1.purchase intention & personal values

8/11/2019 1.Purchase Intention & Personal Values

1/32

Consumers personal values andsales promotion preferences

effect on behavioural intentionand purchase satisfaction for

consumer productJee Teck Weng

School of Business and Design, Swinburne University of Technology,Sarawak Campus, Kuching, Malaysia, and

Ernest Cyril de Run

Business Management Department, Faculty of Economics and Business,Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of Malaysian consumers personalvalues and sales promotion preferences on their overall behavioural intention and purchasesatisfaction.

Design/methodology/approach In total, 1,300 questionnaires were distributed and collected byhand through hired enumerators in 13 different states in Malaysia (Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Melaka,Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Perlis, Pulau Pinang, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Terengganu).This research was carried out for four different type of consumer product (convenience, shopping,specialty/luxury and unsought product). Data were analysed using General Linear Model-MultivariateAnalysis of Variance (MANOVA) and General Linear Model-Univariate Analysis of Variance(ANOVA) to test for difference between independent and dependent variables.

Findings The findings suggest that sales promotion technique preferences will have an impact onconsumers behavioural intention and purchase satisfaction for all the product types studied. On theother hand, there is no significant impact in consumers purchases satisfaction and behaviouralintention by personal value for all the product type studied.

Practical implications The findings from this research have expanded current knowledge andacademic studies done on similar areas of research where this research detail the association ofpersonal value and sales promotion techniques preferences on consumers purchase satisfaction(attitude) and behavioural intention (behaviour) for different types of consumer products. The researchsuggests to managers in Malaysia that it is crucial to understand the characteristics of their productswhen selecting appropriate strategies and sales promotion techniques for better market segmentationand targeting.

Originality/value This research is the first of its type where only a minimal number of studieshave looked into these issues (personal values and sales promotion techniques preferences) froma business perspective.

KeywordsConsumer behaviour, Values, Advertising, Customer satisfaction, Personal value,Sales promotion techniques, Preferences, Product type, Purchase satisfaction, Behavioral intention,Malaysia

Paper typeResearch paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm

APJML25,1

70

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and

Logistics

Vol. 25 No. 1, 2013

pp. 70-101

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1355-5855

DOI 10.1108/13555851311290948


2/32

IntroductionSales promotion activities, especially in the Malaysian retail environment, are mainlyused to induce existing customers to buy more, attract new customers and encouragecustomer switching (De Run and Jee, 2008, 2009; De Run et al., 2010b; Ndubisi and

Chiew, 2005, 2006). Nevertheless, not all sales promotion techniques help marketers tosell their products. Some techniques are more preferred than the others, particularly inthe Malaysian context (Alvarez and Casielles, 2005; De Run et al., 2010b; Ndubisi andChiew, 2005, 2006). Such preferences are affected by personal value where it is partlydetermined by an individuals preliminary values and beliefs (De Run and Jee, 2009;Williams, 1979). Personal values will either affect or not affect sales promotion impactby different type of consumer products. Thus, if personal values lead to salespromotion techniques preferences, they should lead to good purchase satisfaction andpositive behavioural intention (Alvarez and Casielles, 2005; De Run and Jee, 2009).

Consumers like sales promotions (Huff and Alden, 1998), and this is quite evident inthe Malaysian context (De Run and Jee, 2009; De Run et al., 2010b; Huff and Alden,1998; Ndubisi and Chiew, 2005, 2006). This is likely because sales promotions provideutilitarian benefits (for example, monetary savings, added value, convenience andincrease of quality) and hedonic benefits (example; entertainment, self-expression andexploration) to consumers (Babinet al., 1994; Chandonet al., 1997; De Runet al., 2010b;Huff and Alden, 1998). Malaysian consumers are said to be keener to utilitarianbenefits as they provide the tangibility they want and it matches the characteristicsof Malaysian consumers, who are categorized as collectivist (De Runet al., 2010b; Huffand Alden, 1998; Ndubisi and Chiew, 2006). But it does not mean that Malaysianconsumers do not react to the hedonic or non-monetary benefits of sales promotion byemphasizing consumer buying and patronizing. Hence by looking at the preferencespattern of consumers towards sales promotion techniques, we can create a predictivemodel of consumers satisfaction and behavioural intention by preference for sales

promotion type on a particular product type.Most of the product type studies were based on different consumer products

(Goldsmith and Flynn, 1992; Pound et al., 2000), or on industrial products (Gulbro andHerbig, 1995). Hence, sales promotions technique in this context of existing personalvaluesframework will be examined at the level of sales promotion techniques preferences ofdifferent consumer product types (convenience, shopping, specialty/luxury and unsoughtproduct), and its implication on consumer purchase satisfaction and behavioural intentionin the Malaysian context.

Such consumer purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention will differ especiallyin the context where the society, in this case Malaysia, consists of heterogeneouscommunities featuring multi-culture and multi-religion communities. Among the manyethnic groups include Malays, Chinese, Indians and other minority groups such as Iban,

Kadazan, the native locals and others (Fontaine and Richardson, 2005; Haque, 2003;Lee, 2000; Lim, 2001; Rashid and Ho, 2003; Westwood and Everett, 1995). Suchmulti-ethnic and multi-religious group create different purchasing patterns, especiallyon different consumer products (Ndubisi and Chiew, 2006). Previous study done showsthat Malaysians prefer to shop in modern retail stores as they feel that such places aremore likely to provide them with one-stop convenience shopping (Shamsudin andSelamat, 2005). At the same time, they still patronize traditional stores such as groceryshops and small provision stores mainly because they are normally located within

Personal valuesand sales

promotion

71


3/32

residential or workplace areas (Ndubisi and Chiew, 2005, 2006; Shamsudin and Selamat,2005). Because of changes in lifestyles, gains in income and education levels and a muchmore urbanized community, Malaysians looks for value based perspective returns(Ndubisi and Chiew, 2005; Shamsudin and Selamat, 2005). This generally explains the

patterns of preferences among the various communities in Malaysia.This study hence will look into the effects of Malaysian consumers personal values

and sales promotion preferences on their overall purchase satisfaction (attitude) andbehavioural intention (behaviour). This was done by investigating the interaction effects(difference) of different levels of personal values (internal, external, and interpersonal)and preferences of different sales promotion techniques on purchase satisfaction andbehavioural intention for four different type of product. The different levels of personalvalues are sourced from Kahles (1983) studies, with multiple sales promotion techniquesthat are acceptable in the Malaysian context.

Literature review

Academics are mainly concerned with the issue of the effectiveness of sales promotions(Ndubisi and Chiew, 2005, 2006). Although sales promotion is widely used in variouscountries, there is a clear lack of studies on the effects of personal values on salespromotion activities (De Run and Jee, 2009; Huff and Alden, 1998; Kahle, 1983; Ndubisiand Chiew, 2005, 2006). Hence there is call for more in-depth research to be carried outon the effect of personal value on sales promotion activities. Hence this study will lookinto the various literatures done on values, personal values, sales promotion andproduct type.

ValuesThe interest in consumers value has been growing tremendously in recent years(Beatty et al., 1985; Kahle et al., 1986; Kamakura and Mazzon, 1991; Novak and

MacEvoy, 1990; Pitts and Woodside, 1983; Reynolds, 1985; Reynolds and Jolly, 1980). Ithas increasingly become the subject of intense empirical research (Alwin, 1984; Pittsand Woodside, 1986; Tetlock, 1986) particularly in marketing (Ferrandi et al., 2000).However, recent marketing claims of value constructs are noticeably different from theapplications seen in previous literature on value segmentation (Kamakura and Mazzon,1991; Kamakura and Novak, 1992). These include using Rokeach value system (RVS)to describe the value structure of a population or group of individuals (Kamakura andMazzon, 1991).

There are numerous definitions of values as group customs or shared beliefsinternalized by individuals (Engelet al., 1995), a conception of a desirable set of values(Kluckhohn, 1951), and as a criteria of preferences (Williams, 1968). Value is alsoarranged by certain hierarchy weight (Schwartz, 1992) and where it is conceived as

personality (Rokeach, 1973). Value guides the desirable states that a social actorconducts, evaluates events and people and literally explains a social actor conducts andevaluations (Kluckhohn, 1951; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992, 1999).

Values consist of demeanour and the idea of enviable end-states that steer selectionand assessment of events and behaviour. Values here basically serve as a guide forconsumer consumption behaviour (Kilbourne et al., 2005; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz,1992). Values often offer prevailing justifications of human action as they areunwavering over time (Inglehart, 1985; Kamakura and Mazzon, 1991; Rokeach, 1974;

APJML25,1

72


4/32

Rokeach and Ball-Rokeach, 1989), tend to be restricted in volume (Rokeach, 1979) andserve as the criterion of behaviour (Williams, 1968).

