Segmentation of Young Consumers

of North-East India Based

on Their Decision-Making Styles

Pradeep K Deka*

The consumer decision-making process is a complex phenomenon. The decision to purchase

goods and services is influenced by a number of factors, a few of which are internal to
the customer, while a few others are external environmental factors. Depending on these
factors, customers exhibit some unique characteristics in their decision-making styles.
This study is an attempt to understand the decision-making style of young Indian
consumers (specifically of North-East India) and then to identify segments of consumers
based on their decision-making behaviors. The study is based on the well-accepted model
of profiling consumer decision-making styles by Sproles and Kendall (1986), but also
takes into consideration various other studies undertaken related to Indian consumers.
This study checks the validity of the said model over a sample of 119 college-going youth
from North-East India. The consumer decision-making styles were identified with the
help of a structured questionnaire as suggested by consumer decision-making style
inventory by Sproles and Kendall (1986). Eleven consumer decision-making styles were
identified instead of the eight styles envisioned by the original model. A simple comparison
is also done of the outcomes of various studies related to the said model.

Introduction
It has been widely acknowledged that a consumer deals with the complexity of the
market place and information by displaying different behaviors in decision making. It
has also been observed that various factors, including economy, development, culture,
psychographic, society and so on, play a significant role in shaping the consumer behavior.
However, some broad classifications can be made for the consumer decision-making
styles. And this is what researchers and marketers have been trying to do so far, i.e., to
create a profile of consumer behavior as far as purchasing goods and services is concerned.

The present research is also an attempt to find answers to some of the questions
regarding the consumer behavior or specifically consumer decision-making styles. A useful
research of the consumers of North-East India will be able to contribute significantly
towards meeting the needs of marketers to understand consumers’ purchasing behavior.
According to Sproles and Kendall (1986), identification of decision-making styles among
consumers “helps to profile an individual consumer style, educate consumers about
* Assistant Professor, Don Bosco Institute of Management, Guwahati, Assam, India.
E-mail: pradeep.deka@dbim.ac.in

© 2016 IUP. All

Segmentation of Rights Reserved. of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles
Young Consumers 65
their specific decision-making characteristics, and counsel families on financial
management”. Such studies will also help in understanding the effect of market
environment on consumer decision-making styles. Marketers can use such information
for designing their market offers, products, advertisements, etc. to reach to maximum
audiences.

Consumer Decision-Making Process

Schiffman and Kanuk (2010) defined consumer behavior as “the behavior that consumers
display in searching for, purchasing, using, evaluating and disposing of products and
services that they expect will satisfy their needs”. It can also be expressed as “the style
and process of consuming and processing, collecting and disposing of consumer products
and services including the resultant change of feelings, moods and attitudes toward the
products and services”.
Many models have already been proposed regarding consumer decision making as
the subject has already been studied extensively. It is now commonly believed that a
sequential decision-making process is followed by a consumer before and after making a
purchase. These sequential steps can be looked upon in different ways as suggested by
various researchers.
However, a simplified model of consumer behavior as proposed by Schiffman and
Kanuk, in three distinctive but interlocking stages—input, process and output stages—
can be used for our understanding. The input stage influences the consumer’s recognition
of a product need and consists of two major source of information (company’s marketing
efforts and external sociological influence). The process stage focuses on how consumers
make decisions. The psychological factors of consumer affect how the external input
influences the consumer’s recognition of a need, pre-purchase search for information
and evaluation of alternatives. And the output stage of the model consists of post-
decision activities like purchase behavior and post-purchase evaluation.

Consumer Decision Making

The initial consumer decision-making models were developed during the 1960s and
1970s, a time characterized by limited knowledge on consumer behavior and with an
increased importance on other disciplines. Marketers were mainly doing the research
part rather than academics, and within that context, most of the models known as
‘grand models’ of consumer decision making were developed. They tend to portray
decision-making process as a logical problem solving approach, depicted as multi-staged
and complex process. It was assumed that several factors trigger problem recognition
before initiating a sequence of actions to reach an outcome of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Consumer decision process is described as five steps classification, i.e., cognitive decision
sequence of problem recognition/pre-search stage, information search, alternative
evaluation, choice, and outcome evaluation.
However, with passing time, many researchers started questioning the validity of
‘grand models’ in changing circumstances. Many argued that for many products

66 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2016

consumers spend very little time or do not even engage in the sequential steps classified
in the models. In many a situation, consumer decision-making processes might appear
to be haphazard and disorderly, known as the passive view. A decision making based on
opportunistic approach, does not adhere to structured decision-making models. It became
clear that consumer decision making depends on the product, situation, context and/ or
previous experiences.
A few researchers have put forward a cognitive and emotional approach to decision
making. Cognitive approach refers to active, effortful planning and goal-directed behavior
that involves meditated intellectual activity, while emotional processing refers to the
evaluation of product alternatives within more abstract parameters. There were also
suggestions that ego satisfaction, social acceptance as well as sensory desires might also
reflect in consumer decision-making process. The emphasis on importance of external
factors in traditional models while neglecting the emotional or internal factor of
consumers was questioned by new researchers. It was in fact argued that not what
products can do in functional and performance terms, but what products mean to the
consumer has a key role in consumer behavior.
However, when traditional models were rethought of, a renewed emphasis on cognitive
aspects of decision making was visual. These were called the ‘contemporary models’.
In summary, consumer decision making can be looked upon through four views:
• Rational/economic view, which perceived consumers as rational decision makers;
• Passive view, which portrayed consumers as irrational and impulsive purchasers;
• Cognitive view, which characterized consumers as thinking problem solvers;
and
• Emotional view, which recognized consumers as possessive shoppers influenced
by their feelings and moods.

