpha Reliability method: Shanghai CSI

Factor 1: Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

Mean Std Dev Cases

1. SHCSI15 3.1267 1.0574 150.02. SHCSI16 2.6933 1.0294 150.03. SHCSI21 3.2267 1.1652 150.0

N of

Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev VariablesSCALE 9.0467 7.2126 2.6856 3

Item-total Statistics

Scale Scale CorrectedMean Variance Item- Alpha

if Item if Item Total if ItemDeleted Deleted Correlation Deleted

SHCSI15 5 9200 3 4835 6615 6121


91/123

Factor 2: Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer


Mean Std Dev Cases

1. SHCSI01 4.3400 .9471 150.02. SHCSI02 3.9467 .8731 150.0

3. SHCSI04 4.3800 .6822 150.0

N ofStatistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables

SCALE 12.6667 4.1298 2.0322 3




SHCSI01 8.3267 1.6577 .6458 .5189SHCSI02 8.7200 2.1627 .4692 .7401

SHCSI04 8.2867 2.4340 .5780 .6366


92/123

Factor 3: Habitual and brand-loyal consumer


Mean Std Dev Cases

1. SHCSI33 2.6600 1.0221 150.02. SHCSI37 3.4600 1.0969 150.0

3. SHCSI39 2.6467 1.0371 150.0


SCALE 8.7667 6.0727 2.4643 3




SHCSI33 6.1067 3.3577 .4459 .6427SHCSI37 5.3067 3.1939 .4274 .6723

SHCSI39 6.1200 2.8446 .6153 .4196


93/123

Factor 4: Impulsive and careless consumer


Mean Std Dev Cases

1. SHCSI30 2.7067 .7377 150.02. SHCSI31 2.7667 .7634 150.03. SHCSI32 2.5600 .6183 150.0


SCALE 8.0333 2.5694 1.6029 3


Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Alphaif Item if Item Total if ItemDeleted Deleted Correlation Deleted

SHCSI30 5.3267 1.4832 .3016 .6987SHCSI31 5.2667 1.2036 .4675 .4604SHCSI32 5.4733 1.3919 .5450 .3806

Reliability Coefficients


94/123

Factor 5: Price conscious and value for money consumer


Mean Std Dev Cases

1. SHCSI05 3.8267 .9606 150.02. SHCSI07 3.3733 1.0462 150.0

N of

Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev VariablesSCALE 7.2000 2.6443 1.6261 2




SHCSI05 3.3733 1.0946 .3119 .SHCSI07 3.8267 .9228 .3119 .

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 150.0 N of Items = 2


95/123

10.4.4 Decision-making styles of Hong Kong university consumers

HK CSI - Factor Analysis


96/123

Correlation M atrix H K C SI 01 H K C SI 02 H K C SI 03 H K C SI 04 H K C SI 05 H K C SI 06H K CSI 01 1.000 0.181 0.318 0.237 -0.040 0.260