The conceptualization of values itself reflects the interest in several scholarly fields,namely: psychology, anthropology and sociology studies (Vinson et al., 1977), and in

particular, marketing (Ferrandi et al., 2000). This interest is reflected in numerousempirical studies that established links between values and choices of brand or product(Henry, 1976), store patronage (Becker and Kaldenberg, 2000), gift giving (Beatty et al.,1996) and preferences (Beatty et al., 1985). It also establishes several relationshipsbetween values and consumer behaviour such as innovativeness (Roehrich et al., 1989),attitudes (Homer and Kahle, 1988) and pro-environmental attitudes (McCarty andShrum, 1994; Milfont, 2007).

Personal valueValues are held in common by both the individual and society (Kahle, 1983; Schwartz,1999). Prior discussion was on the overall aspect of values while personal value is

described as the learned beliefs that serve as the guiding ethics in the life of an individualperson (Costa and McCrae, 2001; McCrae and Costa, 1999; Olver and Mooradian, 2003;Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1999). Personal values are beliefs or concepts that guideassessment and choice of particular events and behaviour to an enviable end state(in order to achieve recompense or to avoid chastisement) (Kropp et al., 1999a, 2005).These behavioural situations are structured by relative magnitude of the individualsbeliefs (Olver and Mooradian, 2003; Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987). Personal values arealso relatively durable and it predicts both attitudes and behaviours (Lotz et al., 2003;Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987).

Personal value itself is more global in nature (Lotzet al., 2003), but attitudes tend tobe more domain specific (Rokeach, 1968). Personal values guide attitudes, actions,

judgments and behaviour (Beatty et al., 1985; Rokeach, 1973). Personal values

influences choices and evaluations of objects and ideas (Vinsonet al., 1977). It is also aninherently positive construct of an individuals traits (McCarty and Shrum, 2000).Thus, the success of validating the personal values construct lies in the ability tosegment individuals into qualitative groups based on their value orientation (Reynolds,1985; Smith and Schwartz, 1997).

Personal value refers to individual beliefs that mainly serve as the guiding code ofan individuals life or community (Costa and McCrae, 2001; Schwartz, 1994). Most ofthe studies in personal value were done to predict and explain behaviours and attitudes(Kahle, 1984; Kropp et al., 2005). It is mainly used in situations where it provides atheoretical set of behavioural guiding codes (Williams, 1979) as well as reflecting thebasic adaptation characteristics, apart from guidelines to shape and guide behaviourand attitude (Kroppet al., 2005). Apart from that, studies on values were mainly done

on matters relating to social marketing (Kropp et al., 2005) for example, cause relatedmarketing (Kropp et al., 1999a; Lavack and Kropp, 2003), ethics (Nonis and Swift,2001; Rallapalliet al., 2000), smoking and drinking behaviour (Kim and Lavack, 1996;Kropp et al., 1999b). It has also been used in other aspect of marketing such as,typecasting of international business (Soutar et al., 1999) and salesperson recitals(Weeks and Muehling, 1987). Most of the values used were documented incross-cultural (Beattyet al., 1993; Kahleet al., 1999) as well as domestic environments(Beatty et al., 1985; Fisher, 2000).


promotion

73


5/32

In past years, many studies in marketing research have used list of value (LOV) scalesof values, introduced by Kahle (1980) (Kropp et al., 2005). This is because LOV isidentified as an easier to administer measurement as compared to other approaches(Kale and McIntyre, 1991; Kroppet al., 2005). Most of the studies on values concentrated

on the USA (Kahle, 1983), hence it is of significant apprehension on examining valuesconstruct in cross-cultural settings, particularly in personal values setting through theLOV measurements construct in Malaysia.

There is an causal relationship in the values-attitude-behaviour hierarchy model(Homer and Kahle, 1988; Kahle, 1983, 1980; Lotz et al ., 2003). The model(value-attitude-behaviour) indicates that values influence behaviour directly orindirectly through attitude (Homer and Kahle, 1988). Therefore, this would imply thatthe hierarchy of cognitions from the value-attitude-behaviour model, where it influencesthe value-attitude-behaviour, flows from a more abstract cognitions (values) to mid-rangecognitions (attitudes) and, to specific behaviours (Homer and Kahle, 1988; Kahle, 1983,1980). This is shown in previous studies that had used this model predominantly as theirmain theoretical framework (Homer and Kahle, 1988; Kahle, 1983, 1980; Lotzet al., 2003).

Sales promotionSales promotion is defined as a special offer or a part of marketing communicationactivities (Alvarez and Casielles, 2005; Peattie, 1998). Other studies defined salespromotion as an offer or incentive that induces manufacturers, and retailers, desiredsales result (Gilbert and Jackaria, 2002). Sales promotion can also be referred to as anyincentive used by manufacturers or retailers to provoke trade with other retailers orwith other channel members, or with consumers to buy brands apart from encouragingthe sales force to aggressively sell the items (Shimp, 2003).

The literature shows that sales promotion has grown in importance for bothmanufacturers and retailers worldwide (Ndubisi and Chiew, 2005). Such a general swing

of importance of sales promotions is driven by several factors, including a rise inadvertising clutters and pricing; sales promotion have become more respectable,increasing the influence of retailers and practitioners approaches towardsmicro-marketing, decreases in planning time horizons of sales promotions andsnowball effects (Dickson, 1982; Kashani and Quelch, 1990; Lawrence et al., 1986; Peattieand Peattie, 1995; Toop, 1992). Numerous recent studies have been done on the impactof sales promotions on consumers values (De Run and Jee, 2009; Tybout and Artz,1994), attitude and behaviour (Alvarez and Casielles, 2005). But still the success ofsales promotion techniques have received little academic study despite the evidenceon the growth of the importance of sales promotion compared to other forms ofmarketing techniques, such as advertising (Peattie, 1998).

Nevertheless, sales promotion was subjected to little research where nearly all were

written in handbooks as sales promotion guides and was sourced from the USA(Foxman et al., 1988). Too much concentration on the US market and consumerperspectives had made the application of sales promotion in other regions insignificant(Huff and Alden, 1998). In addition to this, most of the studies done on sales promotionmainly concentrated on the use of monetary promotions (Garretson and Burton, 2003)where little research has been done on the non-monetary promotions aspect and withlittle focus on the Asia market in particular (De Run et al., 2010a, b, c). Detailed discussionsof different sales promotions are going to be explained further in the following sub-topic.

APJML25,1

74


6/32

Studies in Malaysia found that for retailers or manufacturers to encourage customersto patronize their stores, sales promotion would seem to be the most appropriate methodor medium (Ndubisi and Chiew, 2005, 2006). Previous studies showed that whenproperly implemented sales promotion techniques would help retailers or

manufacturers to encourage customers to patronize their stores and to try out theproducts and services being promoted, and in return would help the retailers andmanufacturers to achieve their objectives (Alvarez and Casielles, 2005; De Run and Jee,2008). Malaysian consumers behaviour and purchase patterns indicated that the mostwidely implemented and liked sales promotion techniques by retailers andmanufacturers in Malaysia were coupon, price discount, free samples and bonuspacks (De Run and Jee, 2008; De Run et al., 2010b).

Malaysian consumers are less likely to feel embarrassed to enjoy monetary-savingpromotional offers (Ndubisi and Chiew, 2005). This mainly occurred because they see thesepromotional offers as a sign of opportunity to buy more and it is worth to buy. This wasrather different compared to countries like Japan where they see it as a sign of poverty orlosing face even though they were categorized similarly as a collectivist country likeMalaysia (Kashaniand Quelch, 1990; Singelis and Brown, 1995; Singelis and Sharkey, 1995).

Product typeAnother important variable in this study is product type. Product type is identified asone of the key factors in determining consumers perspectives (Jarvenpaa and Todd,1996). Consumer product literatures have documented the importance of personal valuesstudies especially on consumers products (De Run and Jee, 2009; Pitts and Woodside,1983). Personal value were shown to influence different consumer product and eventuallyconsumer brand preferences (De Run and Jee, 2009; Kamakura and Mazzon, 1991;Kamakura and Novak, 1992; Pitts and Woodside, 1983; Pitts and Woodside, 1986).

Product type has been identified to some degree as one of the key elements in shaping

consumers perspectives ( Jarvenpaa and Todd, 1996). Product type and its characteristicsare mainly referred to as knowledge about the product type, frequency of purchase,product differentiation, product tangibility and price (Cheung and Rensvold, 1999).Previous studies showed that product differentiation was mainly used in competitionbetween products that were located at various positions in a theoretical characteristicsspace in which consumers have personal preferences over the different positions(Linet al., 2005). It also allows firms to better serve the consumers different preferences.It would also potentially help firms to better acquire localized market power.