Consumer Decision Rules

Consumer decision rules are procedures used by consumers to facilitate brands (or other
consumption-related) choices. These rules reduce the burden of making complex decisions
by providing guidelines or routines that make the process less cumbersome.
Consumer decision rules have been broadly classified into two major categories—
compensatory and non-compensatory decision rules. In following a compensatory
decision rule, a consumer evaluates brand or model option in terms of each relevant
attribute and computes a weighted or summated score for each brand. The assumption
is that the consumer will select the brand that scores highest among the alternatives
evaluated. Non-compensatory rule does not allow consumers to balance positive
evaluation of a brand on one attribute against a negative evaluation on some other
attribute.
Three non-compensatory rules are considered briefly here—the conjunctive rules,
the disjunctive rule and the lexicographic rule. In conjunctive rule, the consumer

Segmentation of Young Consumers of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles 67

establishes a separate, minimally acceptable level as a cutoff point for each attribute. If
any particular brand falls below the cutoff point on any one attribute, the option is
eliminated from further consideration. In applying the disjunctive rule, the consumer
establishes a separate, minimally acceptable cutoff level for each attribute. In this case,
if an option meets or exceeds the cutoff established for any one attribute, it is accepted.
In following a lexicographic decision rule, the consumer first ranks the attributes in
terms of perceived relevance or importance. The consumer then compares the various
alternatives in terms of the single attribute that is considered most important. If one
option scores sufficiently high on this top-ranked attribute, it is selected and the process
ends. With the lexicographic rule, the highest ranked attribute may reveal something
about the individual’s basic consumer (or shopping) orientation. For instance, a ‘buy
the best’ rule might indicate that the consumer is ‘quality-oriented’; a ‘buy the least
expensive’ rule might reveal that the consumer is ‘economy-oriented’.
The basis of setting up these rules or criteria for attributes may rest on various factors.
It is often said that demographic characteristics determine consumers’ need for products
and the ability to buy them, whereas psychographics explain buyers’ purchase decisions
and the choices they make within the buying option available to them.

Shopping Orientations
Shoppers possessing different lifestyles and orientations exhibit different communication
behavior. Some of the shopping orientation-based classifications of consumers as outlined
in different studies are mentioned below:

Moschis (1976) identified six shopping orientations, namely, special shopper, brand
loyal shopper, store loyal shopper, and problem solving, psycho-socializing and name
conscious shopper. Lumpkin (1985) identified three shopping categories, namely, active
shopper, economic shopper and uninvolved. Sproles and Kendall (1986) named eight
shopping orientations, namely, perfectionist/high quality conscious, brand conscious/
price equals quality, novelty and fashion conscious, impulsiveness, recreation and fashion
conscious, confused by overchoice, habitual brand loyal and price conscious/value for
money. Solomon (1994) identified five shopper categories, namely, economic shopper,
personalized shopper, ethical shopper, apathetic shopper and recreational shopper. Fan
and Xiao (1998) identified five shopper orientations, namely, brand conscious, time
conscious, quality conscious, price conscious and information utilization. Bakewell and
Mitchell (2003) identified five shopper categories and named them as recreational quality
seekers, recreational discount seekers, shopping and fashion interested, trend setting
loyals and confused time/money conserving shoppers.

Literature Review
Consumer Decision-Making Styles
Consumer decision-making styles can be defined as “a mental orientation characterizing
a consumer’s approach to making choices” (Sproles and Kendall, 1986). Sproles and

68 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2016

Kendall (1986) view this construct as ‘basic consumer personality’; analogous to the
concept of personality is psychology.

Research on this construct can be categorized into three main approaches:

• The consumer typology approach, which identifies hundreds of characteristics

related to consumer behavior.

• The psychographics approach, which classifies consumers into several types.

• The consumer characteristics approach, which focuses on different cognitive

dimensions of consumer decision making.

The unifying theme among these three approaches is the tenet that all consumers
engage in shopping with certain fundamental decision-making modes or styles, including
rational shopping, consciousness regarding brand, price and quality, among others.

Among these three approaches, however, the consumer characteristics approach seems
to be the most powerful and explanatory since it focuses on the mental orientation of
consumers in decision making. As such, this approach deals with cognitive and affective
orientation of consumers in their process of decision making. It assumes that decision-
making styles can be determined by identifying general orientation towards shopping
and buying. This was also observed in understanding consumer decision rules.

Consumer Characteristics Approach

Most studies under the consumer behavior literature assume that consumers have certain
decision-making styles which comprise definite decision-making traits through which
they approach shopping. And researchers have tried to study and understand these
underlying decision-making styles of consumers through which each of them take their
buying decisions.
Sproles with Kendall developed a CSI in 1986, which was a comprehensive
instrument to measure consumer decision-making style. Complex statistical tools were
utilized to identify eight mental characteristics of consumer decision making:
Perfectionist, high quality conscious: Consumers who systematically search for the
best quality products. They have high expectations and standards for consumer goods
and are concerned with quality and functional attributes of goods and services.
Brand conscious: Consumers concerned with getting the most expensive, well-known
brands. For them price is an indicator of quality.
Novelty – fashion conscious: Consumers who are excited by seeking new and innovative
products and are conscious of new fashion and fads.
Recreational, hedonistic shopping conscious: Consumers who take pleasure in shopping
and they go shopping just for the fun of it.
Price and ‘value for money’ conscious: Consumers who are concerned with getting
low prices, likely to be comparison shoppers.

