FACTORS INFLUENCING THE CUSTOMERS’ BRAND

LOYALTY TOWARDS BATH SOAP IN CHENNAI

A THESIS

Submitted By

S.DHANALAKSHMI

(Reg. No- D11BA017)

Under the Guidance of

Dr. M. GANESAN M.Com. M.Phil., Ph.D.,

in partial fulfillment for the award

of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

BHARATH UNIVERSITY

173, Agaram Road Selaiyur,Chennai – 600 073

MARCH – 2015
 Bharath UNIVERSITY
CHENNAI

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

I certify that the thesis entitled “FACTORS INFLUENCING

THE CUSTOMERS’ BRAND LOYALTY TOWARDS BATH SOAP

IN CHENNAI” Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by

Mrs. S. DHANALAKSHMI is the record of research work carried out

by him/her during the period from July 2011 to February 2015 under

my/our guidance and supervision and that this research work has not

formed the basis for the award of any degree , diploma, associate ship,

fellowship or other similar titles in this University or any other University

or institution.

Date:

Place:
Signature of the Guide
With Seal
 DECLARATION

I declare that the thesis entitled “FACTORS INFLUENCING THE

CUSTOMERS’ BRAND LOYALTY TOWARDS BATH SOAP IN

CHENNAI” Submitted by me for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) is

the record of research work carried out by me during the period from July 2011

to February 2015 under the guidance of Dr. M. GANESAN, Professor

Emeritus, Bharath University has not formed the basis for the award of any

degree, diploma associate ship, fellowship,; titles in this or any other University

or other similar institution of higher learning.

Date:

Place:

Signature of the candidate

Name: S.DHANALAKSHMI
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my deep sense of gratitude to my guide Professor

Dr.M.Ganesan, Research Guide and Professor Emeritus, Dept of Management
Studies Bharath University for his helpful guidance, creative suggestions and
constant encouragement throughout my research study. His professional
insight always helped me to bring out this work.

I am immensely grateful to Dr.G.Brindha Research Co-Odinator and

Dr.Venkatramanaraju , Professor , Department of Management studies,
Bharath University for evincing keen interest in my progress and the support
given during the course of my research.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge my grateful thanks to Dr. B.Karthikeyan,

Dr.S.K.Nagarajan Professors, Department of Business Administration,
Annamalai University for providing me useful guidance during the course of
my research.

I also thank the University authorities for having generously permitted me

to undertake this research work as a part-time work.

I acknowledge with great respect my beloved Husband

Mr. G.Prasanna, my Son G.P. Shrivasta and my daughter P.Mahadhi
whose never ending love, encouragement, support and the sacrificial giving of
themselves has been exemplary.

S.Dhanalakshmi
 ABSTRACT

The success of a firm depends largely on its capability to attract consumers

towards its brands. In particular, it is critical for the survival of a company to retain its
current customers and to make them loyal to the brand. To a large extent, the success of
most businesses depends on their ability to create and maintain customer loyalty. In the
first place, selling to brand loyal customers is far less costly than converting new
customers.

In general, brand loyalty can be defined as the strength of preference for a brand
compared to other similar product or service options. It is often measured in terms of
repeat purchase behaviour whether price sensitivity is more. Brand loyalty as a
consumers’ decision, expressed through intention or behavior to repurchase a brand on a
regular basis. Today, the importance of marketing managers knowing how to influence
customer loyalty is constantly improved. With competition increasing day by day,
customer maintenance and growth has become the first goal of many companies and loyal
customers can be considered as a key to success in many manufacturing or service
businesses. It is also necessary for companies to be able to identify different kinds of
loyalty. In this study, brand loyalty was measured for the product of bath soap. It is a
product for many people and the lathering up can be a treasured part of a morning or
nightly routine. It is a common high sales volume FMCG product in India.

The research was conducted on a quantitative basis. The descriptive methods was
adopted to conduct this study. The main research method used was a questionnaire-based
survey. The answering options to the brand-loyalty related questions were based on the
structured manner. Personal data, factors that influencing the brand loyalty, product
attributes and finally decision making styles of customers were the part of questionnaire.
The answering scale for most of the other questions was a traditional 5-point Likert’s
scale. Data collection was done through direct interview method and the sampling data
was done through using SPSS for analysis. Results were presented in table manner and
interpretations were made based on the results.

Finding and suggestion were made based on the results and it was compiling with
a structured reporting formats. The researcher has hope with this result will be useful and
it have some social contribution to the bath soap industry as well as FMCG sector also.
 CONTENT

CHAPTER NO ESCSRIPTION PAGE NO

I INTRODUTION

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Introduction 1
1.2.1 Brand 3
1.2.2 Brand Loyalty Definitions 3
1.2.3 General Concepts of Brand loyalty 4
1.2.4 Brand Loyalty Generation 7
1.2.5 Effects of Brand Loyalty 8
1.2.6 Oliver’s Four Stage Loyalty Model 9
1.2.7 Product Attributes 10

1.3. FACTORS INFLUENCING BRAND LOYALTY

1.3.1 Brand Name 11
1.3.2 Product Quality 11
1.3.3 Price 12
1.3.4 Product Style 13
1.3.5 Store Environment 13
1.3.6 Sales Promotion 14
1.3.7 Brand Trust 14
1.4 Bath Soaps- An Introduction 15
1.4.1 History of Bath Soap 15
1.4.2 Indian Bath Soap Industry 16
1.4.3 Market Capitalization 17
1.4.4 Size of the Industry 14
1.4.5 Total Contribution to the Economy 18
1.4.6 Top Leading Companies 18
1.4.7 Latest Developments in Soap Industry 18
II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Brand 20
2.2 Brand Loyalty 21
2.3 Importance of Brand Loyalty 26
2.4 Measures of Brand Loyalty 27
2.5 Customer Loyalty Behaviour 30

2.6 Factors that Influencing the Brand Loyalty

2.6.1 Brand Image 31
2.6.2 Brand Affect: 32
2.6.3 Repeated Purchase Behavior: 32
2.6.4 Perceived Value: 32
2.6.5 Commitment: 32
2.6.6 Relationship Proneness: 33
2.6.7 Brand Involvement: 33
2.6.8 Customer Satisfaction 33
2.6.9 Price Premium: 34
2.6.10 Brand Relevance: 34
2.6.11 Brand Performance: 34
2.6.12 Customer Satisfaction 35
2.6.13 Perceived Value 35

2.7 Types of Brand Loyalty

2.7.1 Cognitive Loyalty 35
2.7.2 Affective Loyalty 36
2.7.3 Conative Loyalty 37
III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Need and Importance of the Study 41

3.2 Statement of the Problem 41

3.3 Background of the Problem 41
3.4 Purpose of the Study 42
3.5 Primary Objectives of the study: 42
3.6 Research design:
3.6.1 Method of data collection 43
3.6.2 Sample Size 43
3.6.3 Sampling Technique 43
3.6.4 Brand Selected for the Study 43
3.7 Questionnaire Pattern: 43
3.8 Origin of questionnaire items 44
3.9 Limitations 46

IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 47

FINDINGS 198
SUGGESTIONS 203
DISCUSSION 204
CONCLUSION 205
SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 206
BIBLIOGRAPHY
QUESTIONNAIRES
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
Title
No. No.

Demographic variables wise distribution of customers

4.1.1 47
brand loyalty

4.1.2 Opinion of Respondents about bath soaps attributes 49

t-test for products related factors on the basis of

4.2 51
gender

4.3 t-test for brand related factors on the basis of gender 53

t-test for customer purchase related factors on the

4.4 56
basis of gender

t-test for customer psychological related factors on the

4.5 58
basis of gender

t-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of

4.6 61
gender

4.7 t-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of gender 63

4.8 F-test for products related factors on the basis of Age 66

4.9 F-test for brand related factors on the basis of Age 69

F-test for customer purchase related factors on the

4.10 72
basis of Age

F-test for customer psychological related factors on

4.11 75
the basis of Age

4.12 t-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of Age 78

4.13 F-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of Age 80

 t-test for products related factors on the basis of
4.14 84
Marital status

t-test for brand related factors on the basis of Marital

4.15 87
status

t-test for customer purchase related factors on the

4.16 90
basis of Marital status

t-test for customer psychological related factors on the

4.17 93
basis of Marital status

t-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of

4.18 96
Marital status

t-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of Marital

4.19 98
status

F-test for products related factors on the basis of

4.20 101
Education

F-test for brand related factors on the basis of

4.21 104
Education

F-test for customer purchase related factors on the

4.22 107
basis of Education

F-test for customer psychological related factors on

4.23 110
the basis of Education

F-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of

4.24 114
Education

F-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of

4.25 117
Education

F-test for products related factors on the basis of

4.26 120
Monthly income

F-test for brand related factors on the basis of

4.27 122
Monthly income
 F-test for customer purchase related factors on the
4.28 125
basis of Monthly income

F-test for customer psychological related factors on

4.29 128
the basis of Monthly income

t-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of

4.30 132
Monthly income

F-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of Monthly

4.31 135
income

F-test for products related factors on the basis of

4.32 138
Occupation

F-test for brand related factors on the basis of

4.33 141
Occupation

F-test for customer purchase related factors on the

4.34 144
basis of Occupation

F-test for customer psychological related factors on

4.35 147
the basis of Occupation

t-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of

4.36 150
Occupation

F-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of

4.37 153
Occupation

Showing the Chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on

4.38 156
the basis of their age

Showing the Chi-square test for affective loyalty on the

4.39 157
basis of their age

Showing the Chi-square test for conative loyalty on the

4.40 158
basis of their age

Showing the Chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on

4.41 159
the basis of their education
 Showing the Chi-square test for affective loyalty on the
4.42 160
basis of their education

Showing the Chi-square test for conative loyalty on the

4.43 162
basis of their education

Showing the Chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on

4.44 164
the basis of their Monthly income

Showing the Chi-square test for affective loyalty on the

4.45 166
basis of their Monthly income

Showing the Chi-square test for conative loyalty on the

4.46 168
basis of their Monthly income

Showing the Chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on

4.47 170
the basis of their Occupation

Showing the Chi-square test for affective loyalty on the

4.48 172
basis of their Occupation

Showing the Chi-square test for conative loyalty on the

4.49 174
basis of their Occupation

Decomposition of association between dependent and

4.50 175
independent variables

The network relationship of X2, X3, X5, X4 and X6 with

4.51 176
X1

Correlation analysis for Product related factors on

4.52 177
Demographic Variables

Correlation analysis for Brand related factors on

4.53 178
Demographic Variables

Correlation analysis for customer purchase related

4.54 179
factors on Demographic Variables

Correlation analysis for customer psychological related

4.55 180
factor on Demographic Variables
 Correlation analysis for selling strategies factors on
4.56 181
Demographic Variables

Correlation analysis for loyalty based factors on

4.57 182
Demographic Variables

Correlation analysis for recreation hedonistic on

4.58 183
Demographic Variables

Correlation analysis for Brand fashion on

4.59 184
Demographic Variables

Correlation analysis for perfectiveism on Demographic

4.60 185
Variables

Correlation analysis for habit brand loyalty on

4.61 186
Demographic Variables

Correlation analysis for confused by over choice on

4.62 187
Demographic Variables

Correlation analysis for price value on Demographic

4.63 188
Variables

Regression analysis for product related factors vs

4.64 189
customer satisfaction

Regression analysis for brand related factors vs

4.65 190
customer satisfaction

4.66 Factor analysis for brand attributes 193

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Brand loyalty has been a one of the biggest issues in the world of marketing over
the last years (Kotler, 1994). Added focus was put on the topic once marketers realized
that brand loyalty has a strong connection to higher sales volumes, gives companies the
option of premium pricing, and encourages the customers to search for their preferred
brand (Giddens & Hoffman, 2002). Another factor contributing to stronger focus on
brand loyalty is the fact that it can cost up to six times as much to win over a new
customer as it costs to retain an already existing one (Rosenberg & Czepiel, 1984). Loyal
brand users do not only spread positive word of mouth about their preferred brand as well
as defending the brand in arguments and discussions, but also often talk competitive
brands down. This suggests that brand loyalty to one brand not only influence the brand
positively, but also possibly have negative effects on the competitive brands (Raju et al.,
2009).

According to Aaker (1991), brand loyalty is one of the four parts that create brand
equity. It is the assets / liabilities of a brand that are linked to its name and symbol and
add to from a given product. Another three parts are brand awareness, perceived quality
and brand associations. When it comes to brand loyalty, Aaker also states that having a
strongly loyal customer base, even though it is relatively small, can create significant
brand equity for a firm. Kandampully (1998) stated that the ability of a company to
create, maintain and expand a large and loyal customer strength a longer time period is
crucial to attain and sustain a premium position on the market. It was suggests that in any
business industry, customer loyalty can contribute to a major competitive advantage in
their market segment. Brand loyalty has been studied from various different angles for
countless product categories.

1.2 Introduction

There are many operational definitions are available for brand loyalty. In general,
brand loyalty can be defined as the strength of preference for a brand compared to other
similar product or service options. It is often measured in terms of repeat purchase

1
behaviour whether price sensitivity is more. True brand loyalty exists when customers
have a high i attitude toward the brand revealed through repurchase behaviour. This type
of loyalty can be a great strength to the firm. The brand loyal consumer does not try to
check any kind of product attribute evaluation but simply chooses the familiar brand on
the basis of positive feelings towards it. The overall positive evaluation stems from past
experience, happiness with the brand and satisfaction enjoyed with the particular brand
under consideration.

Amine (1998) in her literature distinguishes two main approaches to define the
loyalty construct that are the behavioural loyal one suggests that the repeat purchasing of
a brand over time by a consumer expresses their loyalty, and another one is the attitudinal
perspective which assumes that consistent buying of a brand is a necessary, but not
sufficient condition of real brand loyalty and it must be complemented with a positive
attitude towards the particular brand to assured that this behaviour will be pursued
further.

Thus, brand loyalty is a function of both behaviour and attitudes. It is a

consumer’s preference to buy a particular brand in their favourite product category. This
occurs because consumers perceive that the brand offers the right product features, image
and level of quality at the right price and needed time. On this perception becomes the
foundation for new buying habits. Customers will initially make a trial product of the
brand or service and when satisfied with the purchase, tend to form habits and continue to
purchase the same brand because the product is safe, usefulness and familiar.

Customer loyalty to specific brands has been a big focal point of strategic
marketing planning over the last years (Kotler, 1994). Strong brand can only exist given
that it has strong creators of brand loyal customers. Now this is considered to be a real
fact, but this only first surfaced in the early 1980’s. Before that time, companies mainly
focused on trying to capture customers from their competitors companies and constantly
add more customers. After this fact got the attention that it deserved, the focus shifted
towards keeping already existing customers rather than captured from competitors. This
has become the most important strategy since now in the times of countless offers, buyers
tend to jump from one brand to another brand (Kapferer, 1992).

2
1.2.1 Brand

Before reviewing the concept of brand loyalty, the concept of a brand should be
defined shortly. A brand can be defined as a distinguishing name / symbol, intended to
identify a product or producer (Aaker, 1991). The American Marketing Association
define the term a little deeper and state that a brand is customer experience represented by
a collection of images and ideas, it refers to a symbol such as a name, logo, slogan and
design. Brand recognition and other reactions are created by the accumulation of
experiences with the specific product or service, both directly relating to its use and
through the influence of advertising, design and media observations. A brand often
includes an explicit logo, fonts, color schemes, symbols, sound which may be developed
to represent implicit values, ideas and even personality (AMA’s homepage, 2010).

Brand is the image for a product in a market. Two different aspects of a brand can
be renowned, the experiential aspect and the psychological aspect. The experiential aspect
touches on all previous experiences that an individual has had with the brand used before.
The psychological aspect refers to the perceived image of a brand, something subjective
and symbolic (Broyles & Schumann, 2004). A particular company’s brand and the image
surrounding are to be the main source of its competitive advantage. Hence it is a valuable
strategic asset for any company. It is important to create not only a brand identity, but a
brand personality also. Otherwise a brand can easily be passed over, especially in these
days where information is overflowing all around us. This brand personality should
represent something greater than just a set of different product or service attributes that
have chance to easily be imitated. A brand needs to be easily identifiable in order to
penetrate the minds of consumers. To sum it up, a brand is not just a representation of a
product or a service; it is a symbol of the company itself and that is where the core of
brand loyalty deception (Essortment, 2010).

1.2.2 Brand Loyalty Definitions

Brand loyalty has been defined in many different ways during the years.
Following are few of the most widely used definitions in the marketing field. Brand
loyalty as a consumers’ decision, expressed through intention or behavior to repurchase a
brand on a regular basis. This kind of decision can be made both on conscious as well as
unconscious nature. It occurs only by the consumer perceives that the brand offers the
right product features, image, or level of quality at the right price. Wilkie (1994) defined

3
brand loyalty as “…a favorable attitude towards and a consistent purchase of a particular
brand“. This definition suggests that consumers are loyal when both attitude and behavior
are more favorable. Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) offered a deeper definition of brand
loyalty, stating that brand loyalty is “ a biased, behavioral response, expressed over time,
by some decision making unit, with respect to one or more brands out of set of such
brands and is a function of psychological processes“. Oliver (1997) defined loyalty as “a
deeply held commitment to repurchase or re-patronize a preferred product or service
consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set
purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts that have the potential to
cause switching behavior in the mind set of customers”. What all these definitions have in
generally is that brand loyalty is not necessarily the actual action of purchasing a product,
but the intention to do so. The definitions also include that the attitude towards the brand
must be favorable for loyalty to be created and there has to be a repetition of purchasing a
particular brand.

1.2.3 General Concepts of Brand loyalty

Customer loyalty lies at the heart of marketing science. Although loyalty research
has a long tradition dating back to almost a hundred years (Copeland, 1923), customer
loyalty is still a very contemporary research topic. The concept of loyalty derives from
the literature of customer behavior (Chegini, 2010). Brand loyalty is a rather complex
construct, which has led to numerous definitions. In the context of branding, loyalty is
one of the most widely defined words in the marketing glossary. It is interpreted in
different ways and can often be approached with greatly differing definitions by different
people (Morgan, 1999).

Reichheld’s (2001) definition emphasizes somewhat different aspects in defining

loyalty as the willingness of customers to make a personal sacrifice or other investment
for the strengthening of a relationship with the particular brand. The newest definitions of
brand loyalty comes from Chegini (2010) who described it as “theory and guidance
leadership and positive behavior including, repurchase, support and offer to purchase
which may control a new potential customer”. The American Marketing Association
defines brand loyalty as “the situation in which a consumer generally buys the same
manufacturer originated product or service repeatedly over time rather than buying from

4
more suppliers within the same category” or “the degree to which a consumer
consistently purchases the same brand within a product category” (Moisescu, 2006).

In the categorization of brand loyalty today, it would seem that two major
approaches dominate. Attitudinal loyalty is often understood as a systematically favorable
expression of preference for the particular brand or in other words a reflection of the
emotional attachment that consumers feel for brands. Behavioral loyalty on the other
hand typically infers the loyalty status of a given consumer from an observation of
repeated purchasing behavior. Mere repeat purchasing is not only a sufficient indicator of
loyalty but viewing the fact that even unsatisfied customers might don’t always switch
brands, which is referred to as lethargy (Kuusik, 2007). One of the reasons to this is that
customers feel the alternatives are just as bad as the brand they are using or inertia may
also be caused by lack of information about attractive characteristics of the alternative
brands (Kuusik, 2007). Apart from these two major approaches, number other
categorizations are identified in loyalty literature and it will be examined closer in the
following paragraphs.

Today, the importance of marketing managers knowing how to influence

customer loyalty is constantly improved. With competition increasing day by day,
customer maintenance and growth has become the first goal of many companies (Chegini,
2010) and loyal customers can be considered as a key to success in many manufacturing
or service businesses (Tripathi, 2009). According to Morgan (1999), in today's
environment of one-to-one marketing that need to understand the mechanisms that
improving consumers’ purchasing behavior is continuously growing. This is caused by
the companies need to start identifying consumer loyalty behavior or provide indications
of individuals about to defect to some another brand (Morgan, 1999).

It is also necessary for companies to be able to identify different kinds of loyalty.

In their research of behavioral and attitudinal loyalty, Dick and Basu (1994) stated that
managers often overlook a type of customer commitment called spurious loyalty. This
kind of loyalty consists of both strong behavioral loyalty and low attitudinal loyalty. Such
a loyalty cannot benefit a firm’s profit since customers with spurious loyalty do not truly
identify with the firm and they often only concentrate on discount sales in order to buy
the product at low prices. Managers who only get attention on this worthless loyalty will
fail to see any long-term financial benefits. So, it is important for managers to know the

5
marketing tools that can have an impact on attitudinal and behavioral loyalties, otherwise
it would be complicated for managers to create effective strategies for developing
customer loyalty.

The longevity of a customer’s relationship influences a company’s profitability in

a positive way. Because of this, general business wisdom suggests that a company should
focus some proportion of it’s marketing efforts on the development of product or brand
and its maintenance or enhancement of customer loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994).

According to former studies, it can cost as much as 6 times more to win a new
customer than it does to keep an existing customers (Rosenberg & Czepiel 1984), so
increasing retention statetgies can help reduce acquisition costs. Depending on the
particular industry, it is possible to increase profit may be up to 60% after reducing
potential migration by 5% (Reichheld, 1993). It is easy to see that the increase and
retention of loyal customers has become a important factor for long-term survival and
success of the companies. The costs of attracting and establishing current customers have
already been realized and because of their experience they can be served more efficiently
(Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). Increased retention through loyalty leads to increases in
market share. The benefits of having a loyal customer base become even more relevant in
mature markets as increases in market share. Manages to summarize the benefits deriving
from a loyal customer base:

1) Lower customer acquisition costs through lower customer exchange

2) Loyal customers usually buy more over time and possibly at a premium price

3) Loyal customers spread positive word-of-mouth about the their favorite product

4) Ability to resist marketing efforts of competitors and

5) Lower serving costs of their product.

On the other hand, the approach of loyalty-based profitability also has its critics.
Reinartz & Kumar (2002) have found results proving that the link between loyalty and
profits is much weaker. In their study they claimed that to generalize long-term clients to
be more profitable is a gross oversimplification since there is a lot of contradicting
evidence especially in a non-contractual environment. They claimed that this was a
following of low switching costs and the impact of competition. The researchers’

6
suggested that caution and deeper analysis of customer profitability since some customers
are very profitable in the beginning, but turn unprofitable in the long run survival
(Reinartz & Kumar, 2002). It has been claimed that loyal customers know their value and
demand better service and spread positive word of mouth only if they feel and act as loyal
to their favorite brand (Kumar & Rajan, 2009).

Chegini (2010) explained that creating loyalty in all customers is not so possible.
In order to avoid serving the wrong customers should be screened for profitability and
served accordingly, by investing only in the most profitable relationships. It is also
important to loyalty can be gained but marketers should act continuously on maintaining
that loyalty among customers. The next sections will provide a closer look at the brand
loyalty generation to give a better understanding of the different characteristics and
approaches to the loyalty concept.

1.2.4 Brand Loyalty Generation

The usual process of brand loyalty generation is that initially, a consumer makes a
trial purchase of a specific product from a given brand. If the product meets the
customer’s expectations and gives satisfaction, the consumer often forms a habit of
buying this same product or service. The customer is now more interest to buy the
product again and again as well as other products from the same company, because the
brand is now considered safe and satisfied and it has proven itself to be of sufficient
quality. Customers who are loyal are committed to a brand, willing to pay even a higher
price for a certain brand over others and readily recommend the given brand to other
people or their close relatives they know very well (Giddens & Hofmann, 2002).

Reichheld and Schefter (2000) explained that the generation of brand loyalty
stating that loyalty is won through delivery of superior customer experience. Kevin Stirtz
(2008) suggests six steps in order to create brand-loyal customers. The first step involves
asking the customers what they really want, in the huge sense of the question. This
includes that they need in general, what they are trying to accomplish, what image they
are trying to portray, how they want to be served and so on. The second step is
communicating to the customers what they should expect from the brand. It is of no use
to try and please everyone and try to be all things. Some of strategy usually ends up in too

7
many things half-heartedly and satisfying no one. Instead, companies should figure out
their core competencies and focus on them, delivering outstanding products and services
in a given area. Following third step is to create easy ways for the customers to provide
feedback about their brand after using it. This step is forgotten by many companies.
Companies should be creative in finding ways to get customer feedback regularly and
practice it to make sure that the customers know about these ways. The fourth step, which
is closely related to the third one, is listening to what your customers says about product
attributes that actually they need. This includes both utilizing the customer feedback, as
suggested in the third step, but also other ways people communicate about the their
brands, such as through the Internet or using marketing research agencies. This process
needs to be done on a regular basis with fail. The fifth step is a direct continuation of the
fourth one, namely acting immediately on these customer feedback and suggestions
where ever possible areas. The final step is that of repetition of above all process. The
whole process needs to be repeated constantly in order to be successful and generate
higher levels of loyal customers.

1.2.5 Effects of Brand Loyalty

Giddens and Hofmann (2002) mentioned three important outcomes that are the
backbone of the importance of brand loyalty. The first reason pointed out is that
companies with high brand loyalty provide huge sales volumes. According to Giddens
studies, the average company loses around approximately 13% of their customer base
every single year and that shows just how challenging it can be in the competitive
environment of the modern marketing trend. To achieve a mere 1% of annual growth, the
sales need to increase by 14% to both new and existing customers. By reducing customer
loss, business growth can be dramatically improved and brand loyalty can be increased
slowly. Those two factors lead to more consistent sales of greater sales volumes, due to
the fact that the same brand is purchased by the customers repeatedly. The second reason
for the importance of brand loyalty mentioned is premium pricing ability. Giddens and
Hofmann stated that with increased levels of brand loyalty, consumers become less price-
sensitive obviously. They are ready to pay higher cost for their preferred brand because
they sense some special and unique value in that given brands that other brands do not
provide. On top of that, loyal customers are less prone to chase after discounts. The third
and final reason is connected to product search. Customers who loyal to a particular brand
are ready to search for that brand and are less sensitive to competitors. It causes in lower

8
advertising costs, marketing expenses and distribution expenditure. Attracting a new
customer costs up to four to six times as it does to retain an already existing one.

Aaker (1991) supports the third point, stating that the customer loyalty can reduce
susceptibility to competitive actions very much, since competitors may be discouraged
from spending their time and money in order to attract already satisfied customers. Yet
another positive effect of brand loyalty is that loyal customers often provide more
valuable suggestions to companies, allowing them to enhance their products and services
accordingly to the consumers’ desires (Wong et al.,2009). Finally, loyal customers
allocate proportionally more of their budget to their “first choice” brand than customers
who switch to another brand later on. On top of that, it has been confirmed that loyalty
can increase customers’ “forgiveness”, should a failure in service or quality occur and the
resistance to premium prices is also reduced (Mattila, 2001).

1.2.6 Oliver’s Four Stage Loyalty Model

In his book from 1997 Oliver suggested that a four-stage loyalty model proposing
that loyalty consists of belief, affect, intentions and action. The model stated that these
four different aspects of loyalty emerge over time and do not emerge simultaneously.
According to Oliver‘s model, the first phase of loyalty is cognitive loyalty. This is the
weakest and most shallow type of loyalty, since the loyalty is only based on different
information about the brand attributes that the consumer has, and thereby his or hers
beliefs. Those beliefs can be based on prior or sensational knowledge, or it can be based
on recent experience with the product or brand. Since this type of loyalty is so shallow, it
is easy for companies may be lose it. If a service or a product does not provide
satisfaction in one single instance, the loyalty might be lost ever. However, satisfaction is
provided then it can become a part of the customers’ experience and move over to the
second phase, the affective loyalty phase.

The second loyalty phase is affective loyalty. That phase is dependent on

emotions and mood of the consumer, as well as the previous satisfaction. Here, the
consumer has fashioned an opinion and a liking towards the brand, based on his or hers
previous satisfaction while using the product or service. Contrary to the cognitive phase,
it is now harder to persuade consumers to change their mind set about the brand with
some arguments, since obviously opinions run deeper than only information or very little
trial of the product or service in question. Despite this, it is the most important for

9
companies to try and develop an even deeper level of loyalty to prevent customers from
switching their brands to another brands.

The third phase in the model is called conative loyalty. The word conative refers
to the intention to act or behave in a certain way. Here, the consumer has been repeatedly
satisfied with a performance of a product or a service. This satisfaction has lead to a
rather strong commitment to a brand. This commitment leads to an intention to
repurchase the brand in the future. It should be noted though that this phase of loyalty is
only the intention to buy the brand again and again, not the real action. Thus, the intention
might not be realized.

The fourth and final phase is action loyalty. This is considered to be the strongest
loyalty type. Consumers transform their intentions to repurchase a brand into actions.
More repeated purchases lead to deeper loyalty towards a brand. Additionally, the
consumer is willing to invest his or hers time and resources to search for a specific brand
even though it might be not available in the market.

1.2.7 Product Attributes

Consumers have different preferences for product characteristics or attributes.

Why consumer prefer a certain product attribute depends on both the nature of the
product as well as the consumer’s socioeconomic level. Commonly, each product has
several different attributes. It can be assumed that rather than comparing the products
themselves, consumers choose among the more basic attributes of the products and
compare them instead on that basis. By understanding the reason behind the choice of a
given product based upon its attributes can help to understand and clarify why some
consumers have preferences for specific brands.

Krystallis and Chrysochou (2009) made a research on dairy products for the Greek
market, utilizing the Dirichlet model to research consumer loyalty to light dairy brands.
There, the researchers compared different loyalty measures among consumers of light
dairy products against those of consumers of regular dairy products. Here the results
showed that the light brand users were in general more loyal and therefore it can be
concluded that the product attribute of fat content in the product had in fact effect on
brand loyalty.

10
 Rajaguru and Mathanda (2006) also studied the effects of product attributes on
consumer loyalty. All the product attributes researched in this case (quality, price and
availability) had substantial influence on the loyalty of customers. Price had negative
influence whereas quality and availability had positive influence.

1.3.FACTORS INFLUENCING BRAND LOYALTY

Lau et al. (2006) in his article mentioned that there were seven factors that
influenced consumers’ brand loyalty towards certain brands. The factors were: brand
name, product quality, price, style, store environment, promotion and service quality.

1.3.1 Brand Name

Popular brand names can broadcast product benefits and lead to higher recall of
advertised benefits than non-famous brand names (Keller, 2003). There are many
unfamiliar brand names and alternatives available in the market. Consumers may prefer to
trust major famous brand names. These prestigious brand names and their images can
attract consumers to purchase the brand and shows repeat purchasing behaviour and
reduce price related switching behaviours (Cadogan and Foster, 2000). This is important
for brands which have only minor physical differences and are consumed in a social
setting where the brand can create a visible image about the consumer itself. Consumers
are usually able to evaluate each of the products with brand name attributes (Keller,
2003). This information is essential for marketing managers to make decisions concerning
product positioning, repositioning and product differential advantages.

According to Kohli and Thakor (1997), brand name is the creation of an image or
the development of a brand identity and is an expensive and time consuming process.
Brand name is important for the firm to attract customers to purchase the product and
influence repeat purchasing behaviour. Consumers tend to perceive the products from an
overall perspective, associating with the brand name and satisfaction experienced by the
purchase and use of the product.

1.3.2 Product Quality

Product Quality encompasses the features and characteristics of a product or

service that bears on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs. In other words, product
quality is defined as “fitness for use” or ‘conformance to requirement” (Russell and

11
Taylor, 2006). Consumers may repeat the purchase of single brands or switch around
several brands due to the tangible quality of the product sold. Perfectionist or quality
consciousness is defined as an awareness of and desire for high quality products, and the
need to make the best or perfect choice versus buying the first product or brand available
(Sproles and Kendall, 1986). This indicates that quality characteristics are also related to
performance.

1.3.3 Price

According to Cadogan and Foster (2000), price is probably the most important
consideration for the average consumer. Consumers with high brand loyalty are willing to
pay a premium price for their favoured brand. Obviously their purchase intention is not
easily affected by price. In added that customers have a strong belief in the price and
value of their favourite brands so much so that they would compare and evaluate prices
with alternative brands. Consumers’ satisfaction can also be built by comparing price
with perceived costs and values. If the perceived values of the product are greater than
cost, it is observed that consumers will purchase that product regularly.

Loyal customers are willing to pay a premium even if the price has increased
because the perceived risk is very high and they prefer to pay a higher price to avoid the
risk of any change (Yoon and Kim, 2000). Basically, long-term relationships of service
loyalty make loyal customers more prices tolerant, since loyalty discourages customers
from making price comparison with other products by shopping around. Price has
increasingly become a focal point in customers’ judgments of offer value as well as their
overall assessment of the retailer.

According to Bucklin et al. (1998), price considerably influences consumer choice

and occurrence of purchase. He emphasized that discount pricing makes households
switch brands and buy products earlier than needed. Price is described as the quantity of
payment or compensation for something. It indicates price as an exchange ratio between
goods that pay for each other. Price also communicates to the market the company’s
intended value positioning of its product or brand. Price consciousness is defined as
finding the best value, buying at sale prices or the lowest price choice. Additionally,
consumers generally evaluated market price against an internal reference price, before
they decide on the attractiveness of the retail price.

12
1.3.4 Product Style

Product Style is visual appearance, which includes line, silhouette and details
affecting consumer perception towards a brand (Frings, 2005). Consumers’ judgment
depends on the consumers’ level of fashion consciousness, so judgment will be
conditioned by their opinion of what is currently fashionable. Brands that supply stylish
product that attract loyal consumers who are fashion conscious. Fashion leaders or
followers usually purchase or continue to repeatedly purchase their fashion products in
stores that are highly fashionable. They gain satisfaction from using the latest fashion and
style which also satisfies their ego. According to Sproles and Kendall (1986), fashion
consciousness is generally defined as an awareness of new styles, changing fashions and
attractive styling, as well as the desire to buy something exciting and trendy.

1.3.5 Store Environment

Omar (1999) emphasised that the store environment was the most important factor
in retail marketing success and store longevity. Positive attributes of the store, which
include store location, store layout, and in-store stimuli, affect brand loyalty to some
extent. Store location and number of outlets are crucial in altering consumer shopping and
purchasing patterns. If consumers find the store to be highly accessible during their
shopping trip and are satisfied with the store’s assortment and services, these consumers
may become loyal afterwards (Evans et al., 1996). Finally, a store’s atmosphere is one of
the factors that could influence consumer’s decision making process.

The stimuli in the store, such as the characteristic of other shoppers and
salespeople, store layout, noises, smells, hygienic, visibility, temperature, shelf space and
displays, sign, colours, and merchandise which are affect consumers and serve as
elements of product attributes which may in turn, affect consumer decision making and
satisfaction with the brand (Evans et al., 1996). Especially, background music played in
the stores affects attitudes and behaviour. The slow-beat musical selection leads to higher
sales volume as consumers spend more time in the store and chance to spend more money
in a peaceful environment.

There are many advantages to retailers having loyal customers. As stated by

Huddleston et al. (2004), customer loyalty could yield a favourable operating cost

13
advantage for retailers. Loyal customers can increase their purchase spending, they are
low cost for retailers as compared to obtaining new customers; they accept price
premiums and they have customer longevity. Research conducted by Lin and Chang
(2003) showed that the channel convenience of the brands had significant influence on
buying behaviour. This means that the accessibility to this product/brand in the store is
important when purchasing low involvement products. Consumers will not go to another
store just to find the brand. Instead, they will stay put and choose another brand.

1.3.6 Sales Promotion

Sales promotion is a promotion mix component which is a kind of communication

with consumers. Promotion includes the use of advertising, sales promotions, personal
selling and publicity. Advertising is a non-personal presentation of information in mass
media about a product, brand, company or store. It greatly affects consumers’ images,
beliefs and attitudes towards products and brands influences their purchase behaviours
(Evans et al., 1996). This shows that promotion, especially through advertising, can help
establish ideas or perceptions in the consumers’ minds as well as help differentiate
products against other brands.

According to Rowley (1998), promotion is an important element of a company’s

marketing strategy. Promotion is used to communicate with customers with respect to
product offerings and it is also a way to persuade purchase or sales of a product or
service. Sales promotion tools are used by most organisations in support of advertising
and public relations activities and they are targeted toward consumers as final users.

1.3.7 Brand Trust

Brand trust is viewed as central in many studies, it is conceptualized as a notable

factor in the firm success and it define brand trust as “the willingness of the average
consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function”. Brand trust
arises after consumers’ evaluation of companies’ offerings. If companies provide beliefs
of safety, honesty and reliability about their brands to consumers, brand trust will be
generated consequently. It can be interpreted that brand trust is created and developed by
direct experiences of consumer via satisfied brands.

14
 The main difference between brand trust and brand affect is that brand trust is
viewed as a long process which can be occurred by thought and consideration of
consumer experiences about store while brand affect is consisted of impulsive feelings
which can be formed, spontaneously. Therefore brand trust can be discussed as a
cognitive component which may induce emotional response, namely brand affect.
On the other hand, brand trust leads brand loyalty. It is due to brand trust’s ability
for creating highly valued relationship. It shows that brand loyalty is part of the continual
process of valuable and notable relationship which is produced by brand trust. Moreover
literature support that brand trust is a determinant of loyalty. Patterson (2000) found in his
study that there was a positive link between loyalty proneness and brand loyalty.
According to Lau and Lee (1999), an older stream of research also shows that loyalty
proneness has a positive influence on brand loyalty.
1.4 Bath Soaps- An Introduction
Bath soap is an important product and day to day basic requirement of any
consumer. It is considered as cleansing and beautifying products which is usually used for
cleansing one's body. The bath soaps market is dominated by several, leading national
and global brands and a large number of small brands. The accepted and quality brands
are Hamam, Lux, Power, Dove, Rexona, Medimix, Cinthol, Pears, Mysore sandal and
Lifebouy. The existence of different brands made the consumers difficult to differentiate
each brand from other. It is, therefore, very important to find out the impact of brand
loyalty and advertisement lure the consumers. The bath soap market is fragmented and
highly competitive in nature.

