International Bulletin of Business Administration ISSN: 1451-243X Issue 10 (2011) EuroJournals, Inc. 2011 http://www.eurojournals.

com

The Consumer Decision Making Styles of Mobile Phones among the University Level Students in Jordan
Ziad Moh'd Ali Smadi Al-al-Bayt University , Faculty of Business & Finance Department of Business Administration - Assistant Professor E-mail: ziad34@hotmail.com Bahjat Eid Al-jawazneh Al-al-Bayt University , Faculty of Business & Finance Department of Business Administration - Assistant Professor E-mail: jawazneh9@yahoo.com Abstract This paper aims to identify the decision-making styles of university level students in Jordan, specifically the research sought to identify the purchasing decision styles among the university level students in Jordan, with a main hypothesis that states, the university level students in Jordan do not have a certain a decision making style when purchasing a mobile phone, the researchers applied a tested research instrument of (Sproles & Kendall, 1986) to measure the consumer decision making style. A simple random sampling technique was utilized, thus 390 questionnaires have been distributed to different Jordanian university students in national capital region of Jordan where many public and private universities are located, the findings revealed that the university level students in Jordan follow a decision making style that is characterized by being perfectionist, brand conscious, price conscious, Impulsive, confused by over choice, and brand-loyal consumer. Besides it concluded that, male and female university students in Jordan, do have some differences in their choices and the way they decide when they buy a mobile phone. Keywords: Consumer behavior, Decision making styles, University students, Mobile phones, Jordan

1. Introduction
Consumer decision making styles have become an interesting area that poses a challenge to marketers, researchers and practitioners, but unfortunately there are very few published studies in Jordan as far as the researchers know, covering this important area of interest. Consumer decision-making is defined as the behavioral patterns of consumers that proceed, determine and follow the decision making process for the acquisition of need satisfying products, ideas or services (Zeithaml, 1988; Levy, 1999).. Jordan is a country that opened its arm to globalization which is manifested by its liberal trade policies and its openness to all forms of information and media communication which in return made a reshape to its culture and Jordanian consumer behavior, thus a study of this kind will enlighten marketers in Jordan on how to make a fit between their customers environment and marketing strategies. 104

Based on individual mental orientations, each consumer develops and practices this decisionmaking process in different ways which have been characterized as decision making styles (Sproles & Kendall,1986). It is becoming so important for marketers all over the world to know how young consumers decide which particular product, brand or service to purchase. The consumer buying behavior is becoming an important research area that has an effect on the marketing process of the firm because it is ability to establish and maintain satisfying exchange relationships requires an understanding of buying behavior. Buying behavior is the decision processes and acts of people involved in buying and using product. Many previous studies focused mainly on the decision making process, but (Sproles, 1979) argues that consumers may sometimes typically rely on simple strategies, rather than going through a series of steps or processes rationally when they made purchase decisions. This is why (Sproles and Kendall 1986) pioneered to research on consumer decision-making processes by classifying consumers into different decision-making styles To develop an effective marketing strategy companies must pay more attention to consumers and study their decision-making process. Understanding buying-related decision-making styles of consumers is important for companies strategic marketing activities, and effective communication with the youth segment can be helped by understanding the psychological processes that affect their behavior. However, in the rapidly changing competitive environment with over choice due to increase in the number and variety of goods and retail outlets, excessive marketing communications that provide an abundance of information, much of it with mixed messages, sophisticated and complex products, decreasing inter-brand differences, and increasing counterfeiting and look alike products, some consumers feel overwhelmed and find it difficult to decide (Hafstrom, Chae and Chae,1992; Walsh, Mitchell and Henning-Thurau, 2001a).

2. Related Literature and Studies

Some researchers have advised that consumers are value driven (Zeithaml, 1988; Levy, 1999). In the extant consumer behavior literature, most studies assume that all consumers approach shopping with certain decision-making traits that combine to form a consumers decision-making style (Walsh, Mitchell & Henning-Thurau, 2001). (Sproles and Kendall 1986) developed the Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) to determine the basic characteristics of consumer decision-making styles. The CSI has eight dimensions: 1) Perfectionist, high-quality conscious consumer a characteristic measuring the degree to which a consumer searches carefully and systematically for the best quality in products 2) Brand conscious, price equals quality consumer measuring a consumers orientation to buying the more expensive, well-known brands 3) Novelty-fashion conscious consumer a characteristic identifying consumers who appear to like new and innovative products and gain excitement from seeking out new things 4) Recreational, hedonistic consumer a characteristic measuring the degree to which a consumer finds shopping a pleasant activity and shops just for the fun of it 5) Price conscious, value-for-money consumer a characteristic identifying those with particularly high consciousness of sale prices and lower prices in general 6) Impulsive, careless consumer identifying those who tend to buy on the spur of the moment and appear unconcerned how much they spend or getting best buys 7) Confused by over choice consumer a characteristic identifying those consumers who perceive too many brands and stores from which to choose, experiencing information overload in the market 8) Habitual, brand-loyal consumer a characteristic indicating consumers who have favorite brands and stores, who have formed habits in choosing these repetitively. 105