Thus, this study will expand the current knowledge to include sales promotiontechniques for different types of consumer products, namely: convenience products,shopping products, specialty/luxury and unsought products (Gilbert, 1999; Kotler andArmstrong, 2004), and its impact towards customers purchase satisfaction and

behavioural intention (Alvarez and Casielles, 2005; De Run and Jee, 2009; Smith et al., 2002).

Purchase satisfactionPrevious purchase experiences with satisfaction play a significant role in shapingpurchase behaviours in the future especially as a minimization strategy effort(Jones and Suh, 2000; Russell-Bennettet al., 2007). Besides that, purchase satisfactionsare also an important key driver of loyalty (Russell-Bennettet al., 2007) and repurchaseintentions (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; De Run and Jee, 2009). Purchase satisfaction


promotion

75


7/32

in this phenomenon is thought to possess both affective and cognitive components(Bitner, 1990; Oliver, 1980). This can be explained through the construct ofpre-purchase and post-purchase satisfaction.

Studies done on examining the relationship between pre-purchase and post-purchase

satisfaction showed that post-purchase satisfaction was to be the outcome of thepre-purchase decision making process and consequently explaining the overall purchasesatisfaction phenomenon (Chae et al., 2006). Hence, the easiest way to explain overallpurchase satisfaction would be to explain and show it through post-purchase evaluation(Dube and Menon, 2000; McCollough and Gremler, 2004). This is because when customersor consumers make a purchase decision that is based on what they need or how thesepurchases may be convenient to them, these customers or consumers would expectpost-purchase services to be provided by the company or provider and hence it wouldlead to satisfaction and repeat-purchase intentions (Shimet al., 2002).

Besides that, previous studies have also shown that anticipated satisfaction andpre-purchase satisfaction were both discernible constructs where pre-purchase wereidentified as the predictor of purchase behaviour, particularly for first time buyers(Simintiras et al., 1997). Other similar studies done on guarantee evaluation have alsoshown a significant relationship between evaluations and pre-purchase choice whereguarantee would likely influence consumer satisfaction even if the guarantee was highlyreliable (McCollough and Gremler, 2004). Such a phenomenon would anticipatepost-purchase satisfaction that was to be likely identified as the predictor for overallpurchase satisfaction and following a consumption experience pattern (Chaeet al., 2006).Post-purchase satisfaction here is critical for increasing repeat purchase behaviours apartfrom maintaining the existing customers (Jaramillo and Marshall, 2004; Johnston andMarshall, 2003).

Other studies on similar grounds suggested that higher perception of retailer fairnesswould also lead to higher purchase satisfaction as compared to lower perceptions of

fairness (Chatterjee, 2007). In addition to this, studies done on trust and satisfaction alsosuggested impacts on future sales prospects in personal selling situations (Crosby et al.,1990) as consumer satisfaction is solely unquestionable to the key predictor for retainingcustomers, especially in professional prospects (Day et al., 1988). Therefore, a keeninterest in this thesis is the formation of purchase satisfaction as an overall attitudeindicator (Mano and Oliver, 1993) in purchasing different product types.

Behavioural intentionThe other interest in this study is to look at consumers behavioural intention. Numerousservice research based studies have shown that intentions served well as the maindependent predictors in most of the service research (Boulding et al., 1993; Kuoet al., 2009;Liao et al., 2007; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Behavioural intentions here were subjected to

careful conceptualization (Liao et al., 2007; Soderlund and Ohman, 2005). Furthermore,the rendezvous of intentions in behaviours were determined beforehand by an individualsattitude towards that particular behaviour pattern (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).

Nevertheless, the most predominant antecedent for behavioural intention was thesubjective norm construct (Ajzen, 1991). There were considerable empirical supportsfor this construct from some of the well known authors on this subject (Bock et al.,2005; Mathienson, 1991; Taylor and Todd, 1995; Thompson et al., 1991). Thesesubjective norms were determined to have a direct or indirect impact on behavioural

APJML25,1

76


8/32

intentions through the prior formation of attitude as explained in theory of reasonaction (TRA) (Bock et al., 2005) and which were further explained in studies byFishbein and Ajzen (1975).

The behavioural intention applied in this study will be used to measure the

likelihood that a person will employ this application, word-of-mouth (referral) (Ryanand Etzel, 1976) and purchase intention (or intentions to purchase) (Ryan, 1978).Word-of-mouth is viewed as either being favourable or unfavourable towards aproduct, service, company or even other consumer dependent upon the nature of thecommunication purpose (Halsteadet al., 1994). While others used word-of-mouth as anindicator for satisfaction (Holmes and Lett, 1977; Naylor and Kleiser, 2000; Swanet al.,1982), it was also used as an indicator for loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994), product andbrand consumption (Bearden and Etzel, 1982), and consumers complaining behaviour(Richins, 1983).

Studies conducted on the influence of reference-groups and peers on brand orproduct consumption (Bearden and Etzel, 1982; Mason, 1981) found out that thestrength of a product or brand was strongly related to the weak influence of thereference-group (Vigneron and Johnson, 1999). This was mainly because publiclyconsumed brands or products were more likely to be consumed and recognized ascompared to privately consumed brands and products which were evident on luxurybrands or products consumption pattern (Bearden and Etzel, 1982).

Purchase intention at the other hand is generally the indicator for consumershopping behaviour (Brown et al., 2003). It was also an important indicator for bottomline performance where it had been shown to be significantly related to brand andbranding (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995), attitude towards the advertisement (MacKenzieand Lutz, 1989), word-of-mouth (Gitlin, 2001; Reichheld, 2003), corporate credibility(Goldsmith et al., 2000; Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999), claims (Newell et al., 1998;Peterson et al., 1992), and ethnicity (Simpson et al., 2000).

Consumer prediction of intention or purchase intention could be explained thoughthe theory of planned behaviour (TPB) model (Ajzen and Madden, 1986). This ismainly because of the close connection between behaviour and attitude intentionswhich were significantly demonstrated through this model (May So et al., 2005) aspurchase intentions. This is further explained by the attitude towards the idea itself(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Other studies, on the other hand, enhanced this school ofthought where customer purchasing intentions could be further explained using thetheory of reasoned action (TRA) model (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). The TRA modelsuggests that performance of an explicit behaviour is determined by the intention toperform the behaviour itself (Warshaw, 1980).

Conceptual framework

An assumption in this study is that consumer personal values is suggested to havedirect impact on preference of particular sales promotion techniques (Williams, 1968,1979). This is apparent where these preferences are different for each differentconsumer product type (Kotler and Armstrong, 2004; McCarthy and Perreault, 1993).Purchase satisfaction (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999) and behavioural intention (Ajzenand Fishbein, 1980) may also differ depending on personal value backgrounds (Kahle,1983). Personal values were suggested to differ from each another (Kropp et al., 2005)and will have an impact on attitude and behaviour (Kahle, 1984).


promotion

77


9/32

Moreover, it has also been suggested that preferences of different sales promotion

techniques will lead to favourable level of purchase satisfaction and behavioural

intention (Bowles, 1998; Nowell-Smith, 1954) and differ from each another (Ndubisi and

Chiew, 2006; Norzaishah, 2007). At the same time, personal value is moderated by

preferences of different sales promotion techniques (Williams, 1968, 1979), hence

leading to favourable level of purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention (Bowles,

1998; Nowell-Smith, 1954; Smith, 1998) (Figure 1).

The variables in the model are based on adaptation from related previous studies. The

research hypotheses are developed and based on the detailed breakdown of the matter

on the research. Previous study done indicated that the three component of personal value

(internal, external and interpersonal value) differ from each and another (Kropp et al.,

2005) based on attitude (purchase satisfaction) and behaviour (behavioural intention)

(De Run and Jee, 2009; Kahle, 1984). The hypotheses are written as follows:

H1. There is a significant difference in purchase satisfaction by personal value

(internal, external and interpersonal), for the four product types.

H2. There is a significant difference in behavioural intention by personal value

(internal, external and interpersonal) for the four product types.

Sales promotion technique preferences differ from each another (Ndubisi and Chiew,

2006) based on attitude (purchase satisfaction) and behaviour (behavioural intention)

(Bowles, 1998). The hypotheses are written as follows:

H3. There is a significant difference in purchase satisfaction by sales promotion

techniques preferences for the four product types.

H4. There is a significant difference in behavioural intention by sales promotion

techniques preferences for the four product types.