1.4.1 History of Bath Soap

During the British rule the Lever Brothers, England introduced modern soaps by
importing and marketing them in the country. The first company created was North West
Soap Company, the soap manufacturing plant in India situated in the city of Meerut, in
the state of Uttar Pradesh. In 1897, they started marketing cold process soaps. In 1918,
Mr. Jamshedji Tata set up India's first indigenous soap manufacturing unit when he
purchased the Coconut Oil Mills at Cochin - Kerala. OK Mills crushed and marketed
coconut oil for cooking and manufactured crude cold process laundry soaps that were
sold locally and It was renamed The Tata Oil Mills Company and its first branded soaps
appeared on the market in the early 1930’s.

15
 Soap became a necessity for the moneyed class by around 1937. Today with
increase in disposable incomes all around the world along with India, growth in rural
demand is expected to increase because consumers are moving up towards premium
products. However, in the recent past there has not been much change in the volume of
premium soaps in proportion to economy soaps, this was due to the increase in prices
which has led some consumers to look for cheaper substitutes. The major players in the
market for the personal wash (Soap) market are HUL, Nirma and P&G.

The toilet soaps market is estimated at 530,000 TPA including small imports
where the Hindustan Lever is the market leader. The market has several, leading national
and global brands and a large number of small brands. The popular brands include
Lifebuoy, Lux, Cinthol, Liril, Rexona, and Nirma. Premium soaps are estimated to have a
market volume of about 80,000 tonnes. This translates into a share of about 14 to 15%.
However, by value it is as much as 30%. (Source: http://business.mapsofindia.com/top-
brands-india/top-soap-brands-in-india.html)

1.4.2 Indian Bath Soap Industry

Soaps are categorized into men's soaps, ladies' soaps, baby soaps and common
soaps. There are few specialty soaps like the Glycerine soaps, sandal soaps, specially
flavored soaps, medicated soaps and baby soaps. Specialty soaps are high valued which
enjoy only a small share of the market in value terms. The market is growing at 7% a
year. This means that the incremental demand generation is 5% over and above the
population growth. With increasing awareness of hygienic standards, the market for the
Soaps could grow at a rate higher than 8% annually. Interestingly, 60% of the market is
now sourced from the rural sector. This means that the variance between the two
segments is not very large. Since upper-end market focus is the urban areas, margins
come from the urban sector.

Soap is a product for many people and the lathering up can be a treasured part of a
morning or nightly routine. Whether it might be scented or unscented, in bars, gels, and
liquids, soap is a part of our daily lives. In the United States, soap is a $1.390 million
(US$) industry with over 50 mass market brands. But in Indian markets the sales potential
for soap is only beginning to be realized. At the end of the year 2000, soap was a $1.032
million (US$) business in India.

16
 India is a country with a population of 1,030 million people. With the household
penetration of soaps is 98%. People belonging to different income levels use different
brands, which fall under different segments, but all income levels use soaps, making it the
second largest category in India. Rural consumers in India constitute 70% of the
population. Rural demand is growing, with more and more soap brands being launched in
the discount segment targeting the lower socio-economic strata of consumers. Soap
manufacturers originally targeted their products to the lowest income strata in urban as
well as rural areas, positioning their brands as a way to remove dirt and clean the body.
For some brands, that positioning persists even today with a focus on removal of body
odor and keeping the user healthy. However, soap positioning is moving towards skin
care as a value-added benefit.

Soap is primarily targeted towards women, as they are the chief decision-makers
in terms of soap purchase and for Medicated positioning like germ killing and anti-
bacterial are marketed to families. About 75% of soap can be bought through the different
types of outlets. This is the most common source for buying soap, which usually forms a
part of the month's grocery list. Pan-Beedi Shops: These are really small shops, almost
like handcarts and they are primarily set up to dispense cigarettes and chewing tobacco.
Total annual soap sales by companies marketing their brands at national or state levels is
estimated at 14,000 tonnes of a total soap market considered to be about 126,000 tonnes.

1.4.3 Market Capitalization

Today in the Indian economy the popular segments are 4/5ths of the entire soaps
market. The penetration level of toilet soaps is approximately 88.6%. Indian per capita
consumption of soap is at 460 Gms per annum, while in Brazil it is at 1,100 grams per
annum. In India, available stores of soaps are five million retail stores, out of which, 3.75
million retail stores are in the rural areas. 70% of India's population resides in the rural
areas and around 50% of the soaps are sold in the rural markets.

1.4.4 Size of the Industry

The Indian Soap Industry includes about 700 companies with combined annual
revenue of about $17 billion. Major companies in this industry include divisions of P&G,
Unilever and Dial. The Indian Soap Industry is highly concentrated with the top 50
companies holding almost 90% of the market. The market size of global soap and

17
detergent market size was estimated to more than 31Metric tonne, which is estimated to
grow to the coming years. Toilet soaps account for more than 10% of the total market of
soap and detergents. In Asia, the countries like China and India are showing rapid growth
in the toilet soap section. Market share of body wash was estimated to be around 2% in
2004 and is showing signs of healthy growth in these markets. India's soap market is Rs
41.75 billion.

Indian Soap Industry volume is Rs 4,800-crore. For the purpose of gaining a

competitive edge, Indian companies are now relaunching their brands with value-
additions to woo consumers across India. For instance, Hindustan Lever Ltd (HUL) has
already launched a host of toilet soap brands which include Lifebuoy, Lux, Breeze and
Liril-with value additions. Also is in the process of rolling out 'Ayush' ayurvedic soap.
The aim is to meet the evolving needs of customers.

1.4.5 Total Contribution to the Economy

In terms of market share for Indian Soap Industry the data indicates that HUL had
a good market share in the soap market, followed by Nirma and Godrej. Nirma's market
share was in the northern region was highly good. The largest contributor to the toilet
soaps market in Indian market is Hindustan Uni Lever with the total contribution to the
economy & enjoys almost a two-thirds share, with the second ranked Nirma Soaps placed
at a distantly low share of 16.8%. Lux and Lifebuoy have held the sway of the market for
almost fifty years.

1.4.6 Top Leading Companies

In the Rs 4,800-crore Indian toilet soaps market, the lead players include:

 HUL
 Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
 Colgate Palmolive Ltd and
 Wipro Consumer Care

1.4.7 Latest Developments in Soap Industry

 In Indian Soap Industry dealt the entry of new players in the 6,500-crore toilet
soaps industry is expected to bring about a new twist in the "Indian soap opera".

18
 ITC Ltd has started investing in aggressive brand-building and product
development projects to promote its brands, Fiama De Wills, Vivel and Superia.
 Godrej Consumer Products Ltd and Wipro Consumer Care Lighting are
established players in the Industry which are beefing up their research projects and
advertising plans to take on new rivals.
 With increasing competition, the Indian Soap Industry is expected to register a
healthy growth this fisca. The sector registered a 15% value growth.
 GCPL is hiking its advertising budget by 20% to gain high visibility for its brands.

19
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area

and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A
literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, it is a recap of the
important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling,
of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new
with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field,
including major debates. The literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the
reader on the most pertinent or relevant. The review should describe, summarize, evaluate
and clarify this literature. It should give a theoretical base for the research and helps to
determine the nature of research.

Plenty of literature is available related to brand loyalty. From the previous

research works and studies few important variables are identified which affect brand
loyalty. The researcher has divided the whole literature review based on some of those
variables related to brand loyalty. These are as follows:

2.1 Brand

Brand is the image of a product in a market. Two different aspects of a brand can
be distinguished, the experiential aspect and the psychological aspect. The experiential
aspect touches on all previous experiences that an individual has had with the brand
before.

Schumann et al, (2004) defined that the psychological aspect refers to the
perceived image of a brand, something subjective and symbolic. A company’s brand and
the image surrounding it can be the main source of its competitive advantage. It is
important to create not only a brand identity, but a brand personality. Otherwise a brand
can easily be passed over, especially in these days where information is overflowing all
around us. This brand personality should portray something greater than just a set of
different product or service attributes that can easily be imitated.

Essortment (2010) explained that a brand needs to be easily identifiable in order

to penetrate the minds of consumers and to be re-recognized. To sum it up, a brand is not

20
just a representation of a product or a service; it is a symbol of the company itself and that
is where the core of brand loyalty lies.

2.2 Brand Loyalty

Brand Loyalty is the consumer's conscious or unconscious decision, expressed

through intention or behaviour, to repurchase a brand continually. It occurs because the
consumer perceives that the brand offers the right product features, image, or level of
quality at the right price. Consumer behaviour is habitual because habits are safe and
familiar. In order to create brand loyalty, advertisers must break consumer habits, help
them acquire new habits, and reinforce those habits by reminding consumers of the value
of their purchase and encourage them to continue purchasing those products in the future.

Andrew K. & Lawrence V (1984) found out that the consumer was very much
sensitive in the context of frequent hike in price of commodities. William J. Stanton
(1990) concluded that the consumer behavior would be determined by various
psychological attributes rather than explicit factors such as change in quality, design of
the commodity, packing etc.

Edward F. Flippo (1990) has told that the determinants of consumer behavior
would make the consumer more sensitive and they influenced their buying process. John
R. Dillon (1991) discussed various determinants of consumer behaviour such as Income,
age, sex, religion, and other socio economic background and he came to a conclusion that
the consumers were very clear in their choice.

K.V. Charles and V. Kohil (1994) decided in their study on consumer preference
of cosmetics that the consumers’ attention would be on the price and utility of the
products.

P.K. Ghosh (1998) described in his review that the economic status was the major
factor to influence consumers’ attitude.

V.R. Choudhri (1999) explained that the consumer would be willing to buy again
and again when they were satisfied with their sentimental feelings and they usually
evaluate their buying decisions in terms of expectations and satisfactions.

J. Santhosh and K. Kamalesh Guptha (2000) listed various strategies of

consumer satisfaction in automobile industry and they concluded that the consumers’
attitude would be influenced by the price and value of the products.

21
 Perhaps the most elaborate conceptual definition of brand loyalty was presented by
Jacoby and Chestnut (1978). According to this definition, brand loyalty is: "The (a)
biased, (b) behavioral response, (c) expressed over time, (d) by some decision-making
unit, (e) with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and (f)
is a function of psychological (decision-making, evaluative) processes. This definition
identifies six requirements for brand loyalty. Below, each of them is discussed in
somewhat more detail. Brand loyalty is a function of psychological (decision-making,
evaluative) processes. Brands are chosen according to internal criteria resulting in a
commitment towards the brand, which, according to Jacoby and Chestnut (1978), is an
essential element of brand loyalty. This point of view is in line with the information-
processing paradigm, which is the dominant point of view in consumer behavior.

Harris and Goode (2004) tested a loyalty model including four determinants:
service quality, satisfaction, perceived value, and trust in online services (book and ticket
purchasing). Their study revealed 16 valid and reliable measurement items of brand
loyalty dimensions for both online services. Through comparative model analysis, they
concluded that the hypothesized sequence of brand loyalty, i.e., cognitive loyalty,
affective loyalty, conative loyalty, and behavioural loyalty was the best-fit model
compared to competing models in both study settings. Unfortunately, their measurement
of behavioural loyalty included intention items and these intention items could be
construed as conative loyalty rather than behavioural or action loyalty.

The concept of brand loyalty has had a long and inconsequent history. The very
first mention of the idea was attributed to Copeland (1923) and since then, over 200
definitions have appeared in the literature.

According to Rawly and Dawes (1999), Brand Loyalty is the likelihood of

positive attitudes and behaviours of consumers towards a particular brand and this could
amount to repeat purchase and positive word-of-mouth. Brand loyalty has been
proclaimed to be the ultimate goal of marketing. Subsequently, there were numerous
definitions of the construct with many measurement methods that were employed.
However, there has been a dearth of regional research studies on Brand Loyalty towards
bath soap.

Lau et al. (2006) in his article mentioned that there were seven factors that
influenced consumers’ brand loyalty towards certain sportswear brands. The factors were:

22
brand name, product quality, price, style, store environment, promotion and service
quality. Famous brand names can disseminate product benefits and lead to higher recall of
advertised benefits than non-famous brand names.

Russell and Taylor, (2006) stated that product quality encompasses the features
and characteristics of a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy stated or
implied needs. In other words, product quality is defined as “fitness for use” or
‘conformance to requirement”.

Jansson-Boyd (2010) explained that such need may be established through the
culture in which we are raised. Additionally, consumers can also become brand loyal by
being given incentives to repeatedly use the same product or service. Similar findings are
in the study of Kim et al. According to the finding achieved, the increase in the change
costs composed of components including loss cost, attractiveness of alternatives,
interpersonal relationship increases loyalty (Kim et al., 2004).

Consequently even the consumer may pay effort to be conscious since this effort
is oriented its consciousness aspect may not dominate. The suggestions of Wang et.al
conducted in 2006 verify this thesis. They discussed in their studies the effect of
neuropsychological processing on loyalty and suggested to establish loyalty through
emotional tie which shall be strengthened by means of personalized communication
rather than offering the consumers more technical properties or discounts in order to
increase loyalty depending on the results obtained because as Fill stated as well
communication may encourage loyalty and devotion (Fill, 1999) and in this process
consumer is passive rather than active. Even there may be exceptional conscious
consumers in general the factor that shapes loyalty creation process through effort to
manage loyalty is external powers.

Huang and Yu (1999) are the researchers who made emphasis on the concept of
inertia while discussing the issue loyalty. Researchers conclude that contrary to the
content of the literature those with high brand loyalty tend to change brands and open to
the effect of marketing variables. According to another interesting conclusion and
detection achieved by the researchers; inert customers are open to change by nature but
depending on lack of consciousness they are less sensitive to marketing variables.

23
 According to Corstjens and Lal (2000) customer inertia is the customer’s acting
involuntarily in the previous brand purchase behavior when everything is equal, namely
the customer who changes brand when suggestions change is inert. According to the
researcher, inertia is quite effective in consumer preference particularly in the case
involvement is low and the behavior is a rational one since it assists when satisfactory
conclusions that could simplify decision making process of the customer are achieved and
decreases the cost of decision making.

Another finding on the basis of this contradiction is revealed in the study of

Ranaweera and Neely performed in 2003 because researchers failed to find the relation
between inertia and customer loyalty. Ranaweera and Neely in the literature reviews on
inertia defined inertia as repurchasing behavior without adopting a positive attitude. But
researchers were contented with checking change tendency for measuring inertia and did
not think that any examination on the reasons of change was necessary.

Zeelenberg and Pieters (2004) made an emphasis that inertia may arise after a
dissatisfaction and the customer may be inert since he/she expects another offer that could
provide satisfaction and verified the reality of their detections through their findings.

According to Solomon et al., (2006) inertia is a situation opposite of loyalty.

According to this view, some people select the same brands because they need less effort
to reach those brands, since they do not have sufficient motivation to assess alternatives
they make their decisions according to habits. Since those people change their brand
preferences when they encounter new brands easier for them to reach they were named as
fickle customers. The authors made emphasis on inertia with low involvement and
mentioned that the attitude of the consumers to purchase without considering other
alternatives is a habit.

According to Pitta et al. (2006) inertia was spurious loyalty and researchers
argued the distinction between inertia and action loyalty is caused by the assessment of
changes. While the researchers defined cease of shopping after any change in range or
conditions in a store as inertia, they defined continuance of shopping as action loyalty.
Furthermore researchers emphasized that inertia may prevent shopping place or brand
change as similar to loyal behavior in the manner that it shall help with overcoming time
pressure and research difficulties depending on habits.

24
 Bandyopadhyay and Martell (2007) stated that multi brand loyalty may be
possible and this sort of loyal customer seeks for difference. One reason for seeking
difference may be the failure of a brand to satisfy the customer with all qualities and
satisfaction can be provided through aggregate utility that multi brands may provide.

Messner and Vosgerau (2010) made an emphasis that via the concept of
cognitive inertia the strict attitudes of the customers may be a cognitive situation. They
further made an emphasis that the effect of cognitive inertia however is high in the
equality of alternatives while assessing the alternatives and when there is difference
between alternatives cognitive inertia could be overcome. Again the finding of this
research rejects that inertia is the reflection of unconsciousness.

Dube et.al. (2010) stated in their study on inertia that inertia arises from two
things: Structural state dependence where past purchases affected later purchases directly
and spurious state dependence arising when the difference between the previous
preference and existing purchase alternatives is not considered. Researchers took this
discrimination as basis and browsed for the origin of inertia on the basis of loyalty,
customer’s research and learning. According to researchers, discussing inertia under the
loyalty model; when the customer purchases any brand he/she accepts the utility acquired
from the brand as yield and directs the next preference, this situation is like avoiding
brand change cost. When inertia is discussed on the basis of customer’s research; he/she
will continue to prefer the same brand when the cost of browsing other brands is high.
Thinking as learning based; since insufficient information on the product used shall raise
the perceived quality of the product the customer is not directed to other brands, namely
he/she deems the brand he/she uses as sufficient due to lack of information. According to
researchers’ findings, customers are myopic and they are not aware of the effect of the
existing decision on the utility to be gained in the future.

According to the research results of Wu (2011) emotional devotion helps with

transformation of inertia into loyalty, thanks to this, inertia named as spurious devotion
may be transformed into action loyalty because according to the assessment of the
researcher the attractiveness of other alternatives may affect customer inertia negatively
exactly as it is the case with loyalty.

25
2.3 Importance of Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty is of paramount importance for marketers and consumer

researchers. In services context, many scholars focused on importance and significance of
brand loyalty. The organization that have pool of brand loyalists have greater market
share and higher rates of return on investments, in turn. Such results persuade marketing
officials to generate and up-hold brand loyalists. To attain such targets, information about
variables which causes brand loyalty becomes a core issue.

Anderson et al. (2004) argued a loyal and contented customer base helps to
increase the organizations‟ relative bargaining power regarding suppliers, partners and
channels. So, customer loyalty should affect shareholder value in a positive manner by
reducing instability and associated risk with expected future cash flows.

Dick and Basu (1994) hold a view that customer loyalty creates positive WOM
communication (word of mouth) and competitive strategies are resisted by loyal
customers. Such findings appeal to strategists and marketers to build and hold strong
customer loyalty. Kotler and Keller (2005) said that “based on a 20-80 principle, the top
20% of the customers may create 80% of profit for a company”. Thus a favorable
connection between a company and its customers is lucrative for the business.
Bennet (2001) explained that some drivers of brand loyalty are perceived risk,
inertia, habit, involvement, satisfaction, and relationship between product or service
providers. A series of very positive encounters will increase customer satisfaction, trust,
relationship commitment and continuity.

Ozer (2005) stated some antecedents of customer loyalty. Corporate image,

perceived service quality, trust and customer switching costs are the influential factors of
brand loyalty. Moreover the results described that trust is one of the most important
antecedents of brand loyalty. Although perceived service quality and perceived switching
cost appeared to have the same level of influence on brand loyalty.

2.4 Measures of Brand Loyalty

Bloemer (1993) categorized the six criteria identified in our discussion of the
conceptual definition can subsequently be used to evaluate specific operational measures.
Rather than discussing all individual operationalizations in detail and since measures
which common characteristics have similar strengths and weaknesses, we classify them
into four groups, based on the following two dimensions: (1) attitudinal versus behavioral
26
measures, and (2) brand oriented versus individual-oriented measures. These dimensions
are used since they appear frequently in the marketing literature are related to specific
requirements of the conceptual definition (which makes it easier to point out the
advantages and drawbacks of a group) and provide a workable distinction for marketing
managers.

Aaker (1991) explained that brand loyalty was the result of information
processing of brand features by the consumer, which is implied by condition. Hence,
brand loyalty may be seen mostly as a property of the brand.

Kendall (1986) classified brand loyalty measures as, respectively, brand-oriented

or individual-oriented. This distinction is sometimes not as clear-cut as between
attitudinal- and behavioral measures, and some operationalizations may even be
conceptualized as brand-oriented in one study and as individual-oriented in another.

2.5 Customer Loyalty Behaviour

Bloemer et al., (1999) argued that customer loyalty is defined as a customer who
repurchases from the same service provider whenever possible and who continues to
recommend or maintains a positive attitude towards the service provider. Customers may
be loyal due to high switching barriers or lack of real alternatives.

Teel et al., (1980) found in their research that customers may also be loyal
because they are satisfied and thus want to continue the relationship. History has proven
that most barriers to exit are limited with regard to durability; companies tend to consider
customer satisfaction the only viable strategy in order to keep existing customers.

Oliver, (1999) defines loyalty as a deeply held commitment to re-buy

product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same brand or same-
brand set purchasing. From all previous studies about customer loyalty and the factors
that affecting on it such as service quality, switching barriers, and brand image, all
researchers gave several definitions of customer loyalty, each definition expect type of
product or service, but there are some things are similarity between their definitions as,
repeatedly purchase a goods or service over time; and hold favourable attitudes towards a
goods or service, or towards the company supplying the goods or service.

LI Li, (2005) revealed that the customer loyalty was characterized by

repurchasing and not transferring by the fluctuation of the market. There were many
factors that affected the customer loyalty. The effects of customer loyalty can be assessed
27
in these aspects: service quality, switching barriers, and brand image "the customers’
switching cost requirement, quality requirement and service requirement for the
business".

According to Gustafsson, a wide variety of programs have been developed and

implemented to increase customer loyalty. The majority of these programs target
customers' functional and economic benefits (e.g. price-discounts, coupons, mileage
programs, etc.). However, these types of loyalty programs are necessary but not a
sufficient condition to simultaneously increase multifaceted customer loyalty. Increasing
customer loyalty entirely requires a customized marketing strategy that varies by each
different type of loyalty (as cited in Kwang-Ho et al., 2011).
Zhou, et al., (2006) examined the historical course of the studies with the subject
of loyalty it is found that the researches that try to define what loyalty is have significant
space. The most basic problem encountered in those studies was the failure to achieve a
shared definition of loyalty because although customer loyalty may be a key variable that
explains keeping the customer at hand, it has been discussed in time whether loyalty is an
attitude or combination of attitude and behavior.
According to Keyner, et al., (1973) the approach based on behavior, loyalty was
the behavioral reaction based on prejudice as the function of psychological processes by
the decision maker in the existence of one or more alternative in time. Behavioral
approach explained loyalty basing on the criteria including the share in consumption,
consumption probability, probability to consume the product again, repeated consumption
behavior, multidirectional consumption behaviors (Kumar and Shah, 2008).
Solomon et al., (2006) discussed that the second approach dealt as the
combination of attitude and behavior brand loyalty “is a form of repeat purchasing
behavior reflecting a conscious decision to continue buying the same brand, for brand
loyalty to exist, a pattern of repeat purchase must be accompanied by an underlying
positive attitude towards the brand.
Sudharshan, (1995) refused this approach that does not include only the past
purchasing behaviors and tendencies but also customer attitude and value systems.
Consequently according to this approach which was accepted in time, the customer
realizes loyalty in time through repeated consumption of any good or service when the
customer has a positive attitude toward the good/service.

28
 Dick and Basu (1994) discussed loyalty in four dimensions on behavior and
attitude basis. They named the situation of attitude and repurchasing behavior being high
as loyalty, the situation of attitude being high and purchase repeat being low as latent
loyalty, the situation of purchase behavior is being and attitude being low as spurious
loyalty and the situation of attitude and repurchasing being low as no loyalty.
According to Oliver (1999) loyalty arises through phases; cognitive, affective,
canotive and action. In the cognitive phase customer loyalty is based on the assessment of
information including the price to be determined for the product/brand, qualities etc.
Affective phase is created in the context of positive emotion toward the brand. In the
canotive phase the tendency toward the brand becomes devotion and there is the tendency
to stand distant from other brands. In the action which is the last phase inertia based on
the tendency to that brand started. While it is cognitive phase which is the easiest phase to
reach for the enterprise the most difficult phase is action.
According to Rowley (2005) customers may demonstrate their loyalty in any one
of a number of ways; they may choose to stay with a provider, whether this continuance
is defined as a relationship or not, or they may increase the number of purchases or the
frequency of their purchases or even both. According to this approach it was a relation
that shapes repurchasing that reveals the existence of loyalty rather than repurchasing
itself. Rowley took this framework on the basis of inertial and positive attitudes including
the behavioral and attitudinal dimensions, and discussed customer loyalty in 4 groups
namely, captive (inertial behavior and attitude), convenience-seeker (positive behavior
and inertial attitude), contented (inertial behavior and positive attitude) and committed
(positive behavior and attitude) according to behavioral and attitudinal dimension.
Bandyopadhyay and Martell, in their study conducted in 2007 discussed
behavioral loyalty of the consumer in three groups namely those who use single brand,
those who use multi brands and those who do not use the product and anticipated the
attitudinal loyalty may be higher or lower in those three groups. Researchers defined
those who had high attitudinal loyalty and use a single brand as brand loyal and those
who use multi brands as difference seekers and those who are not users as potential
purchasers and underlined that loyalty may not be toward a single brand.
According to Kotler and Keller (2006) those who change their preferences on the
basis of criteria including price, value etc. are non-loyal customers, consequently when
the loyal customer is oriented to seeking loyalty becomes suspicious. Although a
theoretical framework emphasizing that brand variables are unconscious according to
29
value, price and characters offered on the basis of loyal customer characters, different
studies suggest the opposite of this situation.
Wong and Dean (2009) claimed that price consciousness is one of the probable
factors that determine customer loyalty. The refund scope positively affected store
loyalty, with effects being the strongest for price conscious and skeptical consumers.
Consequently contrary to the information included in characteristics there was a finding
that promotional efforts may increase loyalty.
According to other findings of Noble et al. (2006), there was no relation between
assortment and convenience browsing, but while social interaction and uniqueness
seeking increases, loyalty increases as well, while browsing increases loyalty decreases.
And this finding coincides with the view of “loyalty is conscious” as well.

2.6 Factors that Influencing the Brand Loyalty

2.6.1 Brand Image

Zeithaml and Bitner, (1996) argued that brand image pertains to the perception or
mental picture a customer holds of a brand and is formed through his/her response,
whether reasoned or emotional, an organization's image is an important variable that
positively influences marketing activities. Image is considered to have the ability to
influence customers' perception of the goods and services offered. Thus, image will have
an impact on customers' buying behavior. The objective is to arouse a positive affective
response to the brand in the customers, such that they buy brands for their physical
attributes and functions, and their symbolic meanings associated with the brand, product
or service.

Nguyen and Leblanc, (2001) claimed that corporate image was related to the
physical and behavioral attributes of the firm, such as business name, architecture, variety
of products/services, and to the impression of quality communicated by each person
interacting with the firm’s clients.

Keller, (1993) explained that brand image had long been recognized as one of the
central tenets of marketing research, not only because of its role as a foundation for
tactical marketing-mix but also its role in building long-term brand equity.

Studies performed by Holt (2004), showed a significant body of work that has
linked consumer use of signals of brand quality and self identity to higher sales and
consumer loyalty. They contend that the greater consumer use of branded products as

30
signals of quality and self-identity, the greater the importance attributed to branded
products; and the greater the use of brands as signals of quality and self-identity, the
greater the purchases of brands.

Various authors and researchers continuously emphasize on brands are evaluated

on the basis whether they have the strong personality that may or may not match the
personality of the consumer. Therefore consumers have strong preference for the product
that possesses personality dimensions they look for in a product. It had been proved that
positive reciprocal effects occur only when an average-quality parent brand introduces a
successful extension that is similar to the parent brand. One major risk with brand
extensions is the possibility of diluting the core brand’s equity by creating negative brand
associations.

Plummer (1985) studied how brand personality affects consumer’s choice of a

soft drink with a distinctive brand image in the U.S. Later Aaker developed a new scale to
measure brand personality along five dimensions, which were sincerity, excitement,
competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Results from this study came out to be that
brand identification affected word of mouth reports, and word of mouth reports affect
brand loyalty. Hypothetically, brand identification indirectly affects brand loyalty.

Choi (1998) studied that brand extension was a marketing practice that uses an
established brand name in one category to introduce products in totally different
categories. Researchers have explained that brand extension allows the established brand
to provide a stock of information about the new product’s quality. Consumers believe that
brand name matters. If the high quality product brand name is extended to a new product,
consumers believe that the new product is also of high quality as long as all the previous
products with the same brand name were of high quality.

2.6.2 Brand Affect:

Holbrook et al, (2001) discussed that brand affect is defined as the potential in a
brand to elicit a positive emotional response in the average consumer as a result of its
usage. Brand affect can also be defined as a brand's potential to elicit a positive emotional
response in the average consumer as a result of its usage (Moorman et al., 1992).

Ladhari (2007) Regarding brand effect, in a retail context, a positive relationship

exists between positive affect and willingness to buy, and that the positive effects of store
image increases loyalty.

31
2.6.3 Repeated Purchase Behavior:

Cunningham (1956) explained that the consistent repeat purchase is one kind of
“Loyalty-Prone” behavior which forms the base for brand loyalty. Repeated purchase
behavior is an axiomatic term that simply refers to the extent to which consumers
repurchase the same brand in any equal-length period of time (Ehrenberg, 1988).

Saaty (1994) found that the strength of behavioral brand loyalty was, therefore,
directly a function of the repetitive occurrence of purchase or consumption behavior.
Consumer establishes a systematic biased response or habit simply due to the frequency
of encounters .

2.6.4 Perceived Value:

Punniyamoorthy and Raj, (2007) revealed that perceived value as the

consumer's overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is
received and what is given. Perceived value is made up of several of the following
components: Functional Value, Emotional Value, Price-worthiness Factor and Social
Value (Voss et al., 2005).

2.6.5 Commitment:

Kim et al., (2007) explained that brand commitment occurs when consumers
pledge or bind themselves them to purchase the brand. Customer commitment is a central
construct in the development and maintenance of marketing relationships because it is a
key psychological force that links the consumer to the selling organization.

Fullerton, (2005) continued that there was over whelming evidence to suggest
that the higher the level of commitment, the higher the level of brand loyalty. Regarding
commitment and relationship marketing, it is noteworthy that commitment occurs when
consumers pledge loyalty while this may not be the case in relationship marketing. There
may be a relationship but not a commitment.

2.6.6 Relationship Proneness:

Storbacka et al., (1994) explained that relationship proneness is an individual

characteristic of the buyer. It is defined as “a buyer's relatively stable and conscious
tendency to engage in relationships with sellers of a particular product category”.
Similarly, plural proneness as the stable tendency of a consumer to engage in
32
relationships with retailers and can therefore be considered as a part of a consumer's
personality.

It can be assumed that consumers, who are intrinsically inclined to engage in

relationships with retailers in general, will also reveal store loyalty to a particular retailer.
Similarly, loyalty aimed towards a specific product or a specific brand indicates that a
relationship was formed between the brand or product and the customer.

2.6.7 Brand Involvement:

Gordon et al., (1998) explained that product involvement involves an ongoing

commitment on the part of the consumer with regard to thoughts, feelings and behavioral
response to a product category. Involvement was an unobservable state of motivation,
interest toward a product.

Additional evidence was Park (1996) featured that involvement was closely
related to intentions and behaviors, corroborating evidence from numerous studies.
Studies that have examined the relationship between product involvement and loyalty
indicate a definite correlation.

2.6.8 Customer Satisfaction:

Aaker (1991) discussed about a direct measure of customer satisfaction can be

applied to existing customers, who can perhaps be defined as those who have used the
product or service within a certain time frame such as the last year. The focus can be the
last use experience or simply the use experience from the customers view. Customer
satisfaction was believed to mediate consumer learning from prior experience and to
explain key post purchase behaviors such as complaining, word of mouth, repurchase
intention and product usage, customer satisfaction has a significant influence on
repurchase intention and that a higher level of customer satisfaction directly leads to a
higher level of brand loyalty.

2.6.9 Price Premium:

Again Aaker (1991) explained a basic indicator of loyalty was the amount a
customer will pay for the brand in comparison with another brand (or set of comparison
brands) offering similar benefits.
33
2.6.10 Brand Relevance:

Tucker (2005) & Kea (2008) argued that a brand needs to stand for something
that actually matters in a world of too many brands for human cognition. Therefore,
brands relevance is a key component in ensuring brand loyalty.

2.6.11 Brand Performance:

Musa (2005) studied in his research about perceived performance was the
customer's evaluation of product or service performance following the consumption
experience. Brand performance was the subjective evaluation of the core product (that is,
attributes of the focal product), comprising both intrinsic (effectiveness) and extrinsic
(packaging) characteristics Brand performance, as indicated by various studies, is a
FMCG loyalty factor that must be considered when measuring brand loyalty.

2.6.12 Customer Satisfaction

Holbrook (1994) explain the concept of customer satisfaction is one of the

objectives of marketing activity, linking the process of purchasing and consumption with
post purchase phenomena. Satisfying customers is an important element in marketing
concept as it affects future consumer purchase behaviour, profitability and shareholder
value.

Bhattacharya et al, (2008) and Woodruff (1997) argued that there are many
definitions given to the term customer satisfaction with one early given stresses on
cognitive process. More recently, consumer satisfaction paradigm research has gone
beyond cognitively toned formulations to recognize the affective nature of satisfaction.
While other variations of the definition of customer satisfaction have been presented by
scholars, most of the definitions agree that satisfaction is a complex human process,
involving cognitive, affective and other undiscovered psychological and physiological
dynamics.

Spreng et al., (1996) in his study, in most literature related to behavioral

intentions, overall satisfaction was integrated as a dominant factor of purchase intentions
with reference to brand loyalty. Customer loyalty was one of the considerable paths with
which customer satisfaction about product or services received is expressed. For this
reason brand loyalty is at heart of strategic marketing.

34
 Soloman (1994) explored that purchase decisions of loyal costumer may become
a habit in nature, even quite simple and provide satisfaction with current brand(s) as a
result. Many scholars concluded that satisfaction is one of the important determinants of
customers‟ loyalty.

Bontis et al. (2007) conducted the research and found that customer satisfaction
improves reputation in the services markets. Reputation partially intervene the
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty and the relationship between satisfaction and
recommendation.

Tovikkai and Jirawattananukool (2001) pointed out that realizing the fact that
retaining existing consumers are easier than finding new consumers. Consumers who
have high purchase frequency are most likely considered as satisfied with the products.

2.6.13 Perceived Value

Zeithaml et al., (2006) argued that customers choose one product over another
because they believe it will provide better value and because of its importance in decision
processes, customer perceived value is fundamental in marketing activities. As with
service quality and customer satisfaction, perceived value is often interpreted differently.

Kotler et al. (2010), for instance, advised that customer perceived value is the
differences between the benefits and the cost of obtaining a product or services. He
characterized customer perceived value as a customer‘s perceived preference based on the
evaluation of the products attributes, performances, and consequences to fullfil their
customer‘s goal and purposes.

While Gale (1994) defineed value as quality defined by the customer. There are
endless variations of perceived value definitions, but the majority of those definitions
agree that perceived value is a comparison between what is received and what is given.

2.7 Types of Brand Loyalty

2.7.1 Cognitive Loyalty
Hawkins et al. (2001) suggest that cognition simply refers to consumer‘s belief
and knowledge about a phenomena; Conceptually, cognitive loyalty is based on the
cognition dimension of attitude. As cognition was based on beliefs and knowledge;
cognitive loyalty was loyalty based on brand knowledge and belief that the brand is

35
preferable to its competitors. At this loyalty stage, a brand will come first in a loyal
consumer‘s mind when questions of what to buy or where to go arise. In other words, the
brand is the customer‘s primary option or first choice among alternatives.

Bagozzi et al., (1979) defined the cognition was attained through persuasive
communication in the information-processing model. Consequently, promotion strategies
set out to increase customer knowledge and develop beliefs about the product or services.
Besides advertising, word of mouth communication and other communication strategies
such as public relations, the positive or negative beliefs towards a product or service will
be influenced by the experience of consuming the product or service.

Chestnut, et al., (1978) found that although it might be important in generating an

individual purchase, belief is often temporary as this factor depends only on advertising
and promotional efforts. Cognitive loyalty may not have as strong a relationship with
purchasing behaviour as affective loyalty and conative loyalty, as evident by the very few
studies.

2.7.2 Affective Loyalty

Assael et al., (2007) defined the affective loyalty is “a favourable attitude or
liking based on satisfied usage” insisted that this loyalty is grounded on the affect
concept of attitude. Affective corresponds to a consumers‘ overall evaluation of the brand
and contains some involvement, liking, and caring.
In a similar vein, Back and Parks (2003) asserted that affect refers to feelings,
moods, or emotional responses that can be measured by collecting verbal reports or by
psychological responses. The product or service was the result of satisfaction of
consumption of product or service over time.

Bagozzi et al., (1979) also discussed the cognitive loyalty draws from
information-processing theories, affective responses are model from classical
conditioning of Learning Theory. Neutral stimuli will be associated with unconditioned
stimuli if they are linked repeatedly.

Assael et al., (2007) discussed the three components of attitude (cognitive,

affective, and conative), affective is central to the study of attitude as this component
36
summarises consumer predisposition to be favourable or unfavourable to a certain brand.
Different from beliefs, which are multidirectional, the affective component is uni-
dimensional from poor to excellent or from prefer least to prefer most (Back & Parks,
2003).
Brand beliefs are relevant only to the extent that they influence brand evaluations,
which are the primary determinant of liking or disliking behaviour. As such, researchers
often treat brand evaluations as synonymous with attitudes, but in essence, brand
evaluation is formed by belief and influences intention to buy. Compared to beliefs, brand
liking is more enduring and may well influence decision-making activities.