(Sproles and Kendall1986) confirmed consumer characteristics specifically related to consumer decision-making as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Consumer decision-making style. (Sproles & Kendall, 1986)
Consumer decision making styles

Psychographic life style

Consumer Typology

Consumer characteristics

The CSI is considered an effective instrument to assist marketers in studying consumer decision making styles (Walsh et al, 2001). The CSI has been tested using various nationalities - Americans, Koreans, Chinese, Indians and Germans (Fan & Xiao,1998; Hafstrom et al, 1992; Lyonski et al, 1996; Walsh et al, 2001) in an attempt to get a better understanding of consumer decision-making processes within different cultures. (Mitchell and Walsh 2004) made a comparison between the decision-making styles of male and female shoppers in Germany. The researchers confirmed the construct validity of all eight CSI factors for female shoppers and four of the factors for male shoppers. They concluded that male individuals were slightly less likely to be perfectionists, somewhat less novelty and fashion conscious, and less likely to be confused when making purchases than their female counterparts. The sheer magnitude of this group of young generation has had a profound impact on current business because members of this generation 'love to shop' (Taylor and Cosenza 2002) An increasing number of males are doing grocery shopping; males tend to spend less per shopping activity and spend less time in the store. Family income is another constraint to search behavior. Households with less income are more likely to spend less time on shopping (Davies and Bell 1991). (Slama and Tashchian 1985) concluded that purchase involvement and search behavior are linked to demographic characteristics of the consumer and their household. They asserted that females are more highly involved and there is greater involvement when there are children at home. In addition to that, they suggest other factors such as marital status, age, education and income of the consumer are closely related to purchase involvement and search. A research on decision making styles of young Turkish consumers found that young Turkish consumers rated quality of the product as the most influential factor on their decision making, followed by time (perceiving shopping as an enjoyable activity), price, brand, and finally, information utilisation/ confusion by choice. There were significant differences between male students and female students to some of the factor items (Gnen, E. & zmete,E.,2006). Another study investigated the differing approaches of male and female Malaysian consumers toward shopping and buying activities concluded that, six of eight male factors and nine female factors were similar for both males and females: quality consciousness, brand consciousness, fashion consciousness, confused by over choice, satisfying and value seeking ( Mokhlis, S.& Salleh, H.,2009). (Laetitia et al, 2006) studied Decision-Making Styles of Young Chinese, Motswana and Caucasian Consumers in South Africa and found that although students from all three different cultural groups seemed to be perfectionist shoppers, Chinese students are typically habitual shoppers, while Motswana students are image and quality-conscious and Caucasians are price-conscious. In their research on The influence of Internet shopping mall characteristics and user traits on purchase intent , (Kim and Shim 2002) found that around 40 percent of shoppers classified themselves as sophisticated quality shoppers, on the other hand Brand conscious shoppers believe that these types of international brands result in better quality. Brand influences have been found to be a critical factor in consumer purchasing processes (Cleaver, 1985; Sproles & Kendall, 1986) 106

Researchers emphasize fashion as an important factor in consumer decision-making (Gutman & Mills, 1982; Kim & Shim, 2002; Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Negative psychological aspects influence consumers processing of persuasive messages, and persuasive messages usually produce negative moods when consumers are struggling with negative emotions (Bless & Forgas, 2000). In their research on Profiling the recreational shopper (Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980) found that around 70 percent of consumers enjoy shopping in their leisure time. After they examined the nature of retail recreational shopping, they also found that recreational shoppers were actively involved in information collection and participated in a greater amount of impulsive purchasing. During the individual decision-making process, the price conscious shopper may consider the greatest value at the lowest price. (Janiszewski and Lichtenstein,1999) found that if all product options were at the same benefit level, consumers would buy the lowest priced alternative According t (Beatty and Ferrell,1998), the consumers positive moods influence shopping enjoyment and purchasing decisions, in addition to that store attractiveness keeps many consumers coming back to the same store. How consumers view store image has long been considered an important part of consumer decision-making (Baker et al., 1992).

3. Statement of the Problem

The higher education system in Jordan has evolved considerably in the past five years. In years between 2000/2001 and 2006/2007, Jordan has seen an increased demand for higher education with enrollments growing at an annual rate of 14 percent from 77,841 to 218,900students (world bank,2009), that makes the university students a hot market segment for researches. Aside from what is mentioned above the university students market segment is faced with an endless array of choices especially when it comes to mobile phones, the gadget that they cannot live without, and characterized by the willingness of its consumers to spend on it. However, little research has been conducted to better understand this group of consumers decision making styles; hence this study sought an answer for the following problems: 1. What are the most dominant purchasing decision making styles among Jordanian university students. 2. What is the ranking of these styles in terms of their practice. 3. Is their any difference in the respondents decision making styles pertains to gender.

4. Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study is to identify the decision-making styles among university level students in Jordan, specifically the research sought to: 1. Identify the purchasing decision styles among the university level students in Jordan. 2. Rank these purchasing decision making styles in terms of their importance 3. Find out if respondents purchasing decision making styles differ for gender related reasons

107

Figure 2: Research Model

Perfectionist Brand conscious Fashion conscious Price conscious

Impulsiveness/careless conscious
Confusion by over choice conscious

Consumer Decision making styles

Habit/brand loyalty conscious The decision making styles Adapted from (Sproles & Kendall, 1986)

5. Research Hypothesis
Based on the research model (Fig. 2) the researchers were able to formulate the following hypothesis: The first main null hypothesis: H0: The university level students in Jordan do not follow a certain a purchasing decision making style when purchasing a mobile phone. From the main hypothesis the researchers derived the following sub- hypothesis; H01. The university level students in Jordan are not a Perfectionist when they purchase a mobile phone. H02. The university level students in Jordan are not a Brand conscious when it comes to a mobile phone. H03. The university level students in Jordan are not a fashion conscious when it comes to a mobile phone. H04. The university level students in Jordan are not a price conscious when they want to buy a mobile phone. H05. The university level students in Jordan are not impulsiveness/careless conscious in their mobile phone purchasing decision making style. H06. The university level students in Jordan are not Confused by over choice conscious in a purchasing decision making style. H07. The university level students in Jordan are not a Habit/brand loyalty conscious in their purchasing decision making style. The second main null hypothesis: H0.2. There is no significant difference between Jordanian male and female university students in relation to their purchasing decision making style. The third main null hypothesis: H0.3. There are no significant differences among the answers of the respondents pertain to their demographic profile.

6. Research Methodology
A descriptive and analytical methods have been utilized in this study, in addition to that the researchers applied a tested research instrument of (Sproles & Kendall, 1986) to measure the consumer decision making style of the university level students in Jordan, that instrument is capable of measuring such a

108

style since it is universal in its approach, according to some practitioners and academicians in Jordan whom the researchers consulted during the preparation phase of the research, the instrument is composed of the two parts: The first Part covers the demographic profile of the respondent while the second part includes the consumer decision making styles. Nominal scale was used to get the answers of the respondents on their demographic profile, while likert scale was used to allow respondents to rate their purchasing styles, which is ranging from strongly agree as the highest and strongly disagree as the lowest.

6.1. Population and Sample of the Study

A simple random sampling technique was utilized, thus 390 questionnaires have been distributed to different Jordanian university students in national capital region of Jordan where many public and private universities are located and offer all kinds of courses, and 358 or (91.7%) of the questionnaires were retrieved, 17 or (4.3%) of which were excluded for not meeting validation requirements, hence 341 or (about 87.4%) of the questionnaires were valid for analysis.

6.2. Data Collection Method

The researchers relied on a secondary source of data such as references and published researches in the field of consumer behaviors, which contributed to the development of the theoretical framework and let researchers gain more deep understanding on the topic. In addition to that Primary data were also obtained through the main instrument which is a tested questionnaire.

6.3. Statistical Treatment

Several statistical techniques have been applied in this study such as; 1. Descriptive analysis such as: Averages and standard deviations. 2. One sample t- test was used to test the main hypothesis. 3. Analysis of variance one way ANOVA was used to test the hypothesis regarding the sex, educations, position, experience, activity, aside from that, Post Hoc multiple comparisons Scheffe was also utilized. 4. Pearson correlation was used to measure the inter-correlation between the different decision making styles For the sake of discussion and interpretation of results of the study, the researchers relied on the following equation to compute the range: Range= (the highest average value- the lowest average value) / (number of levels): (5-1)/ (3) =1.33 Therefore the results will be as the following: 1. If the range of answers is between (1- 2.33), it represents a week average response rate. 2. If the range of answers is between (2.34- 3.67), it represents a medium average response rate. 3. If the range of responses is more than (3.68), it would be of high average response rate.

7. Data Presentation, Findings and Discussion

7.1. Analysis of the Demographics Research Sample as Shown in Table (1) and Discussed below the Table

109

Table 1:
Variable Sex Age

Distribution of the sample of the study

Category male female Less than 18 18- less than 22 22- less than 26 26 & above Government Private Lower than 2ed. year above 2ed. year city town single married Employed unemployed Less than 300 a years 300 to less than 500 500 to less than 700 more than 700 High school or less Bachelor Master & above High school or less Bachelor Master & above Less than 4JD 4JDto less than 8JD 8 to less than 12 more than 12 Frequency 151 190 20 198 78 45 203 138 112 229 224 117 314 27 79 262 94 117 70 60 151 138 52 233 93 15 162 128 27 24 Percentage 44.3 55.7 5.9 58.1 22.9 13.2 49.5 40.5 32.8 67.2 65.7 34.3 92.1 7.9 23.2 76.8 27.6 34.3 20.5 17.6 44.3 40.5 15.2 68.3 27.3 4.4 47.5 37.5 7.9 7

University Current academic year Living place Marital status Employment status Father salary

