Abhinav

International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In Management & Technology

Volume III, January14

ISSN 2320-0073

FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMER BUYING

BEHAVIOR WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO DAIRY
PRODUCTS IN PONDICHERRY STATE
A. Ananda Kumar1 and Dr. S. Babu2
1

Assistant Professor (Senior Grade), School of Management, Christ College of Engineering

& Technology, Puducherry, India
Email: searchanandu@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, M.R. Government Arts
College, Mannargudi, Tamilnadu, India
Email: babubuse@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Consumer behavior analysis is based on consumers buying behavior. It aims at improving
business performance through an understanding of the customers preferences and desires.
In todays world of growing competition where there are numerous brands selling the same
products, consumers have an abundant number of choices and many diverse factors
influence their buying behavior. This study is based on Descriptive study and the statistical
tools used are Percentage & Weighted Average Method. This study made an attempt to find
the factors affecting consumers buying behavior, with the focus on dairy products in
Pondicherry state. These factors are based on certain variables used in the survey. The
variables include packaging, cost, availability, ingredients, product popularity, product
quality, product taste, etc., that influence the choice of a brand from among those in the
consideration list, but may not be the most important and primary determinants for short
listing brands. The study is useful to the marketers as they can create various marketing
programs that they believe will be of interest to the consumers. It can also boost their
marketing strategy.

Keywords: Dairy Products; Consumers; Consumer Buying Behavior

INTRODUCTION
Consumer is a person who buys or uses things (goods) or services. Marketers are the persons
who provide these services. The most challenging questions for marketers are why buyers do
what they do (or dont do). Such knowledge is critical for marketers, since having a strong
understanding of buyers behavior will shed light on what is important for the consumer and
also suggest the important influences on consumer decision-making. Factors affecting
consumers buying decisions are extremely complex. It is deeply rooted in psychology with
dashes of sociology thrown in just to make things more interesting. It explains the influences
on the consumer from groups such as family, friends and society in general. Consumers
buying behavior result from deeply held values and attitudes, their perception of the world,
their place in it, from common sense, from impulse or just plain take.

Available online on www.abhinavjournal.com

65

Abhinav
International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In Management & Technology
Volume III, January14

ISSN 2320-0073

Consumers behaviour, preferences and attitudes towards consumption of dairy products

differs substantially across countries (Bus & Worsley, 2003; Francesconi, Heerink &
DHaese, 2010; Grunert, TionBeck-Larsen & Bredahl, 2000; Hatirli, Ozkan, & Aktas, 2004;
Hsu & Lin, 2006; Richardson-Harman, 2000; Robb & Abdel-Ghany, 2007; Yee & Chin,
2007). Grunert et al. (2000) discuss that consumers perceptions of dairy product quality are
complex and involve much more than sensory attributes. They contend that consumers
consider four dimensions when forming perceptions about dairy product quality: (1) hedonic
(e.g. sensory attributes such as taste or smell), (2) health-related, (3) convenience-related and
(4) process-related (e.g. production processes such as organic, animal welfare or genetic
modification). Thus, manufacturers/ processors and marketers must understand the role each
of these dimensions plays in driving consumer demand for dairy products and realize
consumers may be heterogeneous in their preferences or perceptions of what constitutes
dairy product quality.
In the fast growing world of consumerism, it is necessary for every organization to study
their customer preference for dairy products to identify the underlying factors for preference
of dairy brands as well as make suggestions for the company to take the right market to be a
leader in the market to the dairy products.
Table 1. Black Box Model

The black box model shows the interaction of stimuli, consumer characteristics, decision
process and consumer responses. It can be distinguished between interpersonal stimuli
(between people) or intrapersonal stimuli (within people). The black box model is related to
the black box theory of behaviorism, where the focus is not set on the processes inside a
consumer, but the relation between the stimuli and the response of the consumer. The
marketing stimuli are planned and processed by the companies, whereas the environmental
stimulus is given by social factors, based on the economical, political and cultural
circumstances of a society. The buyers black box contains the buyer characteristics and the
decision process, which determines the buyers response.
The black box model considers the buyers response as a result of a conscious, rational
decision process, in which it is assumed that the buyer has recognized the problem.
However, in reality many decisions are not made in awareness of a determined problem by
the consumer.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To study the Brand Preference on dairy products in the study area.

To understand Customer Satisfaction level on dairy products in Pondicherry state.

To analyse the factors influencing on dairy products.