Nysveen, et al., (2001) argued in their studies that cognitive loyalty, affective
loyalty remains subject to switching behaviour, demonstrated by studies that show a large
percentage of brand defectors, claiming to have been previously satisfied with the brand.
One reason for satisfied customers defecting is that they might consume several brands in
the product category. In their consumption, the customers are satisfied with some brands
more than others. Thus, they had affective feeling towards many brands.

2.7.3 Conative Loyalty

Assael et al. (2007) defined conation as a consumer‘s tendency to act toward an

object generally measured in terms of intention to buy. The commitment to buying a
product or service is influenced by repeated episodes of positive affect toward the brand.
Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) insisted that commitment restricts customer in no uncertain
choice direction towards a particular brand‘s warranting for repeat purchase.
Consequently, having committed consumers is important for any business as they tend to
resist persuasion from other providers (Pritchard et al., 1999).

According to Bagozzi (1979), behavioural intention arises from reward or

punishment for response behaviour towards a brand through operant conditioning.
Operant conditioning deals with behaviours that are usually assumed to be under the
conscious control of individual. Operant behaviours are emitted because of consequences
that occur after the behaviour. A hotel which provides excellent service (reinforcer) to a
repeat customer may strengthen the customer‘s intention to re-stay in the future.
Providing excellent service (reinforcer) consistently will shape the behavioural intention
37
to stay, while providing a poor service (a punishment) to a repeat customer will weaken
the relationship which leads to negative intention.

Shukla (2009) asserted that the impact of all important reference groups and
friends have the most influence on the loyalty behaviour of young adults. They have an
integrated approach towards decision making part of consumer behaviour on FMCGs.

Kotler (1980) opined that the reference group concepts have been used by
advertisers in their efforts to persuade consumers to purchase products and brands. Park
and essig (1977) investigated reference group influence and found students to be more
susceptible than housewives to group influence for a variety of products. Ramesh Kumar
(2009) opined that a brand derives value from celebrity associations.

After the literature review it can be said that so far brand loyalty has been
associated with some important variables but here in this research main emphasis was
given on factors influenced on brand loyalty these variables have gained much attention
in previous studies as the determinants of brand loyalty.

References

1. David A. Aaker, Managing Brand Equity ;New York, NY: The Free Press, 1991. 2.
Ahmed I. Moolla1,

2. a. (2012). Empirical Evaluation of a Model That Measures the Brand. Soc Sci .

3. Back KJ, Parks SC 2003. A Brand Loyalty Model is Involving Cognitive, Affective,
And Cognitive Brand Loyalty and Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, 27(4): 419- 435.

4. Chaudhuri A, Hoibrook MB 2002. The Chain Of Effects From Brand Trust And
Brand Affect To Brand Performance: The Role Of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing,
65(2): 141-149.

5. Dick AS, Basu K 1994. Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Model. Journal Of
The Academy Of Marketing Science, 22(2): 99-113.

6. Engels J 2005. How Can You Measure Loyalty? From: (Retrieved on January 23,
2014).

38
7. Garbarino E, Johnson MS 1999. The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, And
Commitment In Customer Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2): 70-87.

8. Gordon ME, McKeage K, Fox MA 1998. Relationship Marketing Effectiveness: The

role of involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 15(5): 39-45

9. Hess J 1995. Construction and Assessment of a Scale to Measure Consumer Trust.

AMA Educators' Conference, Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, 6(1):
20-25.

10. Hair JF, A. R. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River,: Prentice-
Hall.

11. Jacoby, J. C. (1978). A Behavioral Process Approach to Informal Acquisition in

Nondurable Purchasing. Journal of Marketing Research.

12. JE, S. (2010). What is FMCG All About? From (Retrived on 21st January 2014).

13. Jacoby J 1971. A Model of Multi-Brand Loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research,

11(3): 25-31. 14. Jacoby J, Chestnut R 1978. Brand Loyalty: Measurement and
Management. New York, NY: John Wiley.

15. Klemperer PD 1987. Markets with Consumer Switching Costs. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 102: 375-394.

16. Kotler P, Keller KL 2006. Marketing Management. 12th Edition. London: Prentice
Hall.

17. Miller DW, Marks LJ 1996. The Moderating Effects of Enduring Involvement on
Imagery-Evoking Advertisements. American Marketing Association, 121- 128.

18. Odekerken-Schröder G 1999. The Role of the Buyer in Affecting Buyer-Seller

Relationships: Empirical Studies in a Retail Context. Ph.D. Thesis, Unpublished.
Maastricht: Maastricht. University.

19. Punniya Moorthy M, Raj PM 2007. An Empirical Model for Brand Loyalty
Measurement. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(4):
222-233.

20. Saaty TL 1994. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Interfaces, 24(6): 19- 43.

39
21. Sahay A, Sharma J 2010. Brand Relationships And Switching Behaviour for Highly
Used Products in Young Consumers. Vikalpa, 35(1): 1-30.

22. Schijins JMC 2003. Loyalty and Satisfaction in Physical and Remote Service
Encounters. Bedrijfskunde, 74(1): 57-65.

23. Sharp B, Wright M, Goodhardt G 2003. Purchase Loyalty is Polarised into Either
Repertoire or Subscription Patterns. Australasian Marketing Journal, 10(3): 7-20.

24. Smith JE 2010. What is FMCG All About? From (Retrieved onJanuary 5, 2014).

25. Storbacka K, Strandvik T, Grönroos C 1994. Managing Customer Relationships for

Profit: The Dynamics of Relationship Quality. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 5(5): 21- 38.

40
 CHAPTER-III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Need and Importance of the Study

The bath soaps market is littered over with several, leading national and global
brands and a large number of small and local brands. Bath soaps, despite their divergent
brands, are not well differentiated by the consumers. This results in fragmented market
and obviously leads to a highly competitive market. In bath soap market, strong brand
equity and a wide distribution network are vital in attracting customers. Brand equities are
built over a period of time by technological innovations, consistent high quality,
aggressive advertisement and marketing. Availability of the products is another crucial
success factor, as products are of small value, frequently purchased daily use items. So,
there is always a chance of brand switching due to impulse buying. A deep insight of
consumer brand loyalty and satisfaction can help marketers retain the existing customers
and entice new ones. In this backdrop, this study is undertaken to examine the consumers'
brand awareness, loyalty, and satisfaction towards bath soaps. The factors influencing
brand selection and brand switching are also assessed.

3.2 Statement of the Problem

This study focuses on various factors that are affecting and influencing the brand
loyalty of the bath soap industry. A wide variety of programs have been developed and
implemented to increase customer loyalty. The majority of these programs target
customers' functional and economic benefits. Increasing customer loyalty entirely
requires a customized marketing strategy that varies by each different type of loyalty. By
using a type of grass roots consumer marketing as opposed to mass media marketing a
longer lasting brand loyalty can be built with consumers. Several factors that are
identified and it converted as questionnaire pattern for getting an opinion of customers
towards brand loyalty of bath soap. The statement of problem taken for this study was
which factors can influence brand loyalty based on the demographic factors of customers
in Chennai.

3.3 Background of the Problem

The existing literature regarding grass roots marketing in regards to brand loyalty
is relatively minimal. It mainly focuses on the benefits of branding through the use of

41
mass media marketing. The literature is also lacking in the area of targeting consumers
with their demographical issues that are related to the marketing efforts and the benefits
which are possible in creating brand loyalty.

3.4 Purpose of the Study

According to current trends in the field of bath soap industry and its marketing
process, mass media is the chosen route. The influence of grass roots marketing to build
brand loyalty is down played as a strategy to reach consumers effectively. Shifts in
culture have proved that response to mass media marketing is declining and there are
other alternatives to build their brand. Bath soap companies have started to implement
strategies to reach existing and new younger consumer markets in a personalized way.
Through the use of grass roots consumer marketing brands can capitalize on the growing
field of youth consumers to build brand loyalty and create returning customers for life.
This study will be used for investigating the current strategies used to market bath soap
brands to youth it will benefit marketing, public relations, and clothing companies who
consistently develop and manage brands.

3.5 Primary Objectives of the study:

1. To study which factor has influence more on brand loyalty of bath soaps based on the
demographic factors of respondents.

2. To find out the product attributes those are related to baths soaps influencing the
buying behaviour of customers.

3. To analysis the consumer preference involved in bath soap purchase.

Secondary Objectives

1. To find out the level of brand loyalty for bath soap

2. To find out the factors that affect brand loyalty of bath soap
3. To find out the impacts of those factors on brand Loyalty
4. To understand the priority criteria’s selecting brands and their product.
5. To assess factors influencing the buying behavior of the consumers.
6. To examine the consumer behavior and consumer preference towards bath soap.
7. To study the brand loyalty among the consumers towards bath soap.
8. To find out the factors which affect the brand loyalty of consumers for bath soap
9. To give suggestions to FMCG companies to develop marketing strategy

42
3.6.1 Research design:

The research design followed in the study is Descriptive in nature

3.6.2 Method of data collection

Primary data: The study is based on both primary and secondary data. The
primary data were collected by distributing interview schedule to the users of bath soap in
Chennai.

Secondary data: The secondary data has been collected from the various
journals, magazines connected with Bath soap.

3.6.3 Sample Size: A total of 520 respondents were surveyed for this purpose
using a non-probability sampling technique. The respondents were chosen on the basis of
accessibility and convenience. A questionnaire was developed for this purpose which
includes checklists, dichotomous questions and opens ended questions. The study area
was select places of Chennai Metro. From the observation, it is seen that females are
mostly the buyers of toilet soap. So, in the sample, different age groups are also covered.
Similarly different income groups are also covered.

3.6.4 Sampling Technique: The study has been undertaken by survey method,
the data is collected with the help of convenient sampling method from the household in
Chennai.

3.6.5 Brand Selected for the Study

1). Hamam, 2). Lux, 3). Dove, 4) Medimix, 5). Cinthol, and 6). Mysore sandal,

3.7 Questionnaire Pattern:

Part 1: Personal Information about the respondents (Demographic Variables)

Part 2: Opinion of the Respondents about the factors that influencing on brand
loyalty of their bath soap brands. (28 Factors)

1. product quality
2. style / flavours
3. brand name

43
 4. store environment
5. Advertising
6. Price
7. Loyalty Proneneness
8. Product involvement
9. Innovativeness
10. Product familiarity
11. Health consciousness
12. Promotion offer
13. Brand loyalty
14. Customer satisfaction
15. Brand trust
16. relationship proneness
17. Involvement
18. Perceived value
19. Commitment
20. Repeat purchase
21. Brand affect
22. Brand relevance
23. Brand performance
24. Culture/habit
25. Purchase decision
26. Component
27. Design
28. Perceived quality

Part 3: Reasons for purchase and brand loyalty of the bath soap (Product
Attributes)

Part 4: Psychological study for the attitude of the respondents towards bath soaps.
(1.Recreation/hedonistic, 2.Brand/Fashion, 3.Perfectiveism, 4.Habit/Brand loyal,
5.Confused by over choice, 6.Price/Value )

3.8 Orgin of questionnaire items

44
45
3.9 Limitations

1. Study seeks to provide a helicopter view of the field reality and hence inferences drown
do not provide conclusive evidence to any social characteristics in particular albeit they
aid us in spotting and under laying trends.

2. The findings based entirely upon the research conducted in Chennai city and may not
directly applicable to other metro Politian areas on counts of socio-cultural diversity and
contextual factors.

3. Such survey needs to be undertaken periodically to gauge the exact consumer

perception that they keep changing with time.

4. Due do constraints of time, certain topics have not been touched upon at all during the
course of the study while some of them like the actual purchasing pattern and purchase
behavior have been explored in a ‘limited’ manner.

46
 CHAPTER – IV
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Chapter IV described the various tools used and the methods adopted to
collect the data. The present chapter gives an analysis of the result of the present
study. The data for the present study were collected from 520 customers brands
loyalty towards bath soap in Chennai of Tamil Nadu State and the data have been
analysed using the following statistical techniques.

1. Descriptive analysis (Mean and standard deviation)

2. Independent Sample t-test
3. One way ANOVA test
4. Chi-square test analysis
5. Correlation analysis
6. Path analysis
7. Regression analysis and
8. Factor analysis

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
All hypothesis formulated in this study were tested on the result obtained
through analysis of the data using the statistical procedures. The level of significance
for rejection or acceptance of the hypothesis has to be decided in advance. In the
present study 0.01 level of significance has been used.
Table 4.1.1
Demographic variables wise distribution of customers brand loyalty

S.No. Demographic variables Sub Samples N Percentage

Male 251 48.3
1. Gender
Female 269 51.7
Less than 20 years 73 14.0
21-30 years old 334 64.2
2. Age
31-40 years old 84 16.2
More than 40 years old 29 5.6
Married 228 43.8
3. Marital status
Unmarried 292 56.2

47
 SSLC/HSc 80 15.4
4. Education Degree/Diploma 164 31.5
PG/Professional 276 53.1
Hindu 471 90.6
5. Religious Christian 36 6.9
Muslim 13 2.5
Less than Rs.15,000 82 15.8
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 44.4
6. Monthly Income
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 29.2
Above Rs.40,000 55 10.6
Less than 2 members 33 6.3
Number of family 3 members 110 21.2
7.
members 4 members 239 46.0
Above 4 members 138 26.5
Homemakers 36 6.9
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 18.8
Business People 35 6.7
8. Occupation
Software Engineers 217 41.7
Professionals 44 8.5
Students 90 17.3
Total 520 100.0

The gender wise distribution of respondents which reveals that out of 520
customers, 251 (48.3%) of them are male and 269 (51.7%) of them are female. In this
study, the majority of customers under female group category.

The age wise distribution of the respondents which reveals that out of 520
customers, 73 (14.0%) of them are Less than 20 years, 334 (64.2%) of them are 21 to
30 years old, 84 (16.2%) of them are 31 to 40 years old and 29 (5.6%) of them are
More than 40 years old. In this study, the majority of customers are Less than 30 years
of age group.

The Marital status wise distribution of the respondents which reveals that out
of 520 customers, 228 (43.8%) of them are married and 292 (56.2%) of them are
unmarried. In this study, the majority of customers are unmarried group.

48
 The Education wise distribution of the respondents which reveals that out of
520 customers, 80 (15.4%) of them are SSLC/HSc, 164 (31.5%) of them are qualified
Degree/Diploma and 276 (53.1%) of them are qualified PG/Professional. In this
study, the majority of customers are PG/Professional qualified group.
The Religious wise distribution of the respondents which reveals that out of
520 customers, 471 (90.6%) of them are Hindu, 36 (6.9%) of them are Christian and
13 (2.5%) of them are Muslim. In this study, the majority of customers are Hindu
group.

The Monthly Income wise distribution of the respondents which reveals that
out of 520 customers, 82 (15.8%) of them are Less than Rs.15,000, 231 (44.4%) of
them are Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000, 152 (29.2%) of them are Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 and
55 (10.6%) of them are Above Rs.40,000. In this study, the majority of customers are
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 group.

The Number of family members wise distribution of the respondents which

reveals that out of 520 customers, 33 (6.3%) of them are Less than 2 members, 110
(21.2%) of them are 3 members, 239 (46.0%) of them are 4 members and 138
(26.5%) of them are Above 4 members. In this study, the majority of customers are
Above 4 members group.

The Occupation wise distribution of the respondents which reveals that out of
520 customers, 36 (6.9%) of them are Homemakers, 98 (18.8%) of them are Pvt/Govt
Employees, 35 (6.7%) of them are Business People, 217 (41.7%) of them are
Software Engineers, 44 (8.5%) of them are Professionals and 90 (17.3%) of them are
Students. In this study, the majority of customers are Software Engineers group.

Table 4.1.2
Opinion of Respondents about bath soaps attributes

Sl.No Brand Name of Bath Soap No. of Respondents %

1 Cinthal 119 22.9
2 Dettol 44 8.5
3 Dove 47 9.0
4 Hamam 101 19.4

49
 5 Lux 38 7.3
6 Pears 32 6.2
7 Medimix 49 9.4
8 Mysore Sandal 90 17.3
Total 520 100.0
Favorite Varieties of Bath Soap
1 Neem soaps 67 12.9
2 Sandal soaps 123 23.7
3 Herbal soaps 82 15.8
4 Fairness soaps 108 20.8
5 Anti-septic soaps 52 10.0
6 Others 88 16.9
Total 520 100.0
Prefer Colour of Bath Soap
1 Any color 10 1.9
2 Blue 21 4.0
3 Golden 26 5.0
4 Green 178 34.2
5 Lavender 16 3.1
6 Pink 74 14.2
7 Red 16 3.1
8 Rose 7 1.3
9 Sandal 21 4.0
10 White 130 25.0
11 Yellow 21 4.0
Total 520 100.0

The above table 4.1.2.shows that 22.9 percent of the respondents are using
Cinthal soap followed by Haman (19.4 percent). Mysore Sandal soap also favourably
used by the respondents due to its flavour (17.3 %). Apart from the three major
brands, other brands like Medimix (9.4%), Dove (9 %), Dettol (8.8%) and Pears
(6.2%) are also used by the respondents as they likes.
In case of varieties of bath soaps, 23 percent of respondents are using sandal
flavour followed by fairness variety (20.8%). Neem soaps (12.9%) and Herbal soaps
are also used by the respondents (15.8%) only10 percent of respondents are using

50
anti-septic soaps. Other varieties like cream, milk soaps are using nearly 17 percent
of respondents. this table reveal that sandal soaps are mostly liked by the customers.

Other terms of bath soap is colour. Nearly 34 percent of respondents are

likes green colour followed by white colour (25%). Both colours are now the
manufactures using their favorites brands. Pink (14.2%) is the another liking colour
for the bath soap and other colours like blue, golden, yellow, rose, sandal and red are
slightly liked by the people. Nearly 2 percent of them have not interest in colour of
soaps, they says any colour we have it because colour is not mind in action of soap.

Table 4.2
t-test for products related factors on the basis of gender

Std.
Products related Standard t- P
Gender N Mean Error
factors Deviation value value
Mean

Male 251 19.27 2.912 0.184

0.121
Product Quality 1.554
(NS)
Female 269 18.85 3.243 0.198

Male 251 14.83 2.903 0.183

0.194
Style/ Flavours 1.299
(NS)
Female 269 15.16 2.834 0.173

Male 251 10.21 2.653 0.167

0.644
Innovativeness 0.462
(NS)
Female 269 10.10 2.997 0.183

Male 251 14.23 3.493 0.220

0.598
Component 0.527
(NS)
Female 269 14.07 3.260 0.199

Male 251 14.83 3.273 0.207

0.060
Design 1.888
(NS)
Female 269 14.29 3.181 0.194

NS – Not Significant

51
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the gender of the respondents on
product related factors.
The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of product related factors on the
basis of their gender. To find out if there is any difference of product related factors
among the customers based on their gender, t-test was applied. The Mean, SD,
SEM and t-test computed for two gender groups for the scores of product related
factors are furnished in Table 4.2.

Bath soap product quality is important influence factors the male customers
have (mean=19.27) higher mean value than female (mean=18.85). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.554, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have
more mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male
customers group has preferred more product quality factors than female is accepted.
The gender groups show any no difference in their product quality. t-value (1.554) are
not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with male group comparatively
more prefer product quality than female group.

Bath soap style/ flavours is important influence factors the female customers
have (mean=15.16) higher mean value than male (mean=14.83). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.299, is
obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the female have
more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the female
customers group has preferred more style/ flavours factors than male is accepted. The
gender groups show any no difference in their style/ flavours. t-value (1.299) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with female group comparatively more
prefer style/ flavours than male group.

Bath soap innovativeness is important influence factors the male customers

have (mean=10.21) higher mean value than female (mean=10.10). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.462, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have
more mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male
customers groups have prefer more Innovativeness factors than female is accepted.
The gender groups show any no difference in their Innovativeness. t-value (0.462) are

52
not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with female group comparatively
more prefer innovativeness than male group.

Bath soap component is important influence factors the male customers have
(mean=14.23) higher mean value than female (mean=14.07). The difference between
these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.527, is obtained, since
p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have more mean score
than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male customers groups
have prefer more component factors than female is accepted. The gender groups show
any no difference in their component. t-value (0.527) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with male group comparatively more prefer component than
female group.

Bath soap design is important influence factors the male customers have
(mean=14.83) higher mean value than female (mean=14.29). The difference between
these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.888, is obtained, since
p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have more mean score
than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male customers groups
have prefer more design factors than female is accepted. The gender groups show any
no difference in their design. t-value (1.888) are not significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with male group comparatively more prefer design than female group.

Table 4.3
t-test for brand related factors on the basis of gender

Std.
Brand related Standard t- P
Gender N Mean Error
factors Deviation value value
Mean

Male 251 14.79 3.432 0.217

0.695
Brand Name 0.393
(NS)
Female 269 14.90 2.946 0.180

Brand Trust Male 251 15.18 3.473 0.219 0.435 0.663

53
 (NS)
Female 269 15.30 2.868 0.175

Male 251 10.75 2.591 0.164

0.427
Brand Affect 0.796
(NS)
Female 269 10.57 2.688 0.164

Male 251 7.29 2.045 0.129

0.224
Brand Relevance 1.217
(NS)
Female 269 7.07 2.003 0.122

Male 251 11.40 2.594 0.164

0.010
Band Performance 2.574
(S)
Female 269 10.81 2.578 0.157
S – Significant NS – Not Significant
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the gender of the respondents on
brand related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of brand related factors on the
basis of their gender. To find out if there is any difference of brand related factors
among the customers based on their gender, t-test was applied. The Mean, SD,
SEM and t-test computed for two gender groups for the scores of brand related factors
are furnished in Table 4.3.

Bath soap brand name is important influence factors the female customers
have (mean=14.90) higher mean value than male (mean=14.79). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.393, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the female have
more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the female
customers group have prefer more brand name factors than male is accepted. The
gender groups show any no difference in their brand name. t-value (0.393) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with female group comparatively more
prefer brand name than male group.

Bath soap brand trust is important influence factors the female customers have
(mean=15.30) higher mean value than male (mean=15.18). The difference between
these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.435, is obtained since

54
p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the female have more mean score
than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the female customers group
have prefer more brand trust factors than male is accepted. The gender groups show
any no difference in their brand trust. t-value (0.435) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with female group comparatively more prefer brand trust than
male group.

Bath soap brand affect is important influence factors the male customers have
(mean=10.75) higher mean value than female (mean=10.57). The difference between
these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.796, is obtained, since
p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have more mean score
than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male customers groups
have prefer more brand affect factors than female is accepted. The gender groups
show any no difference in their brand affect. t-value (0.796) are not significant. Thus
it is evident that customer’s with male group comparatively more prefer brand affect
than female group.

Bath soap brand relevance is important influence factors the male customers
have (mean=7.29) higher mean value than female (mean=7.07). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.217, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have
more mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male
customers groups have prefer more brand relevance factors than female is accepted.
The gender groups show any no difference in their brand relevance. t-value (1.217)
are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with male group comparatively
more prefer brand relevance than female group.
Bath soap band performance is important influence factors the male customers
have (mean=11.40) higher mean value than female (mean=10.81). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 2.574, is
obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have more
mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male
customers groups have prefer more band performance factors than female is rejected.
The gender groups show any difference in their brand performance. t-value (2.574)

55
are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with male group comparatively more
prefer band performance than female group.

Table 4.4
t-test for customer purchase related factors on the basis of gender

Std.
Customer Purchase Standard
Gender N Mean Error t-value P value
related factors Deviation
Mean

Male 251 10.71 2.939 0.186

0.755
Product Familiarity 0.312
(NS)
Female 269 10.79 2.799 0.171

Male 251 21.37 4.243 0.268

Health 0.018
2.383
Consciousness (S)
Female 269 22.21 3.730 0.227

Male 251 18.38 4.356 0.275

0.236
Commitment 1.187
(NS)
Female 269 17.95 3.799 0.232

Male 251 17.85 3.964 0.250

0.002
Repeat Purchase 3.072
(S)
Female 269 16.79 3.903 0.238

Male 251 18.55 3.812 0.241

0.524
Purchase Decision 0.637
(NS)
Female 269 18.76 3.628 0.221
S – Significant NS – Not Significant
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the genders of the respondents
on purchase related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of purchase related factors on the
basis of their gender. To find out if there is any difference of purchase related factors
among the customers based on their gender, t-test was applied. The Mean, SD,
SEM and t-test computed for two gender groups for the scores of purchase related
factors are furnished in Table 4.4.

Bath soap product familiarity is important influence factors the female

customers have (mean=10.79) higher mean value than male (mean=10.71). The

56
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.312, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
female have more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that
the female customers group have prefer more product familiarity factors than male is
accepted. The gender groups show any no difference in their product familiarity. t-
value (0.312) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with female group
comparatively more prefer product familiarity than male group.

Bath soap health consciousness is important influence factors the female

customers have (mean=22.21) higher mean value than male (mean=21.37). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
2.383, is obtained since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the female
have more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
female customers group have prefer more health consciousness factors than male is
rejected. The gender groups show any difference in their health consciousness. t-value
(2.383) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with female group
comparatively more prefer health consciousness than male group.

Bath soap commitment is important influence factors the male customers have
(mean=18.38) higher mean value than female (mean=17.95). The difference between
these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.187, is obtained, since
p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have more mean score
than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male customers groups
have prefer more commitment factors than female is accepted. The gender groups
show any no difference in their commitment. t-value (1.187) are not significant. Thus
it is evident that customer’s with male group comparatively more prefer commitment
than female group.
Bath soap repeat purchase is important influence factors the male customers
have (mean=17.85) higher mean value than female (mean=16.79). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 3.072, is
obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have more
mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male
customers groups have prefer more repeat purchase factors than female is rejected.
The gender groups show any difference in their repeat purchase. t-value (3.072) are

57
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with male group comparatively more
prefer repeat purchase than female group.

Bath soap purchase decision is important influence factors the female

customers have (mean=18.76) higher mean value than male (mean=18.55). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.637, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
female have more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that
the female customers groups have prefer more purchase decision factors than male is
accepted. The gender groups show any no difference in their purchase decision. t-
value (0.637) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with female group
comparatively more prefer purchase decision than male group.

Table 4.5
t-test for customer psychological related factors on the basis of gender

Customer Std.
Standard
Psychological Gender N Mean Error t-value P value
Deviation
related factors Mean

Male 251 14.24 3.111 0.196

0.378
Product Involvement 0.882
(NS)
Female 269 14.49 3.195 0.195

Male 251 36.56 5.547 0.350

Customer 0.600
0.525
Satisfaction (NS)
Female 269 36.30 5.763 0.351

Male 251 14.48 3.348 0.211

Relationship 0.209
1.257
Proneness (NS)
Female 269 14.84 3.204 0.195

Male 251 14.57 3.101 0.196

0.909
Perceived Value 0.114
(NS)
Female 269 14.54 3.061 0.187

Male 251 14.05 3.472 0.219

0.065
Culture/ Habit 1.846
(NS)
Female 269 14.58 3.071 0.187

Male 251 15.04 3.275 0.207

0.594
Perceived Quality 0.533
(NS)
Female 269 14.88 3.358 0.205

58
NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the gender of the respondents on
psychological related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of psychological related factors
on the basis of their gender. To find out if there is any difference of psychological
related factors among the customers based on their gender, t-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and t-test computed for two gender groups for the scores of
psychological related factors are furnished in Table 4.5.

Bath soap product involvement is important influence factors the female

customers have (mean=14.49) higher mean value than male (mean=14.24). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.882, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
female have more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that
the female customers group have prefer more product involvement factors than male
is accepted. The gender groups show any no difference in their Product Involvement.
t-value (0.882) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with female
group comparatively more prefer product involvement than male group.

Bath soap customer satisfaction is important influence factors the male

customers have (mean=36.56) higher mean value than female (mean=36.30). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.525, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male
have more mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
male customers group have prefer more customer satisfaction factors than female is
accepted. The gender groups show any no difference in their customer satisfaction. t-
value (0.525) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with male group
comparatively more prefer customer satisfaction than female group.

Bath soap relationship proneness is important influence factors the female

customers have (mean=14.84) higher mean value than male (mean=14.48). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
1.257, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
female have more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that

59
the female customers groups have prefer more relationship proneness factors than
male is accepted. The gender groups show any no difference in their relationship
proneness. t-value (1.257) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
female group comparatively more prefer relationship proneness than male group.

Bath soap perceived value is important influence factors the male customers
have (mean=14.57) higher mean value than female (mean=14.54). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.114, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have
more mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male
customers groups have prefer more perceived value factors than female is accepted.
The gender groups show any no difference in their perceived value. t-value (0.114)
are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with male group comparatively
more prefer perceived value than female group.

Bath soap culture/ habit is important influence factors the female customers
have (mean=14.58) higher mean value than male (mean=14.05). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.846, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the female have
more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the female
customers groups have prefer more culture/ habit factors than male is accepted. The
gender groups show any no difference in their culture/ habit. t-value (1.846) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with female group comparatively more
prefer culture/ habit than male group.

Bath soap perceived quality is important influence factors the male customers
have (mean=15.04) higher mean value than female (mean=14.88). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.533, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have
more mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male
customers groups have prefer more perceived quality factors than female is accepted.
The gender groups show any no difference in their perceived quality. t-value (0.533)
are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with male group comparatively
more prefer perceived quality than female group.

60
 Table 4.6
t-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of gender

Std.
Selling Strategies Standard t- P
Gender N Mean Error
Factors Deviation value value
Mean

Male 251 10.92 2.664 0.168

0.034
Store Environment 2.125
(S)
Female 269 11.39 2.264 0.138

Male 251 7.22 1.869 0.118

0.317
Advertising 1.003
(NS)
Female 269 7.39 1.847 0.113

Male 251 7.41 1.625 0.103

0.125
Price 1.538
(NS)
Female 269 7.64 1.828 0.111

Male 251 21.61 3.956 0.250

0.072
Promotional Offer 1.803
(NS)
Female 269 20.96 4.323 0.264
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the gender of the respondents on
selling strategies factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of selling strategies factors on the
basis of their gender. To find out if there is any difference of selling strategies factors
among the customers based on their gender, t-test was applied. The Mean, SD, SEM
and t-test computed for two gender groups for the scores of selling strategies factors
are furnished in Table 4.6.

Bath soap store environment is important influence factors the female

customers have (mean=11.39) higher mean value than male (mean=10.92). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
2.125, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the female
have more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the

61
female customers group have prefer more store environment factors than male is
rejected. The gender groups show any difference in their store environment. t-value
(2.125) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with female group
comparatively more prefer store environment than male group.

Bath soap advertising is important influence factors the female customers have
(mean=7.39) higher mean value than male (mean=7.22). The difference between these
two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.003, is obtained since p
value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the female have more mean score
than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the female customers group
have prefer more advertising factors than male is accepted. The gender groups show
any no difference in their advertising. t-value (1.003) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with female group comparatively more prefer advertising than
male group.

Bath soap price is important influence factors the female customers have
(mean=7.64) higher mean value than male (mean=7.41). The difference between these
two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.538, is obtained, since p
value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the female have more mean score
than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the female customers groups
have prefer more price factors than male is accepted. The gender groups show any no
difference in their price. t-value (1.538) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with female group comparatively more prefer price than male group.

Bath soap promotional offer is important influence factors the male customers
have (mean=21.61) higher mean value than female (mean=20.96). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.803, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have
more mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male
customers groups have prefer more promotional offer factors than female is accepted.
The gender groups show any no difference in their promotional offer. t-value (1.803)
are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with male group comparatively
more prefer promotional offer than female group.

62
 Table 4.7
t-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of gender

Std.
Loyalty Based Standard t- P
Gender N Mean Error
Factors Deviation value value
Mean

Male 251 17.89 3.622 0.229

0.693
Loyalty Proneness 0.395
(NS)
Female 269 17.77 3.692 0.225

Male 251 36.75 6.043 0.381

0.399
Brand Loyalty 0.843
(NS)
Female 269 37.19 5.854 0.357

Male 251 17.88 3.422 0.216

Switching Cost 0.915
0.107
Risk Aversion (NS)
Female 269 17.92 3.764 0.229

Male 251 10.71 2.701 0.170

Cognitive Loyalty 0.111
1.595
(COG) (NS)
Female 269 11.10 2.782 0.170

Male 251 11.29 2.717 0.171

Affective Loyalty 0.740
0.332
(AFF) (NS)
Female 269 11.36 2.589 0.158

Male 251 11.46 2.670 0.169

Conative Loyalty 0.380
0.879
(CON) (NS)
Female 269 11.25 2.751 0.168
NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the gender of the respondents on
loyalty based factors.
The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of loyalty based factors on the
basis of their gender. To find out if there is any difference of loyalty based factors
among the customers based on their gender, t-test was applied. The Mean, SD,
SEM and t-test computed for two gender groups for the scores of loyalty based factors
are furnished in Table 4.7.

63
 Bath soap loyalty proneness is important influence factors the male customers
have (mean=17.89) higher mean value than female (mean=17.77). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.395, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male have
more mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the male
customers group have prefer more loyalty proneness factors than female is accepted.
The gender groups show any no difference in their loyalty proneness. t-value (0.395)
are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with male group comparatively
more prefer loyalty proneness than female group.

Bath soap brand loyalty is important influence factors the female customers
have (mean=37.19) higher mean value than male (mean=36.75). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.843, is
obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the female have
more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the female
customers group have prefer more brand loyalty factors than male is accepted. The
gender groups show any no difference in their brand loyalty. t-value (0.843) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with female group comparatively more
prefer brand loyalty than male group.

Bath soap switching cost risk aversion is important influence factors the
female customers have (mean=17.92) higher mean value than male (mean=17.88).
The difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.107, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
female have more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that
the female customers groups have prefer more switching cost risk aversion factors
than male is accepted. The gender groups show any no difference in their switching
cost risk aversion. t-value (0.107) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with female group comparatively more prefer switching cost risk aversion
than male group.

Bath soap cognitive loyalty (COG) is important influence factors the female
customers have (mean=11.10) higher mean value than male (mean=10.71). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
1.595, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the

64
female have more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that
the female customers groups have prefer more cognitive loyalty (COG) factors than
male is accepted. The gender groups show any no difference in their cognitive loyalty
(COG). t-value (1.595) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
female group comparatively more prefer cognitive loyalty (COG) than male group.

Bath soap affective loyalty (AFF) is important influence factors the female
customers have (mean=11.36) higher mean value than male (mean=11.29). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.332, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
female have more mean score than male is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that
the female customers groups have prefer more affective loyalty (AFF) factors than
male is accepted. The gender groups show any no difference in their affective loyalty
(AFF). t-value (0.332) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
female group comparatively more prefer affective loyalty (AFF) than male group.

Bath soap conative loyalty (CON) is important influence factors the male
customers have (mean=11.46) higher mean value than female (mean=11.25). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.879, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the male
have more mean score than female is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
male customers groups have prefer more conative loyalty (CON) factors than female
is accepted. The gender groups show any no difference in their conative loyalty
(CON). t-value (0.879) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
male group comparatively more prefer conative loyalty (CON) than female group.

65
 Table 4.8
F-test for products related factors on the basis of Age
Products
Standard Std. F-
related Age N Mean P value
Deviation Error value
factors
Less than 20 years 73 19.55 2.892 0.338
21-30 years old 334 18.69 3.327 0.182
Product 0.004
31-40 years old 84 19.82 2.084 0.227 4.545
Quality (S)
More than 40 years old 29 19.79 2.569 0.477
Total 520 19.05 3.092 0.136
Less than 20 years 73 15.97 2.576 0.302
21-30 years old 334 14.81 2.913 0.159
0.002
Style/ Flavours 31-40 years old 84 15.30 2.973 0.324 5.207
(S)
More than 40 years old 29 13.86 1.977 0.367
Total 520 15.00 2.869 0.126
Less than 20 years 73 10.27 2.714 0.318
21-30 years old 334 9.99 2.739 0.150
0.260
Innovativeness 31-40 years old 84 10.45 3.385 0.369 1.342
(NS)
More than 40 years old 29 10.86 2.371 0.440
Total 520 10.15 2.834 0.124
Less than 20 years 73 12.71 3.510 0.411
21-30 years old 334 14.47 3.291 0.180
0.001
Component 31-40 years old 84 14.17 3.446 0.376 5.601
(S)
More than 40 years old 29 13.97 2.897 0.538
Total 520 14.15 3.372 0.148
Less than 20 years 73 13.63 3.984 0.466
21-30 years old 334 14.74 2.983 0.163
0.046
Design 31-40 years old 84 14.42 3.362 0.367 2.686
(S)
More than 40 years old 29 15.07 3.262 0.606
Total 520 14.55 3.234 0.142
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant influence of age of the respondents and their opinion on
product related factors.
The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of product related factors on the
basis of their age. To find out if there is any difference of product related factors
among the customers based on their age, F-test was applied. The Mean, SD, SEM and
F-test computed for four age groups for the scores of product related factors are
furnished in Table 4.8.

66
 Bath soap product quality is important influence factors the 31-40 years old
customers have (mean=19.82) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
4.545, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 31-40
years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the 31-40 years old customers group have prefer more
product quality factors than other age groups is rejected. The age groups show any
difference in their product quality. F-value (4.545) are significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with 31-40 years old group comparatively more prefer product quality
than other age group.
Bath soap style/flavours is important influence factors the Less than 20 years
customers have (mean=15.97) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
5.207, is obtained since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less than
20 years have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Less than 20 years customers group have prefer more style/
flavours factors than other age groups is rejected. The age groups show any difference
in their style/ flavours. F-value (5.207) are significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Less than 20 years group comparatively more prefer style/ flavours
than other age group.
Bath soap innovativeness is important influence factors the More than 40
years old customers have (mean=10.86) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.342, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
More than 40 years old have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the More than 40 years old customers groups have
prefer more innovativeness factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups
show any no difference in their innovativeness. F-value (1.342) are not significant.
Thus it is evident that customer’s with More than 40 years old group comparatively
more prefer innovativeness than other age group.