Figure 1.Personal values influenceon sales promotioneffectiveness

H1, H3

H2, H4

Indicators:

Output Condition

Personal

Values (List

of Values)

Purchase Satisfaction

Moderator:

SalesPromotion

Techniques

Preferences

Behavioural Intention

Model fit for three product type;- Convenient- Shopping- Specialty/Luxury

Input Condition

Sources: Adapted from Williams (1968), Kahle (1984), Jayawardhena (2004) and

Kotler and Armstrong (2004)

APJML25,1

78


10/32

MethodologyA two-stage study was employed in this study. Initially exploratory tests were carriedout to measure respondent preferences towards different sales promotion techniquesfor each product type. A factorial design was then created and a survey employed to obtain

responses from purchasing enabled consumers in Malaysia. The decision concerningsample size was predetermined by the considerations of the factorial design used in thestudy. This study uses a 3 (internal, external and interpersonal value) 2 (most and leastpreferred sales promotion techniques) 4 product type (convenience, shopping,specialty/luxury and unsought product) factorial design. The most and least preferredsales promotion techniques for each product differ forthe four different questionnaires (referto exploratory test stage) that were generated and distributed to different consumers inMalaysia. A minimum of 50 respondents per cell (De Run, 2004; Hairet al., Jr, 1998) meantthat there was a requirement of 300 respondents per product type, per questionnaire. A total1,300 questionnaires were distributed and collected by hand through hired enumerators in13 different states in Malaysia (Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang,Perak, Perlis, Pulau Pinang, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Terengganu). Kuala Lumpur(the capital city of Malaysia) was included in Selangor and Labuan was included in Sabah.In total, 100 questionnaires were collected in each state with a variation of 25 questionnairesfor each product type. Such a quantity of questionnaires is based on the considering of thepossibilities of missing data, incomplete and unusable questionnaires.

This study questionnaire consisted of three sections. Section one comprises of itemsrelating to demographic information such as age, gender, occupation, and family size.Section two consists of items related to personal values, with scales sourced fromestablished studies relating to LOVs (Kroppet al., 2005). LOVs variables were used asthe independent variables in the study. These variables were chosen because they hadbeen used in previous studies and were in line with the study objective.

Section three consisted of two parts. The first part comprises of most and least

preferred sales promotion techniques for four different type of consumer productssourced from the exploratory test done earlier (the Appendix). The most and leastpreferred sales promotion techniques for four different types of consumer products wereused as the moderating variables in this study. These variables were chosen becausethey were in line with the study objectives. Respondents were asked to rank the differenttechnique based on their personal preferences, based on a six-point scale (where 1 strongly least preferred and 6 very strongly most preferred). This was also done tocheck on the exploratory test done earlier.

The second part of section three comprises of items related to purchase satisfactionwith items sourced from Sanzo et al. (2003); It is very likely that I will recommend otherpeople buy that product, I prefer that product (your latest purchase) to others, I amextremely satisfied with this product and I am extremely happy with the person who

sold it to me. This section also includes items related to consumers behaviouralintention (purchase intention and word-of-mouth) measurement based on items sourcedfrom Soderlund (2006) for positive word-of-mouth and Maheswaran and Sternthal (1990)for positive purchase intention for each of the four different types of consumer products.Items for word-of-mouth include It is very likely that I will recommend other people buythat product, I will talk about the product with other persons and My purchaseof this product is a natural topic of conversation for me. Item used in measuringpurchase intention in this study is If I were looking for purchase, I would certainly buy


promotion

79


11/32

the product. These variables were chosen as they had been continuously used inprevious studies and were in line with the objectives outlined in the study. Themeasurements used are detailed in Table I. Respondents were asked to respond to asix-point scale (where 1 very strongly disagree and 6 very strongly agree).

Further validity and reliability tests were conducted in the study. In this case scaleswere used (refer Table I), a validity test was done using exploratory factor analysis anda reliability test was done using Cronbachs a test. This was done to check on thevalidity and reliability of the independent and dependent variables used in the study,apart from validate appropriateness of the scales used.

A six-point scale was used because it has been observed that respondents tend toscore on the middle point of any Likert type scale (Chang, 1994). This is particularlyevident in the Malaysian case due to the collectivist nature of the respondents (Singelisand Brown, 1995). Hence, a six-point scale works best in such condition where iteliminates such a pattern, as it forces respondents to choose a point either before or afterthe mind set middle point that is now non-existent. At the same time, using a finer tunedsix-point scale would also result in higher validity and reliability for the findings (Chang,1994). It must also be noted that there are various types of scales available, from a simplethree-point scale to a Juster scale (11-point scale) (Juster, 1966). The use of the scale isdictated by the study needs and requirements, which is done here. The analyticalstrategies for validity and reliability test are presented here. However, the validityand reliability test are not conducted for purchase intention variables as there is only oneitem. Table II depicts the final reliability test for all the variables used in the study.

Measure AuthorNo. ofitems

No. ofvariables

Scalerange

No. offactors Reliability Validity

Scaletype

List ofvalues

Kropp et al. (2005) 9 3 1-9 3 0.71-0.88 Yesa L

Purchasesatisfaction

Sanzo et al. (2003) 4 1 1-5 No L

Purchaseintention

Maheswaran andSternthal (1990) 1 1 1-7 No L

Word-of-mouth

Soderlund (2006) 3 1 1-10 0.85 No L

Notes: aExploratory factor analysis; L Likert scale

Table I.Summary of sources ofkey measurement scales

MeasureNo. ofitems

No. ofvariables

Scalerange

No. offactors Reliability Variance Scale type

List of values 9 3 1-6 3 0.81-0.91 57.81 Six-pointscale

Purchasesatisfaction

4 1 1-6 1 0.81 63.80 Six-pointscale

Purchaseintention

1 1 1-6 Six-pointscale

Word-of-mouth 3 1 1-6 1 0.72 64.79 Six-pointscale

Table II.Summary of finalmeasures

APJML25,1

80


12/32

The basic analytical strategies used in this study are between-groups comparison.Descriptive analysis was first carried out, followed by between-groups comparison.For between-groups comparison, general linear model-multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA) and general linear model-univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used

(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1982). MANOVA and GLM-ANOVA provide a clear view of thedifference effect between independent and dependent variables (Hairet al., 1998).

FindingsDetails of respondents demographics by different type of consumer products ispresented in Table III. For all the four product typed studied, most of the respondentswere female (55-60 per cent) where most of them were Malay (50-64 per cent) representingthe major ethnic in Malaysia. Most of the respondents were within the age range of21-55 years old (61-67 per cent) and earn an income ranging from RM2,000 and below.

Table IV depicts the different components of personal value (internal, external andinterpersonal) variables mean score for each of the four different types of consumerproducts. Internal value consists of self-fulfilment, self-respect and accomplishment.External value consists of security, belonging, warm relationship and being well-respected.Interpersonal value, on the other hand, consists of fun and enjoyment in life and excitement.

Convenienceproducts

Shoppingproducts

Specialty/luxuryproducts

Unsoughtproducts

Variables Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %

GenderFemale 156 56 154 55 155 56 179 60Male 125 45 125 45 122 44 118 40

Age scale21-25 171 61 186 67 170 61 197 66

26-30 31 11 54 19 48 17 46 1631-35 33 12 15 5 26 9 16 536-40 22 8 8 3 11 4 11 441-45 13 5 6 2 3 1 12 446-50 8 3 6 2 5 2 4 151-55 1 0 3 1 4 1 4 1

Monthly gross incomeRM1,000 and below 91 32 86 31 77 28 76 26RM1,001-RM2,000 89 32 91 33 78 28 96 32RM2,001-RM3,000 44 16 22 8 38 14 25 8RM3,001 and above 22 8 21 8 26 9 14 5

EthnicityMalay 161 57 175 63 177 64 147 50Chinese 66 24 63 23 54 20 117 39

Indian 14 5 10 4 15 5 10 3Others 40 14 31 11 31 11 23 8Sales promotion techniqueSample 123 44 Premium 138 50 136 49 Cash refund offer 111 37Game 158 56 141 51 141 51 186 63

Note: Freq frequency

Table III.Demographic profile

of respondentby product type


promotion

81


13/32

A preliminary GLM-MANOVA test carried out found that MANOVA main effects(personal value) was found to be not significant for convenience product (Pillai 0.014,F 0.752, p , 0.557), shopping product (Pillai 0.007, F 0.343, p , 0.849),specialty/luxury product (Pillai 0.011, F 0.595, p , 0.667) and unsought product

(Pillai 0.016, F 0.863, p , 0.486) with the all the dependent variables (purchasesatisfaction and behavioural intention). This indicates that there is no significant effectfor personal value on purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention for all the fourproduct studied.