Available online on www.abhinavjournal.com

66

Abhinav
International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In Management & Technology
ISSN 2320-0073

Volume III, January14

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The consumer decision-making process is important in determining purchase behavior. In
order to offer an effective service, it is important to identify consumer segments, taking into
account the benefits which the consumer seeks. Consumers seek benefits or solutions, not
products (Rowley, 1997). When they buy a product, whether it is a good or a service, they
buy a cluster of product features, but may want only one or two of these features. The main
reason behind consumers search is uncertainty. Consumer information search has been the
focus of many articles studying consumer behavior during the last 30 years (Bettman, 1979).
Various studies have provided information about the measures of compulsivity, which helps
in analyzing compulsive buying tendencies of consumers. Faber and OGuinn T C (1992)
reported a seven-items scale and assessed its reliability and validity. An earlier version 58
The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. IX, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010 of this scale used a
subset of three items (Faber and OGuinn, 1989b) while, Faber and OGuinn (1989a) used a
superset of 15 items to operational compulsivity.
The second approach (Youn and Faber, 2000) mainly used a nine-item scale, earlier
developed by Rook and Fisher (1995). Thus compulsive buying is a very important aspect in
consumers behavior research. It has been defined as chronic, repetitive purchasing, that
becomes a primary response to negative events or feeling (Faber and OGuinn, 1992).
Previous studies in this area have highlighted the fact that compulsive buyers tend to have a
lower self-esteem, a higher level of tendency to fantasize, and a higher level of depression
anxiety, and obsession, as compared to other consumers (Faber and OGuinn, 1989b). Furst
et al. (1996) reported human food choice as one of the basic and common components
among consumers but is also one of the most complex function having multitude of
influences. Consumers appear to have much more pragmatic considerations in mind when
making their food choice decisions. These considerations include sensory aspects of food
(e.g., taste and quality) (Powell et al., 2003) along with the influence of non-food effects
(e.g., cognitive information, the physical environment, social factors) (Rozin and Tuorila,
1993; and Bell and Meiselman, 1995). Quality and safety are thus two very important
elements in consumers food perception and decision-making associated with food choice
(Grunert, 2005). Consumers purchasing decisions are normally based on their own
perception and representations of quality and safety.
However, quality and safety are the concepts that cannot be easily defined, because they are
classified as credence attributes (i.e., product attributes that cannot be verified by the
consumer). Consumers are most likely to derive quality or safety perceptions from other
product cues, either intrinsic (e.g., appearance of the product) or extrinsic cues (e.g., a
quality label) (Nelson, 1970). Hence, it is quite difficult to analyze and discuss all the
potential determinants of food choice, because food choice is a very complex issue in which
many factors play a role, including biological, psychological and cultural (Frewer and van
Trijp, 2007; and Rozin, 2007).
In fact, perceptions of food quality and safety are likely to be influenced by such
psychological and cultural factors rather than physiological product experiences alone. Many
quantitative and qualitative researches have addressed issues associated with cultural
determinants of food choice (Shepherd and Raats, 2007). It is quite evident from such studies
that while analyzing factors that influence food choice, it is important to consider
consumers cultural background (Overby et al., 2004; and Hoogland et al., 2005).
Available online on www.abhinavjournal.com

67

Abhinav
International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In Management & Technology
ISSN 2320-0073