Bath soap component is important influence factors the 21-30 years old
customers have (mean=14.47) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value

67
5.601, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 21-30
years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the 21-30 years old customers groups have prefer more
component factors than other age groups is rejected. The age groups show any
difference in their component. F-value (5.601) is significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with 21-30 years old age group comparatively more prefer component
than other age group.
Bath soap design is important influence factors the More than 40 years old
customers have (mean=15.07) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.686, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the More
than 40 years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the More than 40 years old customers
groups have prefer more design factors than other age groups is rejected. The age
groups show any difference in their design. F-value (2.686) are significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with More than 40 years old group comparatively more prefer
design than other age group.

68
 Table 4.9
F-test for brand related factors on the basis of Age
Brand related Standard Std. F- P
Age N Mean
factors Deviation Error value value
Less than 20 years 73 14.71 3.409 0.399
21-30 years old 334 14.97 2.989 0.164
31-40 years old 84 14.32 3.664 0.400 0.306
Brand Name 1.208
More than 40 years (NS)
29 15.34 3.320 0.616
old
Total 520 14.85 3.187 0.140
Less than 20 years 73 16.11 2.558 0.299
21-30 years old 334 15.04 3.291 0.180
31-40 years old 84 15.25 3.361 0.367 0.080
Brand Trust 2.266
More than 40 years (NS)
29 15.24 2.231 0.414
old
Total 520 15.24 3.172 0.139
Less than 20 years 73 10.88 2.500 0.293
21-30 years old 334 10.58 2.673 0.146
31-40 years old 84 10.95 2.759 0.301 0.400
Brand Affect 0.985
More than 40 years (NS)
29 10.14 2.216 0.411
old
Total 520 10.66 2.641 0.116
Less than 20 years 73 7.49 1.987 0.233
21-30 years old 334 7.08 2.019 0.110
31-40 years old 84 7.56 2.002 0.218 0.050
Brand Relevance 3.629
More than 40 years (S)
29 6.34 1.987 0.369
old
Total 520 7.18 2.024 0.089
Less than 20 years 73 10.40 2.861 0.335
21-30 years old 334 11.30 2.465 0.135
31-40 years old 84 11.02 2.811 0.307 0.050
Band Performance 2.629
More than 40 years (S)
29 10.76 2.573 0.478
old
Total 520 11.10 2.600 0.114
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

69
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the age of the respondents on
brand related factors.
The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of brand related factors on the
basis of their age. To find out if there is any difference of brand related factors among
the customers based on their age, F-test was applied. The Mean, SD, SEM and F-test
computed for four age groups for the scores of brand related factors are furnished in
Table 4.9.
Bath soap brand name is important influence factors the More than 40 years
old customers have (mean=15.34) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.208, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
More than 40 years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the More than 40 years old customers group
have prefer more brand name factors than other age groups is accepted. The age
groups show any no difference in their brand name. F-value (1.208) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with More than 40 years old group
comparatively more prefer brand name than other age group.
Bath soap brand trust is important influence factors the Less than 20 years
customers have (mean=16.11) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.266, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less
than 20 years customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Less than 20 years customers have prefer more
brand trust factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any no
difference in their brand trust. F-value (2.266) are not significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with Less than 20 years group comparatively more prefer brand trust
than other age group.
Bath soap brand affect is important influence factors the 31-40 years old
customers have (mean=10.95) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.985, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 31-
40 years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the 31-40 years old customers groups have prefer more
brand affect factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any no

70
difference in their brand affect. F-value (0.985) are not significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with 31-40 years old group comparatively more prefer brand affect
than other age group.
Bath soap brand relevance is important influence factors the 31-40 years old
customers have (mean=7.56) higher mean value than other age groups. The difference
between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value 3.629, is
obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 31-40 years old
customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the 31-40 years old customers groups have prefer more brand
relevance factors than other age groups is rejected. The age groups show any
difference in their brand relevance. F-value (3.629) are significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with 31-40 years old group comparatively more prefer brand
relevance than other age group.
Bath soap band performance is important influence factors the 21-30 years old
customers have (mean=11.30) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.629, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 21-30
years old have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the 21-30 years old customers groups have prefer more band
performance factors than other age groups is rejected. The age groups show any
difference in their brand performance. F-value (2.629) are significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with 21-30 years old group comparatively more prefer band
performance than other age group.

71
 Table 4.10
F-test for customer purchase related factors on the basis of Age
Customer
Standard Std. F- P
Purchase Age N Mean
Deviation Error value value
related factors
Less than 20 years 73 10.58 3.274 0.383
21-30 years old 334 10.79 2.809 0.154
Product 31-40 years old 84 10.63 2.965 0.323 0.777
0.366
Familiarity More than 40 years (NS)
29 11.17 2.089 0.388
old
Total 520 10.75 2.865 0.126
Less than 20 years 73 21.74 3.420 0.400
21-30 years old 334 21.61 4.136 0.226
Health 31-40 years old 84 22.87 3.773 0.412 0.057
2.528
Consciousness More than 40 years (NS)
29 21.14 4.138 0.768
old
Total 520 21.81 4.004 0.176
Less than 20 years 73 18.22 4.237 0.496
21-30 years old 334 18.23 4.166 0.228
31-40 years old 84 17.95 3.627 0.396 0.906
Commitment 0.185
More than 40 years (NS)
29 17.79 4.065 0.755
old
Total 520 18.16 4.079 0.179
Less than 20 years 73 17.15 3.003 0.351
21-30 years old 334 17.18 4.005 0.219
Repeat 31-40 years old 84 18.36 3.999 0.436 0.025
3.147
Purchase More than 40 years (S)
29 16.03 4.968 0.922
old
Total 520 17.30 3.964 0.174
Less than 20 years 73 19.78 3.583 0.419
21-30 years old 334 18.80 3.584 0.196
Purchase 31-40 years old 84 17.54 4.034 0.440 0.000
6.019
Decision More than 40 years (S)
29 17.52 3.631 0.674
old
Total 520 18.66 3.715 0.163
S – Significant NS – Not Significant
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the age of the respondents on
purchase related factors.

72
 The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of purchase related factors on the
basis of their age. To find out if there is any difference of purchase related factors
among the customers based on their age, F-test was applied. The Mean, SD,
SEM and F-test computed for four age groups for the scores of purchase related factors
are furnished in Table 4.10.

Bath soap product familiarity is important influence factors the More than 40
years old customers have (mean=11.17) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.366, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
More than 40 years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the More than 40 years old customers group
have prefer more product familiarity factors than other age groups is accepted. The
age groups show any no difference in their product familiarity. F-value (0.366) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with More than 40 years old group
comparatively more prefer product familiarity than other age group.

Bath soap health consciousness is important influence factors the 31-40 years
old customers have (mean=22.87) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.528, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 31-40
years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the 31-40 years old customers group have prefer more
health consciousness factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show
any no difference in their health consciousness. F-value (2.528) are not significant.
Thus it is evident that customer’s with 31-40 years old group comparatively more
prefer health consciousness than other age group.

Bath soap commitment is important influence factors the 21-30 years old
customers have (mean=18.23) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.185, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 21-
30 years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the 21-30 years old customers groups have prefer more

73
commitment factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any no
difference in their commitment. F-value (0.185) are not significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with 21-30 years old group comparatively more prefer commitment
than other age group.

Bath soap repeat purchase is important influence factors the 31-40 years old
customers have (mean=18.36) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
3.147, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 31-40
years old have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the 31-40 years old customers groups have prefer more repeat
purchase factors than other age groups is rejected. The age groups show any
difference in their repeat purchase. F-value (3.147) are significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with 31-40 years old group comparatively more prefer repeat
purchase than other age group.

Bath soap purchase decision is important influence factors the Less than 20
years customers have (mean=19.78) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
6.019, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less
than 20 years customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Less than 20 years customers groups have prefer
more purchase decision factors than other age groups is rejected. The age groups
show any difference in their purchase decision. F-value (6.019) are significant. Thus it
is evident that customer’s with Less than 20 years group comparatively more prefer
purchase decision than other age group.

74
 Table 4.11
F-test for customer psychological related factors on the basis of Age
Customer
Standard Std.
Psychological Age N Mean F-value P value
Deviation Error
related factors
Less than 20 years 73 15.30 2.866 0.335
21-30 years old 334 14.27 3.170 0.173
Product 0.022
31-40 years old 84 14.30 3.414 0.373 3.245
Involvement (S)
More than 40 years old 29 13.38 2.411 0.448
Total 520 14.37 3.154 0.138
Less than 20 years 73 35.60 6.845 0.801
21-30 years old 334 36.63 5.596 0.306
Customer 0.543
31-40 years old 84 36.23 4.880 0.532 0.715
Satisfaction (NS)
More than 40 years old 29 36.72 5.202 0.966
Total 520 36.42 5.656 0.248
Less than 20 years 73 14.14 3.509 0.411
21-30 years old 334 14.70 3.254 0.178
Relationship 0.319
31-40 years old 84 14.76 3.184 0.347 1.173
Proneness (NS)
More than 40 years old 29 15.41 3.157 0.586
Total 520 14.67 3.276 0.144
Less than 20 years 73 15.22 3.038 0.356
21-30 years old 334 14.49 3.021 0.165
0.235
Perceived Value 31-40 years old 84 14.27 3.243 0.354 1.425
(NS)
More than 40 years old 29 14.52 3.258 0.605
Total 520 14.56 3.077 0.135
Less than 20 years 73 14.52 3.948 0.462
21-30 years old 334 14.42 3.048 0.167
0.426
Culture/ Habit 31-40 years old 84 14.01 3.363 0.367 0.930
(NS)
More than 40 years old 29 13.59 3.747 0.696
Total 520 14.32 3.278 0.144
Less than 20 years 73 14.47 4.140 0.485

21-30 years old 334 15.22 3.157 0.173

0.127
Perceived Quality 31-40 years old 84 14.52 3.374 0.368 1.912
(NS)
More than 40 years old 29 14.48 2.278 0.423
Total 520 14.96 3.316 0.145
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

75
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the age of the respondents on
psychological related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of psychological related factors
on the basis of their age. To find out if there is any difference of psychological related
factors among the customers based on their age, F-test was applied. The Mean, SD,
SEM and F-test computed for four age groups for the scores of psychological related
factors are furnished in Table 4.11.

Bath soap product involvement is important influence factors the Less than 20
years customers have (mean=15.30) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
3.245, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less
than 20 years customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Less than 20 years group have prefer more product
involvement factors than other age groups is rejected. The age groups show any
difference in their Product Involvement. F-value (3.245) are significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with Less than 20 years group comparatively more prefer
product involvement than other age group.

Bath soap customer satisfaction is important influence factors the More than
40 years old customers have (mean=36.72) higher mean value than other age groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.715, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the More
than 40 years old have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the More than 40 years old customers group have prefer
more customer satisfaction factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups
show any no difference in their customer satisfaction. F-value (0.715) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with More than 40 years old group
comparatively more prefer customer satisfaction than other age group.

Bath soap relationship proneness is important influence factors the More than
40 years old customers have (mean=15.41) higher mean value than other age groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value

76
1.173, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
More than 40 years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the More than 40 years old customers
groups have prefer more relationship proneness factors than other age groups is
accepted. The age groups show any no difference in their relationship proneness. F-
value (1.173) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with More than 40
years old group comparatively more prefer relationship proneness than other age
group.

Bath soap perceived value is important influence factors the Less than 20
years customers have (mean=15.22) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.425, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less
than 20 years have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore,
the hypothesis that the Less than 20 years customers groups have prefer more
perceived value factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any
no difference in their perceived value. F-value (1.425) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with Less than 20 years group comparatively more prefer
perceived value than other age group.

Bath soap culture/ habit is important influence factors the Less than 20 years
customers have (mean=14.52) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.930, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less
than 20 years have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore,
the hypothesis that the Less than 20 years customers groups have prefer more culture/
habit factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any no
difference in their culture/ habit. F-value (0.930) are not significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with Less than 20 years group comparatively more prefer culture/
habit than other age group.

Bath soap perceived quality is important influence factors the 21-30 years old
customers have (mean=15.22) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value

77
 1.912, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 21-
30 years old have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the 21-30 years old customers groups have prefer more perceived
quality factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any no
difference in their perceived quality. F-value (1.912) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with 21-30 years old group comparatively more prefer
perceived quality than other age group.
Table 4.12
t-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of Age
Selling strategies Standard Std. F-
Age N Mean P value
factors Deviation Error value
Less than 20 years 73 11.75 2.488 0.291
21-30 years old 334 10.97 2.425 0.133
Store 0.069
31-40 years old 84 11.40 2.630 0.287 2.381
Environment (NS)
More than 40 years old 29 11.24 2.340 0.435
Total 520 11.16 2.473 0.108
Less than 20 years 73 7.89 1.696 0.199
21-30 years old 334 7.09 1.885 0.103
0.001
Advertising 31-40 years old 84 7.82 1.659 0.181 6.848
(S)
More than 40 years old 29 6.86 1.922 0.357
Total 520 7.31 1.858 0.081
Less than 20 years 73 7.58 1.787 0.209
21-30 years old 334 7.53 1.672 0.091
0.778
Price 31-40 years old 84 7.57 1.845 0.201 0.366
(NS)
More than 40 years old 29 7.21 2.042 0.379
Total 520 7.53 1.736 0.076
Less than 20 years 73 21.48 3.955 0.463
21-30 years old 334 21.10 4.238 0.232
0.624
Promotional Offer 31-40 years old 84 21.67 4.386 0.479 0.586
(NS)
More than 40 years old 29 21.66 2.943 0.547
Total 520 21.28 4.159 0.182
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

78
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the age of the respondents on
selling strategies factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of selling strategies factors on the
basis of their age. To find out if there is any difference of selling strategies factors
among the customers based on their age, F-test was applied. The Mean, SD, SEM and
F-test computed for four age groups for the scores of selling strategies factors are
furnished in Table 4.12.

Bath soap store environment is important influence factors the Less than 20
years customers have (mean=11.75) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.381, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less
than 20 years customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Less than 20 years customers group have prefer
more store environment factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups
show any no difference in their store environment. F-value (2.381) are not significant.
Thus it is evident that customer’s with Less than 20 years group comparatively more
prefer store environment than other age group.

Bath soap advertising is important influence factors the Less than 20 years
customers have (mean=7.89) higher mean value than other age groups. The difference
between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value 6.848, is
obtained since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less than 20 years
have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis
that the Less than 20 years customers group have prefer more advertising factors than
other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any difference in their advertising.
F-value (6.848) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Less than 20
years group comparatively more prefer advertising than other age group.

Bath soap price is important influence factors the Less than 20 years
customers have (mean=7.58) higher mean value than other age groups. The difference
between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value 0.366, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less than 20
years have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Less than 20 years customers groups have prefer more price

79
 factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any no difference in
their price. F-value (0.366) is not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Less than 20 years group comparatively more prefer price than other age group.

Bath soap promotional offer is important influence factors the 31-40 years old
customers have (mean=21.67) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.586, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 31-
40 years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the 31-40 years old customers groups have prefer more
promotional offer factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any
no difference in their promotional offer. F-value (0.586) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with 31-40 years old group comparatively more prefer
promotional offer than other age group.

Table 4.13
F-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of Age
Loyalty based Standard Std. F-
Age N Mean P value
factors Deviation Error value
Less than 20 years 73 19.05 3.472 0.406
21-30 years old 334 17.49 3.627 0.198
Loyalty 0.009
31-40 years old 84 17.96 3.688 0.402 3.894
Proneness (S)
More than 40 years old 29 18.21 3.802 0.706
Total 520 17.83 3.655 0.160
Less than 20 years 73 35.36 5.882 0.688
21-30 years old 334 37.31 6.119 0.335
0.088
Brand Loyalty 31-40 years old 84 36.96 5.942 0.648 2.195
(NS)
More than 40 years old 29 37.31 2.792 0.518
Total 520 36.98 5.944 0.261
Less than 20 years 73 18.56 4.173 0.488
21-30 years old 334 17.79 3.496 0.191
Switching Cost 0.055
31-40 years old 84 17.38 3.640 0.397 2.556
Risk Aversion (S)
More than 40 years old 29 19.07 2.685 0.499
Total 520 17.90 3.599 0.158

80
 Less than 20 years 73 10.48 3.119 0.365
21-30 years old 334 11.03 2.604 0.143
Cognitive 0.472
31-40 years old 84 10.81 3.060 0.334 0.840
Loyalty (COG) (NS)
More than 40 years old 29 10.97 2.398 0.445
Total 520 10.91 2.747 0.120
Less than 20 years 73 11.07 3.318 0.388
21-30 years old 334 11.37 2.538 0.139
Affective 0.846
31-40 years old 84 11.37 2.601 0.284 0.271
Loyalty (AFF) (NS)
More than 40 years old 29 11.41 2.212 0.411
Total 520 11.33 2.649 0.116
Less than 20 years 73 10.66 2.610 0.305
21-30 years old 334 11.48 2.769 0.152
Conative 0.132
31-40 years old 84 11.42 2.635 0.288 1.878
Loyalty (CON) (NS)
More than 40 years old 29 11.38 2.352 0.437
Total 520 11.35 2.712 0.119
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the age of the respondents on
loyalty based factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of loyalty based factors on the
basis of their age. To find out if there is any difference of loyalty based factors among
the customers based on their age, F-test was applied. The Mean, SD, SEM and F-test
computed for four age groups for the scores of loyalty based factors are furnished in
Table 4.13.

Bath soap loyalty proneness is important influence factors the Less than 20
years customers have (mean=19.05) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
3.894, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less
than 20 years customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Less than 20 years customers have prefer more
loyalty proneness factors than other age groups is rejected. The age groups show any
difference in their loyalty proneness. F-value (3.894) are significant. Thus it is evident

81
that customer’s with Less than 20 years group comparatively more prefer loyalty
proneness than other age group.

Bath soap brand loyalty is important influence factors the 21-30 years old
customers have (mean=31.31) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.195, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 21-30
years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the 21-30 years old customers group have prefer more
brand loyalty factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any no
difference in their brand loyalty. F-value (2.195) are not significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with 21-30 years old group comparatively more prefer brand loyalty
than other age group.

Bath soap switching cost risk aversion is important influence factors the More
than 40 years old customers have (mean=19.07) higher mean value than other age
groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 2.556, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
More than 40 years old have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the More than 40 years old customers groups have
prefer more switching cost risk aversion factors than other age groups is rejected. The
age groups show any difference in their switching cost risk aversion. F-value (2.556)
are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with More than 40 years old group
comparatively more prefer switching cost risk aversion than other age group.

Bath soap cognitive loyalty (COG) is important influence factors the 21-30
years old customers have (mean=11.03) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.840, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 21-
30 years old have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the 21-30 years old customers groups have prefer more cognitive
loyalty (COG) factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any no
difference in their cognitive loyalty (COG). F-value (0.840) are not significant. Thus

82
it is evident that customer’s with 21-30 years old group comparatively more prefer
cognitive loyalty (COG) than other age group.

Bath soap affective loyalty (AFF) is important influence factors the 21-30
years old customers have (mean=11.37) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.271, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 21-
30 years old have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the 21-30 years old customers groups have prefer more affective
loyalty (AFF) factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups show any no
difference in their affective loyalty (AFF). F-value (0.271) are not significant. Thus it
is evident that customer’s with 21-30 years old group comparatively more prefer
affective loyalty (AFF) than other age group.

Bath soap conative loyalty (CON) is important influence factors the 21-30
years old customers have (mean=11.48) higher mean value than other age groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.878, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the 21-
30 years old customers have more mean score than other age groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the 21-30 years old customers groups have prefer more
conative loyalty (CON) factors than other age groups is accepted. The age groups
show any no difference in their conative loyalty (CON). F-value (1.878) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with 21-30 years old group
comparatively more prefer conative loyalty (CON) than other age group.

83
 Table 4.14
t-test for products related factors on the basis of Marital status

Std.
Products related Marital Standard t- P
N Mean Error
factors status Deviation value value
Mean

Married 228 19.58 2.722 0.180

0.001
Product Quality 3.540
(S)
Unmarried 292 18.64 3.299 0.193

Married 228 14.94 2.861 0.189

0.679
Style/ Flavours 0.414
(NS)
Unmarried 292 15.05 2.880 0.169

Married 228 10.28 3.031 0.201

0.368
Innovativeness 0.901
(NS)
Unmarried 292 10.05 2.671 0.156

Married 228 14.19 3.206 0.212

0.778
Component 0.283
(NS)
Unmarried 292 14.11 3.501 0.205

Married 228 14.34 3.446 0.228

0.198
Design 1.289
(NS)
Unmarried 292 14.72 3.054 0.179
NS – Not Significant S – Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the marital status of the
respondents on product related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of product related factors on the
basis of their Marital status. To find out if there is any difference of product related
factors among the customers based on their Marital status, t-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and t-test computed for two Marital status groups for the scores of
product related factors are furnished in Table 4.14.

Bath soap product quality is important influence factors the Married customers
have (mean=19.58) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=18.64). The difference

84
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 3.540, is
obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Married have
more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
Married customers group have prefer more product quality factors than unmarried is
rejected. The Marital status groups show any difference in their product quality. t-
value (3.540) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Married group
comparatively more prefer product quality than unmarried group.

Bath soap style/ flavours is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=15.05) higher mean value than Married (mean=14.94). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.414, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than Married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers group have prefer more style/ flavours
factors than Married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in
their style/ flavours. t-value (0.414) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer style/ flavours than
Married group.

Bath soap innovativeness is important influence factors the Married customers

have (mean=10.28) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=10.05). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.901, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Married have
more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
Married customers groups have prefer more Innovativeness factors than unmarried is
accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in their Innovativeness. t-
value (0.901) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with unmarried
group comparatively more prefer innovativeness than Married group.

Bath soap component is important influence factors the Married customers

have (mean=14.19) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=14.19). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.283, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Married have
more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the

85
Married customers groups have prefer more component factors than unmarried is
accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in their component. t-
value (0.283) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Married
group comparatively more prefer component than unmarried group.

Bath soap design is important influence factors the unmarried customers have
(mean=14.72) higher mean value than married (mean=14.34). The difference between
these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.289, is obtained, since
p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the unmarried have more mean
score than married is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the unmarried
customers groups have prefer more design factors than married is accepted. The
Marital status groups show any no difference in their design. t-value (1.289) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with unmarried group comparatively
more prefer design than married group.

86
 Table 4.15
t-test for brand related factors on the basis of Marital status

Std.
Brand related Marital Standard t- P
N Mean Error
factors status Deviation value value
Mean

Married 228 14.88 3.202 0.212

0.842
Brand Name 0.199
(NS)
Unmarried 292 14.83 3.181 0.186

Married 228 15.24 3.107 0.206

0.986
Brand Trust 0.018
(NS)
Unmarried 292 15.24 3.227 0.189

Married 228 10.63 2.633 0.174

0.816
Brand Affect 0.233
(NS)
Unmarried 292 10.68 2.651 0.155

Married 228 7.00 2.018 0.134

0.081
Brand Relevance 1.746
(NS)
Unmarried 292 7.31 2.023 0.118

Married 228 11.01 2.542 0.168

0.518
Band Performance 0.646
(NS)
Unmarried 292 11.16 2.646 0.155
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the marital status of the
respondents on brand related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of brand related factors on the
basis of their Marital status. To find out if there is any difference of brand related
factors among the customers based on their Marital status, t-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and t-test computed for two Marital status groups for the scores of
brand related factors are furnished in Table 4.15.

Bath soap brand name is important influence factors the married customers
have (mean=14.88) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=14.83). The difference

87
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.199, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the married have
more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
married customers group have prefer more brand name factors than unmarried is
accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in their brand name. t-
value (0.199) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with married group
comparatively more prefer brand name than unmarried group.

Bath soap brand trust is important influence factors the unmarried customers
have (mean=15.24) higher mean value than Married (mean=15.24). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.018, is
obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the unmarried
have more mean score than Married is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
unmarried customers group has preferred more brand trust factors than Married is
accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in their brand trust. t-
value (0.018) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with unmarried
group comparatively more prefer brand trust than Married group.

Bath soap brand affect is important influence factors the unmarried customers
have (mean=10.68) higher mean value than married (mean=10.63). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.233, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the unmarried
have more mean score than married is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
unmarried customers groups have prefer more brand affect factors than married is
accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in their brand affect. t-
value (0.233) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with unmarried
group comparatively more prefer brand affect than married group.

Bath soap brand relevance is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=7.31) higher mean value than married (mean=7.00). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
1.746, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers groups have prefer more brand relevance

88
factors than married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in
their brand relevance. t-value (1.746) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer brand relevance than
married group.

Bath soap band performance is important influence factors the married

customers have (mean=11.16) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=11.01). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.646, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers groups have prefer more band performance
factors than married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in
their brand performance. t-value (0.646) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer band performance than
married group.

89
 Table 4.16
t-test for customer purchase related factors on the basis of Marital status

Customer Std.
Marital Standard t- P
Purchase N Mean Error
status Deviation value value
related factors Mean

Married 228 10.62 3.075 0.204

Product 0.349
0.937
Familiarity (NS)
Unmarried 292 10.86 2.691 0.157

Married 228 21.86 4.161 0.276

Health 0.813
0.237
Consciousness (NS)
Unmarried 292 21.77 3.884 0.227

Married 228 17.88 4.091 0.271

0.166
Commitment 1.386
(NS)
Unmarried 292 18.38 4.063 0.238

Married 228 17.35 3.903 0.258

0.828
Repeat Purchase 0.217
(NS)
Unmarried 292 17.27 4.018 0.235

Married 228 18.24 3.596 0.238

Purchase 0.022
2.303
Decision (S)
Unmarried 292 18.99 3.780 0.221
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the marital status of the
respondents on purchase related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of purchase related factors on the
basis of their marital status. To find out if there is any difference of purchase related
factors among the customers based on their marital status, t-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and t-test computed for two marital status groups for the scores of
purchase related factors are furnished in Table 4.16.

Bath soap product familiarity is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=10.86) higher mean value than Married (mean=10.62). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value

90
0.937, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than Married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers group have prefer more product familiarity
factors than Married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in
their product familiarity. t-value (0.937) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer product familiarity than
Married group.

Bath soap health consciousness is important influence factors the married

customers have (mean=21.86) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=21.77). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.237, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
married have more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the married customers group have prefer more health consciousness
factors than unmarried is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference
in their health consciousness. t-value (0.237) are significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with married group comparatively more prefer health consciousness than
unmarried group.
Bath soap commitment is important influence factors the unmarried customers
have (mean=18.38) higher mean value than married (mean=17.88). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 1.386, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the unmarried
have more mean score than married is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
unmarried customers groups have prefer more commitment factors than married is
accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in their commitment. t-
value (1.386) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with unmarried
group comparatively more prefer commitment than married group.
Bath soap repeat purchase is important influence factors the Married
customers have (mean=17.35) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=17.27). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.217, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers groups have prefer more repeat purchase
factors than married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in

91
their repeat purchase. t-value (0.217) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Married group comparatively more prefer repeat purchase than
unmarried group.

Bath soap purchase decision is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=18.99) higher mean value than Married (mean=18.24). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
2.303, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers groups have prefer more purchase decision
factors than married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any difference in
their purchase decision. t-value (2.303) are significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer purchase decision than
married group.

92
 Table 4.17
t-test for customer psychological related factors on the basis of Marital status

Customer Std.
Marital Standard t- P
Psychological N Mean Error
status Deviation value value
related factors Mean

Married 228 14.27 3.038 0.201

Product 0.513
0.655
Involvement (NS)
Unmarried 292 14.45 3.245 0.190

Married 228 36.30 5.070 0.336

Customer 0.650
0.454
Satisfaction (NS)
Unmarried 292 36.52 6.081 0.356

Married 228 14.57 3.246 0.215

Relationship 0.542
0.610
Proneness (NS)
Unmarried 292 14.75 3.303 0.193

Married 228 14.29 3.199 0.212

0.087
Perceived Value 1.715
(NS)
Unmarried 292 14.76 2.968 0.174

Married 228 13.72 3.304 0.219

0.001
Culture/ Habit 3.741
(S)
Unmarried 292 14.79 3.185 0.186

Married 228 15.01 2.967 0.196

0.760
Perceived Quality 0.305
(NS)
Unmarried 292 14.92 3.569 0.209
NS – Not Significant S – Significant

93
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Marital status of the
respondents on psychological related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of psychological related factors
on the basis of their Marital status. To find out if there is any difference of
psychological related factors among the customers based on their Marital status, t-test
was applied. The Mean, SD, SEM and t-test computed for two Marital status groups
for the scores of psychological related factors are furnished in Table 4.17.

Bath soap product involvement is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=14.45) higher mean value than Married (mean=14.27). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.655, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than Married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers group have prefer more product involvement
factors than Married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in
their Product Involvement. t-value (0.655) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer product involvement
than married group.

Bath soap customer satisfaction is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=36.52) higher mean value than married (mean=36.30). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.454, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers group have prefer more customer satisfaction
factors than married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in
their customer satisfaction. t-value (0.454) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer customer satisfaction
than married group.

Bath soap relationship proneness is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=14.75) higher mean value than Married (mean=14.57). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value

94
0.610, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than Married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers groups have prefer more relationship
proneness factors than Married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no
difference in their relationship proneness. t-value (0.610) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer relationship
proneness than Married group.

Bath soap perceived value is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=14.76) higher mean value than married (mean=14.29). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
1.715, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers groups have prefer more perceived value
factors than married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in
their perceived value. t-value (1.715) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer perceived value than
married group.

Bath soap culture/ habit is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=14.79) higher mean value than Married (mean=13.72). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
3.741, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than Married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers groups have prefer more culture/ habit
factors than Married is rejected. The Marital status groups show any difference in
their culture/ habit. t-value (3.741) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s
with unmarried group comparatively more prefer culture/ habit than Married group.

Bath soap perceived quality is important influence factors the Married

customers have (mean=15.01) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=14.92). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.305, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Married have more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the

95
 hypothesis that the Married customers groups have prefer more perceived quality
factors than unmarried is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference
in their perceived quality. t-value (0.305) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Married group comparatively more prefer perceived quality than
unmarried group.

Table 4.18
t-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of Marital status

Std.
Selling Strategies Marital Standard t- P
N Mean Error
Factors status Deviation value value
Mean

Married 228 11.23 2.538 0.168

0.577
Store Environment 0.559
(NS)
Unmarried 292 11.11 2.424 0.142

Married 228 7.38 1.937 0.128

0.428
Advertising 0.794
(NS)
Unmarried 292 7.25 1.794 0.105

Married 228 7.57 1.733 0.115

0.581
Price 0.553
(NS)
Unmarried 292 7.49 1.740 0.102

Married 228 21.24 4.157 0.275

0.853
Promotional Offer 0.185
(NS)
Unmarried 292 21.30 4.167 0.244
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Marital status of the
respondents on selling strategies factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of selling strategies factors on the
basis of their Marital status. To find out if there is any difference of selling strategies
factors among the customers based on their Marital status, t-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and t-test computed for two Marital status groups for the scores of
selling strategies factors are furnished in Table 4.18.

96
 Bath soap store environment is important influence factors the married
customers have (mean=11.23) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=11.11). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.559, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
married have more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the married customers group have prefer more store environment
factors than unmarried is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference
in their store environment. t-value (0.559) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with married group comparatively more prefer store environment than
unmarried group.

Bath soap advertising is important influence factors the married customers

have (mean=7.38) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=7.25). The difference
between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.794, is
obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the married have
more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
married customers group have prefer more advertising factors than unmarried is
accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in their advertising. t-
value (0.794) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with married group
comparatively more prefer advertising than unmarried group.

Bath soap price is important influence factors the married customers have
(mean=7.57) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=7.49). The difference between
these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value 0.553, is obtained, since
p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the married have more mean
score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the married
customers groups have prefer more price factors than unmarried is accepted. The
Marital status groups show any no difference in their price. t-value (0.553) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with married group comparatively more
prefer price than unmarried group.

Bath soap promotional offer is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=21.30) higher mean value than married (mean=21.24). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value

97
 0.185, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers groups have prefer more promotional offer
factors than married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in
their promotional offer. t-value (0.185) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer promotional offer than
married group.

Table 4.19
t-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of Marital status

Std.
Loyalty Based Marital Standard t- P
N Mean Error
Factors status Deviation value value
Mean

Married 228 18.01 3.841 0.254

0.311
Loyalty Proneness 1.015
(NS)
Unmarried 292 17.68 3.503 0.205

Married 228 36.77 5.448 0.361

0.480
Brand Loyalty 0.707
(NS)
Unmarried 292 37.14 6.309 0.369

Married 228 17.70 3.371 0.223

Switching Cost 0.256
1.136
Risk Aversion (NS)
Unmarried 292 18.06 3.766 0.220

Married 228 10.82 2.854 0.189

Cognitive Loyalty 0.528
0.632
(COG) (NS)
Unmarried 292 10.98 2.663 0.156

Married 228 11.46 2.530 0.168

Affective Loyalty 0.305
1.026
(AFF) (NS)
Unmarried 292 11.22 2.739 0.160

Married 228 11.54 2.680 0.178

Conative Loyalty 0.168
1.380
(CON) (NS)
Unmarried 292 11.21 2.732 0.160
NS – Not Significant

98
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Marital status of the
respondents on loyalty based factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and t-test for the scores of loyalty based factors on the
basis of their Marital status. To find out if there is any difference of loyalty based
factors among the customers based on their Marital status, t-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and t-test computed for two Marital status groups for the scores of
loyalty based factors are furnished in Table 4.19.

Bath soap loyalty proneness is important influence factors the Married

customers have (mean=18.01) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=17.68). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
1.015, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Married have more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Married customers group have prefer more loyalty proneness
factors than unmarried is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference
in their loyalty proneness. t-value (1.015) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Married group comparatively more prefer loyalty proneness than
unmarried group.

Bath soap brand loyalty is important influence factors the unmarried

customers have (mean=37.14) higher mean value than Married (mean=36.77). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
0.707, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
unmarried have more mean score than Married is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the unmarried customers group have prefer more brand loyalty factors
than Married is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no difference in their
brand loyalty. t-value (0.707) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s
with unmarried group comparatively more prefer brand loyalty than Married group.

Bath soap switching cost risk aversion is important influence factors the
unmarried customers have (mean=18.06) higher mean value than Married
(mean=17.70). The difference between these two groups is supported applying the
computed t-value 1.136, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the unmarried have more mean score than Married is confirmed.

99
Therefore, the hypothesis that the unmarried customers groups have prefer more
switching cost risk aversion factors than Married is accepted. The Marital status
groups show any no difference in their switching cost risk aversion. t-value (1.136)
are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with unmarried group
comparatively more prefer switching cost risk aversion than Married group.

Bath soap cognitive loyalty (COG) is important influence factors the

unmarried customers have (mean=10.98) higher mean value than Married
(mean=10.82). The difference between these two groups is supported applying the
computed t-value 0.632, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the unmarried have more mean score than Married is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the unmarried customers groups have prefer more
cognitive loyalty (COG) factors than Married is accepted. The Marital status groups
show any no difference in their cognitive loyalty (COG). t-value (0.632) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with unmarried group comparatively
more prefer cognitive loyalty (COG) than Married group.

Bath soap affective loyalty (AFF) is important influence factors the married
customers have (mean=11.46) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=11.22). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
1.026, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
married have more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the married customers groups have prefer more affective loyalty
(AFF) factors than unmarried is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no
difference in their affective loyalty (AFF). t-value (1.026) are not significant. Thus it
is evident that customer’s with unmarried group comparatively more prefer affective
loyalty (AFF) than Married group.

Bath soap conative loyalty (CON) is important influence factors the Married
customers have (mean=11.54) higher mean value than unmarried (mean=11.21). The
difference between these two groups is supported applying the computed t-value
1.380, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Married have more mean score than unmarried is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Married customers groups have prefer more conative loyalty

100
 (CON) factors than unmarried is accepted. The Marital status groups show any no
difference in their conative loyalty (CON). t-value (1.380) are not significant. Thus it
is evident that customer’s with Married group comparatively more prefer conative
loyalty (CON) than unmarried group.
Table 4.20
F-test for products related factors on the basis of Education

Products
Standard Std. F-
related Education N Mean P value
Deviation Error value
factors
SSLC/HSc 80 18.75 2.447 0.274

Product Degree/Diploma 164 18.89 3.199 0.250 0.330

1.112
Quality P.G/Professional 276 19.24 3.190 0.192 (NS)

Total 520 19.05 3.092 0.136

SSLC/HSc 80 14.99 2.983 0.334
Degree/Diploma 164 15.14 2.533 0.198 0.746
Style/ Flavours 0.293
P.G/Professional 276 14.92 3.027 0.182 (NS)

Total 520 15.00 2.869 0.126

SSLC/HSc 80 10.09 2.973 0.332
Degree/Diploma 164 10.27 2.810 0.219 0.800
Innovativeness 0.223
P.G/Professional 276 10.10 2.816 0.169 (NS)

Total 520 10.15 2.834 0.124

SSLC/HSc 80 13.21 3.641 0.407
Degree/Diploma 164 14.29 3.530 0.276 0.026
Component 3.672
P.G/Professional 276 14.33 3.156 0.190 (S)

Total 520 14.15 3.372 0.148

SSLC/HSc 80 13.88 3.545 0.396
Degree/Diploma 164 14.57 3.104 0.242 0.111
Design 2.212
P.G/Professional 276 14.74 3.201 0.193 (NS)

Total 520 14.55 3.234 0.142

S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant influence of Education of the respondents and their

opinion on product related factors.