Father status of education Mother status of education Daily allowance

Table (1) shows that most of the study respondents were female with a percentage of (55.7%) and that is probably due to the fact that males and females are given equal opportunities to enter the higher education institutions in Jordan. The table also shows the age bracket of the respondents is from 18 to 22 years old with a percentage of (58.1%) which is believed to be the right age for university level students, it is also shown above that, 49.5% of the respondents belong to public universities while the rest of the respondents are from private universities, because public universities in Jordan prioritize deserving students who get high score in the high school achievement exam(Tawjehi) while the rest will be forced to choose between local private universities or studying abroad. Most of the study respondents are in their second year and above with a percentage of 67.2%), and that helped researchers obtain more reliable responses , more ever most of the respondents are living in a city with a percentage of (65.7%) since most of the universities which were surveyed in this research are located in Amman the capital city of Jordan, most of them was a single not married with a percentage of 92.1%), and mostly unemployed with a percentage of (76.8%), and that is due to the limited Job opportunities offered to them on part time basis.

7.2. Analysis of the Coefficient of Internal Consistency, the Table (2) Shows the Analysis Regarding the Internal Consistency

110

Table 2:

Coefficient of internal consistency

N of Cases 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 N of Items 5 6 5 3 5 4 3 .778 Alpha .865 .627 .842 .687 .637 .744 .703

Factors 1- Perfectionist high quality consumer 2- Brand conscious 3- Novelty fashion conscious 4- Price conscious 5- Impulsive, careless consumer 6- Confused by over choice consumer 7- brand loyal customers Reliability for all

Table (2) shows the values of coefficient of internal consistency of all variables of the consumer decision making styles, with a result of 77.8% which is acceptable since it is more than the minimum required percentage which is 60% for social science researches (Cronbach,1951).

7.3. Presentation of Findings and Discussion of Results 7.3.1. Answering the First and the Second Main Problem of the Research 1. What are the most dominant purchasing decision making styles among Jordanian university students?. 2. What is the ranking of these styles in terms of their practice? The answers of these two questions are shown in table (3)
Table 3:
Descriptive Statistics for all consumer decision making styles
N 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 Mean 3.544 3.538 3.250 3.239 3.183 3.001 2.956 3.244 Std. Deviation .920 .865 .946 .771 .9220 1.04 .882 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FACTORS Perfectionist high quality consumer Price conscious Brand loyal customers Impulsive, careless consumer Confused by over choice consumer Brand conscious Novelty fashion conscious Total average

The table above shows that the university level students in Jordan are perfectionist high quality consumers, this is true to high technology products such as mobile phones because consumers pay more attention to quality related factors than others, followed by being a price conscious, since having value product is a matter of relationship between quality and price, but putting less emphasis to looks and appearance lead respondents to give the least rating to being Novelty fashion conscious, such result is similar to the finding of (Hafstrom, Chae and Chung,1992), who used the CSI to identify the decision-making styles of Korean students and they confirmed novelty fashion consciousness was the least present among respondents. Testing the first main Null Hypothesis H0: The university level students in Jordan do not follow a certain purchasing decision making style. In order to prove this hypothesis the one sample ttest was used as shown in the table below
Table 4:
One sample (t) test for testing the first main Null Hypothesis
t Consumer decision 9.822 making styles .05 Test Value = 3 df 340 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Mean Difference .24459 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper .1956 .2936

111

It shows above that the T-value is 9.822, which is less than the tabulated t-value (1.96) with significance level ( 0.000) which is less than .05 , therefore based on this result the first main null hypothesis is rejected and an alternative hypothesis is accepted, that is the university level students in Jordan follow a decision making style, similar result was also confirmed by (Walsh, Mitchell & Henning-Thurau, 2001).

The First Sub Problem

Table 5:
Q 1 2 3 4 5

The first sub- problem

N 341 341 341 341 341 Mean 3.52 3.33 3.63 3.75 3.49 Std. Deviation 1.167 1.202 1.137 1.002 1.185 3.544 Rank 3 5 2 1 4

Perfectionist high quality consumer Getting very good quality is very important to me. When it comes to purchasing of Mobile, I try to get the very best or perfect choice. I make special effort to choose the very best quality of Mobile. My standards and expectations for Mobile that I buy are very high In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality. Total average

The Table above illustrates that the overall average is (3.544), which indicates a medium acceptance rating among the respondents of the study. It is also important to point out that the item that got the highest rating is related to the standards and expectations for Mobile that students buy are very high, that is normal for a product which is characterized by short life cycle and survives in an unstable environment, followed by I make special effort to choose the very best quality of Mobile and that requires enough time for making comparisons between the competing available brands, but the lowest in rating is, students try to get the very best or perfect choice, these findings agree with what (Gnen, E. & zmete,E.,2006) arrived at.

Testing the First Sub-Hypothesis H0 1

Table 6:
One sample (t) test for testing the first sub-hypothesis H0 1
t df Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 Mean Difference .544 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper .446 .642

H1 10.93 340 .05 Test Value = 3

The table shows that the first sub-hypothesis is rejected because the t- value is more than the tabulated (t) (10.93 > 1.96 ) and under the significance level of ( .05), therefore the alternative hypothesis(H1) was accepted, thus university level students in Jordan are perfectionist when buying mobile phones.