H K CSI 02 0.181 1.000 0.467 0.141 0.046 0.329

H K CSI 03 0.318 0.467 1.000 0.320 -0.041 0.398H K CSI 04 0.237 0.141 0.320 1.000 -0.016 0.285

H K CSI 05 -0.040 0.046 -0.041 -0.016 1.000 0.161

H K CSI 06 0.260 0.329 0.398 0.285 0.161 1.000

H K CSI 07 -0.027 -0.039 -0.049 -0.082 0.393 0.198

H K CSI 08 0.088 0.353 0.224 0.154 0.034 0.365

H K CSI 09 0.036 0.208 0.224 0.040 -0.289 0.139

H K CSI 10 0.026 0.077 0.096 -0.043 -0.329 0.022H K CSI 11 0.005 0.014 0.036 0.008 -0.147 0.056

H K CSI 12 -0.039 0.132 0.119 -0.049 -0.147 0.148

H K CSI 13 -0.116 0.061 0.127 -0.058 -0.070 0.061

H K CSI 14 -0.099 -0.080 0.114 -0.063 -0.265 -0.028

H K CSI 15 0.050 0.044 -0.020 -0.091 -0.023 0.100

H K CSI 16 0.044 0.060 0.127 0.007 -0.157 -0.042

H K CSI 17 -0.016 0.129 0.127 0.041 -0.267 0.057

H K CSI 18 0.169 0.125 0.034 0.169 -0.045 0.146

HK CSI 19 0.160 0.045 0.117 0.198 -0.098 0.160

H K CSI 20 0.015 -0.057 -0.129 0.102 0.243 0.121

H K CSI 21 0.000 0.114 0.059 0.081 0.163 0.205

H K CSI 22 -0.087 -0.092 -0.113 -0.016 0.174 0.030

H K CSI 23 0.070 0.091 0.184 0.054 -0.088 0.168

H K CSI 24 -0.057 0.047 -0.090 0.058 0.259 0.013

H K CSI 25 0.088 0.076 0.039 0.159 0.107 0.150

H K CSI 26 -0.098 0.040 0.056 -0.010 0.058 0.116

H K CSI27 0 087 0 096 0 075 0 054 0 182 0 119

Correlation


97/123

Correlation M atrix H K C SI 07 H K C SI 08 H K C SI 09 H K C SI 10 H K C SI 11 H K C SI 12H K CSI 01 -0.027 0.088 0.036 0.026 0.005 -0.039

H K CSI 02 -0.039 0.353 0.208 0.077 0.014 0.132

H K CSI 03 -0.049 0.224 0.224 0.096 0.036 0.119H K CSI 04 -0.082 0.154 0.040 -0.043 0.008 -0.049

H K CSI 05 0.393 0.034 -0.289 -0.329 -0.147 -0.147

H K CSI 06 0.198 0.365 0.139 0.022 0.056 0.148

H K CSI 07 1.000 -0.047 -0.086 -0.168 0.100 0.006

H K CSI 08 -0.047 1.000 0.209 0.160 0.161 0.216

H K CSI 09 -0.086 0.209 1.000 0.543 0.291 0.329

H K CSI 10 -0.168 0.160 0.543 1.000 0.463 0.355H K CSI 11 0.100 0.161 0.291 0.463 1.000 0.381

H K CSI 12 0.006 0.216 0.329 0.355 0.381 1.000

H K CSI 13 0.115 0.049 0.222 0.307 0.469 0.527

H K CSI 14 -0.036 0.055 0.292 0.369 0.380 0.434

H K CSI 15 0.032 0.061 0.126 0.158 0.071 0.114

H K CSI 16 -0.126 0.020 0.273 0.287 0.176 0.116

H K CSI 17 -0.072 -0.014 0.462 0.411 0.277 0.271

H K CSI 18 0.132 0.120 0.192 0.119 0.053 0.132

H K CSI 19 -0.067 -0.008 0.010 -0.090 0.052 0.011

H K CSI 20 0.150 0.166 -0.055 -0.152 0.022 0.103

H K CSI 21 0.278 0.089 0.052 -0.071 0.107 0.113

H K CSI 22 0.032 -0.082 -0.200 -0.077 -0.052 -0.135

H K CSI 23 0.000 0.048 0.139 0.072 0.124 0.083

H K CSI 24 0.328 -0.046 -0.063 -0.044 -0.027 -0.117

H K CSI 25 0.236 0.116 -0.010 -0.114 0.047 0.105

H K CSI 26 0.108 -0.002 -0.095 -0.089 0.002 0.058

H K CSI 27 0 300 0 108 0 015 0 121 0 155 0 090

Correlation


98/123

Correlation M atrix H K C SI 13 H K C SI 14 H K C SI 15 H K C SI 16 H K C SI 17 H K C SI 18H K CSI 01 -0.116 -0.099 0.050 0.044 -0.016 0.169