101
 The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of product related factors on the
basis of their Education. To find out if there is any difference of product related
factors among the customers based on their Education, F-test was applied. The Mean,
SD, SEM and F-test computed for three Education groups for the scores of product
related factors are furnished in Table 4.20.

Bath soap product quality is important influence factors the P.G/Professional

customers have (mean=19.24) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.112, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
P.G/Professional customers have more mean score than other Education groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the P.G/Professional customers group have
prefer more product quality factors than other Education groups is accepted. The
Education groups show any no difference in their product quality. F-value (1.112) are
not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with P.G/Professional group
comparatively more prefer product quality than other Education group.

Bath soap style/ flavours is important influence factors the Degree/Diploma

customers have (mean=15.14) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.293, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Degree/Diploma have more mean score than other Education groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers group have prefer more
style/ flavours factors than other Education groups is accepted. The Education groups
show any no difference in their style/ flavours. F-value (0.293) are not significant.
Thus it is evident that customer’s with Degree/Diploma group comparatively more
prefer style/ flavours than other Education group.

Bath soap innovativeness is important influence factors the Degree/Diploma

customers have (mean=10.27) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.223, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Degree/Diploma have more mean score than other Education groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers groups have prefer

102
more innovativeness factors than other Education groups is accepted. The Education
groups show any no difference in their innovativeness. F-value (0.223) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Degree/Diploma group
comparatively more prefer innovativeness than other Education group.

Bath soap component is important influence factors the P.G/Professional

customers have (mean=14.33) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
3.672, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
P.G/Professional customers have more mean score than other Education groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the P.G/Professional customers groups have
prefer more component factors than other Education groups is rejected. The Education
groups show any difference in their component. F-value (3.672) are significant. Thus
it is evident that customer’s with P.G/Professional Education group comparatively
more prefer component than other Education group.

Bath soap design is important influence factors the P.G/Professional customers

have (mean=14.74) higher mean value than other Education groups. The difference
between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value 2.212, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
P.G/Professional customers have more mean score than other Education groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the P.G/Professional customers groups have
prefer more design factors than other Education groups is accepted. The Education
groups show any difference in their design. F-value (2.212) are not significant. Thus it
is evident that customer’s with P.G/Professional group comparatively more prefer
design than other Education group.

103
 Table 4.21
F-test for brand related factors on the basis of Education

Brand
Standard Std. F- P
related Education N Mean
Deviation Error value value
factors
SSLC/HSc 80 14.46 3.182 0.356

Degree/Diploma 164 14.80 2.865 0.224 0.412

Brand Name 0.889
P.G/Professional 276 14.99 3.366 0.203 (NS)

Total 520 14.85 3.187 0.140

SSLC/HSc 80 15.96 2.436 0.272

Degree/Diploma 164 15.38 3.234 0.253 0.032

Brand Trust 3.451
P.G/Professional 276 14.95 3.292 0.198 (S)

Total 520 15.24 3.172 0.139

SSLC/HSc 80 11.00 2.747 0.307

Degree/Diploma 164 10.40 2.784 0.217 0.215

Brand Affect 1.541
P.G/Professional 276 10.71 2.514 0.151 (NS)

Total 520 10.66 2.641 0.116

SSLC/HSc 80 7.71 2.008 0.224

Brand Degree/Diploma 164 7.12 2.091 0.163 0.034

3.411
Relevance P.G/Professional 276 7.05 1.971 0.119 (S)

Total 520 7.18 2.024 0.089

SSLC/HSc 80 10.68 2.796 0.313

Band Degree/Diploma 164 11.20 2.642 0.206 0.287

1.252
Performance P.G/Professional 276 11.16 2.512 0.151 (NS)

Total 520 11.10 2.600 0.114

S – Significant NS – Not Significant
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Education of the
respondents on brand related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of brand related factors on the
basis of their Education. To find out if there is any difference of brand related factors

104
among the customers based on their Education, F-test was applied. The Mean, SD,
SEM and F-test computed for three Education groups for the scores of brand related
factors are furnished in Table 4.21.

Bath soap brand name is important influence factors the P.G/Professional

customers have (mean=14.99) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.889, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
P.G/Professional customers have more mean score than other Education groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the P.G/Professional customers group have
prefer more brand name factors than other Education groups is accepted. The
Education groups show any no difference in their brand name. F-value (0.889) are
not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with P.G/Professional group
comparatively more prefer brand name than other Education group.

Bath soap brand trust is important influence factors the SSLC/Hsc customers
have (mean=15.96) higher mean value than other Education groups. The difference
between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value 3.451, is
obtained since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the SSLC/Hsc
customers have more mean score than other Education groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the SSLC/Hsc customers have prefer more brand trust
factors than other Education groups is rejected. The Education groups show any
difference in their brand trust. F-value (3.451) are significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with SSLC/Hsc group comparatively more prefer brand trust than other
Education group.

Bath soap brand affect is important influence factors the SSLC/HSc customers
have (mean=11.00) higher mean value than other Education groups. The difference
between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value 1.541, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the SSLC/HSc
customers have more mean score than other Education groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the SSLC/HSc customers groups have prefer more
brand affect factors than other Education groups is accepted. The Education groups
show any no difference in their brand affect. F-value (1.541) are not significant. Thus

105
it is evident that customer’s with SSLC/HSc group comparatively more prefer brand
affect than other Education group.

Bath soap brand relevance is important influence factors the SSLC/HSc

customers have (mean=7.71) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
3.411, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
SSLC/HSc customers have more mean score than other Education groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the SSLC/HSc customers groups have
prefer more brand relevance factors than other Education groups is rejected. The
Education groups show any difference in their brand relevance. F-value (3.411) are
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with SSLC/HSc group comparatively
more prefer brand relevance than other Education group.

Bath soap band performance is important influence factors the

Degree/Diploma customers have (mean=11.20) higher mean value than other
Education groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.252, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma have more mean score than other Education
groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers
groups have prefer more band performance factors than other Education groups is
accepted. The Education groups show any no difference in their brand performance.
F-value (1.252) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Degree/Diploma group comparatively more prefer band performance than other
Education group.

106
 Table 4.22
F-test for customer purchase related factors on the basis of Education

Customer
Standard Std. F-
Purchase Education N Mean P value
Deviation Error value
related factors

SSLC/HSc 80 10.30 3.079 0.344

Product Degree/Diploma 164 11.20 2.702 0.211 0.036

3.336
Familiarity P.G/Professional 276 10.62 2.871 0.173 (S)

Total 520 10.75 2.865 0.126

SSLC/HSc 80 21.39 3.524 0.394

Health Degree/Diploma 164 22.55 3.893 0.304 0.016

4.173
Consciousness P.G/Professional 276 21.49 4.150 0.250 (S)

Total 520 21.81 4.004 0.176

SSLC/HSc 80 17.82 3.890 0.435

Degree/Diploma 164 18.23 4.034 0.315 0.731

Commitment 0.314
P.G/Professional 276 18.21 4.168 0.251 (NS)

Total 520 18.16 4.079 0.179

SSLC/HSc 80 18.26 3.474 0.388

Degree/Diploma 164 17.73 4.464 0.349 0.003

Repeat Purchase 5.826
P.G/Professional 276 16.78 3.705 0.223 (S)

Total 520 17.30 3.964 0.174

SSLC/HSc 80 18.88 4.288 0.479

Purchase Degree/Diploma 164 17.97 3.767 0.294 0.015

4.249
Decision P.G/Professional 276 19.01 3.455 0.208 (S)

Total 520 18.66 3.715 0.163

S – Significant NS – Not Significant
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Education of the respondents
on purchase related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of purchase related factors on the
basis of their Education. To find out if there is any difference of purchase related
factors among the customers based on their Education, F-test was applied. The Mean,

107
SD, SEM and F-test computed for three Education groups for the scores of purchase
related factors are furnished in Table 4.22.

Bath soap product familiarity is important influence factors the

Degree/Diploma qualified customers have (mean=11.20) higher mean value than
other Education groups. The difference between these three groups is supported
applying the computed F-value 3.336, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence,
the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers have more mean score than other
Education groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma
customers group have prefer more product familiarity factors than other Education
groups is rejected. The Education groups show any difference in their product
familiarity. F-value (3.336) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Degree/Diploma group comparatively more prefer product familiarity than other
Education group.
Bath soap health consciousness is important influence factors the
Degree/Diploma customers have (mean=22.55) higher mean value than other
Education groups. The difference between these three groups is supported applying
the computed F-value 4.173, is obtained since p value is significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers have more mean score than other
Education groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma
customers group have prefer more health consciousness factors than other Education
groups is rejected. The Education groups show any difference in their health
consciousness. F-value (4.173) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Degree/Diploma group comparatively more prefer health consciousness than other
Education group.

Bath soap commitment is important influence factors the Degree/Diploma

customers have (mean=18.23) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.314, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Degree/Diploma customers have more mean score than other Education groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers groups have
prefer more commitment factors than other Education groups is accepted. The
Education groups show any no difference in their commitment. F-value (0.314) are

108
not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Degree/Diploma group
comparatively more prefer commitment than other Education group.

Bath soap repeat purchase is important influence factors the SSLC/HSc

customers have (mean=18.26) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
5.826, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
SSLC/HSc have more mean score than other Education groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the SSLC/HSc customers groups have prefer more
repeat purchase factors than other Education groups is rejected. The Education groups
show any difference in their repeat purchase. F-value (5.826) are significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with SSLC/HSc group comparatively more prefer repeat
purchase than other Education group.

Bath soap purchase decision is important influence factors the

P.G/Professional customers have (mean=19.01) higher mean value than other
Education groups. The difference between these three groups is supported applying
the computed F-value 4.249, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the P.G/Professional customers have more mean score than other
Education groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the P.G/Professional
customers groups have prefer more purchase decision factors than other Education
groups is rejected. The Education groups show any difference in their purchase
decision. F-value (4.249) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
P.G/Professional group comparatively more prefer purchase decision than other
Education group.

109
 Table 4.23
F-test for customer psychological related factors on the basis of Education
Customer
Standard Std. F- P
Psychological Education N Mean
Deviation Error value value
related factors
SSLC/HSc 80 14.49 2.819 0.315
Product Degree/Diploma 164 14.78 3.345 0.261 0.080
2.542
Involvement P.G/Professional 276 14.09 3.111 0.187 (NS)
Total 520 14.37 3.154 0.138
SSLC/HSc 80 35.35 6.327 0.707
Customer Degree/Diploma 164 36.68 6.093 0.476 0.179
1.724
Satisfaction P.G/Professional 276 36.58 5.145 0.310 (NS)
Total 520 36.42 5.656 0.248
SSLC/HSc 80 14.71 3.254 0.364
Relationship Degree/Diploma 164 14.90 3.244 0.253 0.507
0.680
Proneness P.G/Professional 276 14.52 3.306 0.199 (NS)
Total 520 14.67 3.276 0.144
SSLC/HSc 80 14.59 2.988 0.334
Degree/Diploma 164 14.63 3.129 0.244 0.920
Perceived Value 0.083
P.G/Professional 276 14.51 3.081 0.185 (NS)
Total 520 14.56 3.077 0.135
SSLC/HSc 80 14.72 4.152 0.464
Degree/Diploma 164 14.27 3.193 0.249 0.490
Culture/ Habit 0.714
P.G/Professional 276 14.24 3.038 0.183 (NS)
Total 520 14.32 3.278 0.144
SSLC/HSc 80 14.15 4.035 0.451
Degree/Diploma 164 14.79 3.173 0.248 0.018
Perceived Quality 4.038
P.G/Professional 276 15.29 3.128 0.188 (S)
Total 520 14.96 3.316 0.145
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

110
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Education of the respondents
on psychological related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of psychological related factors
on the basis of their Education. To find out if there is any difference of psychological
related factors among the customers based on their Education, F-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for three Education groups for the scores of
psychological related factors are furnished in Table 4.23.

Bath soap product involvement is important influence factors the

Degree/Diploma customers have (mean=14.78) higher mean value than other
Education groups. The difference between these three groups is supported applying
the computed F-value 2.542, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers have more mean score than other
Education groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma
group have prefer more product involvement factors than other Education groups is
accepted. The Education groups show any no difference in their Product Involvement.
F-value (2.542) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Degree/Diploma group comparatively more prefer product involvement than other
Education group.
Bath soap customer satisfaction is important influence factors the
Degree/Diploma customers have (mean=36.68) higher mean value than other
Education groups. The difference between these three groups is supported applying
the computed F-value 1.724, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma have more mean score than other Education
groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers
group have prefer more customer satisfaction factors than other Education groups is
accepted. The Education groups show any no difference in their customer satisfaction.
F-value (1.724) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Degree/Diploma group comparatively more prefer customer satisfaction than other
Education group.

Bath soap relationship proneness is important influence factors the

Degree/Diploma customers have (mean=14.90) higher mean value than other
Education groups. The difference between these three groups is supported applying

111
the computed F-value 0.680, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers have more mean score than other
Education groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma
customers groups have prefer more relationship proneness factors than other
Education groups is accepted. The Education groups show any no difference in their
relationship proneness. F-value (0.680) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Degree/Diploma group comparatively more prefer relationship
proneness than other Education group.

Bath soap perceived value is important influence factors the Degree/Diploma

customers have (mean=14.63) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.083, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Degree/Diploma have more mean score than other Education groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers groups have prefer
more perceived value factors than other Education groups is accepted. The Education
groups show any no difference in their perceived value. F-value (0.083) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Degree/Diploma group
comparatively more prefer perceived value than other Education group.

Bath soap culture/ habit is important influence factors the SSLC/Hsc

customers have (mean=14.72) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.714, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
SSLC/Hsc have more mean score than other Education groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the SSLC/Hsc customers groups have prefer more
culture/ habit factors than other Education groups is accepted. The Education groups
show any no difference in their culture/ habit. F-value (0.714) are not significant.
Thus it is evident that customer’s with SSLC/Hsc group comparatively more prefer
culture/ habit than other Education group.

Bath soap perceived quality is important influence factors the Degree/Diploma

customers have (mean=14.79) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
4.038, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the

112
 Degree/Diploma have more mean score than other Education groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers groups have prefer
more perceived quality factors than other Education groups is rejected. The Education
groups show any difference in their perceived quality. F-value (4.038) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Degree/Diploma group
comparatively more prefer perceived quality than other Education group.

Table 4.24
F-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of Education

Selling strategies Standard Std. F-

Education N Mean P value
factors Deviation Error value

SSLC/HSc 80 11.89 2.551 0.285

Degree/Diploma 164 11.18 2.159 0.169 0.011

Store Environment 4.562
P.G/Professional 276 10.95 2.591 0.156 (S)

Total 520 11.16 2.473 0.108

SSLC/HSc 80 7.70 1.775 0.198

Degree/Diploma 164 7.01 1.991 0.155 0.018

Advertising 4.060
P.G/Professional 276 7.37 1.777 0.107 (S)

Total 520 7.31 1.858 0.081

SSLC/HSc 80 7.04 2.077 0.232

Degree/Diploma 164 7.55 1.752 0.137 0.019

Price 4.000
P.G/Professional 276 7.66 1.594 0.096 (S)

Total 520 7.53 1.736 0.076

SSLC/HSc 80 21.86 3.993 0.446

Degree/Diploma 164 21.95 4.237 0.331 0.004

Promotional Offer 5.679
P.G/Professional 276 20.70 4.089 0.246 (S)

Total 520 21.28 4.159 0.182

S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Education of the

respondents on selling strategies factors.

113
 The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of selling strategies factors on the
basis of their Education. To find out if there is any difference of selling strategies
factors among the customers based on their Education, F-test was applied. The Mean,
SD, SEM and F-test computed for three Education groups for the scores of selling
strategies factors are furnished in Table 4.24.

Bath soap store environment is important influence factors the SSLC/HSc

customers have (mean=11.89) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
4.562, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
SSLC/HSc customers have more mean score than other Education groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the SSLC/HSc customers group have prefer
more store environment factors than other Education groups is rejected. The
Education groups show any difference in their store environment. F-value (4.562) are
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with SSLC/HSc group comparatively
more prefer store environment than other Education group.

Bath soap advertising is important influence factors the SSLC/HSc customers

have (mean=7.70) higher mean value than other Education groups. The difference
between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value 4.060, is
obtained since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the SSLC/HSc have
more mean score than other Education groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis
that the SSLC/HSc customers group have prefer more advertising factors than other
Education groups is accepted. The Education groups show any difference in their
advertising. F-value (4.060) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
SSLC/HSc group comparatively more prefer advertising than other Education group.

Bath soap price is important influence factors the P.G/Professional customers

have (mean=7.66) higher mean value than other Education groups. The difference
between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value 4.000, is
obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the P.G/Professional
have more mean score than other Education groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the P.G/Professional customers groups have prefer more price factors

114
than other Education groups is rejected. The Education groups show any difference in
their price. F-value (4.000) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
P.G/Professional group comparatively more prefer price than other Education group.

Bath soap promotional offer is important influence factors the

Degree/Diploma customers have (mean=21.95) higher mean value than other
Education groups. The difference between these three groups is supported applying
the computed F-value 5.679, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers have more mean score than other
Education groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma
customers groups have prefer more promotional offer factors than other Education
groups is rejected. The Education groups show any difference in their promotional
offer. F-value (5.679) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Degree/Diploma group comparatively more prefer promotional offer than other
Education group.

115
 Table 4.25
F-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of Education
Loyalty based Standard Std. P
Education N Mean F-value
factors Deviation Error value
SSLC/HSc 80 18.39 3.623 0.405
Degree/Diploma 164 17.80 3.353 0.262 0.312
Loyalty Proneness 1.166
P.G/Professional 276 17.68 3.830 0.231 (NS)
Total 520 17.83 3.655 0.160
SSLC/HSc 80 35.19 5.697 0.637
Degree/Diploma 164 38.16 5.527 0.432 0.001
Brand Loyalty 7.163
P.G/Professional 276 36.79 6.120 0.368 (S)
Total 520 36.98 5.944 0.261
SSLC/HSc 80 18.46 3.936 0.440
Switching Cost Degree/Diploma 164 17.92 3.763 0.294 0.275
1.295
Risk Aversion P.G/Professional 276 17.73 3.389 0.204 (NS)
Total 520 17.90 3.599 0.158
SSLC/HSc 80 10.52 3.529 0.395
Cognitive Loyalty Degree/Diploma 164 11.32 2.569 0.201 0.056
2.905
(COG) P.G/Professional 276 10.78 2.568 0.155 (NS)
Total 520 10.91 2.747 0.120
SSLC/HSc 80 10.34 3.214 0.359
Affective Loyalty Degree/Diploma 164 12.06 2.446 0.191 0.001
12.878
(AFF) P.G/Professional 276 11.18 2.470 0.149 (S)
Total 520 11.33 2.649 0.116
SSLC/HSc 80 10.70 2.607 0.291
Conative Loyalty Degree/Diploma 164 11.56 2.997 0.234 0.056
2.890
(CON) P.G/Professional 276 11.41 2.539 0.153 (NS)
Total 520 11.35 2.712 0.119
S – Significant NS – Not Significant
o: There is no significant mean difference between the Education of the respondents
on loyalty based factors.
The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of loyalty based factors on the
basis of their Education. To find out if there is any difference of loyalty based factors
among the customers based on their Education, F-test was applied. The Mean, SD,
SEM and F-test computed for three Education groups for the scores of loyalty based
factors are furnished in Table 4.25.

116
 Bath soap loyalty proneness is important influence factors the SSLC/HSc
customers have (mean=18.39) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.166, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
SSLC/HSc customers have more mean score than other Education groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the SSLC/HSc customers have prefer more
loyalty proneness factors than other Education groups is accepted. The Education
groups show any no difference in their loyalty proneness. F-value (1.166) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that

customer’s with SSLC/HSc group comparatively more prefer loyalty

proneness than other Education group.

Bath soap brand loyalty is important influence factors the Degree/Diploma

customers have (mean=38.16) higher mean value than other Education groups. The
difference between these three groups is supported applying the computed F-value
7.163, is obtained since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Degree/Diploma customers have more mean score than other Education groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers group have
prefer more brand loyalty factors than other Education groups is rejected. The
Education groups show any difference in their brand loyalty. F-value (7.163) are
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Degree/Diploma group
comparatively more prefer brand loyalty than other Education group.

Bath soap switching cost risk aversion is important influence factors the
SSLC/HSc customers have (mean=18.46) higher mean value than other Education
groups. The difference between these three groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.295, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the SSLC/HSc have more mean score than other Education groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the SSLC/HSc customers groups have
prefer more switching cost risk aversion factors than other Education groups is
accepted. The Education groups show any no difference in their switching cost risk
aversion. F-value (1.295) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with

117
SSLC/HSc group comparatively more prefer switching cost risk aversion than other
Education group.

Bath soap cognitive loyalty (COG) is important influence factors the

Degree/Diploma customers have (mean=11.32) higher mean value than other
Education groups. The difference between these three groups is supported applying
the computed F-value 2.905, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma have more mean score than other Education
groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers
groups have prefer more cognitive loyalty (COG) factors than other Education groups
is accepted. The Education groups show any no difference in their cognitive loyalty
(COG). F-value (2.905) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Degree/Diploma group comparatively more prefer cognitive loyalty (COG) than other
Education group.

Bath soap affective loyalty (AFF) is important influence factors the

Degree/Diploma customers have (mean=12.06) higher mean value than other
Education groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 12.878, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma have more mean score than other Education
groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers
groups have prefer more affective loyalty (AFF) factors than other Education groups
is rejected. The Education groups show any difference in their affective loyalty
(AFF). F-value (12.878) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Degree/Diploma group comparatively more prefer affective loyalty (AFF) than other
Education group.

Bath soap conative loyalty (CON) is important influence factors the

Degree/Diploma customers have (mean=11.56) higher mean value than other
Education groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 2.890, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma customers have more mean score than other
Education groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Degree/Diploma
customers groups have prefer more conative loyalty (CON) factors than other

118
 Education groups is accepted. The Education groups show any no difference in their
conative loyalty (CON). F-value (2.890) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Degree/Diploma group comparatively more prefer conative loyalty
(CON) than other Education group.

Table 4.26
F-test for products related factors on the basis of Monthly income
Products related Standard Std. F- P
Monthly income N Mean
factors Deviation Error value value
Less than Rs.15,000 82 17.84 3.218 0.358
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 19.08 3.131 0.206
0.541
Product Quality Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 19.38 3.073 0.249 1.921
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 19.87 2.228 0.300
Total 520 19.05 3.092 0.138
Less than Rs.15,000 82 14.55 2.686 0.299
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 15.39 2.608 0.172
0.462
Style/ Flavours Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 14.59 3.332 0.278 1.782
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 15.20 2.606 0.351
Total 520 15.00 2.869 0.127
Less than Rs.15,000 82 10.65 2.306 0.256
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 10.13 2.847 0.187
0.342
Innovativeness Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 9.86 2.964 0.243 1.992
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 10.31 3.078 0.415
Total 520 10.15 2.834 0.128
Less than Rs.15,000 82 14.72 2.732 0.302
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 13.75 3.848 0.254
0.979
Component Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 14.44 3.044 0.247 1.876
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 14.13 2.776 0.374
Total 520 14.15 3.372 0.148
Less than Rs.15,000 82 14.73 3.083 0.348
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 14.36 3.322 0.219
0.175
Design Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 14.67 3.347 0.271 1.118
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 14.75 2.764 0.371
Total 520 14.55 3.234 0.142
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant influence of Monthly income of the respondents and their
opinion on product related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of product related factors on the
basis of their Monthly income. To find out if there is any difference of product related

119
factors among the customers based on their Monthly income, F-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for four Monthly income groups for the scores
of product related factors are furnished in Table 4.26.
Bath soap product quality is important influence factors the Above Rs.40,000
customers have (mean=19.87) higher mean value than other Monthly income groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.921, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Above Rs.40,000 customers have more mean score than other Monthly income
groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 customers
group have prefer more product quality factors than other Monthly income groups is
accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their product
quality. F-value (1.921) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Above
Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer product quality than other Monthly
income group.

Bath soap style/ flavours is important influence factors the Rs.15001 to

Rs.25,000 customers have (mean=15.39) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.782, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 have more mean score than other Monthly
income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000
customers group have prefer more style/ flavours factors than other Monthly income
groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their style/
flavours. F-value (1.782) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 group comparatively more prefer style/ flavours than other
Monthly income group.

Bath soap innovativeness is important influence factors the Less than

Rs.15,000 customers have (mean=10.65) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.992, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Less than Rs.15,000 have more mean score than other Monthly
income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Less than Rs.15,000
customers groups have prefer more innovativeness factors than other Monthly income

120
groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their
innovativeness. F-value (1.992) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s
with Less than Rs.15,000 group comparatively more prefer innovativeness than other
Monthly income group.

Bath soap component is important influence factors the Less than Rs.15,000
customers have (mean=14.72) higher mean value than other Monthly income groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.876, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Less
than Rs.15,000 customers have more mean score than other Monthly income groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Less than Rs.15,000 customers groups
have prefer more component factors than other Monthly income groups is accepted.
The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their component. F-value
(1.876) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Less than Rs.15,000
Monthly income group comparatively more prefer component than other Monthly
income group.

Bath soap design is important influence factors the Above Rs.40,000

customers have (mean=14.75) higher mean value than other Monthly income groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.118, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Above Rs.40,000 customers have more mean score than other Monthly income
groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 customers
groups have prefer more design factors than other Monthly income groups is
accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their design. F-value
(1.118) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Above Rs.40,000
group comparatively more prefer design than other Monthly income group.

121
 Table 4.27
F-test for brand related factors on the basis of Monthly income
Brand related Standard Std. F- P
Monthly income N Mean
factors Deviation Error value value
Less than Rs.15,000 82 14.56 2.568 0.289
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 14.99 2.946 0.194
0.242
Brand Name Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 14.35 3.708 0.301 1.921
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 16.07 3.144 0.429
Total 520 14.85 3.187 0.140
Less than Rs.15,000 82 14.89 2.611 0.288
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 14.84 3.493 0.230
0.347
Brand Trust Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 16.00 2.500 0.203 1.492
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 15.31 3.815 0.514
Total 520 15.24 3.172 0.139
Less than Rs.15,000 82 10.00 2.572 0.288
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 10.82 2.814 0.185
0.094
Brand Affect Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 10.55 2.484 0.203 2.942
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 11.24 2.227 0.307
Total 520 10.66 2.641 0.116
Less than Rs.15,000 82 7.18 1.744 0.192
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 7.33 2.138 0.142
0.129
Brand Relevance Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 6.91 2.100 0.170 2.114
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 7.22 1.652 0.223
Total 520 7.18 2.024 0.082
Less than Rs.15,000 82 11.04 2.589 0.286
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 11.14 2.854 0.184
0.312
Band Performance Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 10.96 2.174 0.176 2.719
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 11.38 2.614 0.352
Total 520 11.10 2.600 0.118
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

122
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Monthly income of the
respondents on brand related factors.
The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of brand related factors on the
basis of their Monthly income. To find out if there is any difference of brand related
factors among the customers based on their Monthly income, F-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for four Monthly income groups for the scores
of brand related factors are furnished in Table 4.27.
Bath soap brand name is important influence factors the Above Rs.40,000
customers have (mean=16.07) higher mean value than other Monthly income groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.921, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Above Rs.40,000 customers have more mean score than other Monthly income
groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 customers
group have prefer more brand name factors than other Monthly income groups is
accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their brand name. F-
value (1.921) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Above
Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer brand name than other Monthly income
group.

Bath soap brand trust is important influence factors the Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000
customers have (mean=16.00) higher mean value than other Monthly income groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.492, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 customers have more mean score than other Monthly income
groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000
customers have prefer more brand trust factors than other Monthly income groups is
accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their brand trust. F-
value (1.492) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Rs.25001 to
Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer brand trust than other Monthly income
group.

Bath soap brand affect is important influence factors the Above Rs.40,000
customers have (mean=11.24) higher mean value than other Monthly income groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value

123
2.942, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Above Rs.40,000 customers have more mean score than other Monthly income
groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 customers
groups have prefer more brand affect factors than other Monthly income groups is
accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their brand affect. F-
value (2.942) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Above
Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer brand affect than other Monthly income
group.

Bath soap brand relevance is important influence factors the Rs.15001 to

Rs.25,000 customers have (mean=7.33) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 2.114, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers have more mean score than
other Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers groups have prefer more brand relevance factors
than other Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any
difference in their brand relevance. F-value (2.114) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 group comparatively more prefer
brand relevance than other Monthly income group.

Bath soap band performance is important influence factors the Above

Rs.40,000 customers have (mean=11.38) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 2.719, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 have more mean score than other Monthly
income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000
customers groups have prefer more band performance factors than other Monthly
income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in
their brand performance. F-value (2.719) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Above Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer band
performance than other Monthly income group.

124
 Table 4.28
F-test for customer purchase related factors on the basis of Monthly income

Customer
Standard Std. F- P
Purchase related Monthly income N Mean
Deviation Error value value
factors
Less than Rs.15,000 82 11.30 2.324 0.257
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 10.39 3.011 0.198
Product 0.241
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 10.65 2.829 0.225 1.324
Familiarity (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 11.76 2.775 0.377
Total 520 10.75 2.865 0.126
Less than Rs.15,000 82 22.79 3.395 0.375
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 21.67 4.236 0.279
Health 0.341
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 21.30 3.571 0.290 2.441
Consciousness (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 22.31 4.710 0.635
Total 520 21.81 4.004 0.176
Less than Rs.15,000 82 17.54 3.293 0.369
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 18.92 3.983 0.262
0.142
Commitment Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 17.16 4.321 0.350 1.912
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 18.62 4.219 0.569
Total 520 18.16 4.079 0.179
Less than Rs.15,000 82 17.01 4.005 0.442
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 17.25 3.810 0.258
0.492
Repeat Purchase Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 17.39 4.221 0.342 2.224
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 17.73 3.870 0.522
Total 520 17.30 3.964 0.174
Less than Rs.15,000 82 18.41 3.587 0.396
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 18.83 4.011 0.269
Purchase 0.419
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 18.49 3.414 0.277 1.119
Decision (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 18.82 3.454 0.466
Total 520 18.66 3.715 0.163
S – Significant NS – Not Significant
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Monthly income of
the respondents on purchase related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of purchase related factors on the
basis of their Monthly income. To find out if there is any difference of purchase
related factors among the customers based on their Monthly income, F-test was
applied. The Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for four Monthly income groups for
the scores of purchase related factors are furnished in Table 4.28.

125
 Bath soap product familiarity is important influence factors the Above
Rs.40,000 customers have (mean=11.76) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.324, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 customers have more mean score than other
Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above
Rs.40,000 customers group have prefer more product familiarity factors than other
Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no
difference in their product familiarity. F-value (1.324) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with Above Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer
product familiarity than other Monthly income group.

Bath soap health consciousness is important influence factors the Less than
Rs.15,000 customers have (mean=22.79) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 2.441, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Less than Rs.15,000 customers have more mean score than other
Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Less than
Rs.15,000 customers group have prefer more health consciousness factors than other
Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no
difference in their health consciousness. F-value (2.441) are not significant. Thus
it is evident that customer’s with Less than Rs.15,000 group comparatively more
prefer health consciousness than other Monthly income group.

Bath soap commitment is important influence factors the Rs.15001 to

Rs.25,000 customers have (mean=18.92) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.912, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers have more mean score than
other Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers groups have prefer more commitment factors than
other Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no
difference in their commitment. F-value (1.912) are not significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 group comparatively more prefer
commitment than other Monthly income group.

126
 Bath soap repeat purchase is important influence factors the Above Rs.40,000
customers have (mean=17.73) higher mean value than other Monthly income groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.224, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Above Rs.40,000 have more mean score than other Monthly income groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 customers groups
have prefer more repeat purchase factors than other Monthly income groups is
accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their repeat
purchase. F-value (2.224) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Above Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer repeat purchase than other
Monthly income group.

Bath soap purchase decision is important influence factors the Rs.15001 to

Rs.25,000 customers have (mean=18.83) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.119, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers have more mean score than
other Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers groups have prefer more purchase decision factors
than other Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any
no difference in their purchase decision. F-value (1.119) are not significant.
Thus it is evident that customer’s with Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 group comparatively
more prefer purchase decision than other Monthly income group.

127
 Table 4.29
F-test for customer psychological related factors on the basis of Monthly income
Customer
Standard Std. F-
Psychological Monthly income N Mean P value
Deviation Error value
related factors
Less than Rs.15,000 82 13.29 3.073 0.336
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 14.55 3.368 0.225
0.114
Product Involvement Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 14.71 2.839 0.230 1.882
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 14.25 2.888 0.389
Total 520 14.37 3.154 0.135
Less than Rs.15,000 82 35.73 5.816 0.642
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 36.58 5.804 0.382
Customer 0.142
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 36.36 5.295 0.429 2.224
Satisfaction (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 37.00 5.802 0.782
Total 520 36.42 5.656 0.248
Less than Rs.15,000 82 14.48 2.695 0.298
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 14.83 3.528 0.236
Relationship 0.124
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 14.26 3.181 0.258 2.442
Proneness (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 15.40 3.130 0.429
Total 520 14.67 3.276 0.146
Less than Rs.15,000 82 14.00 2.200 0.243
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 14.66 3.184 0.206
0.118
Perceived Value Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 14.62 3.092 0.257 1.211
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 14.76 3.641 0.491
Total 520 14.56 3.077 0.135
Less than Rs.15,000 82 14.49 2.937 0.329
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 14.97 3.385 0.223
0.224
Culture/ Habit Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 13.56 3.012 0.244 1.341
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 13.45 3.452 0.466
Total 520 14.32 3.278 0.144
Less than Rs.15,000 82 14.67 3.035 0.338
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 15.19 3.602 0.237
0.294
Perceived Quality Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 14.86 3.017 0.245 1.491
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 14.69 3.265 0.440
Total 520 14.96 3.316 0.145
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Monthly income of the
respondents on psychological related factors.

128
 The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of psychological related factors
on the basis of their Monthly income. To find out if there is any difference of
psychological related factors among the customers based on their Monthly income, F-
test was applied. The Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for four Monthly income
groups for the scores of psychological related factors are furnished in Table 4.29.
Bath soap product involvement is important influence factors the Rs.25001 to
Rs.40,000 customers have (mean=14.71) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.882, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 customers have more mean score than
other Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 group have prefer more product involvement factors than other
Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any difference
in their Product Involvement. F-value (1.882) are significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer product
involvement than other Monthly income group.

Bath soap customer satisfaction is important influence factors the Above

Rs.40,000 customers have (mean=37.00) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 2.224, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 have more mean score than other Monthly
income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000
customers group have prefer more customer satisfaction factors than other Monthly
income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in
their customer satisfaction. F-value (2.224) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Above Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer customer
satisfaction than other Monthly income group.

Bath soap relationship proneness is important influence factors the Less than
Rs.15,000 customers have (mean=14.48) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 2.442, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Less than Rs.15,000 customers have more mean score than other
Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Less than

129
Rs.15,000 customers groups have prefer more relationship proneness factors than
other Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no
difference in their relationship proneness. F-value (2.442) are not significant. Thus it
is evident that customer’s with Less than Rs.15,000 group comparatively more prefer
relationship proneness than other Monthly income group.
Bath soap perceived value is important influence factors the Above Rs.40,000
customers have (mean=14.76) higher mean value than other Monthly income groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.211, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Above Rs.40,000 have more mean score than other Monthly income groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 customers groups
have prefer more perceived value factors than other Monthly income groups is
accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their perceived
value. F-value (1.211) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Above Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer perceived value than other
Monthly income group.

Bath soap culture/ habit is important influence factors the Rs.15001 to

Rs.25,000 customers have (mean=14.97) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.341, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 have more mean score than other Monthly
income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000
customers groups have prefer more culture/ habit factors than other Monthly income
groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their
culture/ habit. F-value (1.341) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s
with Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 group comparatively more prefer culture/ habit than other
Monthly income group.

Bath soap perceived quality is important influence factors the Rs.15001 to

Rs.25,000 customers have (mean=15.19) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.491, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 have more mean score than other Monthly
income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000

130
customers groups have prefer more perceived quality factors than other Monthly
income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in
their perceived quality. F-value (1.491) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 group comparatively more prefer perceived
quality than other Monthly income group.