The Second Sub-Problem

Table 7:
Q 1 2 3 4 5 6

The second sub-problem

Brand conscious The well-known international brand of Mobile is best for me. The more expensive brand of Mobile is usually my choices. The higher price of Mobile, the better its quality. Nice department and specially stores offer me the best brand of Mobile. I prefer buying the best-selling brand of Mobile. The most advertised brand of Mobile is usually very good choices for me. Total average N 341 341 341 341 341 341 Mean 4.08 2.57 3.01 3.09 2.61 2.65 Std. Deviation 1.285 1.170 1.571 1.282 1.172 1.212 3.001 Rank 1 6 3 2 5 4

112

Table no. (7) shows a low medium acceptance rating among the respondents of the study on brand conscious, in spite of that, most of the respondents see the well-known international brand of Mobile as the best for them, perhaps because of the good reputation of the well known international brands in terms of quality, yet others still find nice department and specially stores offer them the best brand of Mobile, but the lowest rating goes to question related to, the more expensive brand of Mobile is usually their good choice with an average of (2.57) which represents a low response rate.

Testing the Second Sub-Hypothesis: H0 2

Table 8:
T

One sample (t) test for testing the second sub-hypothesis

df Sig. (2-tailed) .986 Mean Difference ..001 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -.1114 .1113

H2 .017 340 .05 Test Value = 3

It is shown in the table above that the second sub-hypothesis was accepted, because the t- value is less than the tabulated t- ( .017 < 1.96), and under the significance level of ( .05), so there is no alternative hypothesis is formulated, it means that the Jordanian male and female university students are not a brand conscious in a purchasing decision making style which is contradictory to the results of (Cleaver, 1985; Sproles & Kendall, 1986) research which is brand influences have been found to be a critical factor in consumer purchasing processes.

The Third Sub Problem

Table 9:
Q 1 2 3 4 5

The third sub problem

N 341 341 341 341 341 Mean 2.76 2.60 3.44 2.58 3.40 Std. Deviation 1.413 1.331 1.249 1.287 1.286 2.956 Rank 3 4 1 5 2

Fashion conscious I usually have one or more phone of the very newest style. I keep my phone up to date with the changing technology. Attractive design is very important for me. To get variety, I shop different stores and choose different brand of Mobile. Its fun to buy new and exciting Mobile. Total average

Table (9) illustrates that the overall average for fashion consciousness style is the lowest in rating among the rest of consumer decision making styles, that is normal for technology intensive products where consumers base their purchasing decision on features and product specifications rather than design and appearance, followed by an item related to It is fun to buy new and exciting Mobile, which is normal reaction for those who belong to that age bracket. But the lowest rating went to item, I keep my phone up-to-date with the changing designs, with an average of (2.60), and item related to, I shop different stores and choose different brand of Mobile.

Testing the Third Sub Hypothesis

Table 10: One sample (t) test for testing the third sub hypothesis
t df Sig. (2-tailed) .430 Mean Difference -.0439995% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -.1536.0656

H3 -.789340 .05 Test Value = 3

113

Table (10) shows that H03 was accepted because the t- value was lower than the tabulated-t-( .789 <1.96) under the significance level of ( .05), there for is no need for alternative hypothesis to be formulated ), so Jordanian male and female university students are not a fashion and design conscious, hence it is much related to ( Mitchell and Walsh 2004) findings.

The Fourth Sub Problem

Table 11: the fourth sub problem
Q 1 2 3 Price conscious I buy as much as possible at discount prices. The lower prices of Mobile are usually my choice. I look carefully to find the best value for the money. Total average N 341 341 341 Mean 3.63 3.19 3.80 Std. Deviation 1.081 1.131 1.098 3.538 Rank 2 3 1

It is shown above that the level of price consciousness among respondents of this study got an upper middle response rate, the highest response rate is for the item related to, "I look carefully to find the best value for the money", and the rest of the items got almost the same degree of rating.

Testing the Forth sub-Hypothesis: H0-4

Table 12: One sample (t) test for testing the fourth sub hypothesis
t H4 11.496 .05 Test Value = 3 df 340 Sig. (2-tailed) .00 Mean Difference .5386 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper .4465 .6308

The table shows that the forth sub-hypothesis was rejected because the t- value is more than the tabulated t- (11.496 > 1.96 ) and under the significance level of ( .05), therefore the alternative hypothesis(H1) was accepted, which means that university students are a price conscious in their decision making style, and this is relevant to the finding of ( Laetitia et al, 2006).

Sub Problem No.5

Table 13: Sub problem no.5
Q 1 2 3 4 5 Impulsive, careless consumer I should plan my shopping for Mobile more carefully than I do. I am impulsive when purchasing Mobile. I often make careless purchases of Mobile and I later wish I had not. I take the time to shop carefully for getting the best Mobile. I carefully watch how much I spend for buying Mobile. Total average N 341 341 341 341 341 Mean 3.32 2.78 2.77 3.57 3.75 3.239 Std. Dev. 1.213 1.367 1.2317 1.087 1.124 Rank 3 4 5 2 1

It is obvious in the table that university level students in Jordan do not plan their shopping for mobile phone to a certain extent, because the overall average for all items concerning the item related to impulsive, careless consumer, got a medium response rate, The highest rating went to item, "I carefully watch how much I spend for buying Mobile" with an average of (3.75), next to it "I take the time to shop carefully for getting the best Mobile, with an average of (3.57)", while the least rating was given to item " I often make careless purchases of Mobile and I later wish I had not" 114

Testing the Fifth Sub-Hypothesis H0 5.