Volume III, January14

It is believed that people from different cultural backgrounds have different perceptions and
experiences related to food (Lennernas et al., 1997). Hence it can be noticed that some
consumers are more oriented towards food quality, whereas for others food safety is a
primary concern. Consumer behavior is also affected by the socioeconomic conditions of the
markets namely, income, mobility, media access (Tse et al., 1989). It has been observed that
per capita income and disposable income indicates the amount of resources consumers
allocate to consumer goods (Johansson and Identification of Secondary Factors that
Influence Consumers Buying Behavior 59for Soaps and Chocolates Moinpour, 1977).
As more resources become available, consumers may desire more emotional image attributes
in products or brand (Kim et al., 2002). Personal values have been found to be the
underlying determinants of various aspects of consumer attitude and behavior (Homer and
Kahle, 1988). Thus, values are one of the most important influential factors that affect the
type of needs consumer tries to satisfy through purchase and consumption behaviors (Tse et
al., 1989). Brand of a particular product plays a fundamental function in consumers
perception of a product.
It helps in developing a market position, prestige and image of the product and for these
reasons the brand constitutes a mechanism of risk reduction (Aaker, 1996). Hence, selection
of brand is another major constituent of consumer behavior. In the complex brand selection
environment, which exists today, there has been a widely reported research work which
discusses and reports that consumers defer product/ brand selection on a variety of factors
(Tversky and Shafir, 1992; and Dhar, 1997). In situations when consumers are unable to
defer the product choice decision, consumers may experience overload and anxiety at worst
or develop simplifying decision heuristics to help them make product choices (Swait and
Adamowicz, 2001) at best.
Observing the purchase behavior of unknown or known consumers (Park and Lessig, 1977)
is one such readily apparent heuristic. This helps in simplifying consumers decision-making
process by providing information that provides a source for consumers evaluations,
aspirations, and behavior (Park and Lessig, 1977). They have explained that consumers are
influenced by others mainly because of three reasons informational, utilitarian and value
expressiveness. The source of information is accepted by the consumer if it enhances his/her
knowledge of the environment or ability to cope up with some aspects of this environment
e.g., purchasing of product (Park and Lessig, 1977). This tendency, of consumers to observe
the purchase behavior of other consumers and to incorporate these observations while
making their own purchase decisions, is called as the consumers propensity to observe. It
consists of the direct observation of other consumers, the indirect observation of other
consumers or both.
Direct observation occurs by watching the actual purchase behavior of other consumers
(Price et al., 1989; and McGrath and Otnes, 1995) and indirect observation involves the
analysis of trace evidence of shopping behavior. An organization which embraces the
marketing concept tries to provide products that satisfy consumer needs through co-ordinated
sets of activities that also allow the organization to achieve its goals.
Table 2. Most Recalled Dairy Brands in Town of Pondicherry
Brands No. of Respondents Percentage of Respondents
Ponlait
75
75
Hatsun
08
08
Ruchi
06
06
Available online on www.abhinavjournal.com

68

Abhinav
International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In Management & Technology
Volume III, January14

ISSN 2320-0073

Table 2. Most Recalled Dairy Brands in Town of Pondicherry (Contd.)

Brands
Cavins
Amul
Others
Total

No. of Respondents
02
02
07
100

Percentage of Respondents
02
02
07
100

Based on the survey of 100 consumers of dairy products in the Pondicherry state, 75% of the
respondents were preferred the Ponlait followed by Hatsun, Ruchi, Cavins etc.
Table 3. Analysis of Ranking of Attributes by Respondents
Attributes
Product Quality
Product
Availability
Product
Pricing
Product Variety
Brand Image
Advertisement

Rank (Number of Respondents)

1
2
3
4
5
6
72
21
4
2
1
1
21
35
10 16
13
5
19
14
25
9
26
7
11
20
23 17
17
12
7
9
11 32
30
11
4
5
8
11
17
55

Total
Score
562
420
370
345
298
208

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6

Analysis of Ranking Given By Respondents Regarding Various Attributes

Which Influenced You to Buy the Dairy Products (Brand Preference)
(Using Weighted Average Method)

X W
1
6
2
5
3
4
4
3
5
2
6
1
Total
Cw
Rank

X1
72
20
4
2
1
1
100

WX1
432
105
16
6
2
1
562
5.62
1

X2
21
35
10
16
13
5
100

WX2
126
175
40
48
26
5
420
4.2
2

X3
19
14
25
9
26
7
100

WX3
114
70
100
27
52
7
370
3.7
3

X4
11
20
23
17
17
12
100

WX4
66
100
92
51
34
12
345
3.45
4

Advertising

Brand
Image

Product
Variety

Product
Pricing

Product
Availability

Product
Quality

Weight

Rank

Table 4

X5
7
9
11
32
30
11
100

WX5
42
45
44
96
60
11
298
2.98
5

X6
4
5
8
11
17
55
100

WX6
24
25
32
33
34
55
208
2.08
6

Source: Primary Data

Product Mix and Marketing Mix factors are some of the factors which influence Consumers
choose a Brand. The above Table 3 shows Ranking of the major reasons for choosing Dairy
Brands and it is observed that Rank 1 is assigned to Product Quality Rank 2 is assigned to
Available online on www.abhinavjournal.com

69

Abhinav
International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In Management & Technology
ISSN 2320-0073

Volume III, January14

Product Availability
Rank 3 is assigned to Product Pricing Rank 4 is assigned to Product
Variety Rank 5 is assigned to Brand Image Rank 6 is assigned to the Advertisement. Thus
we see that Quality, Availability and Pricing are among the top 3 reasons while advertising is
only ranked 6.
Consumers while purchase dairy products look for freshness, quality, taste and texture,
variety and convenience. Products like Dahi and sweets like Kheer, Basundi, Rabri are
perishable products with a shelf life of less than a day. These products are, therefore,
manufactured and sold by local milk and sweet shops. There are several such small shops
within the vicinity of residential areas. Consumer loyalty is built by consistent quality, taste
and freshness. There are several milk-based sweetmeat shops, which have built a strong
brand franchise and have several branches located in various parts of a city.
SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY
From the study it reveals that,