131
 Table 4.30
t-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of Monthly income
Selling
Standard Std. F-
strategies Monthly income N Mean P value
Deviation Error value
factors
Less than Rs.15,000 82 11.27 2.357 0.266
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 11.16 2.527 0.165
Store 0.421
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 10.91 2.419 0.196 1.921
Environment (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 11.71 2.529 0.343
Total 520 11.16 2.473 0.108
Less than Rs.15,000 82 6.63 1.856 0.205
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 7.24 1.916 0.126
0.271
Advertising Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 7.70 1.680 0.136 2.114
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 7.51 1.814 0.245
Total 520 7.31 1.858 0.082
Less than Rs.15,000 82 7.63 1.591 0.176
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 7.50 1.825 0.120
0.281
Price Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 7.43 1.646 0.134 2.421
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 7.73 1.820 0.243
Total 520 7.53 1.736 0.076
Less than Rs.15,000 82 22.37 3.629 0.401
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 20.88 4.360 0.287
Promotional 0.274
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 21.34 3.871 0.314 1.428
Offer (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 21.13 4.591 0.619
Total 520 21.28 4.159 0.182

S – Significant NS – Not Significant

132
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Monthly income of the
respondents on selling strategies factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of selling strategies factors on the
basis of their Monthly income. To find out if there is any difference of selling
strategies factors among the customers based on their Monthly income, F-test was
applied. The Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for four Monthly income groups for
the scores of selling strategies factors are furnished in Table 4.30.
Bath soap store environment is important influence factors the Above
Rs.40,000 customers have (mean=11.71) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.921, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 customers have more mean score than other
Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above
Rs.40,000 customers group have prefer more store environment factors than other
Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no
difference in their store environment. F-value (1.921) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with Less than Rs.15,000 group comparatively more prefer
store environment than other Monthly income group.

Bath soap advertising is important influence factors the Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000

customers have (mean=7.70) higher mean value than other Monthly income groups.
The difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.114, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 have more mean score than other Monthly income groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 customers group
have prefer more advertising factors than other Monthly income groups is accepted.
The Monthly income groups show any no difference in their advertising. F-value
(2.114) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Rs.25001 to
Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer advertising than other Monthly income
group.

Bath soap price is important influence factors the Above Rs.40,000 customers
have (mean=7.73) higher mean value than other Monthly income groups. The

133
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.421, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Above Rs.40,000 have more mean score than other Monthly income groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 customers groups
have prefer more price factors than other Monthly income groups is accepted. The
Monthly income groups show any no difference in their price. F-value (2.421) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Above Rs.40,000 group
comparatively more prefer price than other Monthly income group.

Bath soap promotional offer is important influence factors the Less than
Rs.15,000 customers have (mean=22.37) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.428, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Less than Rs.15,000 customers have more mean score than other
Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Less than
Rs.15,000 customers groups have prefer more promotional offer factors than other
Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no
difference in their promotional offer. F-value (1.428) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with Less than Rs.15,000 group comparatively more prefer
promotional offer than other Monthly income group.

134
 Table 4.31
F-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of Monthly income
Loyalty based Standard Std. F-
Monthly income N Mean P value
factors Deviation Error value
Less than Rs.15,000 82 16.61 3.344 0.369
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 18.08 3.620 0.238
Loyalty 0.214
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 18.07 3.467 0.288 1.371
Proneness (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 17.91 4.419 0.596
Total 520 17.83 3.655 0.163
Less than Rs.15,000 82 36.10 4.548 0.502
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 37.06 6.487 0.427
0.814
Brand Loyalty Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 36.80 5.892 0.478 2.511
(NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 38.45 5.360 0.723
Total 520 36.98 5.944 0.261
Less than Rs.15,000 82 17.32 3.711 0.410
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 18.35 3.485 0.229
Switching Cost 0.142
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 17.65 3.680 0.298 1.641
Risk Aversion (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 17.56 3.547 0.478
Total 520 17.90 3.599 0.158
Less than Rs.15,000 82 10.50 2.515 0.278
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 10.84 2.950 0.193
Cognitive 0.421
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 11.13 2.669 0.216 1.942
Loyalty (COG) (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 11.22 2.355 0.317
Total 520 10.91 2.747 0.120
Less than Rs.15,000 82 11.07 2.314 0.255
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 11.36 2.662 0.175
Affective Loyalty 0.443
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 11.22 2.845 0.234 1.842
(AFF) (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 11.85 2.490 0.336
Total 520 11.33 2.649 0.116
Less than Rs.15,000 82 10.80 2.622 0.290
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 231 11.01 2.781 0.183
Conative Loyalty 0.249
Rs.25001 to Rs.40,000 152 11.84 2.707 0.220 1.119
(CON) (NS)
Above Rs.40,000 55 12.22 2.132 0.289
Total 520 11.35 2.712 0.119
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Monthly income of the
respondents on loyalty based factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of loyalty based factors on the
basis of their Monthly income. To find out if there is any difference of loyalty based

135
factors among the customers based on their Monthly income, F-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for four Monthly income groups for the scores
of loyalty based factors are furnished in Table 4.31.
Bath soap loyalty proneness is important influence factors the Rs.15001 to
Rs.25,000 customers have (mean=18.08) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.371, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers have more mean score than
other Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers have prefer more loyalty proneness factors than
other Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any
difference in their loyalty proneness. F-value (1.371) are not significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 group comparatively more prefer
loyalty proneness than other Monthly income group.

Bath soap brand loyalty is important influence factors the Rs.15001 to

Rs.25,000 customers have (mean=37.06) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 2.511, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers have more mean score than
other Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers group have prefer more brand loyalty factors than
other Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no
difference in their brand loyalty. F-value (2.511) are not significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 group comparatively more prefer brand
loyalty than other Monthly income group.

Bath soap switching cost risk aversion is important influence factors the
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers have (mean=18.35) higher mean value than other
Monthly income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported
applying the computed F-value 1.641, is obtained, since p value is not significant.
Hence, the hypothesis that the Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 have more mean score than
other Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the
Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000 customers groups have prefer more switching cost risk

136
aversion factors than other Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income
groups show any no difference in their switching cost risk aversion. F-value (1.641)
are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Rs.15001 to Rs.25,000
group comparatively more prefer switching cost risk aversion than other Monthly
income group.
Bath soap cognitive loyalty (COG) is important influence factors the Above
Rs.40,000 customers have (mean=11.22) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.942, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 have more mean score than other Monthly
income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000
customers groups have prefer more cognitive loyalty (COG) factors than other
Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no
difference in their cognitive loyalty (COG). F-value (1.942) are not significant. Thus
it is evident that customer’s with Above Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer
cognitive loyalty (COG) than other Monthly income group.
Bath soap affective loyalty (AFF) is important influence factors the Above
Rs.40,000 customers have (mean=11.85) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.842, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 have more mean score than other Monthly
income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000
customers groups have prefer more affective loyalty (AFF) factors than other Monthly
income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no difference in
their affective loyalty (AFF). F-value (1.842) are not significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with Above Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer affective
loyalty (AFF) than other Monthly income group.
Bath soap conative loyalty (CON) is important influence factors the Above
Rs.40,000 customers have (mean=12.22) higher mean value than other Monthly
income groups. The difference between these four groups is supported applying the
computed F-value 1.119, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the
hypothesis that the Above Rs.40,000 customers have more mean score than other
Monthly income groups is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Above
Rs.40,000 customers groups have prefer more conative loyalty (CON) factors than

137
 other Monthly income groups is accepted. The Monthly income groups show any no
difference in their conative loyalty (CON). F-value (1.119) are not significant. Thus it
is evident that customer’s with Above Rs.40,000 group comparatively more prefer
conative loyalty (CON) than other Monthly income group.
Table 4.32
F-test for products related factors on the basis of Occupation
Products related Standard Std. F-
Occupation N Mean P value
factors Deviation Error value
Homemakers 36 18.97 3.211 0.535
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 18.67 2.564 0.259
Business People 35 19.14 3.615 0.611
0.010
Product Quality Software Engineers 217 18.71 3.105 0.211 3.038
(S)
Professionals 44 19.52 3.567 0.538
Students 90 20.07 2.894 0.305
Total 520 19.05 3.092 0.136
Homemakers 36 15.42 3.120 0.520
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 14.41 2.666 0.269
Business People 35 15.74 2.914 0.493
0.001
Style/ Flavours Software Engineers 217 14.42 2.979 0.202 8.535
(S)
Professionals 44 15.30 2.358 0.356
Students 90 16.46 2.299 0.242
Total 520 15.00 2.869 0.126
Homemakers 36 9.89 3.003 0.500
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 10.56 2.479 0.250
Business People 35 10.94 2.531 0.428
0.001
Innovativeness Software Engineers 217 9.51 2.975 0.202 5.167
(S)
Professionals 44 11.30 2.646 0.399
Students 90 10.50 2.653 0.280
Total 520 10.15 2.834 0.124
Homemakers 36 14.22 3.365 0.561
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 14.98 3.249 0.328
Business People 35 13.69 3.644 0.616
0.001
Component Software Engineers 217 14.20 3.270 0.222 4.725
(S)
Professionals 44 14.98 2.921 0.440
Students 90 12.84 3.506 0.370
Total 520 14.15 3.372 0.148
Homemakers 36 15.25 3.333 0.555
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 14.92 3.092 0.312
Business People 35 15.63 2.390 0.404
0.004
Design Software Engineers 217 14.28 3.165 0.215 3.567
(S)
Professionals 44 15.39 2.274 0.343
Students 90 13.71 3.893 0.410
Total 520 14.55 3.234 0.142
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

138
Ho: There is no significant influence of Occupation of the respondents and their
opinion on product related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of product related factors on the
basis of their Occupation. To find out if there is any difference of product related
factors among the customers based on their Occupation, F-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for six Occupation groups for the scores of
product related factors are furnished in Table 4.32.
Bath soap product quality is important influence factors the Professionals
customers have (mean=19.52) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
3.038, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Professionals customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Professionals customers group have
prefer more product quality factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The
Occupation groups show any difference in their product quality. F-value (3.038) are
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Professionals group comparatively
more prefer product quality than other Occupation group.

Bath soap style/ flavours is important influence factors the Students have
(mean=16.46) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The difference
between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value 8.535, is
obtained since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Students have
more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Students group have prefer more style/ flavours factors than other
Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation groups show any difference in their
style/ flavours. F-value (8.535) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Students group comparatively more prefer style/ flavours than other Occupation
group.

Bath soap innovativeness is important influence factors the Professionals

customers have (mean=11.30) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
5.167, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the

139
Professionals have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Professionals customers groups have prefer more
innovativeness factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation
groups show any difference in their innovativeness. F-value (5.167) are significant.
Thus it is evident that customer’s with Professionals group comparatively more prefer
innovativeness than other Occupation group.

Bath soap component is important influence factors the Pvt/Govt Employees

customers have (mean=14.98) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
4.725, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Pvt/Govt
Employees customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Pvt/Govt Employees customers groups
have prefer more component factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The
Occupation groups show any difference in their component. F-value (4.725) are
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Pvt/Govt Employees Occupation
group comparatively more prefer component than other Occupation group.

Bath soap design is important influence factors the Business People customers
have (mean=15.63) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The difference
between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value 3.567, is
obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Business People
customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Business People customers groups have prefer more
design factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation groups show
any difference in their design. F-value (3.567) are significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with Business People group comparatively more prefer design than
other Occupation group.

140
 Table 4.33
F-test for brand related factors on the basis of Occupation
Brand related Standard Std. F-
Occupation N Mean P value
factors Deviation Error value
Homemakers 36 15.56 2.546 0.424
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 13.92 3.128 0.316
Business People 35 15.71 3.006 0.508
0.009
Brand Name Software Engineers 217 14.94 3.270 0.222 3.130
(S)
Professionals 44 14.39 2.911 0.439
Students 90 15.27 3.284 0.346
Total 520 14.85 3.187 0.140
Homemakers 36 14.81 2.786 0.464
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 14.83 3.050 0.308
Business People 35 14.89 2.763 0.467
0.298
Brand Trust Software Engineers 217 15.24 3.255 0.221 1.221
(NS)
Professionals 44 15.73 3.113 0.469
Students 90 15.74 3.391 0.357
Total 520 15.24 3.172 0.139
Homemakers 36 11.11 2.660 0.443
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 10.73 2.885 0.291
Business People 35 10.34 2.155 0.364
0.673
Brand Affect Software Engineers 217 10.50 2.575 0.175 0.635
(NS)
Professionals 44 11.00 2.973 0.448
Students 90 10.72 2.535 0.267
Total 520 10.66 2.641 0.116
Homemakers 36 7.36 1.839 0.306
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 6.91 2.275 0.230
Business People 35 7.57 1.803 0.305
0.352
Brand Relevance Software Engineers 217 7.13 1.937 0.131 1.114
(NS)
Professionals 44 7.61 1.660 0.250
Students 90 7.13 2.235 0.236
Total 520 7.18 2.024 0.089
Homemakers 36 11.19 2.505 0.418
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 10.95 2.859 0.289
Business People 35 12.23 1.308 0.221
Band 0.004
Software Engineers 217 11.10 2.518 0.171 3.497
Performance (S)
Professionals 44 11.84 2.505 0.378
Students 90 10.40 2.767 0.292
Total 520 11.10 2.600 0.114
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

141
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Occupation of the
respondents on brand related factors.
The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of brand related factors on the
basis of their Occupation. To find out if there is any difference of brand related factors
among the customers based on their Occupation, F-test was applied. The Mean, SD,
SEM and F-test computed for six Occupation groups for the scores of brand related
factors are furnished in Table 4.33.

Bath soap brand name is important influence factors the Homemakers

customers have (mean=15.56) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
3.130, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Homemakers customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Homemakers customers group have
prefer more brand name factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The
Occupation groups show any difference in their brand name. F-value (3.130) are
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Homemakers group comparatively
more prefer brand name than other Occupation group.

Bath soap brand trust is important influence factors the Students have
(mean=15.74) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The difference
between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value 1.221, is
obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Students have
more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Students have prefer more brand trust factors than other
Occupation groups is accepted. The Occupation groups show any no difference in
their brand trust. F-value (1.221) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s
with Students group comparatively more prefer brand trust than other Occupation
group.

Bath soap brand affect is important influence factors the Homemakers

customers have (mean=11.11) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
0.635, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the

142
Homemakers customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Homemakers customers groups have
prefer more brand affect factors than other Occupation groups is accepted. The
Occupation groups show any no difference in their brand affect. F-value (0.635) are
not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Homemakers group
comparatively more prefer brand affect than other Occupation group.

Bath soap brand relevance is important influence factors the Professionals

customers have (mean=7.61) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
1.114, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Professionals customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Professionals customers groups have
prefer more brand relevance factors than other Occupation groups is accepted. The
Occupation groups show any no difference in their brand relevance. F-value
(1.114) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Professionals group
comparatively more prefer brand relevance than other Occupation group.

Bath soap band performance is important influence factors the Business

People customers have (mean=12.23) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 3.497, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Business People have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Business People customers groups have prefer more
band performance factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation
groups show any difference in their brand performance. F-value (3.497) are
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Business People group
comparatively more prefer band performance than other Occupation group.

143
 Table 4.34
F-test for customer purchase related factors on the basis of Occupation
Customer
Standard Std. F-
Purchase related Occupation N Mean P value
Deviation Error value
factors
Homemakers 36 10.50 2.731 0.455
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 9.82 2.845 0.342
Business People 35 10.52 3.339 0.352
0.386
Product Familiarity Software Engineers 217 9.15 2.349 0.442 1.052
(NS)
Professionals 44 10.21 2.924 0.334
Students 90 10.44 2.249 0.424
Total 520 10.75 2.865 0.126
Homemakers 36 21.17 4.088 0.681
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 23.37 3.851 0.389
Business People 35 22.11 5.301 0.896
Health 0.001
Software Engineers 217 21.21 3.488 0.237 4.570
Consciousness (S)
Professionals 44 22.27 5.032 0.759
Students 90 21.46 3.778 0.398
Total 520 21.81 4.004 0.176
Homemakers 36 19.36 3.261 0.544
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 18.27 3.822 0.386
Business People 35 17.83 3.937 0.665
0.017
Commitment Software Engineers 217 17.73 4.152 0.282 2.785
(S)
Professionals 44 19.84 4.482 0.676
Students 90 17.90 4.111 0.433
Total 520 18.16 4.079 0.179
Homemakers 36 17.61 4.390 0.732
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 16.93 4.349 0.439
Business People 35 17.60 3.060 0.517
0.001
Repeat Purchase Software Engineers 217 16.66 4.104 0.279 5.397
(S)
Professionals 44 19.80 3.100 0.467
Students 90 17.81 3.126 0.330
Total 520 17.30 3.964 0.174
Homemakers 36 17.44 4.067 0.678
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 18.17 3.961 0.400
Business People 35 18.46 3.062 0.517
0.072
Purchase Decision Software Engineers 217 18.76 3.569 0.242 2.037
(NS)
Professionals 44 18.80 3.567 0.536
Students 90 19.47 3.831 0.404
Total 520 18.66 3.715 0.163
S – Significant NS – Not Significant
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Occupation of the
respondents on purchase related factors.

144
 The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of purchase related factors on the
basis of their Occupation. To find out if there is any difference of purchase related
factors among the customers based on their Occupation, F-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for six Occupation groups for the scores of
purchase related factors are furnished in Table 4.34.
Bath soap product familiarity is important influence factors the Business
People customers have (mean=10.52) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 1.052, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that
the Business People customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Business People customers group have
prefer more product familiarity factors than other Occupation groups is accepted. The
Occupation groups show any no difference in their product familiarity. F-value
(1.052) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Business People
group comparatively more prefer product familiarity than other Occupation group.

Bath soap health consciousness is important influence factors the Pvt/Govt

Employees customers have (mean=23.37) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 4.570, is obtained since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Pvt/Govt Employees customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups
is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Pvt/Govt Employees customers group
have prefer more health consciousness factors than other Occupation groups is
rejected. The Occupation groups show any difference in their health consciousness. F-
value (4.570) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Pvt/Govt
Employees group comparatively more prefer health consciousness than other
Occupation group.

Bath soap commitment is important influence factors the Professionals

customers have (mean=19.84) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.785, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Professionals customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is

145
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Professionals customers groups have
prefer more commitment factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The
Occupation groups show any difference in their commitment. F-value (2.785) are
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Professionals group comparatively
more prefer commitment than other Occupation group.

Bath soap repeat purchase is important influence factors the Professionals

customers have (mean=19.80) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
5.397, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Professionals have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Professionals customers groups have prefer more
repeat purchase factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation
groups show any difference in their repeat purchase. F-value (5.397) are significant.
Thus it is evident that customer’s with Professionals group comparatively more prefer
repeat purchase than other Occupation group.

Bath soap purchase decision is important influence factors the Students have
(mean=19.47) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The difference
between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value 2.037, is
obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Students have
more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Students groups have prefer more purchase decision factors than
other Occupation groups is accepted. The Occupation groups show any no difference
in their purchase decision. F-value (2.037) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Students group comparatively more prefer purchase decision than
other Occupation group.

146
 Table 4.35
F-test for customer psychological related factors on the basis of Occupation
Customer
Standard Std. F-
Psychological Occupation N Mean P value
Deviation Error value
related factors
Homemakers 36 14.56 2.730 0.455
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 13.90 2.749 0.278
Business People 35 13.69 3.419 0.578
Product Software Engineers 217 13.94 3.349 0.227 0.001
5.677
Involvement (S)
Professionals 44 15.27 2.999 0.452
Students 90 15.68 2.788 0.294
Total 520 14.37 3.154 0.138
Homemakers 36 37.17 4.385 0.731
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 36.60 6.360 0.642
Business People 35 34.23 5.391 0.911
Customer Software Engineers 217 36.70 5.080 0.345 0.236
1.366
Satisfaction (NS)
Professionals 44 36.45 6.067 0.915
Students 90 35.33 5.392 0.842
Total 520 36.42 5.656 0.248
Homemakers 36 14.21 3.421 0.543
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 14.82 3.241 0.482
Business People 35 15.00 3.272 0.553
Relationship Software Engineers 217 15.12 2.671 0.181 0.001
5.069
Proneness (S)
Professionals 44 14.18 3.559 0.536
Students 90 14.10 3.471 0.366
Total 520 14.67 3.276 0.144
Homemakers 36 14.94 2.484 0.414
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 14.18 3.134 0.317
Business People 35 14.17 2.673 0.452
0.023
Perceived Value Software Engineers 217 14.25 3.080 0.209 2.627
(S)
Professionals 44 15.32 3.646 0.550
Students 90 15.32 2.922 0.308
Total 520 14.56 3.077 0.135
Homemakers 36 15.36 2.543 0.424
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 13.71 3.334 0.337
Business People 35 16.54 2.873 0.486
Software Engineers 217 13.92 3.079 0.209 0.001
Culture/ Habit 5.733
(S)
Professionals 44 14.30 3.253 0.490
Students 90 14.69 3.665 0.386
Total 520 14.32 3.278 0.144
Homemakers 36 13.92 3.451 0.575
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 14.67 3.428 0.346
Business People 35 14.97 2.905 0.491
Perceived Software Engineers 217 15.26 2.944 0.200 0.105
1.830
Quality (NS)
Professionals 44 14.25 3.074 0.463
Students 90 15.31 4.085 0.431
Total 520 14.96 3.316 0.145
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

147
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Occupation of the
respondents on psychological related factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of psychological related factors
on the basis of their Occupation. To find out if there is any difference of
psychological related factors among the customers based on their Occupation, F-test
was applied. The Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for six Occupation groups for
the scores of psychological related factors are furnished in Table 4.35.

Bath soap product involvement is important influence factors the Students

have (mean=15.68) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The difference
between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value 5.677, is
obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Students have
more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Students group have prefer more product involvement factors than
other Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation groups show any difference in
their Product Involvement. F-value (5.677) are significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Business People group comparatively more prefer product
involvement than other Occupation group.

Bath soap customer satisfaction is important influence factors the

Homemakers customers have (mean=37.17) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 1.366, is obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that
the Homemakers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Homemakers customers group have prefer more
customer satisfaction factors than other Occupation groups is accepted. The
Occupation groups show any no difference in their customer satisfaction. F-value
(1.366) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Homemakers group
comparatively more prefer customer satisfaction than other Occupation group.

Bath soap relationship proneness is important influence factors the Software

Engineers customers have (mean=15.12) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 5.069, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Software Engineers customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is

148
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Software Engineers customers groups
have prefer more relationship proneness factors than other Occupation groups is
rejected. The Occupation groups show any no difference in their relationship
proneness. F-value (5.069) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Software Engineers group comparatively more prefer relationship proneness than
other Occupation group.

Bath soap perceived value is important influence factors the Professionals

customers have (mean=15.32) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.627, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Professionals have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Professionals customers groups have prefer more
perceived value factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation
groups show any difference in their perceived value. F-value (2.627) are significant.
Thus it is evident that customer’s with Professionals group comparatively more prefer
perceived value than other Occupation group.

Bath soap culture/ habit is important influence factors the Business People
customers have (mean=16.54) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
5.733, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Business
People have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed. Therefore,
the hypothesis that the Business People customers groups have prefer more culture/
habit factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation groups show
any difference in their culture/ habit. F-value (5.733) are significant. Thus it is
evident that customer’s with Business People group comparatively more prefer
culture/ habit than other Occupation group.

Bath soap perceived quality is important influence factors the Students have
(mean=15.31) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The difference
between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value 1.830, is
obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Students have
more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Students groups have prefer more perceived quality factors than
other Occupation groups is accepted. The Occupation groups show any difference in

149
 their perceived quality. F-value (1.830) are not significant. Thus it is evident that
customer’s with Students group comparatively more prefer perceived quality than
other Occupation group.

Table 4.36

t-test for selling strategies factors on the basis of Occupation

Selling
Standard Std. F-
strategies Occupation N Mean P value
Deviation Error value
factors
Homemakers 36 11.06 2.540 0.423
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 10.22 2.522 0.255
Business People 35 12.34 1.939 0.328
Store 0.001
Software Engineers 217 11.13 2.373 0.161 7.096
Environment (S)
Professionals 44 10.84 2.439 0.368
Students 90 12.01 2.433 0.256
Total 520 11.16 2.473 0.108
Homemakers 36 7.00 2.280 0.380
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 7.05 1.755 0.177
Business People 35 8.03 1.992 0.337
0.001
Advertising Software Engineers 217 7.09 1.825 0.124 5.358
(S)
Professionals 44 7.14 1.773 0.267
Students 90 8.04 1.614 0.170
Total 520 7.31 1.858 0.081
Homemakers 36 6.75 2.062 0.344
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 7.62 1.659 0.168
Business People 35 6.05 1.392 0.182
0.043
Price Software Engineers 217 7.83 1.492 0.224 2.310
(S)
Professionals 44 7.62 1.886 0.421
Students 90 7.18 1.479 0.342
Total 520 7.53 1.736 0.076
Homemakers 36 20.64 3.523 0.587
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 22.69 3.571 0.361
Business People 35 21.80 3.420 0.578
Promotional 0.001(S
Software Engineers 217 20.24 4.326 0.294 6.278
Offer )
Professionals 44 22.11 4.790 0.722
Students 90 21.87 3.913 0.412
Total 520 21.28 4.159 0.182
S – Significant NS – Not Significant

150
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Occupation of the
respondents on selling strategies factors.

The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of selling strategies factors on the
basis of their Occupation. To find out if there is any difference of selling strategies
factors among the customers based on their Occupation, F-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for six Occupation groups for the scores of
selling strategies factors are furnished in Table 4.36.
Bath soap store environment is important influence factors the Business
People customers have (mean=12.34) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 7.096, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Business People customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Business People customers group have
prefer more store environment factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The
Occupation groups show any difference in their store environment. F-value (7.096)
are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Business People group
comparatively more prefer store environment than other Occupation group.

Bath soap advertising is important influence factors the Students have

(mean=8.04) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The difference
between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value 5.358, is
obtained since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Students have
more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Students group have prefer more advertising factors than other
Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation groups show any difference in their
advertising. F-value (8.04) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with
Students group comparatively more prefer advertising than other Occupation group.

Bath soap price is important influence factors the Software Engineers

customers have (mean=7.83) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these four groups is supported applying the computed F-value
2.310, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Software Engineers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Software Engineers customers groups

151
have prefer more price factors than other Occupation groups is accepted. The
Occupation groups show any no difference in their price. F-value (2.310) are not
significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Software Engineers group
comparatively more prefer price than other Occupation group.

Bath soap promotional offer is important influence factors the Pvt/Govt

Employees customers have (mean=22.69) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 6.278, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Pvt/Govt Employees customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups
is confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Pvt/Govt Employees customers
groups have prefer more promotional offer factors than other Occupation groups is
rejected. The Occupation groups show any difference in their promotional offer. F-
value (6.278) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Pvt/Govt
Employees group comparatively more prefer promotional offer than other Occupation
group.

152
 Table 4.37
F-test for loyalty based factors on the basis of Occupation
Loyalty based Standard Std. F-
Occupation N Mean P value
factors Deviation Error value
Homemakers 36 18.28 4.347 0.724
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 17.61 3.560 0.360
Business People 35 18.86 2.746 0.464
Loyalty 0.001
Software Engineers 217 17.19 3.477 0.236 5.219
Proneness (S)
Professionals 44 17.30 4.289 0.647
Students 90 19.27 3.434 0.362
Total 520 17.83 3.655 0.160
Homemakers 36 35.64 5.807 0.968
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 36.48 5.162 0.521
Business People 35 40.69 3.252 0.550
Software Engineers 217 37.18 6.250 0.424 0.001
Brand Loyalty 4.035
(S)
Professionals 44 37.43 7.164 1.080
Students 90 35.90 5.685 0.599
Total 520 36.98 5.944 0.261
Homemakers 36 19.31 2.827 0.471
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 18.07 3.605 0.364
Business People 35 16.17 3.063 0.518
Switching Cost Software Engineers 217 17.37 3.365 0.228 0.001
5.429
Risk Aversion (S)
Professionals 44 18.36 3.906 0.589
Students 90 18.89 4.001 0.422
Total 520 17.90 3.599 0.158
Homemakers 36 11.42 3.102 0.517
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 10.80 2.754 0.278
Business People 35 11.00 2.339 0.395
Cognitive 0.209
Software Engineers 217 11.10 2.518 0.171 1.438
Loyalty (COG) (NS)
Professionals 44 11.02 2.766 0.417
Students 90 10.29 3.188 0.336
Total 520 10.91 2.747 0.120
Homemakers 36 12.31 2.162 0.360
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 11.07 2.537 0.256
Business People 35 11.40 1.594 0.269
Affective Software Engineers 217 11.55 2.661 0.181 0.009
3.100
Loyalty (AFF) (S)
Professionals 44 10.23 2.614 0.394
Students 90 11.19 3.068 0.323
Total 520 11.33 2.649 0.116
Homemakers 36 11.42 2.118 0.121
Pvt/Govt Employees 98 11.82 2.922 0.242
Business People 35 11.09 2.149 0.345
Conative Software Engineers 217 11.56 2.826 0.192 0.187
1.502
Loyalty (CON) (NS)
Professionals 44 11.89 1.833 0.276
Students 90 10.82 2.625 0.277
Total 520 11.35 2.712 0.119
S – Significant NS – Not Significant
Ho: There is no significant mean difference between the Occupation of the
respondents on loyalty based factors.

153
 The mean, SD, SEM and F-test for the scores of loyalty based factors on the
basis of their Occupation. To find out if there is any difference of loyalty based
factors among the customers based on their Occupation, F-test was applied. The
Mean, SD, SEM and F-test computed for six Occupation groups for the scores of
loyalty based factors are furnished in Table 4.37.
Bath soap loyalty proneness is important influence factors the Students have
(mean=19.27) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The difference
between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value 5.219, is
obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Students have
more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed. Therefore, the
hypothesis that the Students have prefer more loyalty proneness factors than other
Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation groups show any difference in their
loyalty proneness. F-value (5.219) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s
with Students group comparatively more prefer loyalty proneness than other
Occupation group.

Bath soap brand loyalty is important influence factors the Business People
customers have (mean=40.69) higher mean value than other Occupation groups. The
difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed F-value
4.035, is obtained since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the Business
People have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed. Therefore,
the hypothesis that the Business People customers group have prefer more brand
loyalty factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The Occupation groups show
any difference in their brand loyalty. F-value (4.035) are significant. Thus it is evident
that customer’s with Business People group comparatively more prefer brand loyalty
than other Occupation group.

Bath soap switching cost risk aversion is important influence factors the
Homemakers customers have (mean=19.31) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 5.429, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Homemakers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Homemakers customers groups have prefer more

154
switching cost risk aversion factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The
Occupation groups show any difference in their switching cost risk aversion. F-value
(5.429) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Homemakers group
comparatively more prefer switching cost risk aversion than other Occupation group.

Bath soap cognitive loyalty (COG) is important influence factors the

Homemakers customers have (mean=11.42) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 1.438, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that
the Homemakers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Homemakers customers groups have prefer more
cognitive loyalty (COG) factors than other Occupation groups is accepted. The
Occupation groups show any no difference in their cognitive loyalty (COG). F-value
(1.438) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Homemakers group
comparatively more prefer cognitive loyalty (COG) than other Occupation group.

Bath soap affective loyalty (AFF) is important influence factors the

Homemakers customers have (mean=12.31) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 3.100, is obtained, since p value is significant. Hence, the hypothesis that the
Homemakers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is confirmed.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Homemakers customers groups have prefer more
affective loyalty (AFF) factors than other Occupation groups is rejected. The
Occupation groups show any difference in their affective loyalty (AFF). F-value
(3.100) are significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Homemakers group
comparatively more prefer affective loyalty (AFF) than other Occupation group.

Bath soap conative loyalty (CON) is important influence factors the

Professionals customers have (mean=11.89) higher mean value than other Occupation
groups. The difference between these six groups is supported applying the computed
F-value 1.502, is obtained, since p value is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis that
the Professionals customers have more mean score than other Occupation groups is
confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Professionals customers groups have
prefer more conative loyalty (CON) factors than other Occupation groups is accepted.

155
 The Occupation groups show any no difference in their conative loyalty (CON). F-
value (1.502) are not significant. Thus it is evident that customer’s with Professionals
group comparatively more prefer conative loyalty (CON) than other Occupation
group.

Table 4.38
Showing the Chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on the basis of their age

S. Cognitive loyalty
Age Total
No. Low Moderate High

Less than 20 45 16 73
1. 12 (2.3%)
years (8.7%) (3.1%) (14.0%)

21-30 years 218 334

2. 36 (6.9%) 80 (15.4%)
old (41.9%) (64.2%)

31-40 years 16 84
3. 40 (7.7%) 28 (5.4%)
old (3.1%) (16.2%)

More than 40 2 21 6
4. 29 (5.6%)
years old (0.4%) (4.0%) (1.2%)

66 324 520
Total 130 (25.0%)
(12.7%) (62.3%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

12.044 6 0.061 Not Significant

Ho: There is an association between cognitive loyalty on the basis of their age.

156
 The table shows that chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on the basis of their
age. It is observed from the table that the 6.9% of them are low cognitive loyalty,
41.9% of them are moderate cognitive loyalty and 15.4% of them are high cognitive
loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate cognitive loyalty than other
groups.

The calculated chi-square value (12.044) is also proved that, is obtained, since
p value is not significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is rejected. So, there is no
association between cognitive loyalty on the basis of their age.

Table 4.39
Showing the Chi-square test for affective loyalty on the basis of their age

S. Affective loyalty
Age Total
No. Low Moderate High

Less than 20 17 28 28 73
1.
years (3.3%) (5.4%) (5.4%) (14.0%)

21-30 years 184 112 334

2. 38 (7.3%)
old (35.4%) (21.5%) (64.2%)

31-40 years 49 25 84
3. 10 (1.9%)
old (9.4%) (4.8%) (16.2%)

More than 40 2 16
4. 11 (2.1%) 29 (5.6%)
years old (0.4%) (3.1%)

67 277 520
Total 176 (33.8%)
(12.9%) (53.3%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

12.275 6 0.056 Significant

Ho: There is an association between affective loyalty on the basis of their age.

157
 The table shows that chi-square test for affective loyalty on the basis of their
age. It is observed from the table that the 7.3% of them are low affective loyalty,
35.4% of them are moderate affective loyalty and 21.5% of them are high affective
loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate cognitive loyalty than other
groups.

The calculated chi-square value (12.275) is also proved that, is obtained, since
p value is significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is accepted. So, there is an
association between affective loyalty on the basis of their age.

Table 4.40
Showing the Chi-square test for conative loyalty on the basis of their age

S. Conative loyalty
Age Total
No. Low Moderate High

Less than 20 6 48 73
1. 19 (3.7%)
years (1.2%) (9.2%) (14.0%)

21-30 years 46 162 126 334

2.
old (8.8%) (31.2%) (24.2%) (64.2%)
31-40 years 4 84
3. 50 (9.6%) 30 (5.8%)
old (0.8%) (16.2%)
More than 40 19
4. 0 10 (1.9%) 29 (5.6%)
years old (3.7%)

56 279 520
Total 185 (35.6%)
(10.8%) (53.7%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

16.434 6 0.012 Significant

Ho: There is an association between conative loyalty on the basis of their age.

158
 The table shows that chi-square test for conative loyalty on the basis of their
age. It is observed from the table that the 8.8% of them are low conative loyalty,
31.2% of them are moderate conative loyalty and 24.2% of them are high conative
loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate conative loyalty than other groups.

The calculated chi-square value (16.434) is also proved that, is obtained, since
p value is significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is accepted. So, there is an
association between conative loyalty on the basis of their age.

Table 4.41
Showing the Chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on the basis of their education

S. Cognitive loyalty
Education Total
No. Low Moderate High

16 40 24 80
1. SSLC/HSc
(3.1%) (7.7%) (4.6%) (15.4%)

Degree/ 15 95 54 164
2.
Diploma (2.9%) (18.3%) (10.4%) (31.5%)

PG/ 35 189 52 276

3.
Professional (6.7%) (36.3%) (10.0%) (53.1%)

66 324 130 520

Total
(12.7%) (62.3%) (25.0%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

18.238 4 0.001 Significant

Ho: There is an association between cognitive loyalty on the basis of their education.
The table shows that chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on the basis of their
education. It is observed from the table that the 6.7% of them are low cognitive
loyalty, 36.3% of them are moderate cognitive loyalty and 10.4% of them are high
cognitive loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate cognitive loyalty than
other groups.

159
 The calculated chi-square value (18.238) is also proved that, is obtained, since
p value is significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is accepted. So, there is an
association between cognitive loyalty on the basis of their education.

Table 4.42
Showing the Chi-square test for affective loyalty on the basis of their education

S. Affective loyalty
Education Total
No. Low Moderate High

19 34 27 80
1. SSLC/HSc
(3.7%) (6.5%) (5.2%) (15.4%)

Degree/ 18 67 79 164
2.
Diploma (3.5%) (12.9%) (15.2%) (31.5%)

PG/ 30 176 70 276

3.
Professional (5.8%) (33.8%) (13.5%) (53.1%)

67 277 520
Total 176 (33.8%)
(12.9%) (53.3%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

36.674 4 0.001 Significant

160
Ho: There is an association between affective loyalty on the basis of their education.

The table shows that chi-square test for affective loyalty on the basis of their
education. It is observed from the table that the 5.8% of them are low affective
loyalty, 33.8% of them are moderate affective loyalty and 15.2% of them are high
affective loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate cognitive loyalty than
other groups.

The calculated chi-square value (36.674) is also proved that, is obtained, since
p value is significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is accepted. So, there is an
association between affective loyalty on the basis of their education.

161
 Table 4.43
Showing the Chi-square test for conative loyalty on the basis of their education

S. Conative loyalty
Education Total
No. Low Moderate High

7 54 80
1. SSLC/HSc 19 (3.7%)
(1.3%) (10.4%) (15.4%)

Degree/ 69 74 164
2. 21 (4.0%)
Diploma (13.3%) (14.2%) (31.5%)

PG/ 156 92 276

3. 28 (5.4%)
Professional (30.0%) (17.7%) (53.1%)

56 279 185 520

Total
(10.8%) (53.7%) (35.6%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

16.150 4 0.003 Significant

162
Ho: There is an association between conative loyalty on the basis of their education.

The table shows that chi-square test for conative loyalty on the basis of their
education. It is observed from the table that the 5.4% of them are low conative
loyalty, 30.0% of them are moderate conative loyalty and 17.7% of them are high
conative loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate conative loyalty than
other groups.