Table 14: One sample (t) test for testing g the fifth sub-hypothesis
t df Sig. (2-tailed) .00 Mean Difference .23871 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper .1565 .3209

H5 5.711 340 .05 Test Value = 3

According to the table above, the fifth sub-hypothesis was rejected because the t- value was more than the tabulated t- (5.711> 1.96 ) under the significance level of ( 05), therefore an alternative hypothesis was confirmed, which means university level students in Jordan are Impulsiveness/careless conscious in their decision making style.

Sub Problem No.6

Table 15: Sub problem no. 6
Q. 1 2 3 4 Confused by over choice consumer There are so many brands of Mobile, and I often feel confused. Sometimes its hard to choose which stores to shop. The more I learn about Mobile, the harder it seems to choose the best. All the information I get on different Mobile confuses me. Total average N 341 341 341 341 Mean 3.50 3.21 3.02 3.01 Std. Deviation 1.248 1.114 1.274 1.264 3.183 Rank 1 2 3 4

It is illustrated above that the, overall average for all items concerning the factor (Confused by over choice consume) got the highest rating but it is still considered a medium response rate, the highest rating went to the item "there are so many brands of Mobile, and I often feel confused", with an average of (3.50), this due to the stiff competition among the manufacturing companies that lead to the production of so many types and models of mobile phones which at the end look similar in features and appearance , the next in rating is the question related to item "sometimes its hard to choose which stores to shop" , that is also what ( Mokhlis, S.& Salleh, H.,2009) concluded in their research about the Malaysian consumers approach toward shopping activities.

Testing the Sixth Sub Hypothesis

Table 16: one sample (t) test for testing the sixth hypothesis
t df Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Mean Difference .18328 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper .0851 .2815

H6 3.671 340 .05 Test Value = 3

It is shown above that the sixth sub-hypothesis was rejected because the t- value is more than the tabulated t- (3.671> 1.96 ) and under the significance level of ( .05), therefore the alternative hypothesis(H1) was accepted, which means Jordanian university students,are confused by over choice conscious in a purchasing decision making style.

Sub Problem No.7

115

Table 17: Sub problem no.7

Q. 1. 2 3. Brand loyal customers I have favorite brand of Mobile that I buy over and over. Once I find suitable brand of Mobile that I like, I stick with it. I go to the same stores each time I shop. Total average N 341 341 341 Mean 3.59 3.34 2.83 Std. Deviation 1.187 1.159 1.238 3.35 Rank 1 2 3

The overall average for all items concerning the item "brand loyal customers" was (3.35) which is a medium response rate. The highest rating went to item "I have favorite brand of Mobile that I buy over and over", with an average of (3.59), this is normal for mobile phones products because some brands seem to be more user friendly than the others, therefore consumers find it hard to pass through new learning and adaption process, and that is what also made the item "Once I find suitable brand of Mobile that I like, I stick with it" to be the next in rating.

Testing the seventh sub-hypothesis

Table 18: One sample (t) test for testing the seventh sub hypothesis
t df Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Mean Difference .25024 95%Confidence Interval of the Difference (lower) (upper) .1495 .3510

h7 4.884 340 .05 Test Value = 3

The table above shows that the seventh sub-hypothesis was rejected because the t- value is more than the tabulated t- (4.884 > 1.96 ) and under the significance level of ( .05), therefore the alternative hypothesis(H1) was accepted, which means Jordanian university students are, a Habit/brand loyalty conscious in a purchasing decision making style, brand influences have been found to be a critical factor in consumer purchasing processes (Cleaver, 1985; Sproles & Kendall, 1986)

7.3.2. Answering the Third Main Problem Is their any difference in the respondents decision making styles pertains to gender. In order to answer the third question, the following hypothesis was formulated The second main Null Hypothesis: H0: 2- The Jordanian male and female university students differ in their purchasing decision making style. In order to prove this hypothesis the Independent T-test was used.
Table 19: Independent sample t-test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances Decision making styles Perfectionist high quality consumer Brand conscious Novelty fashion conscious Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed F 4.477 Sig. .035 t -1.160-1.1492.840 .093 .777 .743 .261 .610 .661 .665 T- test for Equality of Means df 339 309.052 339 249.970 339 329.276 Sig. (2-tailed) .247 .251 .438 .458 .509 .506 Mean Difference -.11632-.11632.08937 .08937 .07419 .07419 Std. Error Difference .10025 .10119 .11504 .12024 .11229 .11153