MANOVA main effects (sales promotion techniques preferences) was found to besignificant for convenience product (Pillai 0.068, F 7.899, p , 0.000), shoppingproduct (Pillai 0.045, F 4.919, p , 0.008), and specialty/luxury product(Pillai 0.072, F 8.128, p , 0.000) with the all the dependent variables (purchasesatisfaction and behavioural intention). This indicates that there is a significant effectfor sales promotion techniques preferences on purchase satisfaction and behaviouralintention for convenience, shopping and specialty/luxury product. However,MANOVA main effects (sales promotion techniques preferences) were found to benot significant for unsought product (Pillai 0.012, F 1.313, p , 0.271) with all thedependent variables (purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention) tested. Thisshows that there is no significant effect for sales promotion techniques preferences onpurchase satisfaction and behavioural intention for unsought product.

MANOVA interaction effect was found to be significant for convenience product(Pillai 0.061, F 3.425, p , 0.009) with all the dependent variables (purchasesatisfaction and behavioural intention). This indicates that there is a significantinteraction effects of sales promotion techniques preferences and personal value onpurchase satisfaction and behavioural intention for convenience product. However,MANOVA interaction effect was found to be not significant for shopping product(Pillai 0.003, F 0.147, p , 0.964), specialty product (Pillai 0.013, F 0.696,

p , 0.595) and unsought product (Pillai 0.028, F 1.523, p , 0.194) with all thedependent variables (purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention) tested. Thisshows that there is no significant interaction effects of sales promotion techniquespreferences and personal value on purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention forshopping, specialty/luxury and unsought product.

GLM-ANOVA was further carried out for all purchase satisfaction and behaviouralintentions by personal value and sales promotion techniques preferences for all theproduct type studied. Table V depicts purchase satisfaction and behavioural intentionsmean score and GLM-ANOVA test by personal value variable for each of the fourdifferent types of consumer products.

Convenienceproducts

Shoppingproducts

Specialty/luxury products

Unsoughtproducts

Variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Internal 4.46 0.88 4.50 0.85 4.54 0.85 4.50 0.84External 4.57 0.81 4.60 0.87 4.59 0.88 4.51 0.89Interpersonal 4.91 0.95 4.89 1.08 4.93 0.97 4.91 0.96

Note:SD standard deviationTable IV.Personal value meanscore

APJML25,1

82


14/32


15/32

DiscussionThe findings were mainly guided by the context chosen to test the theoretical frameworkand hypotheses. This study uses personal values and sales promotion techniquespreferences in the Malaysian context. Different personal values and sales promotion

techniques preferences may have an influence on consumers purchase satisfactionand behavioural intention for different consumers product type. It is thereforeimportant to understand the characteristics of Malaysian consumers personal valuesand sales promotion techniques preferences, as well as the characteristics of eachconsumers product type in order to interpret and evaluate the findings.

Contextual influenceThe discussion of the findings in this study must also be seen from the aspect of theretail environment in Malaysia. It is noted that the Malaysian retail environment hashad tremendous growth and marked changes over the decades. More and more retailoutlets, such as superstores, supermarkets, convenience stores and even warehouses

have been added to the retail landscape (Lim et al., 2003). Such a retail growthphenomenon is continuously subject to forces such as consumer behaviour,competition, social status and values (Lai, 2009; Shamsudin and Selamat, 2005),where it is much apparent in Malaysia consumers purchasing pattern (Limet al., 2003).

At the same time, Malaysian consumers purchasing patterns are also subject tocontinuous changes and reflect consumers decision making processes. Malaysianconsumer purchase aspects are mainly affected by factors such as: more and morechoices for consumer selection on multiple brands, higher level of technologicaladvancement, more and more effective critical promotional plans, better competitivepricing strategies (cost reduction), flexible modes of purchase (convenience), continuousresearch and development done on better identifying consumer purchasing pattern,and product experience (Chuaet al., 2006; Heaneyet al., 2008).

Apart from that, the implementation of different sales promotion techniques mayalso have an important effect on Malaysian consumers overall purchase satisfaction andbehavioural intention. The use of various sales promotion techniques in the Malaysiacontext is extensively carried out by retailers, manufacturers and distributors. Theyutilize both hedonic and utilitarian sales promotions techniques to gain and createmarket share and competition (Babinet al., 1994; De Run and Jee, 2008, 2009; Ndubisiand Chiew, 2005, 2006). There is a level of awareness and an acceptance of differentsales promotion techniques used by retailers, manufacturers and distributors, especiallyin the retail environment (Chandon et al., 2000; De Run and Jee, 2008; De Run et al.,2010b; Ndubisi and Chiew, 2005, 2006).

Malaysians are also known to be collectivist in nature (Singelis and Brown, 1995).Collectivist community, such as Malaysia, mainly see themselves as a vital part of their

groups, such as family and colleagues (Triandis, 1995). This indicates that people fromcollectivist cultures are more often motivated by their social norms imposed by theircommunity. They put more emphasis on relationships and connections in their owncommunity. Not only that, collectivist communities also prioritizes achieving the commongoals of their community. They tend to repress their own personal attributes in certainsettingsin order to please themass (Kacenand Lee, 2002).People from collectivistculturesare more likely to put aside their personal emotional feelings (Triandis, 1995). Previousstudies done indicated that attitude-intention and attitude-behaviour relationships were

APJML25,1

84


16/32

weaker in collectivist cultures such as Malaysia (Kacen and Lee, 2002; Kashima et al.,1992; Lee, 2000; Triandis, 1995). All of the above have an impact on the findings of thehypotheses tested.

Hypothesis findings and discussionsThe hypotheses set out to determine if there were any differences in purchase satisfactionand behavioural intention by personal value (internal, external and interpersonal) for eachof the four different products. This study also sets out to determine if there were anydifference in purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention by sales promotiontechniques preferences for each of the four different products.

The findings show that there is no difference in purchase satisfaction and behaviouralintention by different personal value for all the product type studied. Convenience,shopping and unsought products may have little or no impact on respondent values.Nevertheless, by theory (Kotler and Armstrong, 2004), a specialty/luxury product shouldhave some impact. This is because it normally requires deep consideration and thought

on behalf of the consumer. However, specialty/luxury product characteristics did nottranspire for the respondents of this study as significantly different. Such finding doesnot supportH1andH2.

This might have occurred as when Malaysian consumers purchase anyspecialty/luxury product, their decisions were more guided by status seeking (Phauand Yip, 2008) and store image (dAstous and Gargouri, 2001), rather than their set ofbeliefs or personal value. They do not bother about their personal interest in apurchase, but rather what society thinks of their purchase and how society evaluates it.Such indications, hence, show that there is no difference in their purchase satisfactionand behavioural intention by personal value, particularly for the purchase ofspecialty/luxury products.

Apart from that, purchasing specialty/luxury products such as car (as the example

used in this study) by the masses in Malaysia may no longer be seen as aspecialty/luxury purchase as suggested by previous studies (Mandel et al., 2006). Carmakers such as Proton and Perodua have made the purchase of a car in Malaysiaaffordable and easier (low interest purchase schemes, no down payment, lesspaperwork) (Zardy, 2005). This has made purchasing a car in Malaysia less of adeliberate act. This then reflects less on personal values. This is acknowledged as oneof the limitations of this study.

Such findings may have occurred due to the collectivist nature of Malaysianconsumers (Singelis and Brown, 1995). In a collectivist community such as Malaysia,the common goal is to achieve the common interest of many. Malaysian consumershere are known to suppress the emotional portion of their impulse buying (Kacen andLee, 2002; Singelis and Brown, 1995). This then brings the understanding that

Malaysian consumers purchase decision under impulse conditions would occurregardless of their personal value evaluation. Individual personal values hence do notcome into play in such situations.

Other than the characteristics of different product types and the collectivist nature ofMalaysian consumers, their purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention may havealso been guided by other factors. These factors include multiple selection of multiplebrands, effective promotional plans, competitive pricing strategies for different brand,and quality products offered by retailers and manufacturers (Hassan et al., 2009;


promotion

85


17/32

Mehraet al., 1998). These mainly occurred due to the intensive promotional strategiesimposed by retailers and manufacturers on consumer products such as price cut andeasy payment schemes. This will reflect more on consumers purchase satisfaction andbehavioural intention for the purchase of different type of consumer products. These

phenomena (price cut and easy payment) are effective in the Malaysian context whereMalaysian consumers have been shown to place more importance on monetary basedbenefits from a purchase.

At the same time, the findings in this study show that there is significant differencein purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention by most and least preferred salespromotion techniques for the purchase of convenience, shopping and specialty/luxuryproducts only. The findings thus supportH3 and H4 for the purchase of convenience,shopping and specialty product. This is in line with previous studies that showdifference in attitude (purchase satisfaction) and behaviour (behavioural intention) bypreferences (Bowles, 1998). The most preferred sales promotion techniques used forconvenience, shopping and specialty/luxury products in this study were sample andpremium. The least preferred sales promotion techniques for convenience, shoppingand specialty/luxury product is game. Such identification of most and least preferredsales promotion technique will have a strong implication for consumers overallpurchase satisfaction and behavioural intention for the purchase of different type ofconsumer products (De Run and Jee, 2009).