Segmentation of Young Consumers of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles 69

Impulsiveness: Consumers who never plan their shopping and tend to buy
spontaneously, usually not concerned with how much money they spend.
Confusion over choice of brands, stores and consumer information: Consumers
who feel they have too many brands and stores to choose from and who are likely to
experience information overload in the markets, are likely to seek help from others.
Habitual, brand loyal orientation towards consumption: Consumers who are apt to
have favorite brands and stores. They shop at the same stores and tend to buy the same
brand each time.

Consumer Style Inventory

Consumer Style Inventory developed by Sproles and Kendall (1986) was used by many
researchers to study the consumer decision-making styles under various conditions. A
few of the observations are worth considering to understand the consumer decision-
making process.

International Studies
Hafstrom et al. (1992) used the CSI to identify the decision-making styles of Korean
students. They confirmed seven of the eight factors using Sproles and Kendall’s analytical
methods and conceptual framework. The only factor that was not confirmed was ‘novelty
fashion consciousnesses’. They attributed this to possible links between ‘brand
consciousness’ and ‘fashion consciousness’ among young Korean consumers.
Hiu et al. (2001) administered the CSI to 387 adult consumers in China. Their
findings indicate that five decision-making styles are valid and reliable in Chinese culture.
These styles were perfectionist, novelty fashion conscious, recreational, price conscious
and confused by over choice.
Fan and Xiao (1998) used a modified CSI with Chinese students. They clearly
identified five dimensions of consumer decision-making styles—brand consciousness,
time consciousness, price consciousness, quality consciousness and information utilization.
Walsh et al. (2001) confirmed seven factors of consumer decision-making styles
for German consumers. These factors were brand consciousness, perfectionism,
recreational/hedonism, confused by over choice, impulsiveness, novelty fashion
consciousness, variety seeking.
Durvasula et al. (1993) administered the CSI on 210 undergraduate business students
at a large university in New Zealand. They found eight consumer decision-making styles.
These styles are perfectionist, brand conscious, novelty fashion conscious, recreational
shopping conscious, price value conscious, impulsive, confused by over choice, and
habitual/brand loyal.

Decision-Making Styles of Young Consumers of India over a Period of Time 1994-2009

and the Evolution of Mindset
In line with the international studies, several studies are also conducted for Indian
consumers to confirm the validity of the said model. It is worth mentioning here that,

70 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2016

Lysonski and Durvasula (2013) carried out an intense investigation on young Indian
consumers to understand whether there was any change in the eight consumer decision-
making styles using the CSI framework during the period 1994-2009. The study had
high relevance as India has witnessed a dramatic change in the retail environment since
economic liberalization. Their analysis revealed that dimensionality and internal
consistency estimates for the CSI in 2009 were similar to the original estimates. It
strongly supported the consideration of the model in understanding consumer decision-
making styles as a standard measure.

Decision-Making Style of Young Consumers of India and the New Factors of Consumer
Decision-Making Styles
Researchers have further tried to understand the Indian consumer decision process in a
more comprehensive and detailed manner.

Canabal (2002) investigated the decision-making styles of South Indian Consumers

utilizing CSI. Using data collected from 173 college students from two institutions of
higher education in the city of Coimbatore, South India, Canabal (2002) identified
five decision-making styles of South Indian. These styles are brand conscious style, high
quality conscious/perfectionist style, confused by over choice style, impulsive/brand
indifferent style and recreational shopper style.

In the study by Mishra (2010) on consumer decision-making styles and young adult
consumer in India, the CSI developed by Sproles has been used with a modification
and ten factors were identified instead of eight. The two factors ‘dissatisfied shopping
consciousness’ and ‘store loyal’ are extra factors with Cronbach’s alpha 0.787 and
0.589 respectively with five items loaded under ‘dissatisfied shopping consciousness’
factor. The Indian ten factor model also confirmed all eight characteristics developed by
Sproles and Kendall. This study also suggested refinement of CSI and can be tested in
different regions and cultures and also rural and urban regions. Specific consumer groups
could be targeted for generalization of the applicability of CSI.

The study by Tanksale et al. (2014) primarily aimed at identifying the decision-
making style of young consumers aged between 18 to 21 years to see if these styles were
similar to those found in previous research studies. The CSI developed by Sproles and
Kendall was used in the research and the original eight-factor model could not be
confirmed completely, however support was found for six decision-making styles. One
new factor ‘shopping avoidance – time saver’ specific to Indian sample was found. The
study also emphasized in its outcome that CSI needs to be validated and modified
before using it cross-culturally. As different segments like socioeconomic strata, region
(rural-urban) were not considered in the study, the study could be undertaken for
considering the diversity of rural and urban consumer’s choice and styles.

In the study by Dubey (2014) on young consumers’ decision-making behavior towards

casual wear buying in Uttar Pradesh, India, the revised six-factor model derived out of

Segmentation of Young Consumers of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles 71

eight-factor model of Sproles and Kendall was confirmed, and further from the revised
six-factor model, five factors (recreational and hedonic consciousness, confused by over
choice, habitual and brand loyal, price and value consciousness) were confirmed. Only
brand and fashion consciousness differed from Sproles and Kendall study.