H K CSI 02 0.061 -0.080 0.044 0.060 0.129 0.125

H K CSI 03 0.127 0.114 -0.020 0.127 0.127 0.034H K CSI 04 -0.058 -0.063 -0.091 0.007 0.041 0.169

H K CSI 05 -0.070 -0.265 -0.023 -0.157 -0.267 -0.045

H K CSI 06 0.061 -0.028 0.100 -0.042 0.057 0.146

H K CSI 07 0.115 -0.036 0.032 -0.126 -0.072 0.132

H K CSI 08 0.049 0.055 0.061 0.020 -0.014 0.120

H K CSI 09 0.222 0.292 0.126 0.273 0.462 0.192

H K CSI 10 0.307 0.369 0.158 0.287 0.411 0.119H K CSI 11 0.469 0.380 0.071 0.176 0.277 0.053

H K CSI 12 0.527 0.434 0.114 0.116 0.271 0.132

H K CSI 13 1.000 0.494 0.183 0.123 0.320 0.078

H K CSI 14 0.494 1.000 0.137 0.215 0.290 -0.053

H K CSI 15 0.183 0.137 1.000 0.652 0.399 0.301

H K CSI 16 0.123 0.215 0.652 1.000 0.514 0.208

H K CSI 17 0.320 0.290 0.399 0.514 1.000 0.300

H K CSI 18 0.078 -0.053 0.301 0.208 0.300 1.000

H K CSI 19 0.049 0.012 0.161 0.212 0.146 0.235

H K CSI 20 -0.010 -0.086 0.322 0.294 0.054 0.258

H K CSI 21 0.103 -0.071 0.317 0.222 0.174 0.279

H K CSI 22 0.011 -0.089 0.295 0.287 0.041 0.149

H K CSI 23 0.187 0.026 0.241 0.141 0.127 0.017

H K CSI 24 -0.099 -0.214 0.111 0.149 -0.022 0.071

H K CSI 25 0.225 0.043 -0.068 -0.062 -0.041 0.018

H K CSI 26 0.129 0.139 -0.163 -0.181 -0.088 -0.204

H K CSI27 0 100 0 046 0 002 0 115 0 186 0 017

Correlation


99/123

Correlation M atrix H K C SI 19 H K C SI 20 H K C SI 21 H K C SI 22 H K C SI 23 H K C SI 24H K CSI 01 0.160 0.015 0.000 -0.087 0.070 -0.057

H K CSI 02 0.045 -0.057 0.114 -0.092 0.091 0.047

H K CSI 03 0.117 -0.129 0.059 -0.113 0.184 -0.090H K CSI 04 0.198 0.102 0.081 -0.016 0.054 0.058

H K CSI 05 -0.098 0.243 0.163 0.174 -0.088 0.259

H K CSI 06 0.160 0.121 0.205 0.030 0.168 0.013

H K CSI 07 -0.067 0.150 0.278 0.032 0.000 0.328

H K CSI 08 -0.008 0.166 0.089 -0.082 0.048 -0.046

H K CSI 09 0.010 -0.055 0.052 -0.200 0.139 -0.063

H K CSI 10 -0.090 -0.152 -0.071 -0.077 0.072 -0.044

H K CSI 11 0.052 0.022 0.107 -0.052 0.124 -0.027

H K CSI 12 0.011 0.103 0.113 -0.135 0.083 -0.117

H K CSI 13 0.049 -0.010 0.103 0.011 0.187 -0.099

H K CSI 14 0.012 -0.086 -0.071 -0.089 0.026 -0.214

H K CSI 15 0.161 0.322 0.317 0.295 0.241 0.111

H K CSI 16 0.212 0.294 0.222 0.287 0.141 0.149

H K CSI 17 0.146 0.054 0.174 0.041 0.127 -0.022

H K CSI 18 0.235 0.258 0.279 0.149 0.017 0.071

H K CSI 19 1.000 0.239 0.158 0.119 0.253 0.033

H K CSI 20 0.239 1.000 0.526 0.541 0.173 0.327

H K CSI 21 0.158 0.526 1.000 0.454 0.359 0.322

H K CSI 22 0.119 0.541 0.454 1.000 0.184 0.406

H K CSI 23 0.253 0.173 0.359 0.184 1.000 0.008

H K CSI 24 0.033 0.327 0.322 0.406 0.008 1.000

H K CSI 25 0.110 0.030 0.055 -0.128 0.025 -0.014

H K CSI 26 -0.115 -0.136 0.122 -0.086 0.040 -0.030

H K CSI27 0 032 0 104 0 039 0 052 0 064 0 105

Correlation


100/123

Correlation M atrix H K C SI 25 H K C SI 26 H K C SI 27 H K C SI 28 H K C SI 29 H K C SI 30H K CSI 01 0.088 -0.098 0.087 0.010 -0.011 -0.057

H K CSI 02 0.076 0.040 0.096 -0.089 0.014 -0.020

H K CSI 03 0.039 0.056 0.075 0.022 -0.065 -0.043H K CSI 04 0.159 -0.010 0.054 0.013 0.041 -0.134

H K CSI 05 0.107 0.058 0.182 0.050 -0.016 0.122

H K CSI 06 0.150 0.116 0.119 0.117 0.005 0.026

H K CSI 07 0.236 0.108 0.300 0.097 -0.050 0.179

H K CSI 08 0.116 -0.002 0.108 0.090 0.011 0.115

H K CSI 09 -0.010 -0.095 0.015 0.021 0.019 -0.011

H K CSI 10 -0.114 -0.089 -0.121 -0.032 -0.029 0.023

consumer decision-making styles

Documents