Sales promotion techniques such as sample and premium promise monetary valueand game offer more of a non-monetary value to the consumers (Ndubisi and Chiew,2005). By inducing monetary value sales promotion techniques such as sample andpremium on convenience, shopping and specialty/luxury product will increaserespondents overall purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention. This isparticularly evident in the Malaysian market as Malaysian consumers have beenshown to prefer such sales promotion techniques (Ndubisi and Chiew, 2006).

Preferred sales promotion techniques have been shown to anticipate higher purchasesatisfaction and behavioural intention as compared to the least preferred sales promotiontechniques (De Run and Jee, 2009; Ndubisi and Chiew, 2006). This is in line with thefindings from this study that indicate difference in consumers purchase satisfactionand behavioural intention by most and least preferred sales promotion technique whenconsumers purchase convenience, shopping and specialty/luxury products.

Nevertheless, the findings show that there is no significant difference in purchasesatisfaction and behavioural intention by sales promotion technique preferences for thepurchase of unsought product, hence does not provide any evident support forH3 andH4for the purchase of unsought product. The nature of unsought products entails lowlikelihood of differences in consumers purchase satisfaction and behavioural intentionby sales promotion techniques preferences. This is because consumers are normally

less aware of the benefits and purpose of purchasing unsought products. Hence, anysales promotion techniques implemented in promoting unsought products such as lifeinsurance will be deemed insufficient, as unsought products require more than justpreferred sales promotion techniques.

Other promotional mix such as personal selling and advertisement may increaseconsumers purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention for the purchase ofunsought products. As consumers get more information on the product from personalselling, it is likely to increase the likelihood of their purchase satisfaction and

APJML25,1

86


18/32

behavioural intention. Similarly, when using advertisement, more information andknowledge on the product will increase the consumers purchase satisfaction andbehavioural intention.

At the same time, product involvement may also increase consumers purchase

satisfaction and behavioural intention on the preferences of sales promotion techniquesfor the purchase of unsought products, as involving the consumer into the product willmake them feel more at ease and attached to the product. Such product involvementwill increase the likelihood of consumers satisfaction with their purchase and to repeatthe purchase from the same retailers or service providers, at the same time asintroducing the purchase to their peers, family and friends.

Managerial implicationsThe findings indicated that personal value (internal, external and interpersonal) is aweak indicator of respondents purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention for allproduct types. Such findings for personal value were very much related to differentcharacteristics of the product types studied. It suggests to managers in Malaysia thatby understanding the characteristics of their products will help in selecting appropriatestrategies and sales promotion techniques. It will enable managers to better target andsegment different product by various consumer categories. Managers can do so bydesigning the product in different forms that suit the target market. For example, usingappropriate colours, such as green, and the Halallogo for a market that is dominatedby Malay consumers.

Apart from that, managers should also concentrate on the effect of cultural valuerather than personal value alone when measuring consumers purchase satisfaction andbehavioural intention. Malaysian consumers do not seem to place importance onpersonal value, but rather follow societys cultural values. Such an indication mainlyhappens as these consumers hold strongly to the issues of collectivism, and

dominant/non-dominant cultural cues in their daily life. Hence, any issues pertaining tosuch a nature would work better than personal value. Managers can considersegmenting the consumers based on their cultural values instead. This can be donethrough prior identification of the cultural traits of their customers and thenimplementing proper marketing segmenting and positioning strategies for differenttarget markets. This will result in higher/more positive purchase satisfaction andbehavioural intention for the purchase of different type of consumer products.

As compared to personal value, sales promotion techniques preferences was shownto be a stronger indicator compared to personal value on respondents purchasesatisfaction and behavioural intention for all the product types tested. Managers canuse the findings obtained here to segment and position their products by different salespromotion techniques preferences. This is because the findings strongly argue that

there is no single available sales promotion technique for all consumer product typestested. Managers should then identify which sales promotion techniques are moreprofitable and likely to lead to consumers overall positive purchase satisfaction andbehavioural intention for the purchase of different product types.

ConclusionConsumer personal value and sales promotion techniques preferences were studied bynoting their outcomes on consumer purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention.


promotion

87


19/32

They were studied from the aspect of the Malaysian consumers perspectives for fourdifferent consumer products. This part details the conclusions and contributions of thisresearch, the limitations incurred and guidelines for future research that could becarried out to improve and provide more insight into the issues of personal value and

sales promotion techniques preferences.The findings showed that there was no difference in the respondents purchase

satisfaction and behavioural intention by personal value (internal, external andinterpersonal) for convenience, shopping, specialty/luxury and unsought products.However, the findings showed a significant difference in purchase satisfaction andbehavioural intention by the most and least preferred sales promotion techniquespreferences for convenience, shopping and specialty/luxury products.

Overall the findings suggest that preferred sales promotion techniques play a moredominant role in affecting consumers purchase satisfaction and behavioural intentionrather than based on personal value for all the consumer product types studied. Suchfindings are primarily due to a few underlying internal factors (from the consumersperspective) such as the consumers product characteristics, the collectivist nature ofMalaysian consumers, the preferring of the tangibility based sales promotiontechniques offered and in preferring the monetary based benefits sales promotiontechniques offered. Apart from that, such findings were also the result of other externalfactors such as price, other promotional mix strategies, store image and good productquality that may have a role in cultivating better consumer purchase satisfaction andbehavioural intention for all the consumer product types studied.

Research contributionPrevious studies have tended to suggest that value is the predictor of attitude (in formof purchase satisfaction) and behaviours (behavioural intention). Other previous studiesalso indicated that sales promotion techniques preferences had an effect on consumer

purchase satisfaction (as an attitude) and behavioural intention (behaviour)(Chandon et al., 2000; De Run and Jee, 2009). The findings from this study haveexpanded the current knowledge and academic studies done on similar vicinity. Thisstudy goes into more in depth, studying the association of personal value and salespromotion techniques preferences on consumers purchase satisfaction (attitude) andbehavioural intention (behaviour) for different types of consumer products in theMalaysian context. It further provides a platform for academicians, practitioners andmanagers to better understand the state of Malaysian consumers personal value andsales promotion techniques preferences that are associated with their overall satisfactionand behavioural intention from their purchase of different type of consumer products.

Personal value in this study is identified as not being an important indicator forMalaysian consumers purchase satisfaction and behavioural intention. Malaysian

consumers are known to be a collectivist society which is different from the Westerncommunity that primarily identifies itself as individualist. Personal value constructswould not work well in a collectivist society like Malaysia when the norm andpurchasing pattern are mainly guided by the code of conduct and ethics that areimposed by the community. It is different when compared to an individualistcommunity that strongly integrates their purchase decisions and satisfaction based ontheir own personal set of rules and conduct. Thus, this provides a clear picture of theusability and applicability of personal value constructs in the Malaysian context.

APJML25,1

88


20/32

Sales promotion techniques preferences, especially monetary based benefittechniques, are important to Malaysian consumers. This is because Malaysianconsumers are known to like and prefer sales promotion techniques that offer themmonetary value. They like tangibility and value for money in a purchase and thus sales

promotion techniques that can offer them such benefits would surely assist theirpurchase decision. Such findings would therefore enhance previous findings done onsimilar grounds and arguments. Applying the most appropriate sales promotiontechniques that offer monetary benefits to Malaysian consumers would enhance theirpurchase decision and satisfaction.

Limitation and future researchFirst, this study only focuses on personal value and sales promotion techniquespreferences. Thus, the researcher suggests that future studies should integrate culturalvalue. This will contribute a broader aspect point of view of the different valueimpacts, especially in the Malaysian context.

Second, the examples that were used to represent the product types themselves didnot possess the characteristics of the products as perceived by previous studies(Norzaishah, 2007). For example, a car is not a specialty/luxury purchase in the Malaysiancontext. Hence, using such an example would limit more in-depth understanding ofhow Malaysian consumers react to the purchase of other specialty/luxury products.

Future research could also identify and implement other examples of consumersproduct types, apart from the one that had been used in this study. This is to enable oneto have a more in-depth understanding of how consumers actually react to it. Forexample, it would be better to use jewelry to represent specialty/luxury products ratherthan cars or using soda drinks rather than soap to represent a convenience product.Such examples would provide a more holistic representation of the product asperceived in the minds of Malaysian consumers.