The calculated chi-square value (16.150) is also proved that, is obtained, since
p value is significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is accepted. So, there is an
association between conative loyalty on the basis of their education.

163
 Table 4.44
Showing the Chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on the basis of their Monthly
income

S. Monthly Cognitive loyalty

Total
No. income Low Moderate High

Less than 14 53 82
1. 15 (2.9%)
Rs.15,000 (2.7%) (10.2%) (15.8%)

Rs.15001 to 139 231

2. 28 (5.4%) 64 (12.3%)
Rs.25,000 (26.7%) (44.4%)

Rs.25001 to 19 94 152
3. 39 (7.5%)
Rs.40,000 (3.7%) (18.1%) (29.2%)

Above 12 55
4. 5 (1.0%) 38 (7.3%)
Rs.40,000 (2.3%) (10.6%)

324 520
Total 66 (12.7%) 130 (25.0%)
(62.3%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

4.918 6 0.554 Not significant

164
Ho: There is an association between cognitive loyalty on the basis of their Monthly
income.

The table shows that chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on the basis of their
Monthly income. It is observed from the table that the 5.4% of them are low cognitive
loyalty, 26.7% of them are moderate cognitive loyalty and 12.3% of them are high
cognitive loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate cognitive loyalty than
other groups.

The calculated chi-square value (4.918) is also proved that, is obtained, since p
value is not significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is rejected. So, there is no
association between cognitive loyalty on the basis of their Monthly income.

165
 Table 4.45
Showing the Chi-square test for affective loyalty on the basis of their Monthly
income

S. Monthly Affective loyalty

Total
No. income Low Moderate High

Less than 53 20 82
1. 9 (1.7%)
Rs.15,000 (10.2%) (3.8%) (15.8%)

Rs.15001 to 33 114 84 231

2.
Rs.25,000 (6.3%) (21.9%) (16.2%) (44.4%)

Rs.25001 to 21 81 50 152
3.
Rs.40,000 (4.0%) (15.6%) (9.6%) (29.2%)

Above 29 22 55
4. 4 (0.8%)
Rs.40,000 (5.6%) (4.2%) (10.6%)

67 277 520
Total 176 (33.8%)
(12.9%) (53.3%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

7.943 6 0.242 Not significant

166
Ho: There is an association between affective loyalty on the basis of their Monthly
income.

The table shows that chi-square test for affective loyalty on the basis of their
Monthly income. It is observed from the table that the 6.3% of them are low affective
loyalty, 21.9% of them are moderate affective loyalty and 16.2% of them are high
affective loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate cognitive loyalty than
other groups.

The calculated chi-square value (7.943) is also proved that, is obtained, since p
value is not significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is rejected. So, there is no
association between affective loyalty on the basis of their Monthly income.

167
 Table 4.46
Showing the Chi-square test for conative loyalty on the basis of their Monthly
income

S. Monthly Conative loyalty

Total
No. income Low Moderate High

Less than 13 44 25 82
1.
Rs.15,000 (2.5%) (8.5%) (4.8%) (15.8%)

Rs.15001 to 127 72 231

2. 32 (6.2%)
Rs.25,000 (24.4%) (13.8%) (44.4%)

Rs.25001 to 11 80 61 152
3.
Rs.40,000 (2.1%) (15.4%) (11.7%) (29.2%)

Above 55
4. 0 28 (5.4%) 27 (5.2%)
Rs.40,000 (10.6%)

520
Total 56 (10.8%) 279 (53.7%) 185 (35.6%)
(100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

17.443 6 0.008 Significant

168
Ho: There is an association between conative loyalty on the basis of their Monthly
income.

The table shows that chi-square test for conative loyalty on the basis of their
Monthly income. It is observed from the table that the 6.2% of them are low conative
loyalty, 24.4% of them are moderate conative loyalty and 13.8% of them are high
conative loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate conative loyalty than
other groups.

The calculated chi-square value (17.443) is also proved that, is obtained, since
p value is significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is accepted. So, there is an
association between conative loyalty on the basis of their Monthly income.

169
 Table 4.47
Showing the Chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on the basis of their Occupation

S. Cognitive loyalty
Occupation Total
No. Low Moderate High

1. Homemakers 4 (0.8%) 16 (3.1%) 16 (3.1%) 36 (6.9%)

Pvt/Govt 12 62 98
2. 24 (4.6%)
Employees (2.3%) (11.9%) (18.8%)

2 27 6
3. Business People 35 (6.7%)
(0.4%) (5.2%) (1.2%)

Software 142 52 217

4. 23 (4.4%)
Engineers (27.3%) (10.0%) (41.7%)

7 21 16
5. Professionals 44 (8.5%)
(1.3%) (4.0%) (3.1%)

18 56 90
6. Students 16 (3.1%)
(3.5%) (10.8%) (17.3%)

324 520
Total 66 (12.7%) 130 (25.0%)
(62.3%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

21.823 10 0.016 Significant

170
Ho: There is an association between cognitive loyalty on the basis of their
Occupation.

The table shows that chi-square test for cognitive loyalty on the basis of their
Occupation. It is observed from the table that the 4.4% of them are low cognitive
loyalty, 27.3% of them are moderate cognitive loyalty and 10.0% of them are high
cognitive loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate cognitive loyalty than
other groups.

The calculated chi-square value (21.823) is also proved that, is obtained, since
p value is significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is accepted. So, there is an
association between cognitive loyalty on the basis of their Occupation.

171
 Table 4.48
Showing the Chi-square test for affective loyalty on the basis of their Occupation

S. Affective loyalty
Occupation Total
No. Low Moderate High

4
1. Homemakers 11 (2.1%) 21 (4.0%) 36 (6.9%)
(0.8%)

Pvt/Govt 14 58 98
2. 26 (5.0%)
Employees (2.7%) (11.2%) (18.8%)

27
3. Business People 0 8 (1.5%) 35 (6.7%)
(5.2%)

Software 81 217
4. 22 (4.2%) 114 (21.9%)
Engineers (15.6%) (41.7%)

27
5. Professionals 10 (1.9%) 7 (1.3%) 44 (8.5%)
(5.2%)

40 90
6. Students 17 (3.3%) 33 (6.3%)
(7.7%) (17.3%)

277 520
Total 67 (12.9%) 176 (33.8%)
(53.3%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

35.945 10 0.001 Significant

172
Ho: There is an association between affective loyalty on the basis of their Occupation.

The table shows that chi-square test for affective loyalty on the basis of their
Occupation. It is observed from the table that the 4.2% of them are low affective
loyalty, 21.9% of them are moderate affective loyalty and 15.6% of them are high
affective loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate cognitive loyalty than
other groups.

The calculated chi-square value (35.945) is also proved that, is obtained, since
p value is significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is accepted. So, there is an
association between affective loyalty on the basis of their Occupation.

173
 Table 4.49
Showing the Chi-square test for conative loyalty on the basis of their Occupation

S. Conative loyalty
Occupation Total
No. Low Moderate High

1. Homemakers 6 (1.2%) 16 (3.1%) 14 (2.7%) 36 (6.9%)

Pvt/Govt 58 98
2. 10 (1.9%) 30 (5.8%)
Employees (11.2%) (18.8%)

3. Business People 3 (0.6%) 19 (3.7%) 13 (2.5%) 35 (6.7%)

Software 99 89 217
4. 29 (5.6%)
Engineers (19.0%) (17.1%) (41.7%)

14
5. Professionals 0 30 (5.8%) 44 (8.5%)
(2.7%)

57 90
6. Students 8 (1.5%) 25 (4.8%)
(11.0%) (17.3%)

56 279 520
Total 185 (35.6%)
(10.8%) (53.7%) (100.0%)

Calculated chi- Significant

Degrees of freedom P Value
square value Level

19.112 10 0.039 Significant

174
Ho: There is an association between conative loyalty on the basis of their Occupation.

The table shows that chi-square test for conative loyalty on the basis of their
Occupation. It is observed from the table that the 5.6 of them are low conative loyalty,
19.0% of them are moderate conative loyalty and 17.1% of them are high conative
loyalty. So majority of the customers are moderate conative loyalty than other groups.

The calculated chi-square value (19.112) is also proved that, is obtained, since
p value is significant. Hence the stated hypothesis is accepted. So, there is an
association between conative loyalty on the basis of their Occupation.

Path Analysis
A key idea in path analysis is that path effect coefficients can be used to
estimate the empirical correlation among variables in the system. The figure shows
path diagram representing the causal relationship presumed to underline the
calculations reported in table 4.50 and 4.51. The path analysis model shows the effect
of product related factors of the customers brand loyalty toward bath soap. The
decomposition of the association of the independent variables with product, brand,
customer purchase, customer psychological, selling strategies and loyalty based
factors given in Table 4.50 reveals the direct and indirect effect among the customers
and related to independent variables.

Table 4.50
Decomposition of association between dependent and independent variables
Type of Effect
Customers brand
Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect
loyalty
Product related factors -0.068 0.442 -0.1024
Brand related factors 0.459 -0.279 0.5769
Customer purchase
0.224 0.342 0.1436
related factors

175
 Customer psychological
0.342 -0.421 0.3415
related factor
Selling strategies factors -0.241 0.214 0.2417
Loyalty based factors 0.334 0.316 0.3142
Source: Primary data.

Table 4.50 shows that among the six groups of factors, customers Brand
related factors is highly correlated (0.576) with brand loyalty when compared with
other. Because they brand awareness more with the customers.

It is revealed that the customers at before purchase path soap have consulted
the brand name, quality and price of the product.

Table 4.51
The network relationship of X2, X3, X5, X4 and X6 with X1
Path direction Path co-efficient
X1 → X2 -0.082
X2→X3→X1 0.434
X3→X1 0.472
X3→X4→X1 0.278
X4→X1 0.245
X4→X5→X1 0.282
X4→X1 0.247
X5→X6→X1 0.275
X5→X1 0.248

Product Customer Selling Loyalty

Brand related Customer
related Psychological strategies based
factors Purchase related
factors related factors factors factors

CUSTOMERS
BRAND LOYALTY

Diagram 1 Input Path Diagram representing a Proposed Causal Model

176
 Regarding the network relationship the path direction and path co-efficient are
clearly shown. X1 → X2 shows negative. But X2 → X3 → X1 shows positive and X3 →
X1 also positive both are significant. So customers brand loyalty are directly related to
other six factors. Path diagram indicates that customers brand loyalty is directly
related to other factors. In this analysis, r2 = 0.459 significantly indicates positive and
appears with the similar result that exists. Therefore, it is concluded that brand loyalty
has greater impact in the other related factors.

Table 4.52
Correlation analysis for Product related factors on Demographic Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.135*

Age 0.379**

Marital status 0.227**

Education 0.325**

Monthly income 0.244**

Occupation 0.365**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between product related factors
on the basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a positive and
significant correlation between product related factors on the basis of their
demographic variables.

177
 Table 4.53
Correlation analysis for Brand related factors on Demographic Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.235**

Age 0.382**

Marital status 0.242**

Education 0.317**

Monthly income 0.248**

Occupation 0.224**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between brand related factors on
the basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a positive and
significant correlation between brand related factors on the basis of their demographic
variables.

178
 Table 4.54
Correlation analysis for customer purchase related factors on Demographic
Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.272**

Age 0.314**

Marital status 0.262**

Education 0.343**

Monthly income 0.245**

Occupation 0.227**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between customer purchase

related factors on the basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a
positive and significant correlation between customer purchase related factors on the
basis of their demographic variables.

179
 Table 4.55
Correlation analysis for customer psychological related factor on Demographic
Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.282**

Age 0.362**

Marital status 0.255**

Education 0.347**

Monthly income 0.248**

Occupation 0.242**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between customer psychological

related factor on the basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a
positive and significant correlation between customer psychological related factor on
the basis of their demographic variables.

180
 Table 4.56
Correlation analysis for selling strategies factors on Demographic Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.342**

Age 0.354**

Marital status 0.257**

Education 0.349**

Monthly income 0.224**

Occupation 0.248**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between selling strategies

factors on the basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a
positive and significant correlation between selling strategies factors on the basis of
their demographic variables.

181
 Table 4.57
Correlation analysis for loyalty based factors on Demographic Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.272**

Age 0.309**

Marital status 0.202**

Education 0.241**

Monthly income 0.239**

Occupation 0.255**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between loyalty based factors on
the basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a positive and
significant correlation between loyalty based factors on the basis of their demographic
variables.

182
 Table 4.58
Correlation analysis for recreation hedonistic on Demographic Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.128*

Age 0.249**

Marital status 0.217**

Education 0.335**

Monthly income 0.248**

Occupation 0.372**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between recreation hedonistic

on the basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a positive and
significant correlation between recreation hedonistic on the basis of their demographic
variables.

183
 Table 4.59
Correlation analysis for Brand fashion on Demographic Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.219**

Age 0.345**

Marital status 0.274**

Education 0.339**

Monthly income 0.224**

Occupation 0.219**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between Brand fashion on the
basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a positive and
significant correlation between Brand fashion on the basis of their demographic
variables.

184
 Table 4.60
Correlation analysis for perfectives on Demographic Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.264**

Age 0.287**

Marital status 0.214**

Education 0.292**

Monthly income 0.205**

Occupation 0.249**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between perfectiveism factors

on the basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a positive and
significant correlation between perfectiveism on the basis of their demographic
variables.

185
 Table 4.61
Correlation analysis for habit brand loyalty on Demographic Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.209**

Age 0.381**

Marital status 0.247**

Education 0.333**

Monthly income 0.234**

Occupation 0.222**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between habit brand loyalty on
the basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a positive and
significant correlation between habit brand loyalty on the basis of their demographic
variables.

186
 Table 4.62
Correlation analysis for confused by over choice on Demographic Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.272**

Age 0.222**

Marital status 0.219**

Education 0.282**

Monthly income 0.214**

Occupation 0.298**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between confused by over

choice on the basis of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a
positive and significant correlation between confused by over choice on the basis of
their demographic variables.

187
 Table 4.63
Correlation analysis for price value on Demographic Variables

Demographic Variables r value

Gender 0.217**

Age 0.382**

Marital status 0.214**

Education 0.231**

Monthly income 0.277**

Occupation 0.200**

** Correlation is significant at the 1% level

The above table shows significant correlation between price value on the basis
of their demographic variables. Result shows that there is a positive and significant
correlation between price value on the basis of their demographic variables.

188
 Table 4.64
Regression analysis for product related factors vs customer satisfaction
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R R Square Square the Estimate

1 .365a .133 .125 5.291

a. Predictors: (Constant), Desi, Proqu, Inno, Style, Comp

ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 2214.080 5 442.816 15.818 .000a

Residual 14388.844 514 27.994

Total 16602.923 519

a. Predictors: (Constant), Desi, Proqu, Inno, Style, Comp

b. Dependent Variable: Custsati

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 22.224 2.208 10.067 .000

Proqu .387 .080 .211 4.858 .000

Style -.076 .086 -.039 -.884 .377

Inno -.057 .083 -.029 -.691 .490

Comp .431 .074 .257 5.809 .000

Desi .169 .077 .097 2.185 .029

a. Dependent Variable: Custsati

189
Regression analysis predicting product related factors.
The results of regression analysis such as cumulative R2, adjusted R square,
step t and p value have been given in table 4.64. An attempt was made to find out
whether the variables product quality, style / flavours, innovativeness, component and
design would be possible predictors of customer satisfaction. The results predicate
that the due five variables are significant in predicting the customer satisfaction. The
first variable is product quality to predict the customer satisfaction (Significant, since
p value is significant, (t cal 4.858<0.01). The second variable is component to predict
the customer satisfaction (Significant, since p value is significant, (t cal 5.809<0.01).
The third variable is design to predict the customer satisfaction (Significant, since p
value is significant, (t cal 2.185<0.01). The calculated F-Value (15.818) is significant
shows that the product related factors variables significantly contribute to the
customer satisfaction.

Table 4.65
Regression analysis for brand related factors vs customer satisfaction

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R R Square Square the Estimate

1 .254a .064 .055 5.498

a. Predictors: (Constant), Branper, Brantrus, Braname,

Branaff, Branrele

ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 1068.525 5 213.705 7.071 .000a

Residual 15534.398 514 30.223

Total 16602.923 519

190
 ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 1068.525 5 213.705 7.071 .000a

Residual 15534.398 514 30.223

Total 16602.923 519

a. Predictors: (Constant), Branper, Brantrus, Braname, Branaff,

Branrele
b. Dependent Variable: Custsati

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 26.418 1.885 14.012 .000

Braname .272 .077 .154 3.516 .000

Brantrus .223 .080 .125 2.782 .006

Branaff .056 .099 .026 .564 .573

Branrele .293 .135 .105 2.174 .030

Branper -.012 .097 -.006 -.125 .901

a. Dependent Variable: Custsati

191
Regression analysis predicting brand related factors
The results of regression analysis such as cumulative R2, adjusted R square,
step t and p value have been given in table 4.65. An attempt was made to find out
whether the variables brand name, brand trust, brand affect, brand relevance and
brand performance would be possible predictors of customer satisfaction. The results
predicate that the due five variables are significant in predicting the customer
satisfaction. The first variable is brand name to predict the customer satisfaction
(Significant, since p value is significant, (t cal 3.516<0.01). The second variable is
brand trust to predict the customer satisfaction (Significant, since p value is
significant, (t cal 2.782<0.01). The third variable is brand relevance to predict the
customer satisfaction (Significant, since p value is significant, (t cal 2.174<0.01). The
calculated F-Value (7.071) is significant shows that the brand related factors variables
significantly contribute to the customer satisfaction.

192
 Table 4.66
Factor analysis for brand attributes

Communalities

Initial Extraction

Quality of the soap 1.000 .648

Product design and style 1.000 .799

Attractive flavours 1.000 .659

Brand name of the bath soap 1.000 .742

Price of the soap 1.000 .760

Colour of the soap 1.000 .666

Packing material and method 1.000 .726

Innovativeness of product 1.000 .722

Product familiarity 1.000 .715

Health conscious aspects 1.000 .686

Promotional offers 1.000 .655

Brand trust 1.000 .710

Advertising in various media 1.000 .703

Performance of the bath soap brand 1.000 .687

Availability of brand 1.000 .746

Durability of product 1.000 .550

Lather / Spume / Bubbles 1.000 .612

TFM content 1.000 .644

International Impact 1.000 .658

Fit for all members in the family 1.000 .671

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

193
 Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Comp % of Cumulative % of Cumulative

onent Total Variance % Total Variance %

1 2.838 14.192 14.192 2.838 14.192 14.192

2 2.263 11.313 25.506 2.263 11.313 25.506
3 2.059 10.296 35.802 2.059 10.296 35.802
4 1.885 9.426 45.227 1.885 9.426 45.227
5 1.440 7.199 52.427 1.440 7.199 52.427
6 1.233 6.167 58.593 1.233 6.167 58.593
7 1.024 5.120 63.713 1.024 5.120 63.713
8 1.016 5.082 68.796 1.016 5.082 68.796
9 .856 4.279 73.075
10 .767 3.836 76.910
11 .724 3.621 80.532
12 .616 3.081 83.613
13 .541 2.705 86.318
14 .516 2.579 88.898
15 .476 2.382 91.279
16 .448 2.241 93.521
17 .379 1.894 95.415
18 .348 1.738 97.152
19 .289 1.444 98.597
20 .281 1.403 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis.

194
 Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Quality of the soap .269 -.134 .263 .102 .507 .328 .336 .014
Product design and style .370 -.216 .337 .230 .267 .366 -.465 -.167
Attractive flavours .440 -.153 .422 .126 .264 .109 -.348 .213
Brand name of the bath
.265 -.058 .745 .089 .028 -.019 .284 .153
soap
Price of the soap .427 -.038 .446 -.031 -.316 -.168 .348 .358
Colour of the soap .501 -.243 .146 .168 -.408 -.337 -.159 -.023
Packing material and
.693 -.245 -.236 .128 -.073 -.283 .005 -.169
method
Innovativeness of
.564 -.410 -.386 .126 .064 -.093 .151 -.189
product
Product familiarity .457 -.436 -.507 -.021 .212 .001 .113 .040
Health conscious aspects .373 .047 -.480 -.152 .080 .435 .248 .183
Promotional offers .531 .345 -.101 -.261 -.244 .219 -.260 .018
Brand trust .406 .616 -.098 -.307 -.094 .221 .066 .021
Advertising in various
.507 .507 .093 -.220 -.287 .023 -.051 -.216
media
Performance of the bath
.161 .519 .119 -.365 .442 -.178 .065 -.119
soap brand
Availability of brand .156 .361 -.029 -.035 .565 -.504 -.055 -.116
Durability of product .133 .403 -.099 .471 .139 -.321 .093 .085
Lather / Spume /
.113 .443 -.146 .466 .019 -.010 -.140 .381
Bubbles
TFM content 1.993E-
-.039 .244 -.346 .570 .002 .101 .359
5
International Impact -
-.010 .274 7.322E- .658 -.096 .147 -.033 -.344
6
Fit for all members in
-.010 .209 .192 .415 -.144 .204 .372 -.466
the family
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
a. 8 components extracted.

195
Factor analysis:
Factor analysis was done with the main objectives to find out the underlying
common factors among 20 variables included in this study. Principal component
factoring method with variance rotation was used for factor extraction. An eight
factors solution was derived using a score test.

Table shows the results of the factor analysis. Name of all the 20 variables and
their respective loadings in all the eight factors are given in the table 4.66. An
arbitrary value of 0.3 and above is considered significant loading. A positive loading
indicates that greater the value of the variable greater is the contribution to the factor.
On the other hand, a negative loading implies that greater the value, lesser its
contribution to the factor or vice versa. Keeping these in mind, a study of the loadings
indicates the presence of some significant pattern. Effort is made to fix the size of
correlation that is meaningful, club together the variables with loadings in excess of
the criteria and search for a concept that unifies them, with greater attention to
variables having higher loadings. Variables have been ordered and grouped by the
size of loadings to facilitate interpretation and shown in table 4.66.

196
 Factor analysis was done among 20 variables used in the study. The principal
component analysis with varimax rotation was used to find out the percentage of
variance of each factor, which can be grouped together from the total pool of 20
variables considered in the study. The factor, variance percentage for each factor is
2.838, 2.263, 2.059, 1.885, 1.440, 1.233, 1.024 and 1.016.

The factors are arranged based on the Eigen value viz

F1 (Eigen value 2.838)
F2 (Eigen value 2.263)
F3 (Eigen value 2.059)
F4 (Eigen value 2.059)
F5 (Eigen value 1.885)
F6 (Eigen value 1.440)
F7 (Eigen value 1.233)
F8 (Eigen value 1.024)
F9 (Eigen value 1.016)

These eight factors are described as “Brand Loyalty towards Bath Soap”. This
model has a strong statistical support and the Kaiser-Maya-Olkin (KMO) test of
sampling adequacy concurs that the sample taken to process the factor analysis is
statistically sufficient (KMO value = 0.9742).

197
 CHAPTER V

FINDINGS

 Male customers are more preferred the bath soap quality, component of the product and
its design comparatively than female customers, but it is evident that female customer are
more preferred the style/ flavours, innovativeness of the soap, comparatively than male
customers.
 Female customers are more prefer brand name, product familiarity, health consciousness,
purchase decision, product involvement and brand trust of the bath soap, comparatively
male group.
 Male customers are more preferred the brand relevance, brand performance, perceived
value of the product and they have high repeat purchase habits compare than female
customers.
 Female customers are more prefers store environment, advertising, price of the bath soap,
switching cost risk aversion and try to follow the brand loyalty, comparatively male
group.
 Male customers are more preferred the perceived quality, promotional offer, loyalty
proneness of the bath soap brand compare to female customers.
 Thus it is evident that female customers always follow cognitive loyalty (COG) and
affective loyalty (AFF) compare with male customers in terms of bath soap brands. But
male customers always supports to conative loyalty (CON).
 It is evident that customer’s with less than 20 years of age group are comparatively more
prefer style/ flavours of bath soap, concentrate on purchase decision making, gets product
involvement, brand trust and they involved in perceived value of the product. They also
like store environment, advertising of the product, pricing and loyalty proneness of the
bath soap brands.
 It is evident that customer’s with less than 21-30 years of age group are comparatively
more prefer component of the bath soap brands, band performance, perceived quality and
they also have brand loyalty in purchase of bath soaps. They are the people who support
cognitive loyalty (COG), affective loyalty (AFF) and conative loyalty (CON) compare
with other age group of customers.
 It is evident that customer’s with 31-40 years of age group are comparatively more prefer
product quality, health consciousness, promotional offer and they support brand

198
 relevance. They have repeat purchase behaviour also when we compare to other age
group of customers. Customer’s with more than 40 years of age group comparatively
more prefer innovativeness involved in bath soaps, design of the product, brand name,
and also supports product familiarity, relationship proneness and switching cost risk
aversion than other age group of customers.
 Customers who got married are comparatively more prefer product quality, components
of the product, brand name, aware of health consciousness, repeat purchase, perceived
quality, store environment, advertising and pricing of the product and it all are compare to
unmarried customers. But they support conative loyalty (CON) and loyalty proneness
towards bath soap brands.
 Unmarried customers are comparatively more prefer style/ flavours of the product,
innovativeness of the bath soap, product design, brand trust, brand relevance and they
watching band performance, product familiarity and interest to take purchase decision,
product involvement and perceived value of the product. They support the cognitive
loyalty (COG), affective loyalty (AFF), switching cost risk aversion and interest to follow
the brand loyalty promotional offer when compare to married customers.
 Customers who studies belong to SSLC/Hsc are having brand trust, brand relevance,
repeat purchase behaviour and store environment. Also they have switching cost risk
aversion, loyalty proneness and advertising knowledge that all are related bath soaps.

 Customers who studies belong to Degree/Diploma are influenced on style/ flavours,

prefer innovativeness, band performance and they get involved in product familiarity,
health consciousness, brand commitment, product involvement, relationship proneness,
perceived value and perceived quality with compare to other educational based customer
groups. This group have supportive of conative loyalty (CON), affective loyalty (AFF)
and prefer cognitive loyalty (COG) and finally brand loyalty and promotional offers also
preferred by the degree or diploma holders.

 P.G/Professional based customers who supports product quality, component of the

products, design, brand name, pricing of the bath soaps and purchase decision making
practices compare to other age groups of customers.
 Family monthly income of the respondents is less than Rs.15,000 are more preferring
the style/ flavours of the product, product innovativeness and component of product.

199
 They are also have health consciousness, preferring relationship proneness, store
environment and promotional offer that are all related to bath soap with compare to
other income groups.
 Family monthly income of the respondents is above Rs.15,000 to 25,000 are more
preferring the brand relevance factors and they involving in purchase decision towards
bath soaps. They also have perceived quality, loyalty proneness, follow brand loyalty and
involving switching cost risk aversion that all are related to bath soap with compare to
other income groups.

 Family monthly income of the respondents is above Rs.25,000 to40,000 are more
preferring brand trust, product involvement and advertising that all are related to bath
soap with compare to other income groups.

 Family monthly income of the respondents is above Rs.40,000 are preferring product
quality, design of the product, brand name of the product, brand performance and
product familiarity. They also interest in repeat purchase behaviour, perceived value
and price of the product, following cognitive loyalty (COG) and conative loyalty
(CON) that all are related to bath soap with compare to other income groups.

 Based on the occupation of the respondents who are serving as home makers always
preferring brand name of the product, concentrating the brand affect, watching
switching cost risk aversion, involving cognitive loyalty (COG) and affective loyalty
(AFF). That are all towards the purchase of bath soap compare to other occupational
groups.

 Respondents of this study who are doing professional work are preferring product
quality, innovativeness of the product, brand relevance, having mood of repeat
purchase, concentrating perceived value and following conative loyalty (CON). That
are all towards the purchase of bath soap compare to other occupational groups.

 This study was also conducted at student category also. They are preferred style/
flavours of product, brand trust, involving the purchase decision activities, believing

200
 perceived quality, advertising and follow loyalty proneness. That are all towards
the purchase of bath soap compare to other occupational groups.

 Our respondents who are doing a business, they are preferring design of the product,
brand performance, product familiarity, product involvement activity, likes store
environment and follow brand loyalty. That are all towards the purchase of bath soap
compare to other occupational groups.

 Government or private company employees of this study are preferring component of

product, health consciousness due to product and promotional offer for the product.
That are all towards the purchase of bath soap compare to other occupational groups.

 Chi-square test was applied this study which revealed that there is an association
between age, income, education and occupation of the respondents and their opinion
related to cognitive loyalty, affective loyalty and conative loyalty towards purchase
of bath soap brands.

 Result shows that there is a positive and significant correlation between various factors
that are related to purchase of bath soaps likes product related factors, brand related
factors, customer purchase related factors, customer psychological related factors, selling
strategically factors and loyalty based factors on the basis of their demographic variables.
 Result shows that there is a positive and significant correlation between opinion of
customers on their psychological feeling towards brand loyalty of bath soap such as
recreation hedonistic habits of the customers, their fashion towards brand, price of the
product, their involvement on perfectiveness, brand loyalty and also they have confusion
in brand over choice all are on the basis of their demographic variables.
 In this study reveals that the significant shows the product related factors variables and
brand related factors variables are significantly contribute to the customer satisfaction.
 Factors that are influencing the brand loyalty of bath soaps as following
o Product Related Factors – Under this segment, the following factors are
significant such as product quality (p value is 0.004), style / flavours of the
products ( p value 0.002), components of the products ( p value 0.001) and
design of the product ( p value 0.046). These are the factors that influencing

201
 the purchase of the bath soaps. But innovativeness of the bath soap brand is
not significant and not influenced on purchase of bath soap.
o Brand Related Factors - under this segment, brand name, brand trust, brand
affecting in the mind set of customers are not significant and not influenced in
terms of purchase of bath soap. But brand relevance ( p value 0.05) and brand
performance likes cleaning, hygienic ( p value 0.05) are significant based on
age of the respondents. So these two factors are influenced.
o Customer Purchase Related Factors – under this segment, product
familiarity, health conscious, commitment toward the purchase of particular
brand are not significant and not influenced. But repeat purchase behaviour (
p value 0.025) and purchase decision ( p value 0.00)towards a particular brand
are significant and these are influenced on purchase of bath soap.
o Customer Psychological Related Factors – under this segment, satisfaction of particular
soap brand, relationship proneness, perceived value of the product, their cultural and habit
of purchasing a particular brand and perceived quality of the product are not significant
and not influenced on purchase of bath soap. But product involvement ( p value 0.022)is
only factor that influencing the brand loyalty.
o Selling Strategy Related factors – under this segment, store environment, pricing
strategies, promotional offers are not significant and it are not influenced on brand loyalty
but advertising for the product ( p value 0.001)is influenced on brand loyalty.
o Loyalty Based Factors – under this segment, loyalty proneness ( p value 0.009) and
switch cost aversion ( p value 0.05) are significant based on age of the respondent and
influenced on brand loyalty but loyal towards bath soap brand such as cognitive, affective
and conative loyalty are not influence on brand loyal.

202
 SUGGESTIONS

This study enhances manufacture’s knowledge of consumer psychology by giving

various factors that would help determine future behavioral pattern and would explain loyalty
for bath soap brands. Moreover, it attempts to answer the question that whether loyalty
towards one brand ensures the success of extensions of the same brand or not.
This suggests that more reinforcing advertisement methods should be considered. TFM
content which in current state is one of the most positively influencing factor on brand
loyalty. Herbal and hygiene related products may induce the customers’ loyalty, so that part
has been taken into the account of soap manufactures.
 Soap manufacturing companies needs to focus on its distribution channels, marketing
strategies, sales promotion etc to tap the potential segment.
 The FMGC company needs to focus on its distribution channels, networking, marketing
strategies, sales promotion etc to tap the potential segment
 Most of the consumers are concerned about the quality of bath soap. So manufacturers
can take necessary steps to improve the quality brands of bath soap.
 Fairness is the most important segment for bath soap brands especially female consumers.
So, manufacturers should concentrate the production that mainly on fairness related
features.
 Flavours are major factors that influencing the purchase of path soaps especially sandal
flavours is likely accepted by both male and female consumers.
 The study find the large base of consumers do not have access to all brands, hence,
increasing the access of the brands among the consumers of Chennai will increase the
brand consciousness and loyalty.

 Manufacturers of bath soaps should design the small packages of their costly brands for
market like Srinagar and other developing cities / rural areas. This will certainly make the
product affordable for the consumers of such regions and help in building the brands.

203
 DISCUSSION

Majority of the bath soap users are brand loyal. They buy soap on the basis of product
features including color, fragrance, innovativeness features. People are very much less
sensitive to price. So, brand loyalty does not affect much by price but customer selected a
bath soap brand, the price as a factor only.

Male customers are more preferred the bath soap quality, component of the product
and its design comparatively than female customers, but it is evident that female customer are
more preferred the style/ flavours, innovativeness of the soap, comparatively than male
customers. They are more preferred the brand relevance, brand performance, perceived value
of the product and they have high repeat purchase habits compare than female customers.
They also more preferred the perceived quality, promotional offer, loyalty proneness of the
bath soap brand compare to female customers.

Female customers are more prefer brand name, product familiarity, health consciousness,
purchase decision, product involvement and brand trust of the bath soap, comparatively male
group. They are more prefers store environment, advertising, price of the bath soap,
switching cost risk aversion and try to follow the brand loyalty, comparatively male group.
Thus it is evident that female customers always follow cognitive loyalty (COG) and affective
loyalty (AFF) compare with male customers in terms of bath soap brands. But male
customers always supports to conative loyalty (CON).

The hypotheses were developed based on previous research done on other countries
related to brand loyalty of path soap products. From hypotheses testing, it is proven that,
Brand loyalty varies on five factors. Such as, product related factors, brand related factors,
customer purchase related factors, customer psychological related factors, selling
strategically factors and loyalty based factors that all are positively significant correlated
with their demographical variables.

204
 CONCLUSION

No previous research on brand loyalty of bath soap consumers have been done in the
context of metro city. So, it will definitely give brand loyalty researchers an indication of the
status of brand loyalty of bath soap users in Chennai city. They can use this research for other
fast moving consumer goods to find out the factors that affect brand loyalty. Marketers place
a huge importance in determining the factors that affect brand loyalty of bath soap.

A clear overview has now been given of which factors influence brand loyalty when
it comes to path soap brands. Some product attributes do not seem to affect brand loyalty to
any real extent. Out of the demographic variables studied, only gender influences brand
loyalty. When it comes to the personality constructs measured, loyalty proneness positively
influenced brand loyalty.

Overall, the majority of the hypotheses presented were confirmed. The research
questions initially proposed have also been answered with the above research, analysis and
discussion. It is the researcher’s belief that this study has provided new and interesting
perspective on the topic of brand loyalty.

The results of this study will provide the local companies to understand their target
markets better and carry out specific market research and promotional activities aimed at
them. Future research can be done on the following topics as a continuation of this work.
Direct and indirect influence of factors affecting brand loyalty of bath soaps in Chennai city
is conducted here, the scope of the research can be extended to national or international level.
Six factors affecting brand loyalty of bath soap users have been identified. This research can
be extended to find out more socio-economic factors in the case of brand loyalty of bath soap
users. This research can be extended to broad fast moving consumer goods category.

205
 SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The consumers of India are changing with the rise in average per capita income; the
consumption behaviour is changing which in turn increases the level of brand consciousness.
Based on the survey this research studies the consumer behaviour towards the loyalty of bath
soap products of Chennai, This research touched upon many aspects of possible influential
factors on brand loyalty. This was done because the researcher wanted to get as holistic view
on what in fact influences brand loyalty. Thus, it was chosen to include all possible aspects
studied in this thesis. Since this research was limited in time and extent, it was not possible to
go very deeply into the personality-related aspect and therefore only limited number of
constructs was included under each aspect. For future research purposes, the researcher
would suggest that each of the construct groups studied here would be studied individually to
get better definition and more clarity.