Influence of Age, Gender and CSI of Indian Consumers

Khare (2012) tried to study the influence of age, gender and CSI on Indian consumers’
local retailer loyalty. The findings suggested that CSI could not be applicable in Indian
conditions, and only three decision styles, namely, quality conscious, brand conscious
and utilitarian conscious, emerged as significant. Age and gender have a moderating
influence on CSI in predicting Indian consumer’s local retailer loyalty. The brand
conscious and utilitarian conscious consumers are more loyal to local retailers. Young
and female consumers preferred to shop from local retailers.

Nayak and Debasish (2015) carried out an empirical study for profiling the consumer
decision-making styles among university students of Odisha and to find out the difference
in consumer decision-making styles between the male and female university students of
Odisha. It was concluded that the original 40-item based CSI scale is not fully applicable
in the Indian environment as it has been found out that the factors immerged in
exploratory factor analysis are not exactly same as the eight factors of Sproles and
Kendall. Seven factors emerged in the study—‘recreation and fashion conscious’, ‘health/
hygiene and brand conscious’, ‘store/brand loyal’, safety/environment conscious’, ‘high
quality conscious’, impulsive and price/value conscious’, ‘confused by overchoice’. Out
of the original eight factors, only the factor ‘confused by over choice’ has not been
confirmed in their study. It was thus confirmed that the original 40-items based CSI in
the Indian context is not fully confirmed without modification and addition/deletion of
some variables as suitable for the Indian context, which is also suggested by other studies.
When it comes to the consumer decision-making styles among male and female university
students, it has been found that there is a significant difference in the decision-making
styles.

Multi-Country Study on Validity of CSI

In a multi-country study by Lysonski and Durvasula (1996), it was observed that the
original CSI seems to be more applicable to developed countries in comparison to
developing countries. It also argued that since original CSI was validated with students
sample, its applicability to other consumers needs to be looked upon in a more detailed
manner. It suggested that CSI requires additional psychometric work before it can be
applied to other countries. They concluded that searching for a universal instrument
that can describe consumer’s decision-making styles among a wide domain of cultures is
problematic. Additional effort is needed to establish an instrument with psychometric
properties that can be applied to multiple countries. Researchers are cautioned not to
use this inventory without first establishing the applicability of the CSI in the specific
culture under examination.

72 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2016

Objectives
The major objectives of this study include:
• Investigating the applicability of the original CSI developed by Sproles and
Kendall (1986) in North-East India;
• Identifying specific consumer decision-making styles of youth of North-East
India;
• Identifying clusters for segregating the young consumers into different segments
based on their decision-making styles; and
• Comparing the decision-making styles identified in this study with the results
of similar studies in other states of India.

Data and Methodology

A thorough review of the existing literature suggested in favor of Sproles and Kendall
(1986) 40-item Likert scale based CSI. The anchors and values for the scale were 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In order to gain objective views and guard
against faulty assumptions and search for face validity problems in the questionnaire,
consultations with experts and pilot tests were conducted. Thus, all the 40-items were
randomly arranged so as to counterbalance the possibility of order effect. Wording of a
few questions were changed to negate the effect of reverse scoring. The questionnaire
was personally explained to respondents by the researchers. The interviewer/ researcher
gave instructions for completing the questionnaire and waited while the respondents
independently filled out the questionnaire.
This study used mall intercept survey method. Data were collected from shopping
malls located in various parts of Guwahati, Assam. Guwahati is the epicenter of all the
Northeastern states and is mainly the shopping destination for most of the youth studying
here. The target population for this study consisted of active mall shoppers. Since the
spread of opinions in the population was unknown, calculation of exact sample size
using formulae was not possible. Normally in such a case, the minimum sample size
should be 10 times the number of variables measured, but most of the studies on this
topic have not followed such a rule. And thus, in this research also it was not taken into
consideration.
The data was collected from a total of 130 youth in the age group of approximately
20-40 years during the month of January 2015. However, because of incomplete data
and other ineligibility, 11 answered sheets were rejected for further analysis. Hence, the
total sample size came out to be 119 which were suitable for analysis and further
interpretations.

Results and Discussion

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity gives information about the
factorability of the data. Generally, a KMO value greater than 0.5 is desirable. Bartlett’s

Segmentation of Young Consumers of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles 73

test of sphericity is a test statistic used to examine the hypothesis that the variables are
uncorrelated in the population (Malhotra and Dash, 2012, p. 616).

In the pre-analysis part, the KMO and Bartlett’s Test (Table 1) shows the result of
sampling adequacy as 0.519. Factor analysis can be carried out if the KMO measure of
sampling adequacy is more than 0.5. The null hypothesis that population correlation
matrix is an identity matrix, is rejected by the Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The approximate
chi-square statistic is 4,700.426 with 780 degrees of freedom, which is significant at the
0.05 level. Thus, factor analysis may be considered an appropriate technique for
analyzing the correlation matrix of the 119 sample data.

Table 1: KMO and Bartlett’s Test Result

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.519

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 4,700.43

df 780

Sig. 0.000

The raw data was factor analyzed using SPSS 20.0 to summarize the 40 variables
into smaller sets of linear composites that preserved most of the information in the
original data set. In this study, factor analysis was carried out in two stages. In stage
one, known as the factor extraction process, the objective was to identify how many
factors to be extracted from the data. Using principal component analysis, 40 items
were extracted by 11 factors, and all the eleven factors together accounted for 82.264%
of the total variance.