Another limitation is based on the sample of this study being too generalized. It isdone on the basis of an understanding of all the ethnic and religious groups inMalaysia as one single entity. The reality is that each group may be different. This willlimit the understanding of the effect of personal value and sales promotion techniqueson niche perspectives. Malaysian consumers can be categorized into differentconsumers through differences in ethnicity and religious group. Previous studies donehad shown that different ethnic groups would have different points-of-view for theirpurchase and behavioural intention (De Run, 2004; De Run and Chin, 2006).

Future research should separate the respondents or samples into different groupsbased on consumers ethnicity, religious group and/or income level. This is to minimizethe impact of the sample being too generalized. This might also help future researchersto better understand the impact of personal value and sales promotion techniques

preferences towards consumer attitude and behaviour from the point-of-view ofdifferent ethnic and religious groups.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior,Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.


promotion

89


21/32

Ajzen, I. and Madden, T.J. (1986), Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: attitudes, intentions,

and perceived behavioural control, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 22,pp. 453-74.

Alvarez, B.A. and Casielles, R.V. (2005), Consumer evaluations of sales promotion: the effect of

brand choice, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 1/2, pp. 54-70.Alwin, D.F. (1984), Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958 to 1983, American

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 90, pp. 359-82.

Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and

utilitarian shopping value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, March, pp. 644-56.

Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), Reference group influence on product and brand purchasedecisions, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, September, pp. 183-94.

Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R., Homer, P. and Misra, S. (1985), Alternative measurement approaches toconsumer values: the list of values and the Rokeach value survey, Psychology& Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 181-201.

Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R., Utsey, M. and Keown, C. (1993), Gift giving behaviors in the United

States and Japan: a personal value perspectives, Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-66.

Beatty, S.E., Yoon, M.H., Grunert, S.C. and Helgeson, J.G. (1996), An examination of gift-givingbehaviours and personal values in four countries, in Otnes, C. and Beltramini, R. (Eds),

Gift-giving: An Interdisciplinary Anthology, Bowling Green State University Popular Press,Bowling Green, OH.

Becker, B.W. and Kaldenberg, D.O. (2000), Factors influencing the recommendations of nursing

homes, Marketing Health Service, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 8-22.

Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings andemployee responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 69-82.

Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.-G. and Lee, J.-N. (2005), Behavioral intention formation in theknowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychologicalforces, and organizational climate,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.

Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), A dynamic process model of

service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 30, February, pp. 7-23.

Bowles, S. (1998), Endogenous preferences: the cultural consequences of markets and othereconomic institutions, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 37, March, pp. 75-111.

Brown, M., Pope, N. and Voges, K. (2003), Buying or browsing? An exploration of shoppingorientations and online purchase intention, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37Nos 11/12, pp. 1666-84.

Chae, M.-H., Black, C. and Heitmeyer, J. (2006), Pre-purchase and post-purchase satisfaction andfashion involvement of female tennis wear consumers, International Journal of Consumer

Studies, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 25-33.Chandon, P., Laurent, G. and Wansink, B. (1997), Beyond savings: the multiple utilitarian and

hedonic benefits of sales promotions, working papers, University of North Carolina,Raleigh, NC.

Chandon, P., Wansink, B. and Laurent, G. (2000), A benefit congruency framework of salespromotion effectiveness, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, October, pp. 65-81.

Chang, L. (1994), A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point likert-type scales in relationto reliability and validity, Applied Psychology Measurement, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 205-15.

APJML25,1

90


22/32

Chatterjee, P. (2007), Advertised versus unexpected next purchase coupons: consumer

satisfaction, perceptions of value, and fairness,Journal of Product & Brand Management,Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 59-69.

Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (1999), Testing factorial invariance across groups:

a reconceptualization and proposed new method,Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 1,pp. 1-27.

Chua, A.P.H., Ali, K. and Hishamuddin, I. (2006), E-commerce: a study on online shopping inMalaysia, Journal of Social Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 231-42.

Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), Brand equity, brand preference andpurchase intent,Journal of Advertising, No. 24, p. 3.

Costa, P.T.J. and McCrae, R.R. (2001), Theoretical Context for Adult Temperament, Wachs, T.D.and Kohnstamm, G.A. (Eds), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring service quality: an examination and extension,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.

Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), Relationship quality in services selling: an

interpersonal influence perspective, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, July, pp. 68-81.dAstous, A. and Gargouri, E. (2001), Consumer evaluations of brand imitations, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 1/2, pp. 153-67.

Day, E., Denton, L.L. and Hickner, J.A. (1988), Clients selection and retention criteria: some

marketing implications for the small CPA firm, Journal of Professional ServicesMarketing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 85-91.

De Run, E.C. (2004), Unintended effects of ethnically targeted advertising, PhD, University of

Otago, Dunedin.

De Run, E.C. and Chin, S.F. (2006), Language use in packaging: the reaction of Malay and

Chinese consumers in Malaysia,Sunway Academic Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 133-45.

De Run, E.C. and Jee, T.W. (2008), Sales promotion preferences: techniques by product type,

paper presented at the 3rd International Borneo Business Conference, Universiti MalaysiaSabah (UMS), Malaysia.

De Run, E.C. and Jee, T.W. (2009), The influence of personal values on sales promotiontechniques for convenience product,SEGi Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 16-24.

De Run, E.C., Jee, T.W. and Kanto, D. (2010a), Indonesia, Asia Business Research CorporationLimited, Wellington.

De Run, E.C., Jee, T.W. and Lau, W.M. (2010b), Malaysia, Asia Business Research CorporationLimited, Wellington.

De Run, E.C., Jee, T.W. and Nathawut, S. (2010c),Thailand, Asia Business Research CorporationLimited, Wellington.

Dick, A. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: towards an integrated framework, Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.Dickson, P.R. (1982), Person-situation: segmentations missing link, Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 46, Fall, pp. 56-64.

Dube, L. and Menon, K. (2000), Multiple roles of consumption emotions in post-purchase

satisfaction with extended service transactions,Journal of Service Industry Management,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 287-304.

Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1995), Consumer Behavior, Dryden Press,Fort Worth, TX.


promotion

91


23/32

Ferrandi, J.M., Valette-Florence, P., Prime, N. and Usunier, J.C. (2000), Linking personal values

and the time orientations: the case of the attitude towards cellular phone in France and

Germany,Le Tendenze Del Marketing In Europa, pp. 1-18.

Fishbein, M.A. and Ajzen, I. (1975),Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to

Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Fisher, D. (2000), Parental ingratitude, Forbes, 12 June, p. P064.

Fontaine, R. and Richardson, S. (2005), Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese, Malays and Indians

compared, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 14, pp. 63-77.

Foxman, E.R., Tansuhaj, P.S. and Wong, J.K. (1988), Evaluating cross-national sales promotion

strategy: an audit approach, International Markeing Review, Winter, pp. 7-15.

Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment

in customer relationship, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 70-87.

Garretson, J.A. and Burton, S. (2003), Highly coupon and sale prone consumers: benefits beyond

price savings, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 162-72.

Gilbert, D.D. (1999), Retail Marketing Management, Pearson Education, Harlow.

Gilbert, D.D. and Jackaria, N. (2002), The efficacy of sales promotions in UK supermarkets:

a consumer view, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30No. 1, pp. 315-22.

Gitlin, S. (2001), Russian addressing,Brandweek, 19 November, pp. 19-20.

Goldsmith, R.E. and Flynn, L.R. (1992), Identifying innovators in consumer product markets,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 42-55.

Goldsmith, R.E., Lafferty, B.A. and Noel, S.J. (2000), The impact of corporate credibility and

celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brand, Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 43-54.

Gulbro, R. and Herbig, P. (1995), Differences in cross-cultural negotiation behavior between

industrial product and consumer product firms, Journal of Business & Industrial

Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 18-28.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Halstead, D., Hartman, D. and Schmidt, S.L. (1994), Multisource effects on the satisfaction

formation process, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, pp. 114-29.

Haque, M.S. (2003), The role of the state in managing ethnic tensions in Malaysia: a critical

discourse, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 240-66.

Hassan, Y., Mohamad, N.M.N., Bakar, H.A. and Ismail, N. (2009), Influence of shopping

orientation and store image on patronage of furnitutr store, available at: http://66.102.1.104/scholar?qcache:e4OABT4I78wJ:scholar.google.com/%22buyingfurniture%

22%22necessity%22&hlen (accessed 4 August).

Heaney, J.G., Goldsmith, R.E. and Wan Jamailah, W.J. (2008), Status consumption amongMalaysian consumers: exploring its relationships with materialism and

attention-to-social-comparison-information, Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 83-98.

Henry, W.A. (1976), Cultural values do correlate with consumer behavior, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 121-7.