Many customers are using the Ponlait since it gives more usage with less cost

Even though Amul is very branded, the cost is very high

The customers prefer branded products based only on quality, availability, price,
variety, image then advertising

CONCLUSION
On the study of the Factors influencing Consumer buying behavior with special reference to
Dairy Products in Pondicherry State it was overall observed that Ponlait is the market leader
of dairy products in the town of Puducherry. Ponlait is not only the most highly recalled
brand but also a top rated among the other competitive brands like Hatsun, Ruchi, Cavins
Milk, Amul, etc. We observe that Product Quality, Availability and Pricing have been
regarded as major reasons (top 3 reasons) for preference of dairy brands.
In the scenario of the various dairy brands available in the market we can conclude that in
the town of Puducherry Ponlait is ranked 1 in Price, Taste, Quality, Availability and
Packaging. The next closest Competition is from Hatsun, Ruchi and other private brands.
However the data shows that Competition for Ponlait dairy products is very insignificant
while the competition in the other dairy segment like Ice-Cream, Ponlait is being pushed
down to Position 2 while Arun Ice Cream is the market leader in this product segment.
Further frequency and place choice for the purchase of dairy products will help the company
(Ponlait) to identify the right channels of distribution for its various dairy products. For
example: in the case of ice-cream Consumers Preference of place is Ice Parlors providing the
right ambience to enjoy their Ice-Creams. Further a Considerable amount of Brand
Switching behaviour is observed among the respondents in case of non-availability of their
favourite brands in their stores and also a Retailer role in influencing brand choice is
Considerable at this level.
REFERENCES
1. Aaker D A (1996), Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets, California
Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 102-120.

Available online on www.abhinavjournal.com

70

Abhinav
International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In Management & Technology
ISSN 2320-0073

Volume III, January14

2. Babin B J, Darden W R and Griffin M (1994), Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic
and Utilitarian Shopping Value, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.
644-656.
3. Bell R and Meiselman H (1995), The Role of Eating Environments in Determining
Food Choice, in Marshall D W (Ed.), Food Choice and the Consumer, pp. 292-310,
Chapman and Hall, London.
4. Bettman J R (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
5. Daniel S J, Reitsperger W D and Gregson T (1995), Quality Consciousness in Japanese
and US 70 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. IX, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010
6. Electronics Manufacturers: An Examination of the Impact of Quality Strategy and
Management Control Systems on Perceptions of the Importance of Quality to Expected
Management Rewards, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 367-382.
7. Dhar R (1997), Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 215-31.
8. Dibb S, Simkin L, Pride W M and Ferrell O C (1994), Marketing Concepts and
Strategies, 2nd European Edition, Houghton Mifflin, Boston and London.
9. Doherty B and Tranchell S (2007), Radical Mainstreaming of Fairtrade: The Case of
The Day Chocolate Company, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp.
693-711.
10. Faber R J and OGuinn T C (1989a), Classifying Compulsive Consumers: Advances in
the Development of a Diagnostic Tool, in Srull T K (Ed.), Advances in Consumers
Research, Vol. 16, pp. 738-744, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, Utah, USA.
11. Faber R J and OGuinn T C (1989b), Methodological Considerations of the Clinical
Depth Interview, Paper Presented at the American Marketing Association Winter
Educators Conference, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA.
12. Faber R J and OGuinn T C (1992), A Clinical Screener for Compulsive Buying,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, December, pp. 459-69.
13. Flynn B B, Schroeder R G and Sakakibara S (1994), A Framework for Quality
Management Research and an Associated Measurement Instrument, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 339-366.
14. Flynn B B, Schroeder R G and Sakakibara S (1995), The Impact of Quality
Management Practices on Performance and Competitive Advantage, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 659-691.
15. Frewer L J and van Trijp H (Eds.) (2007), Understanding Consumers of Food Products,
Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press, Cambridge.
16. Furst T, Connors M, Bisogni C A et al. (1996), Food Choice: A Conceptual Model of
the Process, Appetite, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 247-266.
17. Grunert K G (2005), Food Quality and Safety: Consumer Perception and Demand,
European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 369-391.
18. Homer P and Kahle L R (1988), A Structural Equation Test of the Value-AttitudeBehavior Hierarchy, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp.
638-646.