In the second stage, called the rotation of principal component, the objective is to
interpret and name the factors identified in first stage. This is done by identifying which
factors are associated with which of the original variables. A varimax rotation type of
orthogonal rotation was used for our purpose and variables with loading closer to 1
associated with each factors are identified. Similarly, all the factors were interpreted
and labeled. Items having factor loading more than 0.6 were included in the
interpretations.

Factor Analysis
Based on the analysis, 11 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were obtained and
these accounted for 82.264% of the total variance (Table 2). The factors identified are
briefly discussed below:

Factor 1: Time Conscious: This factor reflects the time consciousness of the customers.
It is related to the time spent in shopping. Whether they do the shopping quickly, or
consider spending time for getting the best product, or consider it just a waste of time is
reflected in this factor.

74 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2016

 Table 2: Results of Factor Analysis on 40 Items

Eigen- Factor Cumulative

Factors/Item
values Loading Variance (%)
1. Time Conscious 3.38 9.7
i) I take time in shopping and don’t just buy 0.902
the first product or brand I find that seems
good enough.
ii) Even to get variety, I don’t shop in different 0.887
stores and choose different brands.
iii) Shopping in the stores does not waste my time. 0.836
iv) I don’t make my shopping trips fast. 0.702
v) I take time to shop carefully for best buys. 0.812
2. High Quality Conscious 3.488 18.42
i) Getting very good quality is very 0.741
important to me.
ii) In general, I usually try to buy the best 0.852
overall quality.
iii) I make special effort to choose the very 0.796
best quality products.
iv) The higher the price of a product, 0.842
the better its quality.
3. Perfectionist 3.426 26.985
i) When it comes to purchasing products, 0.802
I try to get the very best or perfect choice.
ii) I give my purchase much thought or care. 0.878
iii) My standards and expectations for products 0.918
I buy are very high.
iv) A product has to be perfect or the best 0.847
to satisfy me.
4. Brand Conscious 3.388 35.455
i) The well-known national brands 0.859
are best for me .
ii) The more expensive brands are usually 0.751
my choice.
iii) I prefer buying the bestselling products. 0.806
iv) The most advertised brands are usually 0.861
very good choice.

Segmentation of Young Consumers of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles 75

 Table 2 (Cont.)

Eigen- Factor Cumulative

Factors/Item
values Loading Variance (%)
5. Price Conscious 3.322 43.759
i) I avoid buying at sales price. 0.894
ii) The lower price products are usually 0.807
my choice.
iii) I look carefully to find the best value 0.796
for money.
iv) I carefully watch how much I spend. 0.788
6. Brand Loyal Consumer 3.295 51.996
i) There are so many brands to choose from, 0.854
but I don’t feel confused.
ii) I have favorite brands I buy over and over. 0.828
iii) Once I find a product or brand I like, 0.844
I stick with it.
iv) I don’t change brands I buy regularly. 0.875
7. Recreational Conscious 2.912 59.276
i) It’s fun to buy something new and exciting. 0.798
ii) Shopping is a pleasant activity to me. 0.781
iii) Going shopping is one of the enjoyable 0.695
activities of my life.
iv) I enjoy shopping just for the fun of it. 0.803
8. Fashion Conscious 2.857 66.418
i) I usually have one or more outfits 0.881
of the very newest style.
ii) I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with 0.876
the changing fashion.
iii) Fashionable, attractive styling is very 0.856
important to me.
9. Impulsive 2.297 72.16
i) I should plan my shopping more carefully 0.84
than I do.
ii) I am impulsive when purchasing. 0.655
iii) Often I make careless purchases 0.78
I later wish I had not.

76 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2016

 Table 2 (Cont.)

Eigen- Factor Cumulative

Factors/Item
values Loading Variance (%)
10. Store Conscious 2.07 77.335
i) Nice department stores and specialty stores 0.734
offer me the best products.
ii) It’s not hard for me to choose 0.744
which store to shop.
iii) I go to the same store each time I shop. 0.71
11. Confused by Overchoice 1.972 82.264
i) The more I learn about products, 0.908
the harder it seems to choose the best.
ii) All the information I get on different 0.872
product confuses me.

Factor 2: Quality Conscious: This factor reflects the quality conscious dimension of
consumer. The highest loading item in this factor is “In general, I usually try to buy the
best overall quality”, shows that customers are quality conscious and want the best
quality products.

Factor 3: Perfectionist: The highest factor loading item in this factor is “my standards
and expectations for products I buy are very high”, which clearly signifies that shopping
is not taken very lightly by the youth. The high score in this factor clarifies that consumer
wants the product that is perfect for him and suits him the best.

Factor 4: Brand Conscious: This factor clarifies as to how much the customer is
concerned about the brand of the product they are buying. A high score in this factor
will inform that the customer is brand conscious, whereas a low score will indicate that
the brand is not a serious consideration when it comes to shopping.

Factor 5: Price Conscious: This factor measures the price dimension of consumer
decision-making styles of Indian consumers in our sample. Consumers who score high
on this factor are very price conscious and would prefer buying products at the best or
cheapest price. They tend to check and compare the prices of products before purchasing
them.

Factor 6: Brand Loyal Consumer: This factor clarifies as to how much the customer is
loyal to the brand of their choice. Loyalty will come if the customer keeps on performing
a repeat purchase of the same product as and when such a product need is felt. A high
score here will tell that the consumer is prone to becoming or is already brand loyal to
some brands.