Holmes, J.D. and Lett, J.D. (1977), Product sampling and word of mouth, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, Vol. 17, October, pp. 35-9.

APJML25,1

92


24/32

Homer, P.M. and Kahle, L.R. (1988), A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior

hierarchy, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 638-46.

Huff, L.C. and Alden, D.L. (1998), An investigation of consumer response to sales promotions in

developing markets: a three-country analysis, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 38

No. 3, pp. 47-56.

Inglehart, R. (1985), Aggregate stability and individual-level flux in mass belief systems: the

level of analysis paradox, American Political Science Review, Vol. 79, March, pp. 97-116.

Jaramillo, F. and Marshall, G.W. (2004), Critical success factors in the personal selling process:

an empirical investigation of Ecuadorian salespeople in the banking industry,

The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 9-25.

Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Todd, P.A. (1996), Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the World

Wide Web,International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 59-88.

Jayawardhena, C. (2004), Personal values influence on e-shopping attitude and behavior,

Internet Research , Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 127-38.

Johnston, M.W. and Marshall, G.W. (2003), Sales Force Management, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill,

Boston, MA.

Jones, M.A. and Suh, J. (2000), Transaction-specific satisfaction and overall satisfaction: an

empirical analysis, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 147-59.

Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1982), Recent developments in structural equation modeling,

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 404-16.

Juster, F.T. (1966), Consumer buying intentions and purchase probability: an experiment in

survey design, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 61, pp. 658-96.

Kacen, J.J. and Lee, J.A. (2002), The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying

behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-76.

Kahle, L.R. (1980), Stimulus condition self-selection by males in the interaction of focus of

control and skill-chance situations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 38

No. 1, pp. 50-6.

Kahle, L.R. (1983), Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America, Preager,

New York, NY.

Kahle, L.R. (1984),Attitudes and Social Adaptation, Elmsforded., Pergamon Press, NewYork, NY.

Kahle, L.R., Beatty, S.E. and Homer, P. (1986), Alternative measurement approaches to

consumer values: the list of values (LOV) and values and life styles (VALS), Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 13, December, pp. 405-9.

Kahle, L.R., Rose, G. and Shoham, A. (1999), Findings of LOV throughout the world, and other

evidence of cross-national consumer psychographics: introduction, Journal of

Euro-Marketing, Vol. 8 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-13.

Kale, S.H. and McIntyre, R.P. (1991), Distribution channel relationships in diverse cultures,International Markeing Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 31-45.

Kamakura, W.A. and Mazzon, J.A. (1991), Values segmentation: a model for the measurement of

values and values systems, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 208-18.

Kamakura, W.A. and Novak, T.P. (1992), Value-system segmentation: exploring the meaning of

list of value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 119-32.

Kashani, K. and Quelch, J.A. (1990), Can sales promotion go global?, Business Horizons, Vol. 33

No. 3, pp. 37-43.


promotion

93


25/32

Kashima, Y., Siegal, M., Tanaka, K. and Kashima, E.S. (1992), Do people believe behaviour s areconsistent with attitudes? Towards a cultural psychology of attribution processes,British

Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 111-24.

Kilbourne, W., Grunhagen, M. and Foley, J. (2005), A cross-cultural examination of the

relationship between materialism and individual values,Journal of Economic Psychology,Vol. 26, pp. 624-41.

Kim, C.K. and Lavack, A.M. (1996), Vertical brand extensions: current research and managerialimplications, The Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 24-37.

Kluckhohn, F.R. (1951),Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action , Parsons, T. andShils, E.A. (Eds), Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2004), Principles of Marketing, 10th ed., Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kropp, F., Holden, S.J.S. and Lavack, A.M. (1999a), Cause-related marketing and values inaustralia,International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1,pp. 63-80.

Kropp, F., Lavack, A.M. and Holden, S.J.S. (1999b), Smokers and beer drinkers: values andconsumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence, Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 536-57.

Kropp, F., Lavack, A.M. and Silvera, D.H. (2005), Values and collective self-esteem as predictorsof consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence among university students,

International Markeing Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7-33.

Kuo, Y.F., Wu, C.M. and Deng, W.J. (2009), The relationships among service quality, perceivedvalue, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services,Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 887-96.

Lafferty, B.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), Corporate credibility role in consumers attitudes andpurchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad,

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 44, February, pp. 109-16.

Lai, F.S. (2009), An investigation into the impact of income, culture and religion on consumptionbehaviour: a comparative study of the Malay and the Chinese consumers in Malaysia,Doctor of Philosophy, University of Exeter, available at: https://eric.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/98622/LaiF_fm.pdf?sequence2

Lavack, A.M. and Kropp, F. (2003), Smoking among university students in Canada and Korea:linking diffusion theory with consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence, Health

Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 3-25.

Lawrence, C., Shapiro, S.J. and Lalji, S. (1986), Ethnic markets a Canadian perspective,Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 14 No. 2, p. 7.

Lee, H.G. (2000), Ethnic Relations in Peninsular Malaysia: The Cultural and EconomicDimensions, Institute of Southeast Asian, Singapore.

Liao, C.C., Chen, J.L. and Yen, D.C. (2007), Theory of planning behavior (TPB) and customersatisfaction in the continued use of e-service: an integrated model, Computers in Human

Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 2804-22.

Lim, L. (2001), Work related values of Malays and Chinese-Malaysians,International Journal ofCross-cultural Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 229-46.

Lim, Y.M., Nurwati, B. and Ghafar, A. (2003), Retail activity in Malaysia: from shophouse tohypermarket, paper presented at the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society 9th AnnualConference, University of Queensland and Queensland University of Technology,Brisbane, Australia, 20-22 January.

APJML25,1

94


26/32

Lin, K.L., Hsu, J.Y.J., Huang, H.S. and Hsu, C.N. (2005), A recommender for targeted

advertisement of unsought products in e-commerce, paper presented at the Seventh IEEE

International Conference.

Lotz, S.L., Shim, S. and Gehrt, K.C. (2003), A study of Japanese consumers cognitive hierarchies

in formal and informal gift-giving situations, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1,pp. 59-85.

McCarthy, E.J. and Perreault, W.D. (1993), Basic Marketing, 11th ed., Irwin, Homewood, IL.

McCarty, J.A. and Shrum, L.J. (1994), The recycling of solid wastes: personal and cultural values

and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 30, pp. 53-62.

McCarty, J.A. and Shrum, L.J. (2000), The measurement of personal values in survey research:

a test of alternative rating procedures,Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 64, pp. 271-98.

McCollough, M.A. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), A conceptual model and empirical examination of

the effect of service guarantees on post-purchase consumption evaluations, ManagingService Quality, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 58-74.

McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T.J. (1999), A Five-factor Theory of Personality, Pervin, L.A. andJohn, O.P. (Eds), Guilford Press, New York, NY.

MacKenzie, S.B. and Lutz, R.J. (1989), An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of

attitude towards the ad in an advertising pretesting context,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53,April, pp. 48-65.

Maheswaran, D. and Sternthal, B. (1990), The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type of

message on ad processing and product judgements, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 17, June, pp. 66-73.

Mandel, N., Petrova, P.K. and Cialdini, R.B. (2006), Images of success and the preference for

luxury brands, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-69.

Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), Assessing the dimensionality and structure of consumption

experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20,pp. 451-66.

Mason, R.S. (1981), Conspicuous Consumption, St. Martins Press, New York, NY.

Mathienson, K. (1991), Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model

with the theory of planned behavior, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,pp. 173-91.

May So, W.C., Danny Wong, T.N. and Sculli, D. (2005), Factors affecting intentions to purchase

via the internet, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 9, pp. 1225-44.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M. and Brass, D. (1998), At the margins: a distinctiveness approach to the

social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups,Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 41, pp. 441-52.

Milfont, T.L. (2007), Psychology of Environmental Attitudes: Across-cultural Study of TheirContent and Structure, The University of Auckland, Auckland.

Naylor, G. and Kleiser, S.B. (2000), Negative versus positive word-of-mouth: an exception to the

rule,Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 13,pp. 26-36.

Ndubisi, N.O. and Chiew, T.M. (2005), Customer behavioral responses to sales promotion: the

role of fear of losing face, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 1,pp. 32-49.


promotion

95


27/32

Ndubisi, N.O. and Chiew, T.M. (2006), Awareness and usage of promotional tools by Malaysianconsumers: the case of low involvement products, Management Research News, Vol. 29Nos 1/2, pp. 28-40.

Newell, S.J., Goldsmith, R.E. and Banzhaf, E.J. (1998), The effect of misleading environmental

claims on consumer perception of advertisement, Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 48-60.

Nonis, S. and Swift, C.O. (2001), An examination of the relationship between academicdishonesty and

1.purchase intention & personal values

Documents