116

Table 19: Independent sample t-test - continued

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances Impulsive, assumed careless Equal variances not consumer assumed Equal variances Confused by assumed over choice Equal variances not consumer assumed Equal variances brand loyal assumed customers Equal variances not assumed Equal variances On overall All assumed averages Equal variances not assumed .05 Price conscious .799 .372 2.584 2.604 .105 .746 .897 .899 28.295 .000 -4.487-4.305.406 .524 -1.012-1.020.065 .800 -.509-.510339 330.268 339 323.745 339 254.587 339 329.988 339 323.911 .010 .010 .370 .369 .000 .000 .312 .308 .611 .610 .24171 .24171 .07553 .07553 -.43889-.43889-.10444-.10444-.02555-.02555.09355 .09282 .08417 .08403 .09781 .10195 .10316 .10238 .05019 .05010

The table above shows the overall test of all decision making styles revealed that, the sig. level was (0.611> .05) and the t value was (0.509) which is also less than the tabulated value 1.96 (0.509<1.96), therefore the second main null hypothesis is accepted which confirms that the male & female students they do have some differences in their choices, though ( Mokhlis, S.& Salleh, H.,2009) concluded that, six of eight male factors and nine female factors were similar for both males and females: quality consciousness, brand consciousness, fashion consciousness, confused by over choice, satisfying and value seeking. It is also necessary to point out the only style where there is no differences between males and females is, confused by over choice consumer decision making style, that is because it is F value was the highest (28.295) plus its mean difference value was also the highest (.4389), while the rest of the mean values for other factors is low.

7.3.3. The Third Main Null Hypothesis H0: 2- There is No Significant Difference among the Answers of the Respondents Pertains to their Demographic Profile. In order to prove or reject this hypothesis one way ANOVA was used which is shown in the table No. (20) Below
Table 20: ANOVA
Sum of Squares 503.990 43.500 547.490 190.265 23.500 213.765 74.885 9.250 84.135 df 275 65 340 275 65 340 275 65 340 Mean Square 1.833 .669 .692 .362 .272 .142 F 2.739 Sig. .000

University

Age

Gender

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

1.914

.001

1.914

.001

117

Table 20: ANOVA - continued

Current year Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 65.797 9.417 75.214 68.440 8.417 76.856 20.696 4.167 24.862 53.865 6.833 60.698 349.140 27.833 376.974 161.675 12.583 174.258 102.383 6.250 108.633 240.720 22.083 262.804 275 65 340 275 65 340 275 65 340 275 65 340 275 65 340 275 65 340 275 65 340 275 65 340 .239 .145 .249 .129 .075 .064 .196 .105 1.270 .428 .588 .194 .372 .096 .875 .340 1.652 .008

Family place of living

1.922

.001

Martial status

1.174

.221

Employment status

1.863

.002

Father salary

2.965

.000

Fathers education

3.037

.000

Mothers education

3.872

.000

Daily allowance

2.576

.000

.05

Table (20) shows no differences among the answers of the respondents pertains to their demographic profile, except for the marital status, which shows a level of significance that is more than 0 .05 (.221<.05), and indicates a high difference among the answers of the respondents regarding the decision making styles. The F value for almost all the demographic variables was less than (1.96), which implies that, most of the respondents have no difference in their opinions regarding the decision making styles. The other demographics factors such as, Fathers education, Mothers education, Father Salary and daily allowance showed somehow slight differences in the level of their answers, because the F value was more than (1.96).

7.4. Correlation between the Variables of the Study

The table below No. (21) Shows the results of this analysis
Table 21: Correlations
Perfectionist high quality consumer Perfection ist high quality consumer Brand conscious Novelty fashion conscious Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 Brand conscious .383** .000 341 1 Novelty fashion conscious .281** .000 341 .213** .000 341 1 Price conscious -.004.937 341 -.102.059 341 .107* .048 341 Impulsive , careless consumer .262** .000 341 .050 .354 341 .028 .611 341 Confused by over choice consumer -.038.480 341 .001 .990 341 -.010.860 341 Brand loyal customers .093 .088 341 .223** .000 341 .151** .005 341

118

Table 21: Correlations - continued

Price conscious Impulsive, careless consumer Confused by over choice consumer Brand loyal customers Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 .213** .000 341 1 .088 .106 341 .220** .000 341 1 -.080.142 341 .149** .006 341 .218** .000 341 1 341

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The table above shows a correlation between the different variables of the study, it is noted that almost all factors has a very high correlation except between developing Perfectionist high quality consumer and Price conscious, Confused by over choice consumer which had a negative correlation of about R= -.004- &-.038- respectively with a significance of about, .937 & .480 which is more than 5%, there is also a very week positive correlation between developing Perfectionist and brand loyal customers with R= .093, this represents a very week correlation with a significant of .088 > .05. there is also a negative week correlation between the Brand conscious and Price conscious with R= -.102 and a significance of 0 .059>0.05, another week positive correlation is between the Brand conscious and Impulsive, careless consumer and Confused by over choice consumer with R = .050 and .001 with a significance of .354 and .990 respectively which is more than the acceptance level of 5%.