Available online on www.abhinavjournal.com

71

Abhinav
International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In Management & Technology
ISSN 2320-0073

Volume III, January14

19. Hoogland C T, de Boer J and Boersema J J (2005), Transparency of the Meat Chain in
Light of Food Culture and History, Appetite, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 15-23.
20. Johansson J K and Moinpour R (1977), Objective and Perceived Similarity of Pacific
Rim Countries, Identification of Secondary Factors that Influence Consumers Buying
Behavior 71 for Soaps and Chocolates Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 11,
Winter, pp. 65-76.
21. Kim J-O, Forsythe S, Gu Q and Moon S J (2002), Cross-Cultural Consumers Values
Need and Purchase Behavior, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 481502.
22. Lennernas M, Fjellstrom C, Becker W et al. (1997), Influences on Food Choice
Perceived to be Important by Nationally Representative Samples of Adults in the
European Union, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. S8-S15.
23. McGrath M A and Otnes C (1995), Unacquainted Influencer: When Strangers Interact
in the Retail Setting, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 261-622.
24. Nelson P (1970), Information and Consumer Behavior, Journal of Political Economy,
Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 51-57.
25. Overby J W, Gardial S F and Woodruff R B (2004), French Versus American
Consumers Attachment of Value to a Product in a Common Consumption Context: A
Cross-National Comparison, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32,
No. 4, pp. 437-460.
26. Park C W and Lessig V P (1977), Students and Housewives: Differences in
Susceptibility to Reference Group Influence, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4,
No. 4, pp. 102-110.
27. Powell D A, Blaine K, Morris S and Wilson J (2003), Agronomic and Consumer
Considerations for Bt and Conventional Sweet-Corn, British Food Journal, Vol. 105,
No. 10, pp. 700-713.
28. Price L L, Feick L F and Higie R A (1989), Preference Heterogeneity and Coorientation as Determinants of Perceived Informational Influence, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 227-242.
29. Richins M L and Bloch P H (1986), After the New Wears Off: The Temporal Context
of Product Involvement, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 280-285.
30. Rook D W and Fisher R J (1995), Normative Influences on Impulse Buying Behavior,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 305-313.
31. Rowley J (1997), Focusing on Customers, Library Review,Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 81-89,
MCB University, UK.
32. Rozin P (2007), Food Choice: An Introduction, in Frewer L J and van Trijp H (Eds.),
Understanding Consumers of Food Products, pp. 3-29, Woodhead Publishing, CRC
Press, Cambridge.
33. Rozin P and Tuorila H (1993), Simultaneous and Temporal Contextual Influences on
Food Acceptance, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 4, Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 11-20.
34. Shepherd R and Raats M M (2007), The Psychology of Food Choice, CABI Publishing,
Wallingford, UK.

Available online on www.abhinavjournal.com

72

Abhinav
International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In Management & Technology
ISSN 2320-0073

Volume III, January14

35. Shukla P (2004), Effects of Product Usage, Satisfaction and Involvement on Brand
Switching Behavior, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 16, No. 4,
pp. 82-104. 72 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. IX, Nos. 1 & 2, 2010
36. Swait J and Adamowicz W (2001), The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer
Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 135-148.
37. Szymanski D M and Hernard D H (2001), Customer Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of
the Empirical Evidence, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29, No. 1,
pp. 16-35.
38. Tse D K, Belk R W and Zhou N (1989), Becoming a Consumer Society: A
Longitudinal and Cross-Cultural Content Analysis of Print Advertisements from Hong
Kong, the Peoples Republic of China, and Taiwan, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 457-472.
39. Tversky A and Shafir E (1992), Choice Under Conflict: the Dynamics of Deferred
Decision, Psychological Science, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 358-361.
40. Underwood R L and Klein N M (2002), Packaging as Brand Communication: Effects of
Product Pictures on Consumer Responses to the Package and Brand, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 58-68.
41. Underwood R L, Klein N M and Burke R (2001), Packaging Communication:
Attentional Effects of Product Imagery, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 10, No. 7, pp. 403-422.
42. Vreeland C C (2000), Organic Chocolate Market Skyrockets, Candy Industry, Vol.
166, No. 10, pp. 51-56.
43. Vrontis Demetris and Vignali Claudio (2001), Case Study: A Market Investigation of
the Situational Environment, British Food Journal, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 291-296.
44. Wood Lisa (2007), Functional and Symbolic Attributes of Product Selection, British
Food Journal, Vol. 109, No. 2, pp. 108-118.
45. Youn S and Faber R J (2000), Impulsive Buying: Its Relation to Personality Traits and
Cues, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 179-185, Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, Utah,USA

Available online on www.abhinavjournal.com

73