Factor 7: Recreational Conscious: This decision making style identifies consumer

perception about shopping as a recreational activity. A high score here will indicate that

Segmentation of Young Consumers of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles 77

the consumer considers shopping as recreational activity and enjoys it, whereas a low
score will indicate that he or she considers it a waste of time. The highest loading
(0.803) item in this factor is “I enjoy shopping just for the fun of it”.

Factor 8: Fashion Conscious: This factor relates to the consciousness of the consumers
towards the fashion. “Buying new clothes and keeping in tune with the recent fashion is
important” will be reflected by a high score in this decision style.

Factor 9: Impulsive: This factor relates to the unplanned shopping. Customers who are
high on this factor are prone to do impulsive and unplanned shopping.

Factor 10: Store Conscious: This factor relates to the consciousness of the customers
towards the store. A high score here will indicate that the customer has a preference to
the type of store or other factor of the store. This may be specific to Indian customers as
mall culture is very new for them and customers have been more used to kirana shopping
so far.

Factor 11: Confused by Overchoice: Consumers having high score on this factor perceive
product-related information available to be confusing. The items included in this are
“all the information I get on different product confuses me”, and “the more I learn
about products, the harder it seems to choose the best”. Consumers who score high on
this factor are overwhelmed by all the information and choices of products available to
them and do not know what to do about the information. On the opposite end of the
continuum, consumers who score low on this factor can take advantage of the available
information and make better choices.

Reliability coefficient of scale – Cronbach’s Alpha was for estimating the reliability.
For consistency, it was decided that reliabilities should not be below 0.60, the same
level used by Sproles and Kendall (1986). A low coefficient alpha indicates the sample
of items performs poorly in capturing the
Table 3: Reliability Test Result
for 40 Items construct. Conversely, a large alpha
indicates that the k-item test correlates well
Reliability Statistics
with true scores. According to Table 3,
Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items Cronbach’s Alpha identified good values for
0.722 40 scale reliability for the 119 sample data.

Cluster Analysis
Cluster is a group of similar objects, and segmentation involves identifying groups of
target consumers who are similar in buying habits, demographic characteristics or
psychographics. Hierarchical clustering method is used here for our purpose. In order to
identify the number of clusters, an agglomeration schedule is produced through SPSS
20.0. Analyzing the differences in the value of the coefficients in neighboring rows, we
can estimate that there are 5 clusters that can adequately represent the data.

Once the number of clusters has been identified, a k-means clustering option is run
on the data. After mentioning the number of clusters, the desired output is obtained. In

78 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2016

this study, I have considered the average scoring of the variables for each decision making
style separately and then did an average of the variables. Say, time conscious is represented
by variable 7 (avg. 2.77), var 18 (avg. 2.92), var 22 (avg. 2.92), var 24 (avg. 3.08) and
var 31 (2.69). All these variable scores averages out to 2.88 which is shown below as the
scoring for cluster 1 representing decision making style – time conscious (see Table 4).

Table 4: Average Scores of Variables for Each Cluster

Under Each Decision-Making Styles
Cluster
1 2 3 4 5
Time Conscious 2.88 2.53 3.98 1.83 4.05
Quality Conscious 2.19 3.92 1.64 2.45 4.04
Perfectionist 4.11 1.5 2.07 2.54 3.23
Brand Conscious 4.1 1.58 3.52 2.47 2.19
Price Conscious 3.91 1.5 3.14 3 2.36
Brand Loyal 2.98 4.25 4.18 2.3 2.4
Recreational 1.75 4.25 2.34 2.21 3.15
Fashion Conscious 2.51 4.67 3.36 2.82 2.92
Impulsive 3.1 3.78 2.64 2.54 2.89
Store Conscious 2.74 2.33 2.85 2.65 3.18
Confused by Overchoice 3.19 4.5 3.5 3.09 2.5

A brief description of the clusters identified above is given below:

Cluster 1: Consumers are not very much bothered about the time spent on shopping,
not quality conscious, but are perfectionist, i.e., like to purchase products according to
their choice and which suits them best, are brand conscious, also price conscious, are
not prone to getting brand loyal, do not take shopping as recreational activity, are not
fashion conscious, almost neutral for impulsive behavior, are not for store conscious,
i.e., are ready to go to any shop as long as they get what they want and finally are little
bit confused by over choice.

Cluster 2: Consumers who are not time conscious, are very much quality conscious,
and do not always look for product which are perfect choices, are not at all brand
conscious, are not atall price conscious, i.e., may go for any price for a quality product,
are prone to get brand loyal once they are convinced it is of best quality, take shopping
as recreational activity, are highly fashion conscious and like to go for fashionable products,
are prone to make impulsive purchases, are not at all store conscious, i.e., do not have
any preferences for particular types of stores, and are highly confused by over choice.