8. Summary of Conclusion
1. As consumers the university students in Jordan follow a certain decision making style dominated by being novelty fashion conscious, price conscious, brand loyal customers, impulsive, careless consumer, confused by over choice consumer, brand conscious, and perfectionist high quality consumer, but that style of decision making was not given high rating rather an upper middle rating. 2. University students in Jordan pay attention to the quality of mobile phones; this is manifested by the special effort they exert to choose the very best quality of Mobile since their standards and expectations for Mobile that they buy are very high. 3. Respondents are not brand conscious, but still believe in the higher price of Mobile the better in quality, because imitated phones flow from south East Asia and being sold at a very low price, in order to minimize the risk of buying a fake one, consumers prefer to buy from well known and authorized dealers. 4. Fashion does not have big influence on Jordanian students decision making styles, because mostly care for good and attractive design rather than trendy one. While some enjoy and have fun when buying a new and exciting Mobile to the extent that they usually have one or more phone of the very newest style. 5. Price normally matters when it comes to mobile phones and that is also the case with young consumers in Jordan, since majority look carefully to find the best value for their money and usually lower prices Mobiles appeal to them, which is why they buy as much as possible at discount prices. 119

6. It takes time with university level students in Jordan to shop for getting the best Mobile, and that is probably because they carefully watch how much they spend for buying Mobile, aside from that they also plan their shopping for Mobile more carefully than they do. 7. Respondents are confused over what to choose because there are so many brands of mobiles available in market that share similar features and functions, in addition to that young consumers are gaining more knowledge about this product which makes their decision a difficult one. 8. A big number of the University level students in Jordan have a favorite brand of Mobile that they buy over and over, the reason behind that, it is once they find suitable brand of Mobile that they Like they stick with it and even go to the same stores each time they shop. 9. The male and female students in Jordan do have some differences in their choices and the way they decide when they buy a mobile phone, the only decision making style where there is no differences between males and females is, confused by over choice consumer decision making style.

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Baker, J., Lavy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to marketing retail store environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460. Beatty, S. E., & Ferrell, E. M. (1998). Impulse buying: Modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74(2), 169-191. Bellenger, D. N., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (1980). Profiling the recreational shopper. Journal of Retailing, 56(3), 77-92. Bless, H., & Forgas, J. P. (Eds.). (2000). The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior. Lillington, NC: Edward Brothers. Cleaver, J. Y. (1985). Brand names rattle retail shelves. Advertising Age, 14, 28-29. Cronbach L J.(1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297-334 Davies G and Bell J (1991). The Grocery Shopper Is He Different? International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 19(1), 25-28. Fan, JX & Xiao, J. (1998). Consumer decision making styles of young-adult Chinese. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 32(2):275-294. Gnen, E. & zmete,E.,(2006). Decision-making styles of young turkish consumers. Journal of the HEIA Vol. 13, No. 1.pp.26-33. Gutman, J., & Mills, M. K. (1982). Fashion life style, self-concept, shopping orientation, and store patronage: An integrative analysis. Journal of Retailing, 2, 64-86. Hafstrom, J.L., Chae, J.S. & Chung,, Y.S. (1992). Consumer Decision- Making Styles: Comparison between United States and Korean Young Consumers. The Journal of Consumers Affairs, 26(1), 146- 158. Janiszewski, C., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1999). A range theory account of price perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 353-368. Kim, Y.-M. & Shim, K.-Y. (2002). The influence of Internet shopping mall characteristics and user traits on purchase intent. Irish Marketing Review, 15(2), 25-34. Laetitia, R., Yuejin, L. & Pietersen, J.(2006). Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol 34, pp2031. Levy, S. J. (1999). Brands, consumers, symbols, & research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lyonski, S, Durvasula, S & Zotos, Y. (1996). Consumer-decision-making styles: a multicountry investigation. European Journal of Marketing 30 (12):10-21. Mitchell, V. & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(4), 331-346. 120

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Mokhlis, S.& Salleh, H.,(2009), Consumer Decision-Making Styles in Malaysia: An Exploratory Study of Gender Differences. European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 4,pp.574-584 Slama, M., Tashchian, A., 1985. Selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with purchase involvement. Journal of Marketing 49 (1), 72-82. Sproles, G.B. (1979), Fashion: Consumer Behaviour Toward Dress, Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis. Sproles, G.B. and Kendall, E.L. (1986), A methodology for profiling consumers' decisionmaking styles, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20 (2), pp. 267-279. Taylor, S. and Cosenza, R. (2002) Profiling later aged female teens: mall shopping behavior and clothing choice. Journal of Consumer Marketing 19:5 , pp. 393-408. Walsh, G., Henning-Thurau, T., Mitchell, V.W. & Wiedman, K.P. (2001a). Consumers Decision Making Style as A Basis For Market Segmentation. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 10, 117-131. Walsh, G., Mitchell, V. & Henning-Thurau, T. (2001). German consumer decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 7395. "World Bank. 2009. Education Reform for the Knowledge Economy II. Project Information Document. World Bank, Washington ,DC" Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means- end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 21-22

121