206
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Aaker, David A., Kumar V. and Day, George S. (2004). Marketing Research. USA:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
 Aaker, J. L. (1999). “The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, Iss. 1, pp. 45–58.
 Alhabeeb, M. J. (2007). ”On consumer trust and product loyalty”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31, Iss. 6, pp. 609–612.
 Anderson, E.W. and Fornell, C. (2000). “Foundations of the American Customer
Satisfaction Index”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11, Iss. 7, pp. 869–882.
 Andrews, J. Craig, Durvasula, Srinivas and Ajhter, Syed H. (1990). “A Framework
for Conceptualizing and Measuring the Involvement Construct in Advertising
Research”, Journal of Advertising, Vol.19, No.4, pp.27-40.
 Antil, J.H. (1984). “Socially Responsible Consumers: Profile and Implications for
Public Policy”, Journal of Macro Marketing, Vol. 4, Iss. 2, pp. 18–39.
 Baldinger, Allan L. and Rubinson, Joel (1996). “Brand Loyalty: The Link between
attitude and behavior,” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36, Iss. 6, pp. 22-34.
 Baloglu, S. (2002). “Dimensions of customer loyalty: separating the friends from the
well wishers”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 43, Iss.1,
pp. 47–59.
 Bendapudi, N. & Berry, L. (1997). “Customers’ motivations for maintaining
relationships with service providers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, Iss. 1, pp.15-37.
 Berry, L. (1995). “Relationship Marketing of Services - Growing Interest, Emerging
Perspectives”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 N0. 4, pp. 236-
45.
 Bharatwaj, S.G., Varadarajan, P.R. and Fahy, J. (1993). “Sustainable competitive
advantages in service industries: Conceptual model and research propositions”,
Journal of Marketing, 57: pp. 83-99.
 Bloch, P. H. and Richins, M. L. (1983). “A theoretical model for the study of product
importance perceptions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Iss. 3, pp. 69-81.
 Bloch, Peter H. (1981). “An exploration into the scaling of consumers’ involvement
with a product class”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, Iss. 1, pp. 61-65.
 Bolton, N.R. (1998). “A Dynamic Model of the Duration of Customer’s Relationship
with a Continuous Service Provider. The Role of Satisfaction.”, Marketing Science,
vol. 17, Iss. 1, pp. 45-65.
 Bowen, Lawrence and Chaffee, Steven H. (1974). “Product Involvement
and Pertinent Advertising Appeals”, Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 51, pp. 613-644.
 Brown, G.H. (1952). "Brand Loyalty: Fact or Fiction ?", Advertising Age, June-
January, a series.
 Buchanan, T. (1985). “Commitment and leisure behavior: a theoretical perspective”,
Leisure Sciences, Vol. 7,Iss. 4, pp. 401–420.
 Butz, H. E. and Goodstein, L. D. (1996). ”Measuring customer value: gaining a
strategic advantage”, Organiszational dynamics, Vol. 24, Iss. 3, pp. 63–77.
 Celsi, Richard L., and Olson, Jerry C. (1988). “The Role of Involvement in Attention
and Comprehension Processes”, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, September, pp.
210–24
 Chaudhuri, A. (1995). “Brand Equity or double jeopardy”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 4, Iss. 1, pp. 26–32.
 Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. B. (2001). “The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand perfomance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol.65, Iss. 2, pp. 81–94.
 Chegini, Mehrdad Goudarzvand (2010). ”Customer loyalty and value key dimensions
interaction in organization”, China-USA Business Review, Vol. 9, Iss. 8, pp. 8-14.
 Chen, Y., Shen, Y., & Liao, S. (2009). ”An integrated model of customer loyalty: an
empirical examination in retailing practice”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29, Iss.
3, pp. 267-280.
 Cohen, Joel B. and Goldberg, Marvin E. (1970). “The Dissonance Model in Post-
Decision Product Evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.7, pp. 315-321.
 Copeland, M. T. (1923). "Relation of Consumer's Buying Habits to Marketing
Methods", Harvard Business Review, 1, pp. 282-289.
 Coulter, R.A., Price, L.L. and Feick, L. (2003). “Rethinking the origins of
involvement and brand commitment: insights from postsocialist central Europe”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, Iss. 2, pp. 151-70.
 Cunningham, Ross M. (1956). ”Brand Loyalty – what, where, how much?”, Harward
Business Review, Vol. 34, pp. 116–128.
 Cunningham, Ross M. (1961). ”Customer Loyalty to Store and Brand”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 39, pp. 127-137.
 Day, Ellen, Stafford, Marla Royne and Camacho, Alejandro (1995). “Opportunities
for Involvement Research: A Scale-Development Approach”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 24, Iss. 3, pp. 69–75.
 Day, George S. (1969). “A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 9, pp. 29-35.
 Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994). “Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual
framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, pp. 99-133.
 Dimanche, F., Havitz, M. E. and Howard, D. R. (1991). “Testing the involvement
profile scale in the context of selected recreational and touristic activities”, Journal of
Leisure Research, Vol. 23, Iss. 1, pp. 51–66.
 Djupe, P.A. (2000). “Religious Brand Loyalty and Political Loyalties”, Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 39, Iss. 1, pp. 78–90.
 Dubois, Bernard and Laurent, Gilles (1999). “A Situational Approach to Brand
Loyalty”, Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 26, pp. 657-663
 Farley, John U. (1964). ”Why Does Brand Loyalty Vary Over Products?”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 1, Iss. 4, pp. 9–14.
 Fournier, Susan (1998). “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship
Theory in Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, Iss. 4, 343–
73.
 Fournier, S. and Yao, J.L. (1997). ”Reviving brand loyalty: A conceptualization
within the framework of consumer-brand relationships”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, Iss. 5, pp. 451-472.
 Gahwiler, P. and Havitz, M. E. (1998). “Toward a relational understanding of leisure
social worlds, involvement, psychological commitment, and behavioral loyalty”,
Leisure Sciences, Vol. 20, Iss. 1, pp. 1–23.
 Goldstein, Susan Meyer, Johnston, Robert, Duffy, JoAnn and Rao, Jay (2002). “The
service concept: the missing link in service design research?”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 20, Iss. 2, pp. 121-134.
 Gordon, M. E., McKeage, K., and Fox, M. A. (1998). “Relationship marketing
effectiveness: The role of involvement”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol 15, Iss. 5, pp.
443-459.
 Greenwald, Anthony G. and Leavitt, Clark (1984). “Audience Involvement in
Advertising: Four Levels”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 581-
592.
 Grossman, R.P. (1998). “Developing and managing effective consumer relations”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7: pp. 27-40.
 Grönholdt, L., Martensen, A. and Kristensen, K. (2000). “The relationship between
customer satisfaction and loyalty: cross-industry differences”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 11, Nos. 4/5 & 6, pp. 509–514.
 Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D. and Roos, I. (2005). “The Effects of Customer
Satisfaction, Relationship Commitment Dimensions, and Triggers on Customer
Retention”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, Iss. 4, pp. 210-218.
 Guthrie, Michelle F. and Kim, Hye-Shin (2009). “The relationship between consumer
involvement and brand perceptions of female cosmetic consumers”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 17, Issue 2, pp114-133.
 Hair, Joseph F. Jr., Black, William C., Babin, Barry J., Anderson, Rolph E. and
Tatham, Ronald L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edition, Prentice-Hall,
London.
 Hallowell, R. (1996). ”The relationship of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and
profitability: An empirical study”, International Journal of Service Industries
Management, Vol. 7, pp. 27–42.
 Harary, F., Lipstein, B. (1962). “The Dynamics of Brand Loyalty: A Markovian
Approach”, Operations Research, Vol. 10, Iss. 1, pp. 19–40.
 Havitz, M. E., Dimanche, F. and Howard, D. R. (1993). “A two-sample comparison
of the Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) and Involvement Profile (IP) scales using
selected recreation activities”, Journal of Applied Recreation Research, Vol. 17, Iss.
4, pp. 331–364.
 Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Lovemann, G. W., Sasser, W. E. jr. and Schlesinger, L. A.
(1994). “Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work”, Harward Business Review, Vol.
72, Iss. 2, pp. 164–174.
 Houston, M. J. and Rothschild, M. L. (1978). “Conceptual and methodological
perspectives in involvement”, Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and
Directions, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, pp. 184–187.
 Hurley, T. (2004). “Managing Customer Retention in the Health and Fitness Industry:
A Case of Neglect.” Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 17, Iss. 1/2, pp.23-29.
 Iwasaki, Y. and Havitz, M. (1998). “A path analytic model of the relationships
between involvement, psychological commitment and loyalty”, Journal of leisure
research, Vol. 39, Iss. 2, pp. 256-280.
 Jacoby, J and Kyner, D.B. (1973). “Brand Loyalty Versus Repeat Purchasing
Behaviour”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10, pp. 1-9.
 Jones, T. O. and Sasser, Jr. W. E. (1995). ”Why satisfied Costumers Defect”,
Harward Busines Rewiev, Vol. 73, Iss. 6, pp. 88–99.
 Khan, Bilal Mustafa (2009). “Consumers And Their Brands: Deciphering Dimensions
Of Loyalty”, International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, Vol. 2, Iss.
1, pp. 84-92.
 Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M. U. and Morrison D. G. (1986). "Measuring Variety-Seeking
and Reinforcement Behavior using Panel Data", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
23, pp. 89-100.
 Kim, C. K., Han, D. and Park, S. (2001). “The effect of brand personality and brand
identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification”,
Japanese Psychological Research, Vol. 43, Iss. 4, pp. 195–206.
 Kim, Sora, Haley, Eric and Koo, G. (2009). “Comparison of the Paths from Consumer
Involvement Types to Ad Responses between Corporate Advertising and Product
Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38, Iss. 3, pp. 67-80.
 Kleiner, Morris M. (2000). ”Occupational Licensing”, The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 189-202.
 Krugman, Herbert E. (1965). ”The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning
without Involvement”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, Iss. 3, pp. 349-356.
 Kumar, V. and Rajan, B. (2009). “Profitable Customer Management: Measuring and
Maximizing Customer Lifetime Value”, Management Accounting Quarterly, Vol. 10,
Iss. 3, pp. 1-18.
 Kuusik, Andres (2007). “Affecting customer loyalty: do different factors have various
influences in different loyalty levels?”, The University of Tartu Faculty of Economics
and Business Administration Working Paper, Iss. 58-2007, pp. 3-29.
 Kyle, G., Absher, J., Norman, W., Hammit, W. and Jodice, L. (2007). “A Modified
Involvement Scale”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 26, Iss. 4, pp. 399–427.
 Kyle, G. T. and Chick, G. E. (2002). “The social nature of leisure involvement”,
Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 34, Iss. 4, pp. 426–448.
 Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J. (1986). "Consumer Involvement Profiles: A New
Practical Approach to Consumer Involvement", Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.
25, Iss. 6, pp. 48-56.
 Laurent, Gilles and Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1985). “Measuring Consumer Involvement
Profiles”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, pp. 41-53.
 LeClerc, F. and Little, J.D.C. (1997). “Can advertising copy make FSI coupons more
effective?'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, November, pp. 473-84.
 Malhotra, Naresh K. and Birks, David F. (2006). Marketing Research: An Applied
Approach, Updated Second European ed., Pearson Education Limited, Essex,
England.
 Martensen, Anne, Grønholdt, Lars, Bendtsen, Lars and Jensen, Martin J. (2007).
 ”Application of a Model for the Effectiveness of Event Marketing, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 47, Iss. 3, pp. 283-301.
 Martin, Charles L. (1998). "Relationship marketing: a high-involvement product
attribute approach", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 6 –
26.
 Mascarenhas, O. & Kesavan, R. and Bernacchi, M. (2006). “Lasting Customer
Loyalty: A Total Customer Experience Approach”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 23, Iss. 7, pp.397-405.
 McConnell, D. J. (1968). “The Development of Brand Loyalty: An Experimental
Study”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5, pp. 13–19.
 McIntyre, N. (1989). “The personal meaning of participation: Enduring involvement”,
Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 21, Iss. 2, pp. 167–179.
 Miller, D. W. and Marks, L. J. (1996). “The moderating effects of enduring
involvement on imagery evoking advertisements”, American Marketing Association
Educators' Conference 1996 Conference Paper in Proceedings, pp. 121-128.
 Mittal, B. (1995). “A comparative analysis of four consumer involvement profiles”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 663–682.
 Mittal, B., and Lee, M. (1989). “A causal model of consumer involvement”, Journal
of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 363-389.
 Mittal, B., and Lee, M. (1988). “Separating Brand-Choice Involvement from Product
Involvement Via Consumer Profiles”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp.
43– 49.
 Moisescu, Ovidiu I. (2006): “A Conceptual Analysis of Brand Loyalty As Core
Dimension of Brand Equity”, Competitiveness and Stability in the Knowledge-Based
Economy International conference proceedings, pp. 1128-1136.
 Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992). “Relationships Between
Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust Within and Between
Organizations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, Iss. 3, pp. 314–328.
 Morgan, Rory P. (1999). ”A consumer-orientated framework of brand equity and
loyalty”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 42 Issue 1, pp. 65-78
 Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1995). ”The Commitment – Trust Theory of
Relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, Iss. 3, pp. 20–39.
 Oliver R.L. (1999). “Whence Customer Loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp.
33-44.
 Oliver R.L. (1999). “Whence Customer Loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63,
Special Issue, pp 33-44.
 Oliver R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
 Park, S. and Kim, Y. (2000). “Conceptualizing the Attitudinal Loyalty Construct in
Recreational Sport Contexts”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 14. pp. 197-207.
 Park, C. Whan, and Young, S. Mark (1986). “Consumer Response to Television
Commercials: The Impact of Involvement and Background Music on Brand Attitude
Formation,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, Iss. 1, pp. 11–24.
 Park, Whan C. and Mittal, Banwari (1985). "A Theory of Involvement in Consumer
Behavior: Problems and Issues," Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 201-
231.
 Park, Whan C. and Young, Mark S. (1983). “Types and Levels of Involvement and
Brand Attitude”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 320-324.
 Petty, R.E., J.T. Cacioppo, and Schumann, D. (1983). “Central and peripheral routes
to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 135–46.
 Phelps, Joseph and Thorson, Esther (1991). " Brand familiarity and product
involvement effects on the attitude toward an ad-brand attitude relationship",
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, Iss. 1, pp. 202-209.
 Pleshko, P.L and Baqer, M.S. (2008). “A Path Analysis of the Relationships Among
Consumer Satisfaction, Loyalty and Market Share in Retail Services”, Academy of
Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 12, Iss. 2, pp. 111-127.
 Pritchard, Mark P., Havitz, Mark E. and Howard, Dennis R. (1999). “Analyzing the
Commitment-Loyalty Link in Service Contexts,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 27, Iss. 3, pp. 333–348.
 Quester, P. and Lim, A.L. (2003). “Product involvement/brand loyalty: is there a
link?”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 22-38.
 Quester, P.G. and Smart, J. (1996). "Product Involvement in Consumer Wine
Purchases: Its Demographic Determinants and Influence on Choice Attributes",
International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 8, Iss. 3, pp.37 – 56.
 Reichheld, Frederick F. (2003). ”The One Number You Need to Grow”, Harward
Business Review, Vol. 81, Iss. 12, pp. 46–55.
 Reichheld, F. F., Markey, R. G. and Hopton, C. (2000). “The loyalty effect: The
 relationship between loyalty and profits”, European Business Journal, Vol. 12, Iss. 3,
pp. 134–139.
 Reichheld, F.F., & Schefter, P. (2000). “E-loyalty: Your secret weapon on the web”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, Iss. 4, pp. 105–113.
 Reichheld, F. F. (1993). “Loyalty-based management”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 71, Iss. 2, pp. 64–72.
 Reichheld, F. and Sasser, E. (1990). “Zero Defections. Quality Comes to Service.”
Harvard Business Review, sept-oct, pp. 105-111
 Reinartz, W. and Kumar, V. (2002). “The Mismanagement of Customer Loyalty”,
Harvard Business Review, Jun, pp. 86-94
 Rodgers, W. C., and Schneider, K. C. (1993). “An empirical evaluation of the
Kapferer- Laurent consumer involvement profile scale”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 10, Iss. 4, pp. 333-345.
 Rosenberg, L. and Czepiel, J.A. (1984). “A Marketing Approach to Customer
Retention”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 1, Iss. 2, pp. 45–51.
 Rothschild, M.L., (1984). “Perspectives on Involvement: Current Problems and
Future Directions’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 216–7.
 Rundle-Thiele, S. and Bennett, R. (2001). ”A brand for all seasons? A discussion of
brand loyalty approaches and their applicability for different markets”, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 1, Iss. 10, pp. 25-37.
 Sengupta, J., Goodstein, R.C. and Boninger, D.S. (1997). “All Cues Are Not Created
Equal: Obtaining Attitude Persistence under Low-Involvement Conditions”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 23, Iss. 4, pp. 351–61.
 Sheth, Jagdish N. and Venkatesen, M. (1968). “Risk Reduction Process in Repetitive
Consumer Behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5, pp. 307-310.
 Sheth, Jagdish. N. (1968). “A Factor Analytical Model of Brand Loyalty”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 395–404.
 Shwu-Ing, Wu (2001). "An experimental study on the relationship between consumer
involvement and advertising effectiveness", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 13, Iss. 1, pp. 43–56.
 Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002). “Consumer trust, value, and loyalty
in relational exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, Iss. 1, pp. 15–37.
 Sirgy, M. Joseph and Samli, Coskun A. (1985). “A Path Analytic Model of Store
Loyalty Involving Self-Concept, Store Image, Geographic Loyalty, and
Socioeconomic Status”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 13, Iss. 3,
pp. 265–91.
 Srivastava, Mala and Kamdar, Rutu Mody (2009). “Brand Image Formation as a
function of involvement and familiarity”, Journal of Indian Management & Strategy,
Vol. 14, Iss. 4, pp. 84-91.
 Sudhahar, J.C., Israel, D., Britto A.P. and Selvam M. (2006). ”Service loyalty
measurement scale: A reliability assessment”, American Journal of Applied Sciences,
Vol3, Iss. 4, pp. 1814-1818.
 Te'eni-Harari T. and Hornik J. (2010), “Factors influencing product involvement
among young consumers”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27, Iss. 6, pp. 499-
506.
 Tigert, D.J., King, C. W, Ring, L. (1980), "Fashion Involvement: a Cross-Cultural
Comparative Analysis", Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 17-21.
 Traylor, Mark. B. (1981). “Product Involvement and Brand Commitment”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 21, pp. 51-56.
 Traylor, M.B. (1983). ”Ego involvement and brand commitment: not necessarily the
same'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 75-9.
 Tripathi, S. (2009). “An Analysis of Customer-pull Factors and the Process of Store
Loyalty”, Paradigm, vol. 13, Iss 1, pp. 91-103.
 Tucker, W. T. (1964). “The Development of Brand Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 11, Iss. 2, pp. 32–35.
 Tyebjee, Tyzoon T. (1979). “Response Time, Conflict, and Involvement in Brand
Choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 295-304.
 Wellman, J. D., Roggenbuck, J. W. and Smith, A. C. (1982). “Recreation
specialization and norms of depreciative behavior among canoeists”, Journal of
Leisure Research, Vol. 14, Iss. 4, pp. 323–340.
 Wells, William D. (1986), “Three Useful Ideas,” Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 13, pp. 9-11.
 Wernerfelt, B. (1991). “Brand Loyalty and Market Equilibrium”, Marketing Science,
Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 229–245.
 Worthington, Steve, Russell-Bennett, Rebekah and Hartel, Charmine E. J. (2009). ”A
tridimensional approach for auditing brand loyalty”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 17, Iss. 4, pp. 243–253
 Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985). “Measuring the involvement construct”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, Iss. 3, pp. 341-52.
 Zaichkowsky, Judith L. and Sood, James H. (1989). ”A Global Look at Consumer
Involvement and Use of Products”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 6, Iss. 1, pp.
20-34.
 Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1986). “Conceptualizing Involvement”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, pp. 4-14.
 Zeithaml, V., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996). “The behavioural consequences
of service quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, Iss. 2, pp. 31–46.
 Zinkhan, George M. and Fornell, Claes (1989). “A Test of the Learning Hierarchy in
High- and Low-Involvement Situations”, Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 16,
pp. 152-159.
 QUESTIONARIES

Factors Influencing the Customers’ brand loyalty towards bath Soap in Chennai

PART – I
PERSONAL DATA
Please make a tick mark (√) / enter data at the appropriate box as suitable to you

1. Name of the Respondent(Option):__________________________

2. Gender : a. Male ( ) b. Female ( )

3. Age: ____________

4. Marital Status: a. Married ( ) b. Unmarried ( ) c. Others ( )

5. Education: a. SSLC / HSc ( ) b. Degree/Diploma ( ) c. P.G/ Professional ( )

6. Religious: ______________________

7. Monthly income: Rs.___________

8. No. of family members: ___________

9. Occupation:________________________________

10. Your current brand of bath soap: _____________________

11. Your previous brand of bath soap:__________________________

12. Reason for switch over the previous

Brand______________________________________

13. How long have you been purchasing the particular current brand:_________

14. Number of soaps purchase per month:__________________

15. Your favorite variety on bath soap

a. Neem Soaps ( ) b. Sandal Soap ( ) c. Herbal Soaps ( ) d. Fairness soaps ( )

e. Anti-septic soaps ( ) f. Others ( )

16. Your favorite colour of bath soap is ______________

17. Your favorite fragrance of your bath soap is __________________

18. Whom to be influence you to select the bath soap brand?

a. Friends ( ) b. Relatives ( ) c. Advertising Celebrity ( ) d. Family members ( )

 PART – II
My Current Bath Soap Brand is…
Sl.No Statements Related to Current Bath Soap SA A N DA SDA
SA: Strongly Agree A: Agree N: Neutral DA: Disagree SDA: Strongly Disagree
a. Product Quality
The TFM of my current bath soap is fits me very 5 4 3 2 1
1
much. SA A N DA SDA
The materials used in my current brand bath soap
2 5 4 3 2 1
are satisfied.
3 My current brand has sufficient quality 5 4 3 2 1
I concentrate on Harmful Substances and pH
4 5 4 3 2 1
Regulators of my bath soap.
5 My brand has not irritating the skin 5 4 3 2 1
b. Style / flavours
My current brand of bath soap provides wide 5 4 3 2 1
6
variety of styles. SA A N DA SDA
Flavours of my bath soap brand are suitable for
7 5 4 3 2 1
me.
Styles of the bath soap brand have distinctive
8 5 4 3 2 1
features.
Styles of my bath soap brand are trendy and
9 5 4 3 2 1
fashionable
c. Brand Name
10 The current bath soap brand is reputable. 5 4 3 2 1
11 Brand Name and Image attract me to purchase 5 4 3 2 1
SA A N DA SDA
12 Brand Name is selected regardless of price. 5 4 3 2 1
13 Brand reflects my own personality. 5 4 3 2 1
d. Store Environment
The branded bath soap has displayed in store are 5 4 3 2 1
14
attract me to purchase SA A N DA SDA
My brand of bath soap has available sufficient
15 5 4 3 2 1
outlets.
I believe that store environment makes intention
16 5 4 3 2 1
to buy the branded soaps.
e. Advertising
17 Ads of my bath soap brand is attractive 5 4 3 2 1
18 Ads of the brand attract me to purchase. 5 4 3 2 1
f. Price
19 Increases of price not hinder me to purchase. 5 4 3 2 1
20 My bath soap brand provides goods value for
5 4 3 2 1
money.
g. Loyalty Proneness
I generally buy the same bath soap brand I have
21 5 4 3 2 1
always bought
Once I have made a choice on which bath soap
5 4 3 2 1
22 brand to purchase, I am likely to continue to buy
SA A N DA SDA
it without considering other brands
23 Once I get used to a bath soap brand, I hate to 5 4 3 2 1
 switch
If I like a bath soap brand, I rarely switch from it
24 5 4 3 2 1
just to try something different
Even though there are number of different bath
25 5 4 3 2 1
soap brands, I always tend to buy the same brand
h. Product Involvement
26 In general I have a strong interest in bath soaps. 5 4 3 2 1
SA A N DA SDA
27 Bath soaps are very important to me. 5 4 3 2 1
28 I need the information of Bath soaps 5 4 3 2 1
29 Bath soaps are relevant to me 5 4 3 2 1
i. Innovativeness
When I see a product somewhat different from 5 4 3 2 1
30
the usual, I check it out SA A N DA SDA
I am often among the first people to try a new
31 5 4 3 2 1
product
32 I like to try new and different things. 5 4 3 2 1
j. Product Familiarity
In general, I consider myself very familiar with 5 4 3 2 1
33
bath soaps SA A N DA SDA
Overall, I think I am very well informed about
34 5 4 3 2 1
bath soaps
For me, bath soaps represent a product category
35 5 4 3 2 1
that I know very well
k. Health Consciousness
I worry that there are harmful chemicals in my 5 4 3 2 1
36
bath soaps SA A N DA SDA
37 I am concerned about my bath soap quality 5 4 3 2 1
38 I usually read the ingredients on bath soap labels 5 4 3 2 1
I read more health-related articles than I did 3
39 5 4 3 2 1
years ago
40 I am interested in information about my health 5 4 3 2 1
41 I am concerned about my health all the time 5 4 3 2 1
l. Promotional Offer
Promotional offers with bath soap pleases me 5 4 3 2 1
42
SA A N DA SDA
Promotional offers interests me about the brands
43 5 4 3 2 1
of bath soap
Promotional offers with bath soap influence me 5 4 3 2 1
44
to buy the product SA A N DA SDA
45 Promotional offers with bath soap seem to be
5 4 3 2 1
dishonest
46 Promotional offers makes me feel like I am being
5 4 3 2 1
manipulated
47 A promotional offer gives a good image about a
5 4 3 2 1
particular brand
m. Brand Loyalty
48 I put in an effort while choosing a brand of bath 5 4 3 2 1
soap SA A N DA SDA
49 I always thought of a particular brand of bath 5 4 3 2 1
 soap over the other brand(s) when I consider
buying bath soap
I consider brand to be very important in
50 5 4 3 2 1
choosing a bath soap
Over the last few months/years, I have always
51 bought the same brand of bath soap because I 5 4 3 2 1
really liked the brand
I would be upset if I had to buy another brand of
52 5 4 3 2 1
bath soap if a particular brand is not available
I would continue to buy the same brand of bath
53 soap because I like 5 4 3 2 1
the brand very much
I feel very attached to a particular brand of bath
54 5 4 3 2 1
soap over the others
Although another brand was on sale, I still
55 5 4 3 2 1
bought one particular brand of bath soap
Once I have decided on a particular brand of bath
56 5 4 3 2 1
soap over other brands, I will stick by it
If a particular brand of bath soap was not
57 available at the stores, I Would rather not buy at 5 4 3 2 1
all if I have to choose another brand
n. Customer Satisfaction
I am very satisfied with the bath soap brand I 5 4 3 2 1
58
purchase SA A N DA SDA
Distinctive product attributes in bath soap keep
59 5 4 3 2 1
me brand loyal
My loyalty towards a particular bath soap brand
60 5 4 3 2 1
increases when I am satisfied about that brand
I do not repeat a purchase if I am dissatisfied
61 5 4 3 2 1
about a particular bath soap brand
62 I attain pleasure from the bath soap brands I am
loyal towards
o. Switching Cost Risk Aversion
63 I do not switch bath soap brands because of the 5 4 3 2 1
high cost implications SA A N DA SDA
64 I do not switch bath soap brands because of the
5 4 3 2 1
effort required to reach a level of comfort
65 I avoid switching bath soap brands due to the
5 4 3 2 1
risks involved
66 I switch bath soap brands according to the
5 4 3 2 1
prevailing economic conditions
67 I prefer not to switch bath soap brands as I stand
to lose out on the benefits from loyalty 5 4 3 2 1
programmes
p. Brand Trust
I trust the bath soap brands I am loyal towards 5 4 3 2 1
68
SA A N DA SDA
I have confidence in the bath soap that I am loyal
69 5 4 3 2 1
to the bath soap brands
70 I purchase has consistently high quality 5 4 3 2 1
 The reputation of a bath soap brand is a key
71 5 4 3 2 1
factor in me maintaining brand loyalty
q. Relationship Proneness
I prefer to maintain a long-term relationship with 5 4 3 2 1
72
a bath soap brand SA A N DA SDA
I maintain a relationship with a bath soap brand
73 5 4 3 2 1
in keeping with my personality
I maintain a relationship with an bath soap brand
74 5 4 3 2 1
that focuses and communicates with me
I have a passionate and emotional relationship
75 5 4 3 2 1
with the bath soap brands I am loyal to
r. Involvement
Loyalty towards a bath soap brand increases the 5 4 3 2 1
76
more I am involved with it SA A N DA SDA
Involvement with a bath soap brand intensifies
77 5 4 3 2 1
my arousal and interest towards that brand
I consider other bath soap brands when my
78 5 4 3 2 1
involvement with my bath soap brand diminishes
My choice of a bath soap brand is influenced by
79 the involvement others have with their bath soap 5 4 3 2 1
brand
s. Perceived Value
My bath soap brand loyalty is based on product
80 5 4 3 2 1
quality and expected performance
I have an emotional attachment with the bath 5 4 3 2 1
81
soap brands I am loyal towards SA A N DA SDA
Price worthiness is a key influence in my loyalty
82 5 4 3 2 1
towards bath soap brands
The bath soap brands that I am loyal to enhances
83 5 4 3 2 1
my social self concept
t. Commitment
I have pledged my loyalty to particular bath soap 5 4 3 2 1
84
brands SA A N DA SDA
I do not purchase/sample other bath soap brands
85 5 4 3 2 1
if my bath soap brand is unavailable
I identify with the bath soap brands that I
86 5 4 3 2 1
consume and feel as part of the brand community
The more I become committed to a bath soap
87 5 4 3 2 1
brand, the more loyal I become
I remain committed to bath soap brands even
88 5 4 3 2 1
through price increases and declining popularity
u. Repeat Purchase
My loyalty towards bath soap brands is purely
5 4 3 2 1
89 habitual I do not necessarily purchase the same
SA A N DA SDA
bath soap brands all the time
I always sample new bath soap brands as soon as
90 5 4 3 2 1
they are available
I establish a bath soap brand purchasing pattern
91 5 4 3 2 1
and seldom deviate from it
92 Loyalty programmes are reason I repeat bath 5 4 3 2 1
 soap brand purchases
My loyalty towards bath soap brands is purely
93 habitual I do not necessarily purchase the same 5 4 3 2 1
bath soap brands all the time
v. Brand Affect
I attain a positive emotional response through 5 4 3 2 1
94
usage of a bath soap brand SA A N DA SDA
The bath soap brands that I am loyal towards
95 5 4 3 2 1
makes difference in my life
I am distressed when I am unable to use/purchase
96 5 4 3 2 1
a particular bath soap brand
w. Brand Relevance
The bath soap brands that I am loyal towards 5 4 3 2 1
97
stands for issues that actually matters SA A N DA SDA
The bath soap brands that I am loyal towards has
98 5 4 3 2 1
freshness about them and portray positive
x. Brand performance
I evaluate a bath soap brand based on perceived 5 4 3 2 1
99
performance SA A N DA SDA
I will switch bath soap brand loyalty should a
100 5 4 3 2 1
better performing bath soap brand be available
I am loyal only towards the top performing bath
101 5 4 3 2 1
soap brand
y. Culture / Habit
My choice of bath soap brands is in keeping
5 4 3 2 1
102 with the choice made by other members in my
SA A N DA SDA
race group
My loyalty towards an bath soap brand is based
103 on the choice of bath soap brand used by my 5 4 3 2 1
family
Religion plays a role in my choice and loyalty of
104 5 4 3 2 1
bath soap brands
Family used bath soap brands indirectly assure
105 5 4 3 2 1
brand security and trust.
z. Cognitive Loyalty (COG)
My current path soap brand provides me
5 4 3 2 1
106 superior quality as compared to other bath soap
SA A N DA SDA
brands
I believe my current path soap brand provides
107 more benefits than other bath soap brands in its 5 4 3 2 1
category
No other bath soap brands performs better
108 5 4 3 2 1
satisfaction than my current bath soap brand
aa. Affective Loyalty (AFF)
109 I love bathing with my current brand soap 5 4 3 2 1
I feel better when I bath with my current brand 5 4 3 2 1
110
SA A N DA SDA
I like my current brand is more than other bath
111 soap brands 5 4 3 2 1
 Ab. Conative Loyalty (CON)
I intend to continue bath with my current brand 5 4 3 2 1
112
soap SA A N DA SDA
I consider my current brand bath soap is my first
113 5 4 3 2 1
choice to bath
Even if another bath soap brand is offering a
114 lower rate, I still purchase and use my current 5 4 3 2 1
brand
ac. Over all
115 Overall Satisfaction of my current bath soap
5 4 3 2 1
brand
116 I have highly brand loyal on my current bath 5 4 3 2 1
soap brand SA A N DA SDA

ad. Purchase Decision

While purchasing bath soaps i consider friends 5 4 3 2 1
117
and family suggestions SA A N DA SDA
118 Purchase of bath soap is a complex decision 5 4 3 2 1
119 It took me less time to purchase bath soap items 5 4 3 2 1
I take my own decision for the purchase bath
120 5 4 3 2 1
soap
I would like to purchase soaps from this
121 company again 5 4 3 2 1

ae. Component
While purchasing the product I always check its 5 4 3 2 1
122
ingredients / components SA A N DA SDA
123 I read ingredients because I am health conscious 5 4 3 2 1
I avoid to purchase products have ingredients
124 5 4 3 2 1
with side effects
125 Good ingredients push my purchase decision 5 4 3 2 1
af. Design
My bath soap brand provides broad range of 5 4 3 2 1
126
designs SA A N DA SDA
127 Designs of the brand are appropriate for me 5 4 3 2 1
128 Designs of the brand have unique features 5 4 3 2 1
Designs of the my bath soap brands are stylish
129 5 4 3 2 1
and fashionable
ag. Perceived Quality
I have good expectation regarding quality of my 5 4 3 2 1
130
current bath soap brand SA A N DA SDA
Quality is an important factor while purchasing
131 5 4 3 2 1
soap products
132 I am a quality conscious consumer 5 4 3 2 1
I would recommend products of this company to
133 5 4 3 2 1
my friends and relatives
 PART – III

Kindly mention that which factors as following is induced to continue the loyalty of your
current brand of bath soap…

HI: Highly Important I: Important SI: Somewhat important LI: Less Important NI:
Not important

Sl.No Brand Attributes HI I SI LI NI

1 Quality of the bath soap 5 4 3 2 1
2 Product design and Style 5 4 3 2 1
3 Attractive flavours 5 4 3 2 1
4 Brand name of the bath soap 5 4 3 2 1
5 Price of the soap 5 4 3 2 1
6 Colour of the soap 5 4 3 2 1
7 Packing material and method 5 4 3 2 1
8 Innovativeness of product 5 4 3 2 1
9 Product familiarity 5 4 3 2 1
10 Health conscious aspects 5 4 3 2 1
11 Promotional offers 5 4 3 2 1
12 Brand trust 5 4 3 2 1
13 Advertising in various media 5 4 3 2 1
14 Performance of the bath soap brand 5 4 3 2 1
15 Availability of brand 5 4 3 2 1
16 Durability of product 5 4 3 2 1
17 Lather / Spume / Bubbles 5 4 3 2 1
18 TFM content 5 4 3 2 1
19 International Impact 5 4 3 2 1
20 Fit for all members in the family 5 4 3 2 1
 Part - IV
Consumer Decision-making Styles for purchase of bath soaps
Sl.No Statements SA A N DA SDA
I usually shop different brands to source a variety of
1 5 4 3 2 1
choices when buying bath soap
2 It is fun to buy new bath soap 5 4 3 2 1
3 Buying bath soap is a pleasant activity for me 5 4 3 2 1
4 I enjoy to shopping for bath soap 5 4 3 2 1
5 Generally search for a bath soap brands is fun 5 4 3 2 1
I usually purchase bath soap from reputable
6 5 4 3 2 1
international brands
7 I usually purchase more expensive soap brands 5 4 3 2 1
The higher the price, the higher the quality of the bath
8 5 4 3 2 1
soap
Up-market department and specialty stores offer me
9 5 4 3 2 1
the best bath soap
The most well-known and advertised soap brands
10 5 4 3 2 1
are usually good choices to purchase bath soap
I usually have one or more bath soaps of the very
11 5 4 3 2 1
newest or trendy styles
12 Fashionable styling is very important to me 5 4 3 2 1
13 Bath soap with the best quality are usually my choice 5 4 3 2 1
When I want to buy bath soap, I try to get the best or
14 5 4 3 2 1
perfect choice
I consider a purchase of bath soap with much thoughts
15 5 4 3 2 1
and care
I use much time and effort to buy the best quality bath
16 5 4 3 2 1
soap
My standards and expectations on the quality of the
17 5 4 3 2 1
bath soap I bought are very high
I have favourite soap brands that I buy for bath soap
18 5 4 3 2 1
over and over
I tend to stick to the soap brands I like for buying bath
19 5 4 3 2 1
soap
20 I always go to the same store/stores to shop bath soap 5 4 3 2 1
I often feel confused because there are many soap
21 5 4 3 2 1
brands to choose when buying bath soap
The more soap product information I learn, the harder
22 5 4 3 2 1
it seems to choose the best
It always confuses me when I have much information
23 5 4 3 2 1
on different brands' bath soap
I look carefully to find the bath soap with the best
24 5 4 3 2 1
value for money
I carefully calculate how much I spend in purchase for
25 5 4 3 2 1
bath soap
 Conference and Journals

1. Emerging dimensions in marketing, National Conference.”Effective of apparels market

Segmentation”, Saintgits institute of management, Kerala, July 2012.
2. International journal of management focus, “Impact of FDI on Indian retail sector”ISSN
2250-2971, Vol: 2, Issue-3, July-Sep 2012.
3. Journal of exclusive management science, “Factors affecting the brand loyalty of bath
soap: the contemporary overview”. ISSN 2320-866X, Vol: 2, Issue-12, Dec 2013.
4. AE International journal of multidisciplinary research (AEIJMR),”Enhance brand loyalty
through customers satisfaction”. ISSN 2348-6724, Vol: 2, Issue-3, may-june 2014.
5. Pramana research journal, “Opportunities and challenges in Indian retail sector”. ISSN
2249-6724, Vol: 3, Issue14,-Oct-Dec-2014.
6. International journal of innovative research in science,”Brand loyalty’s influence on
women’s shopping for behavior with special relevance bath soap” ISSN 2319-8753, Vol:
3, Issue-12, Dec 2014.
7. International journal of innovative research in science, “Satisfaction & Brand loyalty
towards bath soaps: A study of consumers in Chennai” ISSN 2347-6710, Vol: 4, Issue-
1Jan 2015.
8. International journal of pharmacy & Technology, “Impact of bath soap’ attributes on
customer satisfaction- A way to enhance of brand loyalty” ISSN0975-766X,Vol:6,Issue-
3,Jan 2015.