Cluster 3: Consumers who are time conscious, i.e., are concerned with the time spent
on shopping, are not at all quality conscious, and do not look for perfection of the best

Segmentation of Young Consumers of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles 79

80
Table 5: Comparison with International Studies
Sproles and Lyonski and
Hafstrom et al. Fan and Xiao Mitchell and Hiu et al. Mokhlis Present Study
Kendall Durvasula
(1992) (1998) Bates (1998) (2001) (2009) (2015)
(1986) (1996)
Perfectionist Brand Perfectionist Brand Conscious Perfectionist Perfectionist Novelty, Brand Time Conscious
Conscious Conscious

Brand Perfectionist Brand Conscious Time Conscious Price-Value Brand Conscious Perfectionist Quality
Conscious Conscious Conscious

Novelty-fashion Recreational- Novelty Fashion Quality Brand Novelty-fashion Confused by Perfectionist

Conscious Shopping Conscious Conscious Conscious Conscious Overchoice
Conscious

Recreational- Confused by Recreational Price Conscious Novelty Fashion Recreational Recreational Brand Conscious
Shopping Overchoice Hedonistic Conscious Hedonistic Hedonistic
Conscious

Price-Value Time energy Impulsiveness Information Confused by Price Conscious Impulsiveness Price
Conscious Conserving Utilization Overchoice Conscious

Impulsiveness Impulsiveness Confused by Time energy Confused by Variety Seeking Brand loyal
Overchoice Conserving Overchoice Consumer

Confused by Habitual, Habitual – Recreational Habitual, Habitual, Recreational

Overchoice Brand Loyal Brand Loyal Hedonistic Brand Loyal Brand Loyal Conscious

Habitual, Price-value Impulsiveness Financial, Time Fashion

Brand Loyal Conscious Energy Conserving Conscious

Brand loyal Impulsiveness

Store loyal Store Conscious

Confused by
Overchoice

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2016

 Table 6: Comparison with Indian Studies

Sproles and Lynsonski and

Canabal Mishra (2010) Tanksale et al. Ghodeswar Present Study
Kendall Durvasula
(2002) (2014) (2007) (2015)
(1986) (1996)

Perfectionist Perfectionist Brand Perfectionist/High Recreational and Perfectionist/High Quality

Consciousness Quality Hedonistic Quality Conscious Conscious
Consciousness Shopping
Consciousness
Brand Brand Perfectionist/High Dissatisfied Perfectionist Brand Perfectionist
Consciousness Consciousness Quality Shopping Consciousness
Consciousness Consciousness /Price Equals
Quality
Novelty Fashion Novelty Fashion Confused by Impulsiveness Novelty Fashion Novelty and Brand
Consciousness Consciousness overchoice Conscious Fashion Conscious Conscious
Recreational/ Recreational/ Impulsive/Brand Price Value Brand Conscious Recreation and Fashion
Hedonistic Hedonistic Indifferent Consciousness Shopping Conscious
Conscious
Price-value Impulsiveness Time Conscious Confused by Habitual Brand Impulsiveness Recreational
Conscious Over Choice Loyal
Impulsiveness Confused by Recreational Brand Confused by Confused by Price Conscious
Overchoice Shopper Consciousness Overchoice Overchoice
Confused by Habitual, Brand Price/Value Fashion Shopping Avoider Habitual/Brand Impulsive
Overchoice Loyal Conscious Consciousness – Time Saver Loyal
Habitual, Brand Dissatisfied/ Recreational Confused by
Loyal Careless Overchoice
Brand Loyalty Brand Loyal
Consumer

Segmentation of Young Consumers of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles

Store Loyalty Store Conscious
Time Conscious

81
or look for best product according to their needs, are brand conscious, are also price
conscious, they do not consider shopping as recreational activity as are concerned with
time spent, but are fashion conscious, and are not likely to make impulsive purchases,
are also not prone for any preferences to store types, and are confused by overchoice.

Cluster 4: Consumers who are highly time conscious, i.e., do not want to spend time in
shopping, are not much quality conscious, and do not always look for product which
are perfect choices, are not at all brand conscious, are neutral to price conscious, are not
likely to become brand loyal, are not fashion conscious, are not likely to make impulsive
purchases and are not prone to have any preference for stores. These customers are
confused by over choice are not able to decided what to buy, where to buy and on what
criteria to buy.

Cluster 5: Consumers who are not time conscious, i.e., are not concerned with the time
spent on shopping, are highly quality conscious, are also perfectionist, i.e., like to purchase
product of their perfect choice, are not very brand conscious, are not price conscious,
are not prone to get brand loyal, take shopping as recreational activity, are not very
fashion conscious, are not prone to make impulsive purchases, are little store conscious
as to where they want to do the shopping, and are not at all confused by overchoice.

Comparison with Results of Other Studies

When compared with previous studies using Indian samples, the present study has
identified a more comprehensive set of factors unique to the Indian shopping cultures.

Table 5 shows the comparison between the factors identified in international studies
and the present study. Table 6 shows the comparison between the factors identified in
various Indian studies and the present study.

Conclusion
The objective of this study was to investigate the applicability of consumer style inventory
in profiling the consumer decision-making styles of young consumers of North-East India.
The consumer style inventory was proposed by a study of Sproles and Kendall (1986)
to understand the consumer decision-making style of US young consumers. Sproles and
Kendall (1986) identified eight decision-making styles, while in this study, the researcher
found eleven (11) decision-making styles in Indian environment. These decision-making
styles are time conscious, quality conscious, perfectionist, brand conscious, price conscious,
brand loyal consumers, recreational conscious, fashion conscious, impulsive, store
conscious and confused by overchoice consumers.

On performing a cluster analysis to segregate customer groups based on decision-

making styles, five definite segments were noticed. The characteristics of the clusters or
segments have been defined above. Based on such analysis, it is quite possible to identify
the shopping styles of the consumers and to describe the different segments of consumers.

82 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2016

 On comparing the present study with a few studies conducted based on the CSI, it
was observed that the present study is the most detailed and comprehensive, as it could
find three additional factors related to Indian consumer in comparison with the original
eight factors identified by Sproles and Kendall (1986). Since all the factors have internal
consistency and have satisfied most of the statistical conditions, this scale including 11
factors can be taken as a most comprehensive representation of the Indian consumer
shopping characteristic.
Limitations and Further Research: There are a few limitations that warrant future
research. The study has been conducted in Guwahati (Assam) only, which might offer a
geographical bias to the analysis. The results of the same, if conducted in other parts of
the country, may vary. It is because a country like India has geographically, economically,
socially and culturally very different areas. This difference is too significant to be ignored.
The sample consisted of 119 active mall shoppers. The small sample size is also
prone to error. The use of youth sample also is a limitation with regard to the adaptability
to all ages.
Further research may address issues like effect of store formats on buying behavior,
effect of geographical locations on consumer behavior, or difference between urban and
rural consumer behaviors, if any. ✪

References
1. Bakewell C and Mitchell V W (2003), “Generation Y Female Consumer Decision-
Making Styles”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31,
No. 2, pp. 95-106.

2. Canabal J E (2002), “Decision-Making Styles of Young South Indian Consumers:

An Exploratory Study”, College Student Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 12-19.

3. Dubey A D (2014), “Young Consumer Decision Making Behavior Towards Casual

Wear Buying in Uttar Pradesh, India”, Amity Global Business Review, pp. 56-67.

4. Durvasula S and Lysonski S (1993), “Cross-Cultural Generalizability of a Scale

for Profiling Consumer’s Decision Making Style”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs,
Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 55-65

5. Fan J X and Xiao J J (1998), “Consumer Decision-Making Styles of Young-Adult

Chinese Consumers”, Journal of Consumer Affairs,Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 275-218.

6. Ghodeswar B M (2007), “Consumer Decision Making Styles Among Indian

Students”, Alliance Journal of Business Research, Vol. 3, Spring, pp. 36-48.

7. Hafstrom J L, Chae J S and Chung Y S (1992), “Consumer Decision-Making Styles:

Comparison Between United States and Korean Young Consumers”, Journal of
Consumer Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 146-158.

Segmentation of Young Consumers of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles 83

 8. Hiu A S Y, Siu N Y M, Wang C C L and Chang L M K (2001), “An Investigation of
Decision Making Styles of Consumers in China”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs,
Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 326-345.
9. Kamaruddin A R and Mokhlis S (2003), “Consumer Socialization, Social Structural
Factors and Decision-Making Styles: A Case Study of Adolescents in Malaysia”,
International Journal of Consumer Study, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 145-156.

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

11. Lumpkin J R (1985), “Shopping Orientation Segmentation of the Elderly

Consumer”, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 271-289.

12. Lynsonski S and Durvasula S (1996), “Consumer Decision Making Styles: A Multi-
Countr y Investigation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 12,
pp. 10-21.

13. Lynsonski S and Durvasula S (2013), “Consumer Decision Making Styles in

Retailing: Evolution of Mindset and Psychological Impacts”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 75-87.

14. Malhotra N and Dash S (2011), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 6th
Edition, Pearson India.

15. Mishra A A (2010), “Consumer Decision Making Styles and Young Adult Consumers:
An Indian Exploration”, Romanian Journal of Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 74-115.

16. Mitchell V W and Bates L (1998), “UK Consumer Decision-Making Styles”, Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, Nos. 1-3, pp. 199-225.

17. Mokhlis Safiek (2009), “An Investigation of Consumer Decision-Making Styles of

Young-Adults in Malaysia”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4,
No. 4, pp. 140-148.

18. Moschis George P (1976), “Shopping Orientations and Consumer Uses of

Information”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 61-93.

19. Nayak P K and Debasish S S (2015), “An Investigation on Role of Gender in

Consumer Decision Making in Odisha”, Asian Research Journal of Business
Management, Vol. 2, No. 3.

20. Schiffman L, Kanuk L and Kumar S (2010), Consumer Behavior, 10th Edition, Pearson.

21. Solomon B (1994), “TV Shopping Comes of Age”, Management Review, Vol. 83,
No. 9, pp. 22-26.

22. Sproles G B and Kendall E L (1986), “A Methodology for Profiling Consumer’s

Decision Making Styles”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2,
pp. 267-279.

84 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XV, No. 2, 2016

23. Tanksale D, Neelama Netra, Venkatachalam Rama (2014), “Consumer Decision
Making Styles of Young Adult Consumers in India”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 133, May, pp. 211-218.

24. Walsh G, Mitchell V W and Hennig T T (2001), “German Consumer Decision-

Making Styles”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 73-95.

Reference # 03J-2016-05-03-01

Form IV

1. Place of publication : Hyderabad

2. Periodicity of its publication : Quarterly
3. Printer’s Name : E N Murthy
Nationality : Indian
(a) Whether a citizen of India? : Yes
Address : # 52, Nagarjuna Hills,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500082.
4. Publisher’s Name : E N Murthy
Nationality : Indian
(a) Whether a citizen of India? : Yes
Address : # 52, Nagarjuna Hills,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500082.
5. Editor’s Name : E N Murthy
Nationality : Indian
(a) Whether a citizen of India? : Yes
Address : # 52, Nagarjuna Hills,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500082.
6. Name and addresses of individuals who own the newspaper and holding more than one
percent of the total capital – IUP Publications (A Division of The ICFAI Society),
# 52, Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500082.

I, E N Murthy, hereby declare that the particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

Date Sd/-
May 2016 Signature of Publisher

Segmentation of Young Consumers of North-East India Based on Their Decision-Making Styles 85

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